Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Request for comment - quote

Should the following quote be in the article, and if so, does it belong in the lead? "PPFA President Cecile Richards says that with its family planning and contraception services, 'Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America.'" NYyankees51 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the RFC tag, since a clear consensus seems to have emerged. If anyone strongly disagrees, please feel free to revert. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

*Do not include The statement is poorly sourced. It would be okay to say that Planned Parenthood is the #1 provider of contraception, and that it is the #1 provider of abortions, as those are verifiable and solid sources exist for those two statements. But whether Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy is not verifiable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include in lead That PP is the largest provider of abortions and contraception should be included in the lead, but Richards's statement that PP prevents abortions/unwanted pregnancies does not belong in the lead. I can live with it in the body. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns are neither here nor there, and you seem to deeply misunderstand WP:Verifiability, which emphatically does not authorize us to sit and evaluate for ourselves the truth of a claim. The very first line of the policy says that. As was said to you before, the sourcing here would be perfectly fine per WP:SPS even if the quote were published on PP's own website. There is nothing wrong with either the sourcing or, in my opinion, the placement in the lead. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

NYYankees51: A key viewpoint by the president of PP is, of course, acceptable for this article. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which explains why it is okay for articles to include potentially biased claims, provided potential bias is indicated. The only question is where to locate it and which counter-balancing information should be included. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You guys are right, see revised statement. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• No reason at all not to include; could be appropriate in lead as a sort of "mission statement". The arguments being repeated over and over against inclusion of this quote or use of the source are without merit. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include, as long as it's clear that it's the president's quote, rather than an independent source making the statement. It would be even better if we could get someone else reliably stating it as fact, though. No opinion on placement at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include in "Abortion" section, but not in lead - The relationship between PP and abortion is significant and heavily documented (it is also controversial :-). Readers will expect lots of facts on the relationship, including various viewpoints on the debate. The abortion article should have generic information (not specific to PP) about the "contraception prevents" debate, but this article can and should include claims by PP's president on the topic (as well as counter-claims by opponents, provided they are PP-specific). Any detail about the PP/abortion connection should be in the existing "Abortion" section within this article. The lead could have a 2 or 3 sentence summary of the matter, but quotes (including the Richards quote) are best left out of the lead: instead the lead should contain a summary written in encyclopedic prose. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include in "Abortion" section, but not in lead - Noleander said it well and I'd take it to the next level if it were accepted. Let's get the controverial details out of the lede. Leading abortion provider etc.etc.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will qualify my statement that it does serve to balance some of the other rhetorical points added about their abortion services and those would need to go as well if this gets moved. The lead should not be used to advance/enhance controversies that are better explained in detail.Mattnad (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• oppose inclusion in lead inclusion in body would be acceptable. If one opinion is included in lead, other opinions would have to follow. - Haymaker (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily insisting this should be in the lead, I don't think this objection is quite right. A statement by the organization's president would seem to have a special claim to appear in the lead. It's not just "an opinion" that would then have to be carefully balanced. Wikipedia readers, like newspaper readers, know that they shouldn't take everything someone says about themselves at face value. Publication of these sorts of quotes is very common in high-quality journalism and I think there's a clear sense in which a "mission statement" of this sort is quite encyclopedic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include - That PP "does more than any other" to prevent abortions is clearly a self-promotional inflationary claim, not supported by a second reliable source and a matter of opinion not a fact. At any rate it must not be included in the lead. In the lead it is far from being a summary of the body contents but it gives undue weight to such very particular promotional content despite other relevant contents such as facts. At any rate it is misplaced there as it is a controversial opinion inserted in a paragraph dealing with facts.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• (Involved editor) I don't really think this quote belongs in the lead; a simple, well-referenced statement that PP is among the largest U.S. providers of reproductive health services (including contraception and abortion) should be sufficient as an overview. I'm on the fence about whether the quote should be included, with proper attribution, later in the article; arguably, it could find a place in the sections on "Services" or "Controversy". MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• include in "Abortion" section, but not in lead - I have no problem with the quote included elsewhere in the article, but having it in the lede doesn't seem particularly appropriate. It would fit in a subsection though. We aren't trying to portray it as a true statement of fact, but a quote by the president of the organization; therefor, whether or not it's self promotional doesn't seem relevant to me. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include in lead - No reason that quote can't be in the article, the abortion section seems like a very appropriate place for it but it doesn't belong in the lead. For one thing the idea expressed in the quote deserves some context. The lead is for summary, like the rest of the paragraph which sums up the general services planned parenthood provides without getting into the social implications, the cost, the morality, or whatever else might be associated. I don't agree with others who say the quote can't be used in the article because its "promotional". The quote is quite relevant and should be included in the article. I like the way the Abortion section treats the topic but I think that paragraph would be improved by using the direct quote being considered for inclusion in the lead instead of the paraphrase used now. I think we need to also remove "largest abortion provider" sentence as it is semi-redundant considering the rest of the paragraph especially the first sentence of that paragraph. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Include, and the lead section is appropriate. The statement succinctly tells the reader what PPFA considers its strength. As a summary of article body stats and related statements such as the one by Crepeau of The Chicago Tribune, it is helpful in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Using anti-abortion activism websites as sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noelander: Yes I can, and here they are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FC: Yes, Madison was another.

Falcon: Agreed.

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

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

JGabbard's activism, NPOV and edit warring

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

Subsequent back-and-forth edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti Abortion violence section

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

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

Komen

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

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

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

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

I stuck a link to it in "See also". I actually came to this article looking for information on that controversy, because I couldn't remember the name "Komen". Took me a while to figure it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Eugenics info

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

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

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

Yep been there, done that. Same could apply to every article that touches on the united states which in truth was founded in part with slavery and genocide. Lots of opportunity for mischeif. "American Girl dolls are seeped in controversy in that the history of America includes the enslavement of millions of africans"Mattnad (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

10% of Clients Receive Abortions is Statistically Sloppy

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

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

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

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

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

You said "the source is unclear as to if either the patients OR the count of abortions are unique". That's not true, they're both procedures, why would you say otherwise? Did you read something that indicated otherwise? I don't think you did. One fact finding site [2], for instance gives "332,278 procedures". Obviously some women could receive more than one abortion per year, but they could receive more than one of the other services as well. All counts are in procedures. It would be extraordinarily difficult, however, to seriously entertain the idea that there are more repeat consumers of abortion services than other services (including contraception). This is the same line of thinking that PoltiFact arrived at. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the percentage is certainly closer to 10% but since we have no source that provides the accurate percentage (that includes women that had more than one abortion in a year) we're better off leaving a guess out. It's a rare woman who has multiple abortions in a year but it cannot be ignored, according to the source.Mattnad (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Sentance

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

Looked up the case and clarified it a bit. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Komen, donations, and breast-cancer screening

It seems like the article should (briefly) cover the Komen Foundation flap. Aside from the political aspects - which I'm sure will be tiresome to iron out to everyone's satisfaction - the fracas led to $3 million in donations to Planned Parenthood (about 4 times the amount that PP received annually in Komen grants). The money is being used to substantially expand breast-cancer screening for underserved women (source). Probably worth a sentence or three - thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a section about it above. I agree with the sentiment above that it didn't really belong in this article, so a while back I put a "see also" link in this article for anyone who comes here looking for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of perhaps three articles which should mention the dustup and its fallout. If we had articles about Komen executive Elizabeth Thompson or resigned Komen official Mollie Williams then those would absolutely mention the brouhaha. Our biography on Nancy Brinker already has it. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevant aspect for this article is not so much the personalities involved, but the fact that the dispute led to $3 million in donations and an substantial expansion of Planned Parenthood's breast-cancer screening services. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the money, agreed. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugenics given a section in this article?

The topic appears insignificant to the overall article and irrelevant to Planned Parenthood as it operates today. Proposing to modify the section to simply include a link to the eugenics portion of the Sanger article, or remove it altogether per WP:UNDUE. Ongepotchket (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Current paragraph based on consensus and RFC, please see archive, especially Archive 9. Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Testing by Consumer Reports shows that the condoms that Planned Parenthood gives out are "defective."

I have added the following to the article:

The February 2005 edition of Consumer Reports included a test on condoms. Condoms were graded on a five point scale in each of the categories of "strength" and "reliability." In both of these categories, the condoms from Planned Parenthood received the lowest of the five possible scores, causing Consumer Reports to declare them as being "defective."(from Consumer Reports, February 2005)

Xshq5672 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted it because it deliberately misrepresents Consumer Reports' article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention old news and not really encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) needs to bring it up every now and then (see here and here). Hi, Grundle. MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a report from 2005 can be ignored as being old news. It is either news - i.e. new - or history. Either way the age of the report - of any report - cannot be grounds for exclusion. Accuracy yes, particularly if it has been rebutted since.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's ignore this trolling by a banned editor. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood Action Fund

This article does seem rather dry on details of PPAF. NARAL Pro-Choice America has an article and I would figure there has to be enough notable articles (such as this one) to add some information about this. Thoughts from the gallery? Zero Serenity (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it if you're so inclined. Can be it's own sub-section.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I put in a couple lines. Secondary sources about is are surprisingly scarce and the section could use expansion. Zero Serenity (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. I'm not surprised a lobbying arm of PP gets little attention - most lobbying efforts are under the radar.Mattnad (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

People began to talk about it after the Sunlight Foundation released their report (it's the link above, by the way) on how PPAF managed to spend on "wins" so perfectly. I'd still call them a force to recon with (in the political scene) for that reason. But yes, I wish I had more I could say about it today. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Exposed"

It seems clear to me that the previous language about the stings was more accurate. No center has been found guilty of breaking any of these laws in criminal court, and the 2005 investigation by a hostile administration also found no evidence of non-compliance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: "Exposed" is plainly loaded language, not in agreement with "activities... that do not appear to follow applicable... laws". The sentence was certainly better before. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of coverage in order to protect Planned Parenthood?

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

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

• Under "State Investigations" there is a clear lack of updated content. No mention of Louisiana terminating its contract with Planned Parenthood clinics as a result of their very own investigations? [3]

200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What was left out is important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood

Interesting:

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

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

I am appalled that a long-time editor like you would equate using Media Matters, an organization that has a stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"[4], on the same level as the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that this same article refers to as such that "...released videos...".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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