Wikipedia

Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 3

< Talk:Planned Parenthood
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sitush in topic Controversy and criticism rewrite
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Potentially gamed freeze

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

{{editrequest}} Coming here from the ANI, my take on the edit war is that WikiManOne removed the entire controversial section favored by the IP in this edit, implying above that it should remain blank while under discussion; but then later added a paragraph favored by himself and warred to retain it, which is the version frozen to. This has potential for gaming: if an editor knows that an admin will freeze the last version, tag-team-reverts alternates to that version within minutes (as happened twice), and combines this with an initial not-well-honored offer to leave the section blank during the discussion, it has the potential for a pretty reliable freeze to the preferred POV version (my quick review suggests both nonblank versions had POV problems, but the blank version's only problem was failure to state the controversy). Accordingly, I respectfully request that the blank version, from the above diff, replace the currently frozen version (or that the POV paragraph with its header simply be removed for the duration of the lock), because the current version is much more POV and was accepted by WikiManOne as the original position of his goalposts. Also, there may be BLP problems with O'Keeffe et al., which may require the deletion regardless of the gaming ruling. No disrespect to NuclearWarfare who was in accord with lock policy, but this does seem to me like a gamed situation. JJB 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it blank until consensus is reached, but when I blanked it for discussion it was immediately readded which explains why I hastily wrote a bare bones version which did not satisfactorily cover the issues but avoided undue weight to the controversy, I am in favor of the above request. WikiManOne 06:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I just don't understand why the section, which had been on the page over a year, was removed to be replaced with a section that is entirely uncritical and uncontroversial in regards to Planned Parenthood. I'm not dead-set on my proposed revisions being accepted, but I do think much of the controversies mentioned previously were newsworthy and relevant. To remove them smells of bias. If they can be summarized better while still mentioned, I'm all for that, whether I or another does the summarizing, but took particular exception to the edit originally made by WikiManOne since it not only removed mention of all the controversies previously mentioned, as well as noticeably lacking reference to the recent 2011 scandal, but also was actively defensive of Planned Parenthood in tone and content for the one section on the page that should supposedly be critical and objective concerning the organization. A freeze after removing content on controversies that's been included on the page for over a year without prior discussion; having a page block put on afterward? That's not right. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)--67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiManOne is on a crusade, and I'm sure that problem will fix itself soon enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is now consensus in favor of blanking and discussing on talk without warring, which is a sufficient condition (per the locking admin) for unlocking early. Please unlock or blank the section. JJB 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not unlock the article, blanking is the appropriate way to go. Also, can I ask that those who are so against the current version would be so kind as show a good faith effort in collaborating to improve it? WikiManOne 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there has been a lack of willingness to improve the section (I for one have helped that end) but there is a clear consensus against deleting the section. - Haymaker (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, I already showed days ago my willingness to rewrite the section to help shorten and improve it - I do not mind seeing it changed, but removing or 'blanking' it clearly achieves the original intent of removing mention of controversies from a page on Planned Parenthood. I would say there is a growing weight of consensus against the material deletion and blanking by this point. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Blanking which achieves your original goal of removing a section without consensus, a section that existed on the page for over a year. I suppose it's just coincidental that the timing coincides with this being a major issue in the news? -.^ Odd that you'd be fighting so hard to remove a section on controversies, whether through edit warring or requests to blank it, even as such controversy is being addressed in the news. All the civility does not mask the dishonesty you are clearly using in trying to remove mention of controversies from a page related to an institution undergoing controversy in the news, to stem public knowledge of it. I am very much against blanking. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  Section removed as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, Those in the consensus have bent over backwards to help sanitize this stinking pile of @#!%. Five more bottles of perfume will not help. It's now time to restore the remnants of this material back to the article and the unsuspecting (not!) general public.JGabbard (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To Summarize

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:

2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.

3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.

4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.

5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.

On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.

========================

All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.

Because of the activism of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. Within 2 days it's been removed due to their edit warring and admin intervention. So much for Wikipedia fairness, huh? --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The above is an accurate synopsis of the activities of the past few days. So much for assumption of good faith, because there is NONE here. It is clear that bias and censorship are prevailing!--JGabbard (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected, ironic the critics (which by a simple head count as seen reviewd by 67.176.248.164) shows that a few can call concensus when its obvious its not. Add another to the leave the criticism in with me 63.163.213.249 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also how is it WikiManOne avoids the whole three R thing about multiple reverts without warning?63.163.213.249 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think he had to be warned for it or something. From what I've seen, just saying the right things in front of the admins will get him off the hook though for what was obvious edit-warring. If there were a 5RR rule he'd have violated it. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed above the discussion may be producing a consensus on what the new section should involve, so hopefully we can get this worked out. I'm just annoyed that they can claim consensus off 2 users who are clearly outnumbered and edit warring to protect removal of a section that's been around for years, and keep the section from being on the page for days while a major public event is going on, to prevent the public from seeing any mention of related material on Wikipedia. The combination of abuse by 2 editors and at best, horrible mistakes by admins in freezing the page afterward and blanking the material, has resulted in yet another debacle on Wikipedia. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that your complaints aren't being taken as seriously as you'd like, I would suggest you formulate them in a more calm and focused manner, with less bombast. That usually helps, and it's under your control. MastCell Talk 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Which was why I just calmly posted a 5 point summary detailing everything that's occurred. And I am trying to make headway with the discussion on a proposed rewrite. But the removal of the whole controversies section contrary to what myself and others have been saying is not at all in line with Wikipedia guidelines, so it's difficult to remain calm in light of such glaring violations. I am doing my best at doing so. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly feel and identify with your frustration, 67.176.248.164. This is nothing but obstructionism. I applaud your efforts. Fox and WND need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP.--JGabbard (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This made me laugh... I know passions are running high, but to even think that Fox News reporting on some editors disagreeing over one section in an article that few people read.... would lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. We're not that important, with all due respect.Mattnad (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol, true. And the point of this discussion isn't to bash Planned Parenthood or include criticism of it, per se, on the page. I've tried to keep my personal views out of this discussion as much as possible. What I feel about the organization is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes at least. The main thing is the Controversy/Criticism section fairly and objectively present the major controversies and criticisms that have arisen in proportion to their prominence in the news. That's all. I just want the WP:DUE guidelines followed. This newest controversy, like others before it, have been major issues in the news, and ought to be mentioned. I am fine with seeing Planned Parenthood's defenses mentioned as well - but this ought to be mentioned so people are aware of it. The events of the past few days have been to the effect of covering up information on these controversies that's been on the page for 3+ years. To remove it should have a very good explanation, not edit warring to keep it in place with admin page blocking as enforcement. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiMan1, Please, you need to withdraw from this discussion posthaste. I accuse you of obstructionism, not acting in good faith, bias, and censorship. Just allow others to handle this discussion because we can all see through your bias and do not accept your actions here.JGabbard (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now reported this a 2nd time as an ANI on the admin noticeboard, due to WikiManOne collapsing 3 of my replies:
These were his recent attempts to collapse my replies in talking about how to write a new section. The first was silly, since I was replying to someone else's off-topic comment (Sifuth) that WikiManOne didn't collapse, but I ignored it, and just added Sifuth's comment to the collapsed section. The most recent ones made no sense and were just meant to annoy me, which is why I'm bringing this back to the noticeboards. Enough is enough.
If I can't even comment in the discussion on a rewrite to achieve consensus without having WikiManOne collapse all my comments, it's time to reopen the ANI again. I'm tired of this. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)--67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother responding to your accusations of bad faith anymore, so enjoy this as your last response from me: I collapsed the Fox News one because it was irrelevant to improving the article, notice I also collapsed the comment you were replying to. The others, I collapsed because I moved them to be in line with the other messages for greater readability. I'm sorry this was so annoying to you, but none of your messages were deleted or hidden, they are all listed at the end of the conversation... Now lets work on improving the article shall we? WikiManOne 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
At 21:49 you collapsed one of my comments.
At 21:52 it was me who collapsed the comment I was replying to, not you. Your original collapse left Sifuth's alone, collapsing only my reply:
From what I saw, all of the messages were hidden in collapsed sections, or I wouldn't have objected so strongly. A simple view of the page as it looked at 23:04 after your collapsing edits shows you collapsed my comments in 3 separate places.
--67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Dude, in case you didn't notice, the second one wasn't just collapsed, I moved a copy of it to the end of the conversation where it would be in order with everyone else's comments, if you look now its in their twice. WikiManOne 06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
On the third one I did get frustrated and collapsed it without moving a copy of it to the end, that was my mistake and probably wasn't the best idea, but it certainly wasn't a breach of any policy. I was going to add the copy to the end if you didn't see my message asking you to, but instead you went and made a frivolous report over it, that's fine, whatever. WikiManOne 06:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, from my end, all I saw was a lot of comment moving and repeated instances of my comments being collapsed, including several that I saw no explanation for. To me it looked like a behind-the-scenes way of trying to aggravate me while talking nice, and to prevent me from participating in a discussion on a rewrite, by moving my replies to MastCell and others so they would never see I'd replied. I did jump to conclusions, and will apologize for the report filing in this case. It just looked really bad at the time, given the events preceding that. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, all the comment moving and duplicating and collapsing was making it tough for me to follow the rewrite conversation altogether. If I have to now reply to the same comment in multiple places, find where it's now been moved to, remember what new changes have been made in comment order, uncollapse my replies, etc., it starts getting complicated. To me all the duplicating/moving/collapsing came off as obstructionism, that would continue - with you just denying it like you denied the edit warring after the fact - if I didn't file a report before it got out of hand. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to make a better effort of assuming good faith. I jumped to the conclusion I did because of:
A) Your original edit, which removed content on controversies, much of which had existed with few changes since 2008.
B) The edit warring you took part in, removing said content 5 separate times, and then afterwards denying in the ANI discussion that you'd done so.
C) Your request for admins to blank the section rather than restoring the original content that had been in place for 3 years.
All of this combined left me with increasing skepticism as to your intentions and, as I said, I jumped to a conclusion I'll apologize for readily. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

im confused

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

i came here looking for info about preventing stds for health class because i know planned parenthood does that but now im reading stuff about nazis. why is this here?? its crazy. ive got a report due and your not helping me wikipedia. AnimeCraze (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The word 'Nazi' is not mentioned anywhere on the page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol, yes, I agree we should add more information about PP's work combating STDs and providing contraception, etc. I will probably work on that once the controversy section is compliant with applicable policies. The IP is correct, there is (was) no mention of the word "nazi" in the article, but there was mention of eugenics which is commonly perceived as nazi. It has been taken out as it was added by (yet another) IP user against consensus that includes its author. WikiManOne 06:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that this is a high traffic page, it has received roughly 2000 visits per day since the controversy hit in the news. We need to be extra careful to make sure its compliant. WikiManOne 06:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Meaning no deleting a section on controversies that's existed for 3 years - right? Otherwise, that definitely raises concerns about bias. Compliance should include valid mention of controversies, particularly at a time of high traffic. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Section

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

I've returned the section to what appears a longtime stable version existing much in its present form for several years, the Dec. 21st version by Uncle Milty, until consensus is reached on a new section.

My concerns with proposed new sections to be dealt with are as follows (still being updated):

1. Bush administration mention. This was not mentioned until the last few weeks in the section, and the only source is this Salon article. The article mentions it just in passing, in one paragraph, in one sentence, at the bottom of the article. Even apart from the question of whether Salon is a neutral organization (just look at the politics of its longtime editor-in-chief Joan Walsh), there's the question of whether this fact should be considered well sourced based on its 1-sentence mention in the article. For it to feature prominently in a new section, I would like it better sourced than this, with an article that mentions it as a major fact, rather than an aside.

2. Disciplinary measures. Recent proposed sections have differed from long-time stable versions in that they fail to include any mention of Planned Parenthood firing or suspending employees as a result, receiving state fines, or facing other state disciplinary measures. These are the crux of what make the events in question controversial and noteworthy, whether measures occurred as a result. To omit mention of them as new sections have been doing is to bias the section and prevent public knowledge, as seen from the page, of how the cases carried out. My concern is that only information positive to Planned Parenthood is being displayed in the recently proposed versions concerning outcomes, without mentioning anything negative such as firings or state disciplinary measures.

3. Remove the Anti-Abortion Violence Mention. This was not mentioned at all until these recent section proposals and has no place in the section. If this is to be mentioned, it should certainly belong elsewhere in the article, not here, where it has no place. This is about controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement, right? In fact, more appropriate would be the mention of acts of violence credited TO Planned Parenthood or the broader pro-choice movement, per here (see here for a pro-choice rebuttal of the claims). Now, note that I am NOT saying pro-choice violence should be mentioned, or that it meets standards of notoriety, merely that it WOULD be relevant in the section, whereas mentions of anti-abortion violence are clearly out of place here.

4. Case Specifics. While I understand the desire to shorten the section, the previous proposal would have made it less than half the size of any of the 3 sections above it. To mention a line or 2 of detail about specific court decisions would be appropriate. However, I did notice just now the information previously in this section was moved to the 'Stand on political and legal issues' section, alleviating this concern somewhat. However, the 'Legal Troubles' subsection there appears out of place, and would probably be better off back where it was, as it seemingly relates more to controversies than Planned Parenthood stances.

5.(NEW) Sourcing. Right now, all the sources, apart from the Legal Troubles subsection (the only part of the section carried over from the old) appear inappropriate. 4 of the 6 apply to the last sentence on anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section. A 5th is virtually useless as a source, a Salon article that only mentions in 1 sentence at the bottom of the article the claim it is sourcing. The 6th is so POV favorable to Planned Parenthood in its dismissal of the incidents that it is effectively a 3 paragraph opinion piece bashing the incidents with no reporting value, and is certainly not neutral. None of these are valid sources in any way, shape, or form. I mentioned AP and Reuters articles as sources previously. There are a number of sources that could and should be provided, per these examples.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

I'd like to see a new section put together as soon as possible, but these are the concerns I have about the section proposals of Mattnad and WikiManOne, and that differ from the long-time stable version I recently returned the page to. I'd like to see a Consensus approve a section that finds a middle ground between the older and newer versions without removing key facets of the older long-time stable version. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, Sitush, Mattnad and myself have all spoken against readding the content to the article. There are only two editors with accounts who have spoken in favor of readding the material in its entirety, while another editor suggested that it be blanked. Lets go with the four editors who don't want it readded and either blank it or add the new version until consensus is fully achieved. I have moved it back to the version currently under discussion, feel free to move mention of controversy entirely if you see fit, however, readding the previous one with dubious weight given to issues and the majority of involved editors against its inclusion is unproductive. I'm going to bed, lets deal with this tomorrow. I will reply in the above, appropriate thread where the new version is being discussed. WikiManOne 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet I am one of 6 editors who reverted or verbally opposed a removal of the former section, the others being PhGustaf, Kenatipo, JGabbard, HayMaker, and 63.163.213.249. I didn't hear opposition from MastCell and Mattnad specifically to the former version, only attempts to compromise in creating a new section, so I'm not sure yet where they stand on that. As such, I will be reverting the section to that of the longtime stable version until a consensus can be reached. There is if anything a majority of involved editors against removing controversies that were mentioned for years in their current state. I would agree with you there may be excessive weight given to certain issues, but I still think they should be mentioned with at least a line or 2 each, not eliminated altogether. I would like to see a consensus achieved that can accomplish this, rather than seeking to wholesale remove them, changing the section completely in omitting mention of them in a way that it hasn't seen since at least 2008. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll reply at length to your suggestions tomorrow, I just wanted to say, I agree with #4, if you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and move it to controversies? I hope you won't revert the article back to the old version while I sleep, that wouldn't show good faith and it, furthermore, would constitute undue weight, WP:BITR also applies here. WikiManOne 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be reverting. I don't see why there is such sudden opposition to allowing a section that was up in its present state for a year unchanged, to be up a day or 2 until consensus is reached. That makes no sense unless trying to replace it while the issue is newsworthy to sway public opinion. I considered it a lack of good faith to make the edit in the first place to change the section per my 4 points above in all ways from its long-time previous state, and then edit-war to protect it when the consensus is in support of the older rather than newer version. I am all for compromise here, but do not believe that replacing a long-time stable version with a newer that is entirely different and very debatable here, lacking consensus, is the right move to make. Until that compromise is reached, the section should remain in its previous form given the newsworthiness of the controversies in question. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus is, based on four registered editors, as well as another who criticized your edits, that the old version is untenable. It should not be re-added unless consensus on this page clearly supports it, and even then it would still a violation of applicable policy, albeit one that I would be powerless to do anything about. I don't think going back to an old version that is clearly controversial with more editors involved in crafting a newer version is the way to go. With that, I'm off to bed. :) WikiManOne 08:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking this for your own good as well as everyone's, would you mind creating an account? I really can hardly keep track of the string of numbers and didn't know there were two IPs involved. In case you didn't know, the fact that an editor engages in an edit war without discussing it on the talk page does not help either side and is irrelevant. The only opinions that are relevant are those posted on the talk page, and out of these, consensus exists for the new version and not the archaic version that does not have issues with WP:NPOV, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:BITR met. As such it should not be reverted unless consensus on the talk page is established to support re-adding it. WikiManOne 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw you moved the Legal Troubles section back to the Controversies section per my point 4. While I still have serious concerns about 2 of the other 4 points, I will leave the section in its current form for another day to try and achieve consensus. The return of the Legal Troubles section somewhat alleviates my concerns about points 2 and 4, and while I am still unsure on 1 and 3, the section appears similar at least somewhat now to its previous state. I'm hoping a compromise can be reached soon that will address them, but will not try to change the section for the time being, in good faith. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping over the next few days to see a source found for the Bush investigation mention, and some sources provided for the early part of the page mentioning sting operations. It seems ridiculous almost all the sources provided are for a mention of anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section, and the only other sources a pair of Salon articles - one of which doesn't even serve well as a source for the claim it's supposedly supporting (Bush investigation) since only 1 sentence at the bottom of the article refers to it. Right now, the section is effectively devoid of useful sources, apart from the Legal Cases subsection which was part of the old section, a major concern of mine, with at least 5 of the 6 sources requiring deletion - I have yet to check the other one. I provided some AP and Reuters sources earlier in my Proposed Edit section I'd be happy to include, but will wait until tomorrow to include them per my promise. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And there was consensus on the revision history and talk page against removing it in the first place. There were at least 4 users, including myself, who reverted the change originally, and 2 more who've spoken against it here on the talk discussion, for at least 6. I'd be fully justified in reverting the section to a previous stable state, but I've said I will wait a day and intend to do so. I will continue discussion tomorrow in making sourcing changes and removing the anti-abortion violence sentence, the least controversial changes, then move according to consensus with later changes. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism rewrite

Latest comment: 13 years ago74 comments11 people in discussion

The following is all taken from the article, we can work on making it meet WP:NPOV standards here and then re-include it in the article. (So as to avoid any major edit wars breaking out in the article, we can reach consensus here first..) WikiManOne 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest",[1] some anti-abortion activists have created elaborate "sting" operations in attempts to substantiate their claims. These "stings" have been decried as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom."[2] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.[3][4][5][6]

Discussion

Please note changes you make here and discuss further improvement, look at previous conversation for concerns. WikiManOne 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states."[7] The source simply doesn't substantiate it being multiple groups accusing it and the problems occurring in multiple states. All it verifies is one lawsuit against one clinic in one state, and if that is the best source we have, it appears it might constitute "undue weight" on that incidence. WikiManOne 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted material on controversies was removed due to its mention on Huffington Post in relation to a recent controversy. Material is being covered up to avoid embarassment to the institution until news relevance has passed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/fbi-planned-parenthood-hoax-suspects_n_817201.html
As such, vandalism by HuffPost user reverted until consensus reached. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that your conspiracy theories regarding the editing of this article are laughable. In fact, maybe you should actually read the "HuffPost" article and see what it says and doesn't say. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So it's just coincidence that the controversies have been mentioned on this page for what, months? Years? And within minutes of my citing them in the comments for a recent news article, they're suddenly removed by a 'revision'? I believe in coincidence, not being stupid. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be the handiwork of HuffPost user 'BannedFromCommenting' or another Planned Parenthood proponent from the discussion there, trying to prevent readers of the article comments from seeing the controversy until this incident's newsworthiness dies down. Otherwise, why the attempt to remove the controversies until consensus has been reached, rather than trying to reach consensus first? The whole section was removed within minutes of my citing it on a recent Huffington Post article, clearly to prevent this from achieving public notoriety. It is a clear case of a liberal activist attempting to prevent public display of information embarrassing to their favored institution until controversy has died down, in the same way that activists sought to remove mention of controversies on the Obama and Global Warming pages here on Wikipedia when both were particularly newsworthy as well. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
User WikiManOne's profile lists them as a political donor to Planned Parenthood with an apparent bias. This bias is evidently manifesting itself in seeking to silence visibility of controversies related to Planned Parenthood until such newsworthiness has passed. I have seen this tactic used repeatedly on Wikipedia in the past to protect liberal institutions and anybody with a brain can see it happening all over again. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Previous cases have consisted of 'consensus' reached by a traveling band of the same Wikipedia members who agree on removing all mention of controversy surrounding liberal institutions or individuals without any basis for such consensus other than that they didn't want it there, essentially Wikipedia-owning pages. They will attempt to begin edit wars to force revision of their vandalism so they can have their opponents perma-banned one by one from Wikipedia. I'm familiar with the tactics. Case closed. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your conspiracy theories have nothing to do with reality. Please keep the discussion relevant to the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you might find people more responsive if you addressed them civilly and articulated your concern coherently and with reference to this site's policies (see here for an starting point). Frothing about a lib'rul conspiracy is pretty much begging for people to ignore you. MastCell Talk 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I believe the specific mention of controversies constitute WP:UNDUE weight, does anyone have any comments on this or opposition to removing this based on wikipedia policies? WikiManOne 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am adding comments about anti-abortion violence against Planned Parenthood to the article, these are fully substantiated at the main article linked but I will add some references soon. WikiManOne 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, I am ignoring the IP user's comments, not about to get into a flame war over this. If a donation to a political organization someone constitutes a conflict of interest, then anyone who has donated to any church or non-profit would be prohibited from editing wikipedia articles on that topic. Clearly, that is not the case and my disclosure of my "bias" as I call it allows me to edit more freely while giving editors the ability to know where I'm coming from. To use it against me is very disingenuous. WikiManOne 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment WikiManOne is honest enough to disclose his point of view, which doesn't prevent him from editing neutrally. Most thoughtful people have a point of view on a controversial topic like this. Those who are committed to Wikipedia's five pillars can work together to achieve consensus that treats both sides of a controversy fairly, despite conflicting points of view. However, it is unproductive to come into a discussion convinced that those with a different point of view have some secret agenda and are engaged in a conspiracy to cover things up. That mind set makes it very difficult to reach consensus. Let's drop the conspiracy theories and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am approaching this from a different angle. Being in the UK, most of the article is meaningless to me - it is extremely US-centric in its style, IMO, and perhaps needs some broader writing to make it more accessible to non-US reading. That is just a thought: I am aware that it is a US organisation but it appears to be a part of a bigger grouping. I've added a heap of minor request templates in the last few minutes + made a couple of minor stylistic changes & queried the POV of the statement which says certain quoted legal cases are "notable" - they may be, but I am to be convinced. I have absolutely no idea regarding alleged conspiracy theories. However, the number of extant citations that appear to refer to items published by the organisation which is the subject of the article is, at first glance, slightly worrying to me. I have no position at all with regard to pro-life or otherwise. It may sound strange to US readers as I am aware that this is a big and contentious issue there, but I'm not there and really would tend to treat each case on its merits (well, I think that I would if ever I were in that position). So, I am neutral to the umpteenth degree. Sitush (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would like to note that I was not even aware of the article at the Huffington Post's existence until you brought it up here. WikiManOne 00:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
All this stuff about the Huffington Post. I keep hearing of this thing but have never read it. Is it reliable as a source or is it akin to Fox News? Again, writing as a non-US citizen. If there is doubt about its reliability then that is "game over" as far as WP is concerned, unless the points referenced to it are worded very carefully. Sitush (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It is progressive, or politically liberal in ideology, but they keep their reporting and commentary separate, so they're generally (at least for wikipedia) considered ok for sources, I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the IP is referring to some of the comments on there. WikiManOne 01:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant reply that does not address topic being discussed
OK, that makes it better than Fox News, which here in the UK seems to be treated as a comedy programme by most people who have any interest at all.Sitush (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here in the U.S., FOX News has more viewers than all other news networks combined, if I recall. The U.K. is not the center of the world, though neither is the U.S. FOX has its faults, but has no less a reputation for conservative bias than MSNBC has for liberal bias. This fault is not relegated to FOX alone. Partisanship has become a trait typical of networks today, but most networks employ liberal anchors like Jon Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, etc., rather than conservative ones, making FOX particularly noticeable. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to the 2005 Pew Research Center Report, 'Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists', page IV, journalists are far more liberal than the general public:
According to the report, 34% of the national press and 23% of the local press are liberal compared to just 20% of the general public. Only 7% of the national press and 12% of the local press are conservative, compared to 33% of the general public.
This is concerning, not just because far more of the press is liberal than the general public, and far less conservative than the general public, but the discrepancy is especially great when at the national rather than local level. This suggests a bias in the system itself at the national media level that prevents conservative journalists from rising to the top, instead selecting only liberals for top ranks in the media reporting realm. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I am in full agreement with 67.176.248.164. This flagrant suppression of information needs to stop, and all the material in the "Criticism and Controversy" section needs to be reverted NOW. The fact that some of it pertains to current events make it just that much more relevant and contribute to the value of the article. These incidents are fully verifiable and reliably sourced, and if it embarrasses PP so be it! Wikipedia editors are not duty-bound to protect this organization from its own scandals, as WikiManOne seems to be.JGabbard (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tone of language immediately suggests to me that you hold an opinion on the purpose etc of PP and wish to see that opinion portrayed - "scandal" etc is not the sort of word to use; try "controversy". I have now read the Huffington Post article and, while I re-state that I am an outsider and perhaps not in full possession of the background, my feeling is that if the deleted section is to be restored then it would have to be in a revised, more neutral tone & with due consideration to both sides of the controversy. Coverage of current events is valid but only if it is objective. Sitush (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
JGabbard, from a cursory examination of your talk page, it is clear that you hold views which would put you in a position of being against many of Planned Parenthood's goals. This is fine and I applaud you for making this public, I also hold positions that are generally favorable to Planned Parenthood, this in mind, I ask that we collaborate on this page and create a neutral description of the controversy should consensus arise that it does not constitute undue weight. This article has the capacity to be highly charged, we need to work here and collaborate on improving the article towards a neutral point of view rather than accuse each other of acting in bad faith. (sighs, I came to this article researching for a school project, not to get involved in revising it...lol..:/) WikiManOne 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WM1, while I am certainly in agreement with you about PP being a lightning rod and about the way things need to be done, that simply means that it requires more patience, restraint and time than I can muster. So as a fellow student I know you will excuse me to abandon the article permanently and return to my calculus. :-/ I leave you with 67.176.248.164.JGabbard (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if the accusations had their own page they would just warrant a link to that independent page here? - Haymaker (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly a option, I wonder whether such an article would pass WP:NOTABILITY, I think it probably could if written correctly. Either way, even if they are on an independent page, each controversy would need to be independently evaluated for WP:UNDUE just as they would need to be here. Also, mention of violence does not constitute WP:UNDUE, incidents of violence against abortion clinics are considered notable enough to merit their own article, it seems that multiple instances of violent attacks on Planned Parenthood, mentioned by multiple news sources would merit at least one sentence in the article. On the same token, the multiple "stings" on planned parenthood by anti-abortion activists would merit a general sentence or two written from a WP:NPOV which is what I have attempted to do. If you feel that it somehow is not WP:NPOV then please, lets discuss it here until we can reach WP:CONSENSUS. Unilateral edits to the main article won't do anything but start an WP:EDIT WAR which we do not want.
  • Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, can we please keep the discussion organized by using proper indentation, the {{outdent}} when necessary, and not post rambling long posts that make for hard reading? We can discuss one thing at a time rather than trying to address everything in one post. WikiManOne 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ferengi, or Salegi, or wikimanone, or whatever you're called now, you had no business reverting most of the controversies section to begin with. --Kenatipo speak! 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to clean up a biased article, go work on Crisis pregnancy center. --Kenatipo speak! 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, I totally concur! WikiManOne has clearly violated Wiki policy on several levels and needs to stand down, or be made to do so.--JGabbard (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I refer you, Kentipo, to WP:CIVIL, WP:UNDUE and note that you have had past wars of this type, including a 3RR. Look, if something is as controversial as this then it is always better to seek consensus before publishing in the article because otherwise someone may really overstep the mark and land WP in trouble. I am aware that much of what is going back and forth is verifiable but the tone is extremely POV and it is a worrying trend. It needs more civil discussion, less name-calling and moe WP:AGF on all sides. Sitush (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading the history wrong, WM1 started this war by removing entire chunks of a section he didn't like. He's been reverted more than once. His edit was Bold, it has been (and should stay) Reverted, while we Discuss it. (And it was 1RR, not 3RR, that earned me my first barnstar). --Kenatipo speak! 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I would like to clean up the Crisis pregnancy center article as well, it is extremely WP:POV in lending CPCs any credibility at all. I agree with Sitush, we need to build consensus before unilaterally adding content that is extremely POV which I removed. The "stings" may merit mention, but if so they need to be properly written to avoid POV, so lets use WP:CIVIL and discuss how to improve this article reasonably and assuming WP:GOOD FAITH in the discussion above. WikiManOne 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no issue with mentioning the stings, perhaps in a sentence or two for ALL of them (and not several paragraphs for the various stunts they have pulled) to illustrate that there have been some flash in the pan fusses that did not uncover any actual crimes (at lease based on reliable sources). We just don't need to have all of this detail, especially since the sources (meaning the fringe groups) are selective in what they share to support their agendas. Mattnad (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As you can see Kantatipo, as of right now, consensus does not exist to re-add the material you put in. Here we see three editors clearly against adding it in the form you included. Now, let's work towards consensus on how to include mention of the stings, shall we? WikiManOne 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
To the IP user, as you can see, a number of users have commented up here, I believe at this point, verifiably summarizing the stings into a sentence or two would be the most appropriate path to take, obviously (which I think you'll have no problem doing) this is up for discussion, if you don't mind though, lets keep this easy on the eyes and not so spread out, ie. keep discussion in an organized fashion, here. :) WikiManOne 06:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is my updated proposal which can be added to, edited, etc. WikiManOne 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
New Proposal for "controversy" section

A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. A 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest."[1] These "stings" have been criticised as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom."[8] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.[3][9][10][11]

Perhaps a sentence could be added along the following lines? "Multiple stings have been reported, including one in 2011 that lead to the firing of a Clinic Manager in New Jersey under accusations of aiding child trafficking." Would that be able to achieve consensus? WikiManOne 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would accurately capture why she was fired. She was fired because she showed poor judgment and did not follow Planned Parenthood's rules. But there was not actual child trafficking so to say "lead to the firing of a Clinic Manager in New Jersey under accusations of aiding child trafficking" could cause a reader to infer she actually aided child trafficking. Likewise, the Pro-life tricksters were not actually trafficking children (although several Planned Parenthood clinics reported them to the FBI).Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What about, "Live Action Films, led by founder Lila Rose, has allegedly documented a number of Planned Parenthood violations related to state reporting laws on statutory rape and sex trafficking, in [years with sources]. Planned Parenthood has defended itself by saying '[defenses]'." I think this should achieve consensus by relating the events concisely while still stating the PP defense for the allegations. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Might work, but Live Action Films is not the only person doing this. Take a look below at my recent attempt to be descriptive of what has happened over the years. My thought is that the inline citations can be linked to reliable source that go into the gory details of PPs misteps, and related defenses.Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

Do you have a suggestion on how to incorporate it then? I'm trying to satisfy those editors who want to include a specific mention of the stings although I am still not convinced that stunts pulled by small (fringe) activist groups constitute due weight... Suggestions? WikiManOne 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion may not fly with people who like detailed lists, but my thoughts are to have a paragraph, with inline citations, that say something like:
A few Pro-life organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Furthermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." Mattnad (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm liking your idea, perhaps we could add in the end the two sentences from my controversy section? Somehow merge the two into a working controversy section, mentioning pro-choice criticism (it's only fair to mention both sides) of the "stings" while of course mentioning anti-abortion violence directed at Planned Parenthood, obviously denoting its controversial character. WikiManOne 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How's something like this? Could this possibly achieve consensus? WikiManOne 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems a good start but a bit vague for my tastes. The biggest difference between the older page version's controversy section and this is that the older version mentioned fines levied on Planned Parenthood and employees fired - this one mentions no such official investigations, punishments, or firings; and thus leaving out many of the most controversial details. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Updated proposal with input from Mattnad

A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Futhermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest."[1] These "stings" have been criticised as "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom."[12] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates.[3][13][14][15]

This incorporates your very well put description of the events, while still mentioning pro-choice criticism of the stings, also I believe mention of the anti-choice violence is certainly appropriate in the article, although long term it may merit its own section... WikiManOne 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from above to for ease of reading WikiManOne
And yet, each one of these stings has been a major controversy in its own right, taking up news headlines across the U.S., in some cases, the world. As such, it should be covered in proportion to its prominence and relation to Planned Parenthood. They are relevant as the primary controversies, and to say the controversies section should have ridiculously short size restrictions not meted out on other page sections is unfair. To allow them to be grouped for all Live Action incidents would make it shorter, per my proposed rewrite below. To summarize what have now been a number of major incidents with 1 or 2 sentences and limit the controversies section to practically nothing, when this is not set as a requirement for other sections, is just not right. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Copying pertinent comment from below in reply to similar message WikiManOne
We may disagree on the level of prominence/notoriety. Sacking a single employee here and there, no criminal charges, and basically the same outcome (nothing really) suggests we concisely summarize their tactics and the outcomes. From what I can tell, the only people paying attention to, and discussing, these controversies are Pro-Life groups who feel Planned Parenthood should be stop providing abortion services. If more had come of this, like what happened to Acorn, then we would be remiss if we didn't expand it.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I agree with Mattnad here that we should simply summarize the whole thing... I don't mean to say a sentence or two as a "restriction" more as a general idea of how large I think the article should be. I think Mattnad's proposed mention combined with my edit is a step in the right direction, and clearly gives mention (than I would personally prefer) to the controversies as it is. WikiManOne 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving here (Pet peeve, please add comments at end of conversation rather than continuing indentations where {{outdent}} has already been used...)WikiManOne
It seems a good start but a bit vague for my tastes. The biggest difference between the older page version's controversy section and this is that the older version mentioned fines levied on Planned Parenthood and employees fired - this one mentions no such official investigations, punishments, or firings; and thus leaving out many of the most controversial details. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that notable? Before you say its had coverage, has it achieved multiple independent and neutral coverage in reliable sources? If yes, does it constitute due weight? How can we work it in without giving it too much weight? I want to hear solutions. WikiManOne 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above to keep messages in orderWikiManOne
I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to WP:DUE guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.
These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Pro-life" should be the term we use. In my proposed draft, I picked that as well since "Anti-abortion", like "Pro-Abortion" are not how each group presents itself and is POV. Also, was only tackling the material related to the stings. I also think that some of the fines/sanctions can be mentioned. Regarding the most recent coverage - it does not seem to be any more meaningful than past events. So we can mention it, but again we don't want to go down that path of laying one stunt on another so the section becomes unwieldy. And of course, Wikipedia is not the news, after all.Mattnad (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so with the change to pro-life, have we achieved consensus as to what should be included in the article? Or do we need to keep this going? WikiManOne 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added the above version to the article as no one disagreed. If you have a problem with it, lets discuss it and I'm sure we can come to a good conclusion. Also, WP:BITR is relevant here if anyone wasn't aware...WikiManOne 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, someone please add citations to the added paragraph. I will do it in the morning if its not done. WikiManOne 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me in what way "somehow breaking the law" is encyclopedic? Perhaps the word "somehow" is used differently on the US side of the pond? Would it not be better to say that they "allege that x is breaking the law"? Over here, "somehow" in the context above is almost a derisory accusation that they do not understand the law (which may or may not be true, but can be avoided with "allege"). Sitush (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How does "make allegations claiming that x is breaking the law" sound? WikiManOne 20:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It reads better from a UK POV - takes away any casting of aspersions. But that's just the UK (of which country, for the purpose of this single proposal, I am prepared to declare myself the over-riding arbiter - nothing like a spot of totalitarianism! <g>) Sitush (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent, discussion continues

I went ahead and made the change, I agree that it sounds more NPOV. If someone wants to challenge and revert it and seek consensus for something different here, I'm not against that. I think the new wording shouldn't be very controversial. WikiManOne 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks but unfortunately I've found another, and it may be a little more controversial. I've now read the 4 y.o. Salon item and can find nothing in it to verify that the calls are "recorded and edited to show ..." It may well be that they are selectively edited, but the source does not seem to say that. Even if it did, I think using the present tense based on a 4 y.o. source that was itself even then based on 4 y.o. tapes and transcripts is pushing things a bit - is it possible that selective editing goes on today? Sure. Is it verifiable? No. Unless I have misread the source, which is possible because it isn't great writing. I realise that someone was looking for a better source and there was some debate about Salon. I do not want to go through the whole debate again, but until something turns up which verifies that it has gone on then it cannot be said, and unless it verifies that it does go on then the sentence needs to be in the past tense. Yes? No? Sitush (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point. Would these two do anything to quell your worries? http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010047 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02parenthood.html?partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.thenation.com/article/158238/piling-against-planned-parenthood That's just a quick search.. I agree with your points otherwise... WikiManOne 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And another one, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/planned-parenthood-video_n_817001.html?ir=New%20York I'll let you add them or edit them if you don't mind. Another IP address that subsequently got banned is complaining about my edits to this page on the noticeboard. So that's the second one that accused me of crap then got banned. WikiManOne 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to judge, I'm afraid. As I've said before, I'm so far outside the controversy that I do not know what sources are reliable (if any). I mean, I would assume that the NYT would usually be reliable but on this particular issue I really wouldn't bet my house on it - the whole thing is so devisive. I understand your position re: not wanting to change to much but I am not the person to do this as I lack the necessary ability to weigh up sources etc. Hopefully someone else, better positioned than me, will pick up on it and either add a suitable source as per yours above or adjust the sentence per my comments. I don't mind being bold but I'm not prepared to be stupid. Sitush (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism

I can't believe there's no section on racism since their founder was an avowed racist eugenicist. I'll try write it up, and will use sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale to say that it does not constitute WP:UNDUE in relation to the current organization. If this was the case perhaps it should be added in the article on its predecessor organization. WikiManOne 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed before at length. Sanger's POV on eugenics reflects on her. Not the current organization.
So as a parallel example, if some editors of the United States article were to take a similar approach, we would have a large "criticism and controversy" section in the United States Article that comments on how the US was founded on racism and slavery because its Founding fathers owned slaves and enshrined that in Constitution's Three Fifths Compromise. We could also add that more than a few of founding fathers felt is was OK to own someone, whip them occasionally, rape the the women, and have children out of wedlock with them. So then we could say that the US was founded by white men who favored rape and illegitimate children. To support that, we can include quotes from fringe groups who claim the US was founded on all sorts of terrible things, equate the US with Nazis, or whoever else we don't like, and suggest that these past issues reflect on its current citizens, including NY Yankees fans.
Or we could recognize that it's a ridiculous editorial choice for both the United States, and Planned Parenthood articles to do that. 19:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that it reflects on her not the business as a whole, but pro-lifers use it that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. And our goal is to write a serious, encyclopedic article rather than echo the views of the pro-life lobby. So why should we harp on it, again? MastCell Talk 00:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but doesn't it at least warrant a link to the Sanger section? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There is one already, right at the top of the history section.Mattnad (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It does reflect more on Sanger than Planned Parenthood I suppose. I'd especially agree with it on Sanger's page, but am not sure it's prominent enough in relation to Planned Parenthood as a controversy. It does come up from time to time, but I don't see giving it more than a sentence or two of mention in the controversies section, certainly not much more than that. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Mieszkowski, Katharine (November 4, 2006). "Abortion foes' dirty tactics: Advocates of a California "parental notification" bill accuse Planned Parenthood of protecting sexual predators instead of teen girls. But who is really breaking the law?". Salon.com. Retrieved January 14, 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Pareen, Alex (February 1, 2011), "The weird, failed Planned Parenthood "sting"", Salon.com, retrieved February 2, 2011{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ a b c "History of Violence/Extreme Violence". National Abortion Federation (no date).
  4. ^ "Planned Parenthood Arson". wktr.com. May 12, 2007. Retrieved May 14, 2007.
  5. ^ Anthony Lonetree (January 23, 2009). "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility". Star Tribune. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
  6. ^ "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility." (January 23, 2009). "Minneapolis Star-Tribune." Retrieved January 27, 2009.
  7. ^ [1]
  8. ^ Pareen, Alex (February 1, 2011), "The weird, failed Planned Parenthood "sting"", Salon.com, retrieved February 2, 2011{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  9. ^ "Planned Parenthood Arson". wktr.com. May 12, 2007. Retrieved May 14, 2007.
  10. ^ Anthony Lonetree (January 23, 2009). "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility". Star Tribune. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
  11. ^ "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility." (January 23, 2009). "Minneapolis Star-Tribune." Retrieved January 27, 2009.
  12. ^ Pareen, Alex (February 1, 2011), "The weird, failed Planned Parenthood "sting"", Salon.com, retrieved February 2, 2011{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  13. ^ "Planned Parenthood Arson". wktr.com. May 12, 2007. Retrieved May 14, 2007.
  14. ^ Anthony Lonetree (January 23, 2009). "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility". Star Tribune. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
  15. ^ "Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility." (January 23, 2009). "Minneapolis Star-Tribune." Retrieved January 27, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive_3&oldid=1137088203"