Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Ridiculous

The section has all mention of controversies removed by an edit to prevent mention of them in a clearly POV manner, and attempts to prevent mention of controversies to buy Planned Parenthood time until the current news relevance has passed. Those denying any form of bias here are clearly dishonest. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The new section clearly spends as much time bashing the pro-life movement with the Bush mention, and citing an erroneous claim about pro-life violence without mentioning the pro-choice violence (even though this is supposedly controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement - meaning the mention is out of place and useless), as it does anything else. It has no bearing on anything controversial to Planned Parenthood, removing all useful information related to Planned Parenthood controversies, and is meant to make the page nothing more than an advertisement for Planned Parenthood. No one in their sane mind would consider this a suitable replacement for the prior controversies section. I would hope whatever editor made the protection will have their Wikipedia membership revoked to avoid what is otherwise bias at the administrative level. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again with not assuming good faith, there is a discussion occurring above on improving the controversy section, feel free to WP:CIVILly participate and help collaborate to improve coverage of this topic on wikipedia. Are we to assume you want to bash Planned Parenthood? _WikiMan^One 03:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone as far as good faith allows. The edit in question is without a doubt vandalism, and has been reported on the noticeboards now as such. I have stated my intentions as merely wanting controversy reported objectively, which you and I both know your edit does not do. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove all mention of controversy about an institution you yourself admit you're a political donor to. You are abusing administrative privileges to block the page after making an edit that not only removes all mention of past controversies, but states lies to protect the organization in apologetic fashion, and as I said, making the page effectively an advertisement for Planned Parenthood. The bias is too blatant and obvious for you to possibly expect me or anyone else to be blind to, and I'm maintaining the most civil tone I can in expressing this, on the off chance anyone else has even the slightest doubts as to what is going on. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what the administrators do with the notice then. Until then, can we collaborate on expanding the mention of the "stings" to allow for an even more NPOV discussion? _WikiMan^One 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is zero NPOV in your edit as compared to the one it replaced. It was intended to remove all mention of controversies from the page in light of the recent controversy and potential public scrutiny. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I get as annoyed by Conservapedia's bias that occurs on the opposite pole as I do the bias happening here. Bias is bias, regardless of side, and wrong no matter whose politics are causing the discriminatory abuse of administrative privilege. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on Anon editors concern above that "The new section clearly spends as much time bashing the pro-life movement with the Bush mention.." Including the finding of an official Bush government investigation is not bashing anyone. It just discredits claims by some fringe groups that Planned Parenthood condones or commits certain crimes. GWB was a pro-life president who wasn't shy about restricting access to abortion (see Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act). I'm sure if they had found something wrong, they would have acted on it. It's pretty compelling that a pro-life president did not find the same wrong-doing that these groups did. If anything, it speaks to the integrity of both Planned Parenthood and some of it's Pro-life opponents. But again, it's not "bashing."Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this mention of such a Bush investigation would be a new mention. It's only mentioned briefly in the Salon article given as its source, which I'm not convinced is reliable. I'm having trouble finding this investigation referenced anywhere else on the web. Are there any other sources that mention this finding? If we're going to be making this a key part of the new section, it would be nice to have it prominently sourced, which right now, it isn't. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I say this because the Bush investigation was not mentioned in the section prior to mid January, looking at the page's history, when it was an added by an IP user. The Salon article touches on the investigation only briefly in one paragraph, and I'd like to see it mentioned elsewhere as having found nothing to verify this is the case. Right now I'm having trouble figuring out the name of the investigation or verifying it occurred at all. If there are other sources to support this I'd appreciate seeing them posted. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Salon is a mainstream online news magazine with editors who follow standard journalistic practice. It completely qualifies as a reliable source. I'll add that Salon was the only reliable (i.e., non-partisan, third-party) source that actually tracked this story in such detail. That you cannot find something online, as a google search does not mean it does not exist. The fact that the study did not advance the Bush administrations cause would make it likely they did not release this study to the press and quietly filed it. My speculation aside, probably the main reason you can't find it is that it's named something aside from the topic you're looking for and only available in paper copy. Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Salon is reliable, making it sound like it isn't is petty. Yes, we should find more sources for the "controversies" as I stated above... I strongly disagree with removing mention of pro-life violence from the controversy section, of course it should be included, it is fully verifiable and a single sentence on it does not constitute undue weight in any way, and it does not violate WP:BITR. Is it a valid controversy? Absolutely, in any other article, having people vandalize your buildings would be worth mentioning, I don't see why it shouldn't be here. _WikiMan^One 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of POV terms

The term "pro-life" is used by anti-abortion activists; a more neutral term is "anti-abortion". We should consider replacing all occurrences. I've changed a section head and an opening sentence to give a flavor of how the resulting text would read. --TS 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at Talk:Pro-life, if you want to change it I suggest you involve yourself in that discussion (which I started, but trying to untangle myself from...) Agree btw, but sometimes compromise is needed to achieve consensus. _WikiMan^One 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the most neutral term, all things considered, is "Pro-Life". Do we really want to go down the "Pro-Choice" is "Pro-Abortion" debate again? There was a long-standing equilibrium where we use the terms that each group refers to themselves.Mattnad (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it as pro-life per WM1 & Mattnad's points - this issue has been done over here. Personally, I'm losing the will to live. Sitush (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed specifically in regards to this article here and here... "pro-life" is definitely the way to go unless the "pro-life" article is renamed. _WikiMan^One 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No problems. It doesn't do any harm that those considering such a change might now see this recent discussion with WikiManOne's links to the archive, his reference to an ongoing discussion at Talk:Pro-life, and Mattnad's concurrence with WikiManOne. Thanks for your patient explanations. --TS 20:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

General Improvement

Since the whole "controversy" fiasco seems to be behind us with the banning of the IP address, I would like to start collaborating on general improvement to the article... Planned Parenthood has a rich history of providing services to low income woman (and men) and opening up access to new care which this article seems to avoid mentioning. Any collaboration and comments on this is appreciated. _WikiMan^One 17:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose removing the following sentence? "Pro-life groups have long advocated the boycott of these private organizations." It has been in the article for quite a while and nobody has found a link. Unless someone wants it in there and has a citation, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. _WikiMan^One 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is easily cited. You don't request a cite and remove the sentence within only a couple days. Sentence replaced.Marauder40 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source or independent. I'm concerned it constitutes undue weight, sentence removed. _WikiMan^One 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is one sentence, not undue weight it is POV not to list it. All you are citing is the fact that people have requested boycotts. That site is reliable enough to state that.I have added another cite for the same exact thing. All you are establishing is that pro-life groups have requested boycotts. That is easy to cite and you can use a prolife cite as the proof of that. Also placing the word "attacks" on a paragraph dealing with something that doesn't even call the stings "attacks" is adding your own POV.Marauder40 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Another comment about recent changes to the article. Right now there are two different pictures of women carrying the same exact sign. One is standing in front of the Supreme Court the other in Ohio. One of the two pictures needs to go or be changed to something else.Marauder40 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don'g have a dog in using the word attacks, but "stings" lends credibility to what has been described as hoaxes by multiple independent publications. Perhaps we should use the word stings and then clarify they're often viewed as hoaxes? I fail to see how having a few pro-life groups asking to boycott an organization that is not the subject of this page because of association is due weight. That should be on the Gates Foundation page, not the Planned Parenthood page. Reverted. _WikiMan^One 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions for a better picture we can use? Global Catholic News is not an independent nor reliable source, also, who is this Life Decisions International? They're not notable enough to have their own article so why should actions they take be listed? _WikiMan^One 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Got to be honest, every anti-abortion/pro-life group I've ever heard of is campaigning for boycotts as part of their wider strategy. I find it hard to believe there are no decent citations out there to confirm this in relation to PP. I know my experience is unencyclopaedic but, honestly, there is a decent cite out there, got to be. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, then lets find a good citation. I'm thinking along the lines of NYT, WP, LA Times, or something of that nature to prove its notability... (or Times of London for that matter..) _WikiMan^One 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Changing the work from "stings" to "attacks" is clearly POV. The word attack does not appear in any of the references or in the paragraph. Having the title of the section "attacks" is incorrect and POV. You don't understand about the sources. All you have to do is source the fact that groups have called for boycotts. You could use the groups own page as a source. There are hundereds of sources saying that Pro-life groups have advocated boycotting PP. Its just finding the right one that fits. Removing the sentence before giving people time to find a cite is not collabrative editing.Marauder40 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mark that as citation needed, someone else did. That's ridiculous, of course you need an independent reliable source, perhaps you should read up at WP:RS. Having some organization's website talking about a boycott is undue weight, we need a independent reliable source. I'm looking for one as we speak.. _WikiMan^One 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of citing. If all you are doing is citing that a group has called for a boycott, you can cite that page directly. The EWTN cite was an appropriate cite. This sentence is very easy to find a cite, but removing the sentence completely is whitewashing things.Marauder40 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is mute, I have an article from the NYT, see how easy that was? _WikiMan^One 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mute or moot ? <g> I'd prefer an independent cite because it would avoid arguments about COI. Even though in all probability a newspaper would just regurgitate the press release. But there'll be nothing about PP in the London Times - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, the question is the wording.. There aren't any reliable independent sources reporting on this since 1990. I'm going to try to tweak the wording to reflect that. _WikiMan^One 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Now for the section "Attacks by Pro-life activists" Can you point out where the word "attacks" is used anywhere in the paragraph or the references. The title is POV and needs changed. Whether it be stings or "stings" or the title totally removed is fine, but in its current form it is POV.Marauder40 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I do note that the perpetrator of these hoaxes calls herself in a revolution and such. I don't have a problem with replacing the word "attacks," I do have a problem with replacing it with a word that gives the so called "stings" any sort of credibility however. _WikiMan^One 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation problem: the sentence immediately before the one marked as not cited that I just added a citation for only has a citation from world net daily: clearly not a reliable source. Can we find a better source for that? Otherwise it has to go. _WikiMan^One 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

[ec] you lot type too fast. Found that quote a few mins ago. Looking for something newer. How about "opposes"? Can it be made to work? Sitush (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Use "action" for both "attacks" and "stings" Sitush (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Good idea, change made. _WikiMan^One 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Better. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on filling out the history section. Any npov help is appreciated. _WM^O 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On second though, new section would be good I guess... _WM^O 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is fair!

Why does it talk so much about the videos? What about the lifesaving work that Planned Parenthood regularly performs for woman? The whole article is written like an attack that tries very hard to look neutral and falls flat on its face. Who gaf that prolife groups want to boycott donors? Who gaf that people don't like abortions and want to hurt people that do them? Why not talk about all the good their clinics do for so many people. This article needs a complete rewrite to avoid its current negative pov against planned parenthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.135 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What?? I realize wiki is a world wide site but I don't get at all what you are saying "gaf"?. There is one section talking about the current video issue In the whole article. Did you read the whole thing or just that one section? The article has been under quite a bit of reworking as of late. But a complete rewrite? Ok good luck with that...63.163.213.249 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

lol, gaf=gives a fu*k.. I saw this comment but wasn't sure how to respond.. I do want to increase coverage of other issues as I do still think undue weight is given to the "stings" or "videos" but that is not the fault of the controversy section but the lack of other sections. Any additions to the article should be to other sections. _WM^O 03:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The most important question will be whether these "sting" operations reveal illegal activity or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The current controversy section is the result of hard fought discussion and consensus. Please wait at least a few weeks before opening that can of worms again to give us time to improve and expand the rest of the article? Thanks. _WM^O 04:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is welcome to help fill out these other sections, help improve wikipedia rather than just making sure your pov is represented. :) _WM^O 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Book

http://books.google.com/books?id=mVEvGtopc2EC - This book seems like it could be a good source for this and other articles, does anyone happen to have it? _WM^O 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

History section

This is my next project... if anyone would like to help out in filling it out and finding reliable sources, your help will be much appreciated. _WM^O 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The typical history that Planned Parenthood wants to present. Totally ignore the portions related to the Birth Control Federation of America and the "Negro Project". http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html and whitewashing Margaret Sanger as if she is a hero and not a major proponent of negative eugenics. Typical revisionist history. And before you doubt the source, it is used by the Sanger article. Marauder40 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That stuff is all unproven WP:FRINGE theories, this article already has a very large criticism section. _WM^O 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Type in "racism" in the archive search, there is consensus against including that stuff. _WM^O 19:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't fringe, it's truth. You can find things written by Sanger herself that state it. Even PP members themselves in the know admit to it but write it off as the early days or just ideas of the founder that aren't followed anymore. That still doesn't mean it didn't happen. And as far as the archives, that doesn't matter as you well state consensus can change. And it looks like consensus is just you and two other people a couple weeks ago. That doesn't equal consensus.Marauder40 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Three previous discussions all ended with the decision to not include it. It might be due weight on Sanger's article, but certainly not on the article of America's seventh largest charity. _WM^O 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there wasn't a detailed history section at that point. Now there is, you opened up a bag of worms by adding more history. You don't just add the History that sounds good and forget the rest. The Birth Control Federation of America also existed and was one of the merged organizations that became Planned Parenthood. This history of the BCFA is the history of Planned Parenthood, you can't seperate the two. Notice I am not including the parts that are specific to Sanger herself. Marauder40 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Negro Project, instigated in 1939 by Margaret Sanger, was one of the first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), the product of a merger between the American Birth Control League and Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and one of the more controversial campaigns of the birth control movement. " sounds more like the BCFA became Planned Parenthood, not ABCL. Another RS of that information. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_bcfa.htmlMarauder40 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of what you added is incorrect.

Sanger served as president from 1921 until her resignation on June 12, 1928 over administrative differences with Acting President Eleanor Dwight Jones, a desire to concentrate on birth control research and clinical service at the CRB, and her increased interest in international work. After her resignation, Sanger assumed full control of the CRB, renaming it the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), and severed all legal ties with the ABCL. In 1939, the ABCL merged with the BCCRB to form the Birth Control Federation of America, which in 1942 changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Marauder40 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to check my sources, and no that is original research and undue weight. _WM^O 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the source. It is definitly a reliable source. "The Margaret Sanger Papers Project is a historical editing project sponsored by the Department of History at New York University. The Project was formed by Dr. Esther Katz in 1985 to locate, arrange, edit, research, and publish the papers of the noted birth control pioneer." This is definitly not a pro-life. I think you better check your sources.Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why all that isn't on this page, which is the history of Planned Parenthood: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_ppfa.html My sources are all clearly listed and are reliable. Three previous discussions have occurred and all came to the conclusion that this was undue, and that is not based on the size of the history section, which is still incomplete I might add. There is consensus to the current controversy section, adding controversies that were omitted from that section under the guise of history is inappropriate. _WM^O 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can read in the papers linked to by Maurauder40, it would seem that the Negro Project was an outreach program that seemed to do some good, and that Sanger had some possibly (but not certainly) race-specific agendas. But the article also points out that it's debatable whether or not she was actually a racist. For the purposes of the Planned Parenthood history section, we can certainly mention it, so long as we include context. But it's actually only a small part of Planned Parenthoods history which is why it's not in the mail NYU history of planned parenthood. I'm actually not understanding why we'd make more of it than that.Mattnad (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The dates and organization I list are provided in WikiManOne's page on the NYU page. The only thing missing is the reference to the Negro project, which is on other pages. ALL things that I reference are from the same site that you give from NYU. This isn't controversies it is history, there is a major difference. You seem to require everything to be fully flushed out for POV before adding them on other sites, don't like your own medicine. Based on your own link it shows your history of where PP came from in the article is wrong. The Negro project was a major project that was instituted by the immediate predicessor to PP. That makes it history, not Fringe, not contraversy.Marauder40 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Before its added, I think its controversial enough that the proposal should be made on the talk page and throughly discussed before being added, like Mattnad said, the project is a small part of PP's history and did some good, this is similar to the example where George Washington's racism is mentioned in his article but not the United States article. If included at all, it needs to be very brief, with both sides and not undue weight or orginial research. I used reliable books which are clearly cited in line, if you don't like what they say go talk to the publishers, we don't do orginal research and we don't look for "truth" we look for third party/independent/neutral/non-primary/non-original/reliable verifiability. _WM^O 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can find several "histories" of PP that say your version of who and what became PP is wrong. All of them state something similar to "In 1939, the ABCL merged with the BCCRB to form the Birth Control Federation of America, which in 1942 changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federationof America." ABCL did not become Planned Parenthood. BCFA did. Your source is wrong. The NYU site is a reliable source and is not original research. Either you copied it wrong, interpretted it wrong or something. And just because you read a book doesn't mean every item in the book is exactly correct.Marauder40 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Three books all published by reliable publishers, I don't see what the problem is. NYU is providing primary sources in general, furthermore, if these frivolous accusations of racism are so notable, then why are they not included in NYU's history of Planned Parenthood. If you want to write an article about whatever organization that Planned Parenthood supposedly originated fro that was racist, then do it, but it doesn't belong in the Planned Parenthood article. Not even your NYU source adds it to their Planned Parenthood page. _WM^O 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, the last we went through this the outcome was that what Margaret Sanger said regarding race etc was better to be the subject of a Sanger article than here, with an appropriate link. I see nothing to change that view. Marauder40, there is no doubt that you hold strong negative views of PP. This is evident from numerous of your recent postings here. You are, of course, entitled to those views but WP is not a soapbox. Personally, I have no views on PP at all, for or against, so you can treat me as being a neutral outsider in this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The only place I mentioned Sanger's racism was in the first comment. The rest of the stuff is based on the actual history of the organization. The Negro Project is part of that history. This is not soapbox it is fact. Now for a portion due to (ec) At question right now is your sources for your history. Could you provide the exact quote you used as your source. The following quote shows how things can be taken out of context and misunderstood.

In 1921 Margaret Sanger founded the national lobbying organization, American Birth Control League (ABCL) which in 1942 became Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Between 1921 and 1942 the organization underwent two transformations. In 1923 Sanger opened the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB) for the purposes of dispensing contraceptives under the supervision of licensed physicians and studying their effectiveness. The ABCL provided institutional backing for clinics. The BCCRB merged with the ABCL in 1939 to form the Birth Control Federation of American (BCFA). In 1942 the name of the BCFA was changed to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you just read the first line you would think ABCL became PP. If you read the rest of the paragraph you find out it wasn't that way. If you look at the detailed history Sanger left ABCL over differences. Marauder40 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

break

I'd agree that most of the criticism is targeted at Sanger, and not what the Negro Project actually tried to do (provide contraception to women who wanted it). The fact that the project was endorsed by some black institutions and intellectuals would suggest that they perceived the intent as positive. And I'll be honest that I'm not following the discussion about which organization became what etc. etc.Mattnad (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that early civil rights leaders didn't consider Planned Parenthood racist. Martin Luther King was in the first batch of recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award, somehow I doubt he would accept an award named after a racist who wanted to kill his people. _WM^O 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk about original research and speculation. The niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King addresses those issues every year. Here is just one place that covered her remarks. I am not saying that should be added since the the MLK Jr. statement is OR anyway. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/planned_parenthood_is_lying_about_mlk_alveda_king_charges/ Mattnad, can you show where other then the first statement where I addressed Sanger's eugenics belifs. At no time did I say she was racist. Racist comment has only come from people other then me. All along I have only been advocating correcting the history to reflect the actual flow of changes of organizations and inclusion of the Negro project since the organization that directly became PP (through just a name change) was responsible for it. I will come up with something that includes the Negro Project. Marauder40 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the negro project more notable than the other projects that Planned Parenthood has participated in over the years? Here you have three editors who don't seem to support your additions and yet you insist on adding this undue stuff to the history. If we do that every program Planned Parenthood has done needs to be covered, not just the questionable ones. Also, not going to get into an argument about King, but this newspaper article published then seems to disagree with his disgruntled relative. [1] _WM^O 21:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Edit 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Marauder40, but I am not incorrect. You have made your position clear to me in your comments in the General Improvement and Abby Johnson sections. You are trying to turn round something upon which consensus was reached only a couple of weeks ago. It is ridiculous. Give it six months, fine; but two weeks or less is just a waste of everyone's time.

BTW, I changed "jailing" for something else and it has been changed back. US English has some peculiar grammatical structures. Jail is a noun, if you are put in it then you are jailed. Jailing would be the process (you did walk, you are walking etc). Don't understand how it can be otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I changes was from "resulted in her be jailed", perhaps you meant to write "resulted in her being jailed"Mattnad (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make that change. _WM^O 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. I'm struggling to keep up here. Going to walk away for a bit cos I'm getting a bit fed up of seeing modern history repeating itself quite so soon. And edit conflicts getting in the way. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh, four editors discussing something on a vague tangent from what I am taling about doesn't make consensus. That is far from being consensus. Interesting that you bring up those other conversations considering in one I agree with the majority and in the other my changes still stand except where I agreed with the change brought by another editor. Pot call kettle. Marauder40 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) +

(ec)You seem to be covering several projects in your version of the History. The Negro Project has been covered by many organizations. And what does it matter if 3 editors view it one way, its like you act like you have consensus just based on three editors that are viewing the page at this moment. One of the other editors even mentioned the possability of adding the Negro Project. You seem to be afraid of it, even thoough it supposedly had good aspects associated with it. It is clear POV to avoid things just because it may reflect a little bad on the organization. The Negro Project was in progress at the start of the organization. It has weight associated with it, whether or not revisionist history people agree or not.Marauder40 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maraunder, we just discussed this two weeks ago as Sitush says, there's no reason to open it up so soon. If you want to add it, give us a few weeks at least. The negro project is not a very notable part in the history of the organization, not in neutral histories, not in news accounts, not in its own history, its just not a big deal. Not even NYU mentioned it in their page on Planned Parenthood. There is no consensus for its addition, it is undue weight and POV pushing. _WM^O 21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because something vaguely related to it was discussed two weeks ago (and archived by an overly agressive archiver) by 4 editors doesn't mean it can't be discussed now. That is a far cry from a consensus. At no time am I saying the Sanger's quotes have to be added. Are you so blind to this?Marauder40 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's work on adding uncontroversial items to the article for now since this article just went through a major controversy to give time to build up the other areas of the article without adding more controversies, questionings, etc. This page is auto-archived. So what exactly are you proposing other than to add controversial material about a "Negro Project" that is not covered in most major histories of the organization? We just discussed all this two weeks ago, why open the can of worms again? _WM^O 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't "vaguely discussed" - check the archives. And it wasn't four editors, ditto - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see the quote that started it was "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. " Does that mention anything about the Negro Project? Does that mention anything about an issue with the organization listed that became PP? Sounds like a vague tangent to me. As for the number of editors NYyankees51, WikiManOne, MastCell, Mattnad and an IP editor. I guess if you technically count the IP editor you get five. I should have said 4 establish editors. You can't say "We talked about something contraversial 2 weeks ago so now we can't talk about anything contraversial." Marauder40 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal then? Why is the "Negro Project" more notable than other projects that are mentioned in the article? It seems to be clearly pushing to include information that's favorable to your POV. How would we do that, have a paragraph in the history section talking about the project, making it then the only project with its own paragraph while we omit information about much more notable projects/initiatives the organization has done? Perhaps we could also make a section on Planned Parenthood's initiative celebrating the 50th anniversary of the pill? I didn't include that because it could be seen as POV pushing, there are many, many projects/initiatives like this that Planned Parenthood has supported over the years, why should this one be mentioned but not the others? _WM^O 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with WikiManOne's attempt, yet again, to find reconciliation on this issue I am afraid that I cannot let drop the fact that Marauder40 is mis-stating things. Just the archived section on Sanger/eugenics (which was pretty much based on the racist argument) involved the following editors, and I may have missed some: 12.144.50.194, 68.83.86.152, JimScott, Kasreyn, romarin, Fwend, Lyrl, Killua, Neitherday, MisterSquirrel, Sfmammamia, Wafulz. I will now go back to the much calmer waters of medieval Welsh history and Mancunian industrial companies ... - Sitush (talk)

You are including a different discussion, not the one that WikiManOne referenced in regards to racism. As I said before, just because another discussion happened on contraversal things doesn't mean you can't discuss other contraversial things. No where in the previous disucssion did the Negro project turn up. Nowhere did a discussion about the history section being wrong turn up. When WikimanOne expanded the history section he opened up his expansions for review and the possability that more history is needed. Only now after many rounds of talking has WikiManOne even sort of given an olive branch. It seems the same standards he wants for others editing articles like Lila Rose he doesn't want applied to "his" article. Just the fact that the history section without the mention of the Negro project can't be reconciled to the actual history of Planned Parenthood shows an entrenchment by an owner of a page. This sentence "In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s. By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients. In 1942 the League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America." is similar to in the US article saying the "Central portion of the US landmass became the United States of America" and leaving out much of the history. Either the source used is wrong or it is inappropriatly used in the article. Several reliable sources disagree. Marauder40 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal to make: the Negro Project seems to be a relevant part of Planned Parenthood's history, but right now the history section is very high level and it would stand out as an overweight detail absent of other material. I can see adding some mention to it provided we also include other important details to bring the history one notch deeper across the board.Mattnad (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to go down that route sections like the "Gloria Feldt" section would have to be trimmed. The section is not very high level and contains much of the same "overweight" detail that the alleged section on the Negro Project would contain. However the high level view still needs correction because the first paragraph is incorrect in the development of what became Planned Parenthood.Marauder40 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that the Felt section is overweight by much - the Negro Project was really short lived - a tiny blip in the history of the organization, whereas Felt was active for a decade.Mattnad (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't say mentioning her at all wasn't appropriate just the level of detail needs to be trimmed. Right now the history section is a ra, ra, look at how great we are section. With huge level of detail on good things. If the level of detail stays that high on the good things the same level of detail needs to be made on bad things in the history. Just like you can say she was there for 10 years. The Negro Project was one of the founding projects that was in place when PP was created. So either the level of detail of the rest of the history section needs to decrease or other things need to be added for NPOV. Looking at it again, the details of Guttmacher are overweight as well. Marauder40 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Using his own references "The moral property of women: ..."

In 1938, the birth control movement reunified, bringing Margaret Sanger's friends and enemies together in the Birth Control Federation of America, which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.It was the only national birth control organization until the abortion reform movement that began...

Page 242. This clearly shows that the section talking about the beginning of PP is wrong. The merged organization (BCFA) became the only birth control organization, not ABCL. This seems like a clear case of misinterpretting the sources.Marauder40 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

break

How is Guttmacher overweight? That is not a small project like the short lived Negro Project, it is still around today now as a separate organization with its own wikipedia page. I don't see how that inclusion is overweight. As Sitush stated, Marauder is here to try to make Planned Parenthood look as bad as possible therefore demanding the inclusion of items that are not notable simply because they often are viewed negatively. Comparing the Guttmacher Institute with the Negro Project is rather laughable. I don't believe you're going to be able to overrule consensus here. Consensus is that it is not unbalanced as you can see from the three editors who disagree with you. _WM^O 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some pro-life organizations have lobbied federal lawmakers to halt government funding for Planned Parenthood.[28]"

I removed this sentence as it constitutes undue weight, the section is not about what fringe groups think, that's the controversy section, that section is about funding of Planned Parenthood's funding. If there are controversies surrounding the funding that are worth inclusion they belong in the controversy section. We don't want every section of the article to include information about criticism from these groups, that is undue. _WM^O 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Criticism as much as possible is supposed to be integrated within the article. It isn't just some fringe groups that are calling for boycotts, removing funding, etc. Your claims are unfounded. Removing long standing sourced information is clear POV.Marauder40 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:WEIGHT? We've already removed a bunch of "long standing sourced information" with consensus from the article because it was undue weight. That isn't an argument for inclusion when its undue. I don't see how this is any different from the others. This is part of a previous effort by editors to include as much criticism about the subject as possible. Its removal is long overdue. _WM^O 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have heard of WP:WEIGHT and you are using inappropriately. If I had several lines that dealt with it, it would be undue weight, right now it isn't. It is an established fact that organizations are trying to get PP funding removed both by going after federal funding and after donations. To leave that fact out is POV. It all deals with funding. Marauder40 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some fringe groups are, that falls under WP:FRINGE as well. But I think I made edits that may be okay, more work is needed on the second one though. _WM^O 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP policy does it say that "criticism as much as possible is supposed to be integrated within" an article? Does policy even say that one of the purposes of WP is to criticise? FWIW, having a section on it makes a lot more sense to me than a scatter-gun approach, which could very easily give the impression of POV. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the following person said it best

In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.– Jimbo WalesMarauder40 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that policy? Jimbo is merely saying that one way is usually better than the other, but not always - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not policy because you can't remove all the crit sections. Sometimes it makes sense to have one in an article. But it is highly suggested that as much crit type stuff be in the actual content of the article because it makes for better writing styles and gets rid of vandalism magnets. Take a look at the WP:CRITS guidelines. This is perfect example. The undercover operations don't really fit in with the other topics in the article so it needs its own section. Funding things can easily be incorporated into funding sections since they are related. Marauder40 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your removal of both this edit and the largest abortion provider lines clearly shows you are editing in a POV manner. The fact that they are THE LARGEST provider of surgical abortions is a different fact then the fact then the 3% fact. Clearly trying to hide the fact that they are the largest provider of abortions in the US. The The Christian Action Council isn't the only organization that has called for boycotts. Unlike you, I will not resort to an edit war (or masked edit wars), but if the information does not reappear I will take the entire article as POV. Marauder40 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not POV, abortions account for only 3% of Planned Parenthood services, coverage of abortions in the article should reflect that to retain due weight and neutral point of view. That can be re-added once the services section is expanded to have coverage of all the other services Planned Parenthood provides. _WM^O 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Since we have a section for criticism and controversy, one would think that this would fall under it if were included. That said, wikipedia is not the news. If congress actually withholds money from PP, then I would think it's worth including since it's a major event. But I think it's OK to wait on it until it gets there, if at all. Mattnad (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is the largest, and there are citations for it, then I see no harm in including that fact in one sentence. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a valid cite for it and they are. It is pretty simple. Not stating it is clear POV.Marauder40 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why so much focus on abortions? That's more info about abortions than any other single service Planned Parenthood provides despite it only being 3% of the services (including counseling) that they provide. It seems to be a clear cut case of too much emphasis on abortion issues. I agree with Mattnad that the controversies on federal funding isn't notable. _WM^O 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Due to the fact that they are the largest provider. Also many contest their 3% figure, and if we are getting technical your 3% figure is directly from PP so based on your evaluations of RS for sources other then your own it shouldn't be included since it isn't 3rd party. Many people that I know have issues with PPs reporting of their own numbers. It is common for them to lump numbers into different categories. As for the fact that many lobby against PP funding is not undue weight. It comes up all the time, especially during the health care debates.Marauder40 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that it was not reliably sourced, I've added a CNN.com article as a source which I believe is reliable. So the figure should be pretty uncontroversial now, its reported all over the neutral press. Just because something comes up doesn't mean anything, the Westboro Baptist Church comes up in the news all the time, that doesn't mean that every time they protest something their protest needs to be added to the subject's article. There's already enough mention of fringe groups in this article that are out to shut down the subject. _WM^O 19:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the link you added for the 3% is still not reliable, take a took at the entire sentence in your reference it specifically says the 3% is "according to statistics posted on its site". So they are using the figure directly from PP. Thus not 3rd party.Marauder40 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is a fact then it is a fact, and while 3% of PP's operations may not be much it certainly seems a significant piece of info that they are the largest provider (if they indeed are such). But yet again Marauder40's wording in these discussions demonstrates to me that there is some POV-pushing going on here. I'm happy to see anything added which conforms to policy, and anything removed which does not. I think that it is about time you nailed your colours to the mast, Marauder, because you seem intent on getting as much criticism into this thing as you can, regardless of WP policy and both recent and current consensus. Tbh, it is all a bit tiresome after recent events & I get the distinct impression that there is an element of "give him an inch and he'll take a foot" going on, on both sides of this discussion. Sitush (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So what I am doing here is POV pushing. How about getting a very POV article to actually be NPOV. The article as is reads like an advertisement for PP, not an article about it. Right now it is hiding a major portion of its past, includes incorrect information on where it came from. It sounds more POV on your end. WP is about groups coming together to reach consensus. Sounds like you are more into taking sides and winning instead of trying to create a balanced article instead of a PP puff piece. I am working within the system. Is everyone?Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just said that the "largest provider of abortions" thing should go in if it can be cited per policy. Find that citation. And previously I have edited several bits to remove problems which were POV on both "sides" of the discussion. What is your problem? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break, funding discussion

You are talking about me "POV-pushing" and nailing my color on the mast and you ask what is my problem. The original quote was cited. It should go back in as it was. I saw your edits triming down the POV language and they were fine, but it doesn't mean that what you did was create a NPOV article. I don't get upset, but it seems like others on here have.Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Marander, you should take a look at WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rather than attacking other people's work, and bringing up issues that were already settled by consensus two weeks ago (!!!!), perhaps taking a step back and working to improve non-controversial coverage of the organization would be helpful. Also, if you are looking for a article that reads like an advertisement, try the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates article, a clearly pov pushing article. _WM^O 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not making it a battleground. I have been working within the contraversial sections of WP for a few years now and have never had any issues. This sounds like a typical "lets silence the opposition" move instead of trying to work together for consensus. Who is trying to create a battleground? Someone here is blind to my suggestions if they can't even see the fact that the first paragraph of history is totally incorrect. I even used YOUR source to show it. As I said before your two weeks ago discussion was about something different. Just because you talked about something two weeks ago that was a different topic but related doesn't mean you get a hall pass to never again talk about criticism again. You seem to want different standards for this page and the other pages you are editing. Suggestion denyed.Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the reason I'm not going mad editing to get a NPOV situation is because this article is unstable at the momeny. Let it settle down, which was the original consensus. Plus, of course, I am too far away to appreciate the detail. Although, that can be a blessing as I see it with neutral eyes. I'm not upset. I was "wound up" yesterday and walked away for a bit because of it. I explained why that was so and it remains the case. With things as they are, including big restructuring and edits going on, like trying to hit a moving target. Let it settle and then list all of the perceived issues. Would that not make more sense? I Do think you are biased and, as I've said before, you are entitled to your opinion. I think WM1 is biased also. It's just that WM1 is doing "new" stuff and you are, generally, raking over old coals which have already been discussed either in detail or broadly. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the largest abortion provider statement along with the fact that it is the largest family planning provider in general to the article per the consensus on this page. _WM^O 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

When I say "biased" for WM1, I mean he has a stated viewpoint on his user page. In your case, it seems to me to be a desire to get your viewpoint into the article. Which is a different thing. It gets me a bit concerned that you have been dealing with controversial articles for years: are you seeking problems? How about drafting me a replacement lead section and I'll take a look at it? Neutrally, of course. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)A new history section was added and "under construction" tags were removed. I did nothing until then. Before I even did any research I knew the first paragraph was WRONG, not even a POV issue just wrong. After looking up the references I know for a fact it is wrong and have been trying to point it out as such. If you want one person to work on it they should do the work in their own user space. If it is here we work within consensus and get comments from others. But consensus does not equal 4 editors talking with each other. You are supposed to have a thick skin on here. Things like BRD (even though it isn't official policy) should be followed at all times since this is a contraversial section. It sounds like WikiManOne wants one set of rules for this page and another set of rules for all the other pages he works on. I have been discussing things like the Negro project but totally get shut down before I even make a proposal. It is possible to work with people on the other "side" to come to a NPOV article. I have done it on several articles. You comment on what I have/haven't added I have been discussing my changes, not doing wholesale changes without input. Sounds like the collabrative model to me.Marauder40 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As to your question about whether I am looking for confrontation by working in the contraversial issues or something? No, it just so happens that topics like religion, politics, etc. interest me. I don't have any interest in the Britnay Spears, pop-culture, etc. sections, these are the sections I work in, research for, and do work in. I am never angry or upset while editing. It takes a lot to actually upset me, so if you ever think I am being angry in a response to you, re-read it from a AGF perspective.Marauder40 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the first paragraph of the history section before the major edit:

"Planned Parenthood traces its origins to 1916 when Margaret Sanger opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. The organization began as the American Birth Control League and was incorporated in 1923. The League was influential with laws concerning birth control throughout the 1920s and 1930s. In 1942 the League was reorganized as Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc."

You don't seem to have complained then, and it would have been a bigger issue then as it was the main paragraph in the history. _WM^O 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it has only been since you added the history section that I came to this article. Maybe your adding of the history section prompted me to re-research my memory of the history of PP. Marauder40 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So are you going to do a draft lead or not? If the existing one is so wrong, as you claim, then that is the solution, surely? Sitush (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping WikimanOne would see that he made a mistake and I would give him the courtesy to correct it. Maybe tomorrow if he hasn't fixed it I will do that for you.Marauder40 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break 2, funding dicussion

I really do not care whose "mistake" it was. If it is wrong then it needs fixing. I don't think WM1 is going to go mad about seeing someone else's draft. Then we can hopefully move forward. I'll research whatever you provide, being the one who is remote from this entire issue (UK, no view at all on childbirth/conception matters etc). How does that sound? Surely better than nitpicking over odd sentences when your real issue that that the entire lead is wrong. Sitush (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He can write a draft if he wants, I've already been working on a proposal for a redoing of the first sentence paragraph of the history section but if he wants to do it and then have a full discussion over the proposal, then I'm all for that. _WM^O 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought you would be amenable to the proposal.So now the ball is in Marauder40's court. Marauder, are you up for it? No rush but at least let's refrain from further discussion on this point until you have produced a draft - my mind is getting boggled <g> - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's remove the tag from the article also... I guess there is also agreement between Sitush, Mattnad and myself that the Negro Project is not notable, with only one person (Maraunder) supporting inclusion, so consensus is that it should not be not included _WM^O 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove the tag as I said below it hasn't been settled to my satisfaction. And 3 editors editing at this particular momment do not equal consensus. I will do the edit tomorrow. My day is almost over and this isn't my 9 to 5 job ;) Marauder40 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Last time I read the guidelines, I don't believe there was a guideline that stated that one editor could hold an article hostage against consensus of all other editors participating with a tag, correct me if I'm wrong. _WM^O 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it for 24 hours. Let's see what develops. I don't have a problem with things in that section as it stands & think the tag is odd but, hey, a few hours is not going to kill anyone. Sitush (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was added at approx 11:15 Eastern (US Time), five hours ago. _WM^O 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First off I am not holding an article hostage. Feel free to edit as you see fit. A tag just means the section needs improvement. You said you still had more updates to the history section make them. There is no arbitrary time of 24 hours on tags. Based on WP rules I can technically put the tag up with no explanation of the problem. I have been very forthcoming in my reasons. Feel free to take it to a higher authority, but I have seen people put tags on articles that have lasted for weeks if not months on just the say of one editor vs. 20+ editors. Would you rather have a POV tag on the entire article?Marauder40 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is pointless. I'm struggling to find constructivism, Marauder - you seem to be asking other people to create your suggestions. You seem mostly to be sniping but not producing, even though it is clesrly an issue close to your heart. Come up with the draft lead please. Then maybe a draft history to follow. At least that would be progress. It could have been written in the time that this discussion has been going on. Sitush (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem? I said I will do that tomorrow. What's the big deal? It's just a tag. Maybe you should read WP:AGF. As I said earlier I was waiting to see if WikiManOne would do the research himself and find out his mistake and correct it himself. I didn't want to get in an edit war with him over it. Especially since he has been so strongly defending the fact that what he wrote is correct. It has only been a short time that he said to do this. I am only responding to you guys. It sounds like you guys are doing attack, attack, attack, complain when he defends himself, attack, attack, attack. Where do I have the time to edit? Take a breather.Marauder40 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break 3, funding discussion

I know it is just a tag. That's why I said leave it. I was hoping you'd have a solution by tomorrow. You're aiming at the wrong target here. Ever heard the phrase softly "softlee, catchee monkey", or is that not known outside the UK?Sitush (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not preclude the possibility I made an error somewhere in there, we're asking for a draft, not a unilateral edit to the article. What I am very strongly asserting is that the Negro Project does not deserve a mention unless the history section is expanded to include every small/passing project ever undertaken. Nobody is attacking you, we're asking for productive suggestions, not unilateral hostage taking demanding that the a non-notable addition be added. _WM^O Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen this ^. I wouldn't assert anything at the moment. Let's see what Marauder40 comes up with. There is no point in putting up barriers when what we're trying to do is move the debate forward in a constructive manner. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)