Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sections and section headings

184.... believes that it's POV to suggest that anti-abortion violence is committed by people who oppose abortion. I'm sympathetic to his claim, but that necessitates that we find a section heading more specific than "Actions by pro-life activists" for these video hoaxes, because that, conversely, implies that anti-abortion violence couldn't possibly be committed by "pro-life activists." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look through the archives you will see where that specific title was discussed. It went back and forth between "stings" and stings without quotes. One set of editors argues that with quotes people are inserting a POV. The other set of editors argues that without the quote you are giving more credit where credit is due to the stings. Actions was a middle ground that was acceptable by both sides. This issue was solely related to the videos, not the violence.Marauder40 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that WMO changed it back to "stings" again since the last time this came up, this was said "Use "action" for both "attacks" and "stings" Sitush (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)", "Good idea, change made. WikiManOne 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)", "Better. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)" Also the new sentence " often perpetrated and incited by pro-life activists" is extrememly POV. I looked through the sources and none of them say "often", most of the sources use the term extremists, only one uses pro-life activists and that is from a blog page which is questionable as a RS.Marauder40 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be "stings" or " 'stings' " - I just think "actions" is a term that under normal circumstances would encompass violence, so deliberately making it not encompass violence is making a statement. Could we use "Videos by..."? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with "Videos by ..."Marauder40 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that concensus included having pro-life violence under that heading, if you want to go back to that, feel free. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the person that split it out, but it does make sense to have it split out since they are seperate topics.Marauder40 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 184..., who split it off, will weigh in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They are separate topics but neither of them deserve their own section in the article (although the violence should probably be expanded...), thus it was determined that it would be best to simply name the section "pro-life actions" (or something to that effect) and include everything there. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox map

Does File:Location United States.svg serve any purpose in the infobox? It seems a little silly to have it there just to show the location of the United States. If we had a map of Planned Parenthood locations or a heat map showing the number of locations per state or some such thing, that would be useful. But showing where the US is doesn't seem helpful. I somewhat randomly looked at a handful of articles that use the same template and I only found two that have similar maps in the infobox - European Broadcasting Union and World Trade Organization. In both cases, the map is showing useful information, not simply where tho locate the US. --B (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's not particularly helpful. It occurs to me that a map for International Planned Parenthood Federation might actually be useful, and if that's ever created (I'm not good with images, though I can help with research and suggestions), do you think it might be a good idea to use that map, with the US highlighted? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that for International Planned Parenthood Federation, we would want one with the countries that have Planned Parenthood offices highlighted. Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is somewhere that images can be requested. --B (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't clear - perhaps one version of the map could be created for the IPPF article, and then separate versions for all the national affiliates would be the main map but with "extra" highlighting on the country in question. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose. That may be confusing more than it would be useful, though. --B (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not super-important to have a map anyway, one would hope people know where the United States is on a map. Although I do think I'll request one for IPPF. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Or not. They have affiliates in a lot of countries. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"perpetrated or incited by pro-life activists"

Quotes from some of the sources in that paragraph (some added by me, some were already there):

• Religious violence and abortion, p. 207: "While not a member of Operation Rescue, she had attended one of its meetings and was, according to her attorney, motivated by materials she got there."
• Man charged with driving into Planned Parenthood facility: "Derosia...watched abortion coverage on a 'Catholic channel' and decided that 'he wasn't doing enough protesting.'" "[He] was heard shouting Bible verses and the words, 'Close down the Auschwitz death camp'".
• A day after cardinal's appeal...: "Mr. Malvasi, described by the authorities as...an anti-abortion zealot..."

I'm sure it'd be easy to find more. (I doubt PP is unique in having most of the attacks against it committed by people who don't oppose abortion, and just happened to have bombs and were looking for something to do with them, or another silly explanation like that.)

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that they were, in fact, perpetrated by pro-life activists. Thanks for finding more sources for that, although I must say that I think the Southern Poverty Law Center's report would have been sufficient. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't actually refer to violence committed against PP specifically. As I said, I doubt it's a different species of bomber that goes after PP as opposed to unaffiliated clinics, but I thought it was better to find references that directly supported the statement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand the rationale that "individuals who take actions furthering the pro-life cause" is somehow different from "pro-life activists".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are getting into symantics. I am not the person making the changes, but your average pro-life activists and all the national pro-life organizations do not agree with, do not promote, and actually dispise anyone that causes violence at an abortion clinic. Saying "pro-life activists did..." is similar to saying "Muslums did..." when it is only those on the fringe and usually don't belong to the organizations at all do those things. If I remember right the only source that used the term "pro-life activists" was a blog and none of the sources used the word "often" which was in an earlier version of edits.Marauder40 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If somebody shoots an abortion doctor because the guy was sleeping with the perp's wife (I think that was a Law&Order episode), that's not anti-abortion violence. If a crime is unsolved, we can't just assume automatically that it was a pro-life activist and not someone angry for reasons completely unrelated to abortion. Sure, it might be our guess - but Wikipedia isn't for guesswork. In the edits leading up to this revert, the IP user seems to have gone through the cites one by one and removed ones that pertained to unsolved crimes (I haven't reviewed the sources - just going off of edit summaries). To me, that seems a more than reasonable thing to do. There is sufficient proven anti-abortion violence targeting PP clinics that there's no good reason to include unsolved crimes and guess who might have committed them. --B (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I agree with that to a point. It was the last edit, where the IP changed "anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by pro-life activists" to "anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by individuals with anti-abortion viewpoints" that I really don't get.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one I would have to think about. Definitely in some cases, they were "pro-life activists", but if someone with little or no prior history of activism commits an anti-abortion crime, does that make them a "pro-life activist"? I don't know and am just thinking out loud - I'm not convinced one way or the other on that wording. --B (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Based on the revert by PhGustaf I just looked through the references. The Brittney Hooper one definitly doesn't deserve to be in the article for what it cites because as you said, it is unsolved vandalism. The ml.newbank.com cite only provides a snippet of the article and says "Purchase this article for (2.95)" so probably shouldn't be listed at all. The Star Tribue article references a mentally disturbed guy that said he did it because of watching abortion coverage on a "Catholic channel", but that is similar to saying someone did violence from playing video games or watching a movie. The first two are definite should go, the third is REAL questionable.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That third case was who I was thinking about - does committing this crime make him a "pro-life activist"? --B (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If he was taking an action for the purpose of advancing the pro-life cause, I'd say "yes". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And since the article says that after watching that channel, he decided he "wasn't doing enough protesting", that firms up my yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree here. You seem to be synthasising here yourself. "wasn't doing enough protesting" could mean he never protested or he was on the front lines every day. There is no way to know what he meant. Nothing in this article says that before this happened he did anything as a "pro-life" activist.Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides ramming his car into the front of the clinic shouting "Close down the Auschwitz death camp"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said "before this happened".Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, reading too fast.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Take it out of the realm of abortion for a minute. I've never been to a protest rally of any kind on any issue and my only political involvement has been that I have been to see maybe four candidates speak (Jim Gilmore, Don Beyer, Mike Huckabee, John McCain). If one day I were to go to a Tea Party rally, does that make me a "Tea Party activist" or am I just some guy who went to a rally one day? --B (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that analogy holds. I think it would be more accurate to suggest that you went to the rally out of curiosity, were inspired, went to the grocery store, cleaned out their tea supply, and dumped it on the Federal Building's doorstep. Are you an activist now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that there is no proof he attended anything. Just that he saw it on TV. This fits under that category of trying to blame the media for crimes. Nothing says that he ever did anything before watching this show on TV.Marauder40 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Both are good points. So to make the analogy more on point (since there was only the single act of "activism"), a closer scenario would be if I was paying my taxes, decided they were too high, then decided to dump the tea on the Federal Building's doorstep. Actually, that sounds at least vaguely similar to the 2010 Austin plane crash. Was this guy an "activist" or was he just a loony nutjob? --B (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Only addressing your second point -- that article appeared in a newspaper, and is verifiable whether the URL supplied for convenience works. That's not grounds for excluding it. (Besides, I'm looking at it right now through my local public library's website.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, the article talks about crimes, and says that "[abortion opponents'] rhetoric was inflammatory and would incite some people to this sort of thing", but doesn't state that the crimes were committed by pro-life activists (however you want to phrase it), so if the others go, this one can too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I was just going to ask that question and you beat me to it ;) I agree that none of these references that were removed by the IP editor should be in the article for the statement they are trying to back-up. Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the point of contention is primarily semantic. I don't think it's unfair to define "a person who commits anti-abortion actions after being inspired by anti-abortion rhetoric" as an anti-abortion activist. Or "pro-life" if you'd prefer that term. We could debate about whether attending a rally counts as an "action," or whether one would have had to speak at it or organize it for it to count, but I think the incidents we're talking about are certainly "actions." Marauder40, you mention that most anti-abortion individuals and groups do not commit violence, which is certainly true - can you find a noun that better conveys that distinction? "Individuals with anti-abortion viewpoints..." is clumsy and still doesn't make that distinction, but on the other hand "terrorist" is discouraged. If we can't find a better word, I think "activist" is fine - people know that not all anti-abortion activists commit violence, right?

As for the references, Threats prompt more security is paywalled so I can't see if it comments on the assailant's motives, but I had assumed it was there to support the statement that PP has been subject to attacks, and/or the types of attacks. (Sarek, you said you can see it? Does it say anything about the motives?) Can the citations be reorganized so that the ones that attest attacks or detail the types of attacks are next to statements about the types of attacks, while ones that mention motivation follow "activists" (or whatever term we end up using)?

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the simpliest thing and least POV thing to do is just remove the portion of the sentence that says "perpetrated or incited by pro-life activists". Let people reading it draw their own conclusions. The sentence as it stands seems to lump the peaceful protesters that pray around clinics with the zealots that do more. I am not trying to say what qualifies someone as a "pro-life" activist. But just like you wouldn't say that rock-band xyz fans are murderers just because someone listened to their music and killed someone the same goes here.Marauder40 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying "'pro-life' activists are violent." We are saying "these violent people are 'pro-life' activists," because we have sources that say that. Since when do we hesitate to mention affiliations when they are relevant? We certainly make no bones about referring to Islamic terrorists. And we have a whole article on Charles Manson and "Helter Skelter." I think you're reading into the sentence a subtext that isn't there. In the meantime, shall we brainstorm alternate words for "activists"? (Someone had suggested "extremists" earlier, right? How does that sound? Or perhaps it's unsuitable for the same reason "terrorist" is, I don't recall.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Roscelese, the actual threats were not included in the article, as they were under investigation. I think I agree with Marauder that removing the phrase is the most-neutral thing to do. That way, we're not arguing about the motives of the people in the references.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why argument is necessary. Our sources say they were motivated by opposition to abortion; it doesn't seem like there's any deeper meaning to argue about. Not sure if you saw my last comment because of the edit conflict - would a substitute for "activists" help? (is "extremists" a word to avoid? because that would definitely solve the problem of "these people do not represent the mainstream anti-abortion movement.") Alternately, there is the idea of saying that the violence was motivated by opposition to abortion, rather than that the people were. This may seem tautological, but the lead of anti-abortion violence (and even the first paragraph of the definition section) defines it strictly in relation to its targets, without a word as to its perpetrators or motives. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually I inserted extremists in one of my edits that was removed ;) I think this fits in the same category as trying to lump all Muslums in as terrorists, when we know they aren't. Everyone makes great efforts to say "Muslum extremists" or things like that. Since I previously added extremists instead of activists I definitly would be happy with that change or removing the portion of the sentence. Also I don't seem to be the only person reading the subtext into it since several people have been trying to modify that line.Marauder40 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought 184's problem was originally that it wasn't adequately supported by the sources, but I think that's been ameliorated - and we're discussing the semantic issue right now! :) However, check out WP:EXTREMIST - it turns out it is a word to avoid. In the spirit of other policies, maybe it would still be okay, though? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "extremist" is only supposed to be avoided if you are trying to label a SPECIFIC person, organization, or group as extremist. This case isn't a specific group.Marauder40 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it kind of is several specific people, but that makes sense, I think you're right. "perpetrated or incited by pro-life extremists," then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is widely known that abortion against abortion clinics is perpetrated and incited by "pro-life" activists. I don't think saying "extremists" is necessary as "pro-life activists" are by definition extremists. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? This is your first edit coming back from a block? To say that people who peacefully disagree with abortion are extremists? --B (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: This is a pretty semantic debate. "extremist" is also in the eye of the beholder. "Activist" is actually a pretty broad, and in my view, a neutral enough term. It differentiates between those who are sympathetic to a cause (e.g. supporter) from those who actively participate (e.g. activist). Is the concern that "activist" should not include people who commit crimes because it tars all others who are protesting via legal means? Without being POV, one could say that "some activists commit crimes in pursuit of their goals, but not all activists are criminals". Even some of the video taped stings broke laws against secret recordings. Should we not refer to them as "activists" since they broke laws? If a pro-life activist gets arrested and convicted for trespass while protesting at a clinic, can we no longer call them an activist because they broke the law? It's a bit arbitrary, but that's essentially the argument being made against "activist" - if someone does something bad we need to distinguish them from everyone else.Mattnad (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Joining the discussion late. I just reverted my own edits to this page from yesterday and apologize for my violation of the 1RR rule. The now-restored language that reads "Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by pro-life activists..." is both inaccurate and POV. The first problem is the use of the term "pro-life activists." What is a pro-life activist? To me, the term would appear to relate to an individual affiliated with--or even actively involved with--the pro-life movement. That is a problem here. Why? (1) Some of the cited sources relate to situations where Planned Parenthood clinics were vandalized and the perpetrators had not been caught. How can we assume that the perpetrators were pro-life activists--or even pro-life at all? (2) Some of the cited sources relate to situations where a single individual (in one case, a single individual who was identified as having a history of mental illness) with pro-life sympathies attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic. If there is no connection between a perpetrator and the larger pro-life movement, it does not make sense to describe that person as a pro-life activist. Not every person who is pro-life is a pro-life activist, any more than every person who is pro-choice is a pro-choice activist. (3) By labeling these perpetrators as pro-life activists, the language (at least in my eyes) implies a connection with the pro-life movement; in turn, this tacitly implies that the pro-life movement condones and supports violent and criminal behavior in regard to Planned Parenthood clinics. As an editor, I don't see any indication in the cited sources that this is the case. As a pro-lifer, I defy any editor to identify one single pro-life organization in the United States that condones violence against Planned Parenthood clinics in any way. Hope this helps.

In conclusion, I would urge that the relevant sentence be modified to read as follows: "Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by individuals with pro-life viewpoints, including but not limited to bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry."184.74.22.161 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen by the conversation above your post I agree with what you have stated. The sentence should either say "Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by individuals with pro-life viewpoints, including but not limited to bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry." or "Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by pro-life extremists, including but not limited to bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry." or "Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence, including but not limited to bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry." anything else is inserting a POV. The cleanest is the last option but the others are workable. Saying things like activist = extremist and things like that doesn't hold up to either the dictionary definition or the common usages of the terms.Marauder40 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all POV problem. Either we call pro-life "anti-abortion" uniformly, or you have to accept that some people who share similar views that abortion is bad may not agree on the tactics. But you can't have it both ways. Lila Rose for instance violates a commandment that "thou shalt not lie" when she does her stings. As I pointed out, some other video recording have broken laws. So, I would wonder "what would Jesus do?". So when Maurader40 feels the ends justify the means, then that person can celebrated as a pro-life activist. If it makes the movement look bad, well, then that's still NPOV. Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. This sentence is trying to address violence at PP. Lila Rose did not commit violence. She lied like any policeman, CIA agent, To Catch a Predator contributors, etc. does. There have been people in the pro-life movement that have questioned whether her methods were appropriate including people complaining about the lying. We are not addressing that in this sentence. Lumping people that commit violence in the same category as those that may go to a march or peacefully protest outside an abortion clinic is POV pure and simple. Very similar to lumping your average muslum in with the terrorists. I guess if we use your line of thought "pro-choice activist" should be added to all references to Murder of Jim Pouillon and the section on violence against pro-life people in the Pro-life article.Marauder40 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all a matter of degree and note that the phrase is "perpetrated or incited by..." There are many documented instances where people who committed the violence that you don't want attached to the rhetoric of the pro-life movement claimed that they were motivated by exactly that. When one group demonized another, they are consequences.[1] So sure, quiet, peaceful vigils are one thing. But this article does not have to sanitize the one topical sentence about the multiple acts of violence that have come out of that same core belief that abortion is murder.Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is a silly suggestion, but could we not just avoid the activist/extremist debate by saying "...by pro-life people"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit awkward to my eyes. Would someone say "I'm a pro-life person"? Possibly. But they'd more likely say "I'm a pro-life supporter" as in "I support a pro-life philosophy". Saying "Pro-life people" is informal and atypical. However, the bigger issue, and not one that I personally have a concern about, is that "Pro-life people" includes everyone including those who are passive in their beliefs. I thought that Maurader40 was mostly concerned that "activist" should be reserved for people he feels are lawful and heroic, and "extremest" or some other term should be used to draw a line between the mainstream movement and criminals. Mattnad (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Pro-life supporter" seems infelicitous to me, but it's not a big deal. Whatever addresses everyone's concerns. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad I think your comments about MY definition of activist vs. extremist is bordering on incivil. Anyone can tell the difference between the words extremist and activist. Would you say that Muslum activists assisted in 9/11 or Muslem extremists assisted? The same applies here. Its not about my definition, its about being NPOV. If the text implies that every prolife activist is out there committing violence against abortion clinics then it is POV pure and simple. The current version isn't much better but I don't really have time to look at it this second. I am just doing my weekend vandalism check.Marauder40 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one drawing the connection between prolife activists and violence. That's the sources doing the talking. The text does not imply at all every activist is promoting violence. That's your interpretation. As for your 9/11 hyperbole, that's well beyond requiring a response.Mattnad (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial Birth Abortion v. Intact Dilation and Extraction

There are terms, and then there are terms. I don't think that PBA is inaccurate and it gets 1.4 million hits to IDE's 176,000. - Haymaker (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should know by now that hit counts don't count. PBA is a political term; IDE is a medical one. We're trying to be encyclopedic here and to use neutral rather than deliberately loaded terms. PhGustaf (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for activism. The article on the topic is called Intact dilation and extraction, and I'm sure that that's what PP invariably refers to the procedure as.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. Take the spin to the bill o Reilly screech fest. Leave the article to people who want a good article, mon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.170.220 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — 96.43.170.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IDE is a political term too, before 1995 the operation had no particular term and both sides picked one when it was starting to be batted about legislatively. - Haymaker (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that "Intact Dilation and Extraction" gets the same number of pre-1995 g-news hits as "Partial birth abortion" (zero). "Dilation and extraction" seems to have been the preferred pre-1995 term. [2][3] This article - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BWVFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OLwMAAAAIBAJ&dq=dilation-and-extraction&pg=6866%2C1613654 - makes it sound like it was a new procedure in 1993, which would give credence to the idea that it had no preferred name prior to the debate of the mid-1990s. --B (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Supreme Court says "The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name..." NYyankees51 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If it really is true that there's no preferred name, which I believe medical professionals would contest, then why don't we just go with what's in the cited source? "Intact dilation and extraction," or "so-called 'partial-birth abortion'." Personally, I feel the first is better, but if you really want to use the phrase "partial-birth abortion," you're kind of bound to include the "so-called." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by contest. - Haymaker (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since they're both made up terms with their own constituencies it only seems fair to use both. - Haymaker (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The literature on the topic does not match your view that they are both "made up terms". One is the proper name, the other is political. Per the wikipedia article: "The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.[6] The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[8] This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[9][10]" Mattnad (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the Canady cite, I have again stricken the PBA term. The assertion that IDE is anything other than a technical term is unsupported. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Reversion

Given the recent discussion, I'm suggesting we go back to a version of the section as follows:

Actions by Pro-life activists

A few pro-life organizations have carried out actions 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 health center posing as victims of statutory rape,[64] minors who would need parental notification for abortion,[65][66] racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women,[67] or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes.[68] Video and audio recordings of these dialogues show employees being seemingly sympathetic to potentially criminal acts, leading to allegations that the health centers in question are violating the law. None of these stings have led to criminal conviction, however Planned Parenthood employees have been fired as a result. [69] [66][65] A 2005 federal inspection by the pro-life 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."[65]

This version gives context missing in the current version and does not fall into undue weight issues or wikipedia being the news. And as previously noted, for editors that feels more should be written about the recent Live Action sting, the article for Live Action can be linked to as needed and they can feel free to expand as they see fit.Mattnad (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Do we know that the non-Live-Action ones were also organizations?
2. Let's call the section "Videos" to avoid the problems we had earlier.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all of the activities were videos. Some were recorded phone conversations (and some of those broke laws against secret recordings.) Based on what I've read, none were sole actors, but we could change the wording from "organizations" to "activists". I'm sure that won't be controversial. If some editors are stuck on "videos", perhaps we could use "recordings" instead since that covers video and audio only.Mattnad (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "recordings" would be best. The previous problem was that putting "anti-abortion violence" as a separate heading rather than as a subhead of "actions by pro-life activists" implied that anti-abortion violence wasn't an action by "pro-life" activists, but "recordings" should be fine. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth adding? None of these stings have led to criminal conviction, however Planned Parenthood employees have been fired as a result and planned parenthood have said they will retrain its staff asa result. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/08parenthood.html

but otherwise im happy with thar version --Fredbobhurst (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cancer Screenings

PP does indeed perform them[4]. I can't revert because of 1RR, but their removal is incorrect. PhGustaf (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The confusion is over the most recent video by Planned Parenthood. PP does provide breast exams, but not mammograms. See here. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said they did provide mammograms. Breast exams are cancer screening. It seems like too piddling a detail to devote space to in the article. PhGustaf (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is whether they did. See the article I linked to. It's caused quite a buzz and probably should be included. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw the article. Yet another arguable misquote; any "buzz" is in right-wing blogs. We can't document every trivial squabble.PhGustaf (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Planned Parenthood site mentions they do breast exams. Live Action thinks they should do more thorough breast exams that include mammograms..... well... so what? Biopsies are also part of some cancer screening, and Planned Parenthood does not claim to do those either. Is this an issue worthy of an encyclopedia? Mattnad (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the same recentism problem we've tried to address with the rest of the controversy section. If this ever becomes significant, then it can be added. Right now, it's news. It'll go away in a couple of days, and it's not Wikipedia's job to preserve it. Bogus story aside, mammograms are a subset of cancer screenings, not a synonym. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post is significant. Maybe change the text so it is clear what is being performed? - Haymaker (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post is indeed an excellent source. But, for the reasons explained above, this matter does not belong in the article. PhGustaf (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bush-era report

Any body know where I can find it? I punched "abortion" in the DHH's OIG and nothing that would confirm the material in the quote. - Haymaker (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is presumably the report referred to. Why would "abortion" be your search term? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course there was the salon article itself, otherwise known as a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown

In the event there was no shutdown. I've removed the section on a shutdown, mainly because it's poorly sourced. I'm sure somebody could produce an encyclopedic story on this, but it should be done from better sources. --TS 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if found at all encyclopedic it is neither criticism nor controversy about Planned Parenthood, but part of an ongoing effort by Pro-life politicians to limit funding to any organization (not just planned parenthood) that provides abortion services. At most this would be in the funding section.Mattnad (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated services & afifiliate numbers from Planned Parenthood

The # of affiliates, health centers, and some service data in this entry is out of date. 2009 service data is available here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf. Planned Parenthood currently operates 84 affiliates and over 800 health centers. KDMlibrary (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Videos

No point in attempting to edit and improve the article. Any improvement would just be deleted by those defending taxpayer funding of abortion, which is essentially what Planned Parenthood does (despite attempts to surround that issue with "family planning" and so on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just reading through the videos section of the controversy surrounding the Liveaction videos. It doesn't read like a balanced piece.

Both edited and unedited versions are available. The edited versions are a shortened summary of what is a long drawn out piece.

Planned Parenthood fired the New Jersey clinic manager, but asserted that the edits to the video footage were misleading.[66]

It seems like the sentence is being qualified by "we fired her but they were being misleading". The 2 statements need separate explanations. I suggest

Planned Parenthood fired the New Jersey clinic manager saying "we were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape released this morning, which depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable."[66]

I took that quote from the reference 66. This demonstrates both that the PP employee *was* behaving badly but also that emphasizing that PP has high standards of care.

The next sentence could be "planned parenthood claims the edited tapes are misleading" [cite]

In that reference 66, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41382676/ns/us_news-life/ I couldnt find a mention of the videos being misleading in fact the reference says that PP states "What appears on edited tapes made public today is not consistent with Planned Parenthood's practices, and is under review". In fact none of the links show how the edited videos are misleading.

I also would like to see how the edits to the video are misleading. The words were still said, the illegal advice still given, an implication that she would "streamline" the abortion and get a woman back on the street quickly (suggesting in the meantime that she work "waist up", etc). So i think an explanation as to how they are misleading; PP claims the videos are misleading because x,y,z".

The section here seems to sympathize more with PP. Did the videos expose malpractice? If they were misleading, how? Obviously theres truth there, the worker was fired. How can the edited versions be more misleading than the full version (which is easily available; http://liveaction.org/blog/full-footage/)?

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the archives on the discussion that have taken place around the controversies section. If we were to take your approach, this section would be very large and out of balance. Remember that wikipedia is not the news, and the current LiveAction videos are only one among many attempts over the last decade or so to entrap Planned Parenthood. But so far, one fired manager and no criminal conviction ever seems to indicate that when you step back, is this notable to expand it much more? It's really a weigh issue. If you want to expand this, do it on the article on LiveAction since it's much more important in that article than on Planned Parenthood. Frankly, in my view as an editor, this section overly emphasizes the most recent video. We had a more balanced set sentences that provided a nice summary of various stings that got eliminated by POV pushing efforts and a desire to make this most recent sting front and center.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry how do i get to the archives? I agree with your stance. As it stands it implies that there is only the recent videos. Would it not be better to re-edit.

I still think the section is misleading in that it implies that the videos are misleading without explaining. It says PP claim that they are misleading but the reference doesnt say that anywhere as far as i can see. It qualifies the actions of a PP employer (who was fired and condemmed) by making the claim that the videos are misleading as if the latter somehow cancels out the former.

Fredbobhurst --89.101.10.133 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Near the top of this page you'll see the archives index.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should go into greater detail as to who exactly is alleging that the videos are not genuine. - Haymaker (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ok i had a quick read (i'll go back through it when i have more time) but clearly nothing has been resolved. I also have a new criticism the section implies that the 2005 report somehow proves that PP have done nothing wrong., despite the fact that LiveAction have been much more active in 2007-11, 3 to 5 years *after* this report. I also thought the consensus was to avoid the use of "anti-abortion" and to use "pro life" as the former is POV, the latter being what they call themselves.

I understand that it could get long and convulted but surely a way can be found to summarise the controversy. Rough draft;

"Pro life activists have tried to implicate Planned Parenthood's complicity in breaking various local laws by staging elaborate sting operations(?). One clinic worker was removed from her post for failing to uphold PP standard of care(cite) as a result of one of these operations in 2011. Planned parenthood have responded by insisting that they reported etc etc. They claim that LiveAction is x,y,z, (misleading etc) (cite)

The unedited versions are freely available. I dont see how claiming that they were edited somehow means Liveaction are being misleading.

The 2005 report should be mentioned if it was as a result of a previous *controversy* (which would need to be explained).

In terms of it getting undue weight. This is a major attack on Planned Parenthood as an organisation and how it operates. It has alot of coverage and could well contribute to the debate over it recieving federal funding. A paragraph detailing the controversy and PP's response with appropriate sources is important, it it can be summarised properly. --Fredbobhurst (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Major attack is in the eye of the beholder. Any criminal charges? Credit given to LiveAction for closing down the operation? Not yet. If it becomes more, then perhaps (like Acorn) we should give it more space. As always, wikipedia is not the news. We need to be careful not to give undue weight to a stunt that is hardly reflective of the organization (at least from reliable sources). Like I said before, we can reference it, and even have a link to LiveAction's web page. But Planned Parenthood should not have 1/3rd of its page dedicated to criticisms just because some groups who opposed family planning are using a single edited video at one location (the others, it seems, show planned parenthood treating them like criminals and in several cases calling the FBI) to attack the entire organization. Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ok i get that the article does not need a long drawn out description of the recent controversy. As it stands the section has many flaws. So far these havent been addressed.

The other videos (16 i think) also show complicity or at least indifference, just not to the same extent. If there is to be a contoversy section and a reference to these videos included then it needs to be worded properly (difficult as this is) to avoid pandering to either side. As it stands it has alot of statements cancelling each other out with sloppy referencing. As an encyclopedia i dont think the information makes sense. I dont want to edit it yet because maybe i am misinterpretating things, i have made a few suggestions and raised my concerns what do you think?

• "Planned Parenthood fired the New Jersey clinic manager, but asserted that the edits to the video footage were misleading"

This needs to be changed into 2 seperate statements needing verification. the reference does not mention anything about the videos being misleading.

• The unedited videos are freely accessable. I dont follow how this somehow makes the videos misleading.

Yes, they mislead the clinic workers into thinking they were pimps, but how else would we know how PP employees would react to the situation? An extreme tactic but effective nonetheless in getting an understanding of some pp employee's attitudes in regads sex trafficing etc. Has pp said it would retrain all of its employees? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49076.html (that link was just a quick google) is this not an acknowledgement of an inherent problem in many if not most of its staff?

So if the section is trying to diminish the influence of the vidoes then a srtonger reference/reasoning is needed.

• The 2005 report is irrelevent to the latest controversy so should either be removed or explained in its proper context.

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this older version of the section [5]. It covers the longer-term span of activities. LiveAction's recent video is not really different from past efforts. It's important (in my view) to include the history of these actions for perspective. It seems like a big deal now in some circles, but not when we consider past, very similar stings and their results.Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that i prefer that version, its alot more balanced and places it all in its proper context. We could mention that another result of the videos is that staff are being retrained but i cant find much wrong with that version. why was it changed, can we revert?? --Fredbobhurst (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Some editors really wanted to push the latest sting because (and I'll guess at this) it was salacious and could be used to put planned parenthood in a bad light now. The older stings were less interesting because, after various investigations and a lack of any official action (in several cases, no laws were broken even if you take the stings at face value). Hence my desire to have a broader, well cited summary that offers context. I stayed out of the edit wars and the section became much more about Live Action. Since there's an article on the group, I figure we can go with the broader view, let the citations and wikilinks provide more detail if people want to read it. Let's see if other editors have a POV on this before we revert back to the older version.Mattnad (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Efforts to expand the copy around Live Action, including adding "See Also" headers are making the section unbalanced and really out of the bounds of WP:Weight. Other editors have discussed this above. If an editor want's to add material to Live Action's activity, there is an article right now that frankly needs attention and is the appropriate location for an expanded view of the organization's activities.Mattnad (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

updating the Funding section

The section Funding is not especially clear , and can be improved . First , I would consider (but do not insist on) changing the title to Funding : Sources and Distribution or Funding and Expenses , since both topics are discussed here .

Next , I note that the referenced data is (probably) from the 2007–08 Annual Report , but the reference link provided below is to the 2006-07 annual report ; further , the 2008-09 report is likely the latest available one , and could reasonably be used (with small changes to the figures in the wikipedia article) . For the current beginning :
In the 2007–08 Annual Report ...
I recommend changing to something like this :

The 2008-09 Annual Report[35] indicates an annual budget of $1.1 billion . Sources included : health center income $405 million ; government contracts and grants $363 million ; and private contributions $310 million . Disposition of money included : medical services $688 million ; sexuality education $52 million  ; management and fundraising $170 million ; retained earnings $63 million ; and asset losses $78 million . Other income and expense items are detailed in the report .

The next paragraph needs a revised beginning senntence :
Because Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its income from government grants and contracts , a coalition of national and local pro-life groups ...
and can continue after that with the existing discussion of defunding Planned Parenthood as a political issue .

I think this proposed re-write makes clearer the actual size of the Planned Parenthood budget , and its distribution , without the need of readers to "back this data out" of the provided figures . I have omitted discussing all the expense and income figures (some of which , like "pubic policy" I don't really understand) , but have included 2 smaller asset-related figures in the expense category because I think to omit them creates a picture implying that their activities are exactly dictated by annual income . However , I realize this is a personal choice and other writers might disagree .

I leave it to the editors to incorporate this , if it seems relevant and helpful .

I no longer know my login password , sorry ; mmw220@yahoo.com . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.57.161 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Services and Facilities

I've noticed that over the past couple days that this section has been edited at the tail-end to include more info on abortion services . While this information has citations (See citations 32 and 33 as of 4/1/11), these cited sources are, in fact, poor. The lines taken from both of these articles are not supported by sources themselves. As is such, these additions should be removed. 69.205.158.245 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DianeDew.com

I don't believe that this is a reliable source for information about Sanger/Planned Parenthood -- some of those quotes are so blatantly taken out of context that they call into question the rest of the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, of course it's not reliable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I share these concerns; the source in question doesn't appear to meet this site's sourcing guidelines. Even if it did, the information would need to be presented encyclopedically rather than polemically. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, the full context of "exterminating the Negro population" can be found at "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?", Charles Valenza, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1985) (pp. 44-46). (Found it in JSTOR, through my local library.) It was clear that she was emphasizing that family planning wasn't a plot to exterminate African-Americans.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the wikipedia policies on what is more prefered as a source, I will concede that the Dianedew.com is not as preferred as the journal article to which you cited because of the fact that the article has been published. (For the sake of staying on topic, I will not go into the inherent and documented biases of the Journal in which the article is published). I will however, respectfully deny your overstatement that "some of those quotes are so blatantly taken out of context that they call into question the rest of the page." I pulled up your cited reference, which can be found also in pdf format here: http://www.wordswillnever.com/storage/Margaret%20Sanger%20CV.pdf. Just because one author, Valenza, qoutes the entirety of the letter in which the qoute in controversy is taken, doesn't make the opinion of that author that the quote in controversy is out of context verifiable. The first rule of interpretation is to read what is there and notice what is not there. There is no mention in the letter that it was not the intention of PP to "exterminat[e] the negro population." The letter simply says, on page 46, that if this idea gets out among the then it would be great to have local ministers in the black community to combat these ideas. It is as equally reasonable of an interpretation of the letter to believe that "exterminating the negro population" is the goal of PP by the plain language of the letter (which DianeDew.com and many other sources have done). Thus, we run into the same problem we encountered earlier. At what point does an opinion reach the level of verifiability and reliability that it may be cited as a source on wikipedia? Is it okay for me to cite to this Valenza article which contains an opinion that Sanger was not a "racist?" Would it be just as appropriate to paraphrase and cite a similarly published article that stated the opposite?Seabas73 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Valenza's article was published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Dew is some chick with a website. I have a website too, but that doesn't make me a reliable source per WP:RS, which I recommend reading.

With regard to your comment that "the first rule of interpretation is to read what is there and notice what is not there," this is irrelevant for our purposes, because we do not interpret. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Along the lines of noticing what's not there: where are the reliable sources alleging that Planned Parenthood intends to "exterminate the Negro population"? Until we have such sources to discuss, there's no reason to go back and forth here. People and groups who oppose abortion allege all kinds of horrible things about Planned Parenthood. Our job in writing a serious reference work is to sort out which criticisms deserve mention, and which are not intended to be a factual statement. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, your comment makes no sense when read with SarekOfVulcan's comments. He determined that DianeDew.com did not meet wikipedia's standards as a reliable source, not because of its form, but because of its substance. Hence, my analyzation of the quote. You state that "we do not interpret," but that is exactly what SarekOfVulcan was doing as he was weighing the substance of DianeDew against the Valennza article. You wish to eliminate DianeDew.com based on its form (personally published website). I have no problem with this - as I HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT I HAVE READ THE POLICY and admitted to the deficiencies of the website's form. I don't think it's too much to ask that you read the comment thoroughly before responding. I also highly object to your flippant tone and use of the derrogatory term "chick." Please curb this. Seabas73 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mastcell, I like the way my questions have been sidestepped. But I'll respond directly to your comment. Lets start with these two pieces:

Jerry Bergman, "Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist." Journal of Creation. 2008. (http://creation.com/margaret-sanger-darwinian-eugenicist) If your first instinct is to attack the journal, it is a "peer-reviewed," "research-oriented" journal published in paper and digitally on the internet. (http://creation.com/magazines) And if your first instinct is to attack the author, here is his impressive resume (http://creation.com/dr-jerry-bergman).

Julianne Malveaux, "Sanger's Legacy Is Reproductive Freedom and Racism." WE-News. Published July 18, 2001. (http://www.womensenews.org/story/commentary/010718/sangers-legacy-reproductive-freedom-and-racism) About media source: "Women's eNews is a prize-winning nonprofit daily Internet-based news service supported by its readers, events, foundations and resale of its content. It is the definitive source of substantive news--unavailable anywhere else--covering issues of particular concern to women and their allies. Launched in 2000, the independent media outlet provides women, and those who care about women, the news they need to know. Rita Henley Jensen is founder and editor in chief." See also its wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_eNews). About author: See her wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianne_Malveaux) and her bio here (http://www.bennett.edu/administration/pdf/biomalveaux09.pdf). Seabas73 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, are you seriously claiming that "Journal of Creation" ("dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible...All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this") is a reliable source for anything? And your Women's eNews article doesn't support the claims you're presumably citing it for, so its RS status is irrelevant.

I suggest you step away from the controversial articles until you've familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies, in particular WP:V. Despite your claim that you have read these policies, comments like "[interpretation] is exactly what SarekOfVulcan was doing as he was weighing the substance of DianeDew against the Valennza article" show that, whatever reading may have happened, there's still something to be desired in the area of understanding.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Roscelese, do you think I'm really supposed to take you and your comments seriously when you approach mine in that manner?

First, "LOL" has no place in a serious debate. I, and this discussion, deserve more respect.

Secondly, I've asked above whether the Journal of Family Planning Perspectives (FPP) was a legitimate source and I was refered to the wikipedia policy, which I reviewed, and was told that the FPP was legitimate because it was a research jounral that is peer-reviewed. I have demonstrated that the Journal of Creation is both, and as such is analogous. The Journal of Creation publishes on various topics: articles on topics such as philosophy, theology, history, archaeology, and social sciences. So does the FPP. The fact that each has an assumed different political aim (liberal or conservative) should be of no consequence (like the difference in citing to a FOX news article or CNN news article). We must assume a neutral point of view.

Third, you obviously did not read the Malveaux piece. You state her article "doesn't support the claims [I've] presumably citing it for." First, nice preposition at the end of the sentence. Second, why presume my intentions when you can tell me why you think I am citing this piece? Third, I cite this piece because Malveaux's article outlines how Sanger's racist, elitist, euginisism has "crippled her legacy," (a.k.a. PP), because of her "insensitivity." "I see Sanger as a tarnished heroine whose embrace of the eugenics movement showed racial insensitivity, at best. From her associates, as well as from some of the articles that were published in Sanger's magazine, The Birth Control Review, it is possible to conclude that "racially insensitive" is too mild a description." "The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control Review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did." "Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the "insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders." MUST I CONTINUE QUOTING?

Last, your jab at my lack of understanding is tactless and, frankly, unsupported. I am trying my hardest to assume good faith on your part, Roscelese, however I find it continuously difficult to do so with some of your comments which have been flippant, disrespectful, derrogatory, and now apparently filled with unreasonable prejudice. You ask for me to step away from the "controversial articles," however this is a controversial issue (thus the 1RR policy with which I am now intimately familiar). Seabas73 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)JFPP doesn't require that submitted pieces adhere to a specific ideology, and it's also archived by JSTOR, a scholarly database that doesn't archive just any little journal. As well, creation "science" journals have a poor reputation for peer review, as seen in the Washington University Law Quarterly etc. We don't "assume" a neutral point of view if one is not present, particularly if the journal itself states that its aim is to push a POV through its publications.

You're claiming that PP's goal was to "exterminate the Negro population," no? This is flagrantly unsupported by the Malvaux source. Malvaux doesn't even state that Sanger was racist; she says that Sanger's advocacy of eugenics for the mentally ill was problematic given her failure to consider overdiagnosis of African-Americans as mentally ill. This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I mention the importance of understanding and not just reading - you quote parts of the article, so you seem to have read it, but what you're getting out of it is totally different from what the author's actually saying.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why haven't you tried to introduce these "interpretations" of Sanger's motives in the Sanger article? Even if these sources you have chosen were the ideal of reliable sources (which they are not), you'd still have a WP:Weight issue. Having a large section of selected opinions on Sanger is out of place in this article. Perhaps you should experiment with the "Margaret Sanger" article first since you seem to be particularly interested in her.Mattnad (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, thank you for explaining to me how the system works and explaining that I "will not win... any friends" over here, and any contribution I make will be deleted as a result, regardless of it's merit. I think my point has been made. Or, more accurately, I made someone else's point: "No point in attempting to edit and improve the article. Any improvement would just be deleted by those defending taxpayer funding of abortion, which is essentially what Planned Parenthood does (despite attempts to surround that issue with "family planning" and so on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)" Seabas73 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to improve the article. Using low-quality sources does not improve the article, though. If you want to work on the article, you're going to need to make at least a minimal effort to understand this website's goals and expectations. Otherwise, you'll end up frustrated. I don't think it's fair to blame Wikipedia without taking stock of the way your own behavior has contributed to your so-far-unsatisfactory reception. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That is just the issue. Even if there were a policy on what is appropriate, the above comments have demonstrated that there is no bright-line, uniform application of these policies. Analogous Journals are not treated as such (extra distinctions that are not outlined in wikipedia's policies are added in to discredit a source like: "If it's not on JSTOR your article is unreliable per se.") The term "interpretation" is discredited in one breath and then used in the next. The plain reading of text from sources is easily deemed to have been given completely different meanings and that is okay, even though interpretation is bad. Policies are even misquoted, like Matt with the Weight comment. I appreciate all your contributions to this page. It has been a great. All of this, as well as many other collected experiences, will be used in a scholarly paper I am writing with two other law students on how this system is, theoretically and practically, bullshit. If any of you want to be so kind as to provide your demographic information, drop by my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabas73 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck on your paper.Mattnad (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good luck. Next time I get a speeding ticket, perhaps I'll write a "scholarly paper" about how speed limits are bullshit. That's what scholarship and academic inquiry are all about, after all.

I would be the first to agree that Wikipedia is inconsistent and often fails to live up to its stated principles. However, the rejection of your edits is a case where the system actually worked exactly as it's designed to. You came here using poor-quality sources to push a partisan agenda, and your efforts were turned back by people who believe that this site is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Encyclopedia Brittanica (for example) would cite the Journal of Creation or dianedew.com in an encyclopedic overview of Planned Parenthood. Because we allow open editing, it's tempting to conclude that our standards are lower, but they shouldn't be. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)