Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

"Numbers have been challenged" versus " . . challenged as misleading"

Since this has gone back and forth now in the article it should be resolved quickly. If we mean to say that the the raw enumerations of PP's services are technically correct but that these numbers have been criticized as misleading (because frequent and routine services get the same weight as abortions) then "challenged as misleading" is correct. If we want to say that these raw numbers themselves are disputed then "challenged" by itself is fine. It seems to me that the consensus here has been that the raw numbers have been accepted by reliable sources but that they have been criticized as misleading, therefore "challenged as misleading" should go back in the article. Motsebboh (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get bitten, but I have been following the article development and was going to independently add a talk page topic on the recent edit by user:CFCF https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=prev&oldid=677339663. I see the thread is started, so I'll offer my opinion. Having read the talk page and seeing the process of consensus unfold, I thought that this good faith edit by CFCF might need to be discussed. Given the hard work at building consensus here on the talk page, it seemed like the wording of that sentence was a good outcome of the earlier discussions and reflected that consensus. I thought it would be OK to leave a message on CFCF's talk page inviting more discussion here, so I'll do that now.Cityside189 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like "challenged as misleading" simply because it begs the question of who has challenged them, and why - questions which we can't fully answer in the led without going into too much detail. Also, note that the raw numbers haven't been challenged as misleading: no reliable source questions the accuracy of what the led says right now (that only 3 percent of clinical interactions are abortions). That is an accurate statement, and is not misleading. What's been challenged is the claim that abortions are only 3 percent of "what planned parenthood does." which is not a claim that the led makes. Whether or not the data is being used in a misleading way depends on the context. The way the lede is worded right now, I don't think the "misleading" caveat needs to be there. It's debatable if the "challenged" should even be there, since the actual data isn't in dispute. If that's to stay, it needs to be recorded to specify what the actual critique is. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "challenged as misleading" invites the question of who has challenged those figures and why, but why is that a problem? The question is answered in the body which is supposed to include the specifics from issues introduced in the lead. Simply saying "challenged" also invites the questions of who and why. "Challenged as misleading", however, suggests that the figures may be technically correct but possibly deceptive in their effect, whereas "challenged" suggests that the figures themselves may be wrong. Leaving out both "challenged" and "challenged as misleading" is not a good idea, in my opinion, both because these figures actually have been "challenged as misleading" by reliable sources and because they have been asserted by Planned Parenthood largely in the context of the back and forth over PP's role as an abortion provider. Motsebboh (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix in only using "though these numbers have been challenged." The addition of "misleading" is in my opinion a clear neutrality violation as it infers judgement and isn't necessary. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and if necessary we can go into more detail later in the article. It isn't due to explain all that in the lede.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point, Somedifferentstuff, but I'll address yours and readdress my own. If PP's numbers have been challenged then there must be a basis for that challenge. "As misleading" gives the reader a clue as to the basis (that those numbers may be technically accurate but . . . ) which is then fleshed out in the body of the article. Wikipedia would not be implying judgement about the numbers here, it would rather just be giving the reader the basis for the challenge that others have made. Additionally, a problem I mentioned earlier about simply saying that the numbers "have been challenged" after presenting the 97 to 3 figures as fact is that it poisons the wells against those who have challenged the figures. Wikipedia would be telling the reader, in effect, that PP's figures are correct but that some people who don't accept reality object to them. "As misleading" solves this problem by cluing in readers about the basis for the objection. Motsebboh (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we omit both the "challenged" and the "misleading," and simply note that 3% of clinical interactions are abortions, but that approx 10% of patients have an abortion? Both are factual statements that can be cited to a RS without needing to be attributed or sounding POV. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good suggestion to me. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Fyddlestix, that sounds as if it could work. Motsebboh (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Protests" subsection (under CMP heading)

I removed this but was reverted. Strongly suggest that it does not belong - there is no indication that the specific protest treated there is notable, and the source it's hung on sucks. As I said in my original edit summary, PP has been the subject of thousands of protests over the years, just because this one is recent does not mean that it's encyclopedia worthy.

More generally, the entire section on the CMP videos is too long, and needs to be trimmed per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Right now it's at risk of becoming a POV fork from the separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Fyddlestix (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't "suck", Fydddlestix, (your language here sounds like baiting) and the story has been covered by all sorts of other reliable sources anyway. However, I agree that the CMP section is too drawn out with too many sub-sub-headings. It should be trimmed. If the protests become a major ongoing event info on them should be included but I wouldn't put it in yet. Motsebboh (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

it was certainly not my intention to "bait" anyone - but if this was covered in sources that aren't owned outright by a church which is officially anti-abortion, then we should cite those sources rather than one which has a clear and obvious bias on the subject of abortion. This is patently obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of "if." It's all over the place. The New York Times has an obvious pro-choice bias as, of course, does the Alan Guttmacher Institute, but we use them. However, I agree with you on maintaining a "summary style." Motsebboh (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's much more than this. AP/Reuters, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo!, LA Times. There is hardly a source cited in the article right now that does not have a huge pro-abortion bias. Yet the editors here are happy to build a whole article around them, and scream and shout whenever any opposing view is brought in. Classic example of WP:SYSTEMIC. "We just follow the sources" means we will take anything that the liberal MSM dishes out as gospel Truth. Elizium23 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of your personal beliefs. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about my personal beliefs? I'm just pointing out the facts. Wikipedia regularly relies on heavily biased sources. This is a systemic problem and directly undermines the neutrality policies. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

sources for protests: , , , , , , , , , . Cityside189 (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

JBL has a tradition of over-policing this Talk Page. Elizium23 just posted sources. 200.42.234.165 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous form of personal attack. Watchlists exist so that editors can watch articles. JBL is in his good right to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is fatally flawed as it is obviously an attempt to gain more notice for recent political maneuverings. I removed it because I cannot see a way out of the POV trap. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Please, no one re-insert this without first discussing and gaining at least a rough consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What for politically motivated Editors BullRangifer? I can easily show, just by going through your history of edits and Talk Page comments regarding this very same article that you, Fyddlestix and JBL have markedly pro-Planned Parenthood ideas and preferences. Would it be safe to say that this might tarnish the neutrality of the article? 186.120.130.16 (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

How ironic coming from you! Look in the mirror. We all have personal POV and opinions. That's OK. The best content is built when editors with opposing POV come to the same table, present the RS they have found, and build content. It is the RS which count, not our personal POV. We put the sources in the articles and keep our POV for the talk pages.

BTW, you need to stop these personal attacks on other editors because of their personal beliefs. It's a serious breach of policy. Look at "What is considered to be a personal attack?": "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Constantly bringing up other editors' POV as an argument to dismiss them is blockable, so stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts to Planned Parenthood are verging upon an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than just undoing edits by other users when there is a disagreement, and consideration should be given by all users to the inclusion of all opposing points of view on Wikipedia article subject matter and content.

Be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
   

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes, and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard, or you can seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
If you do engage in edit warring, it may become necessary that you are blocked from editing. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's you who are edit warring, in this case to put contested text back into the article. Disputed text should stay out until such a time that consensus is formed for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, articles is protected now. Lovely. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary style reduction for CMP videos section needs to be effected

I notice that the section (Planned Parenthood#Center for Medical Progress undercover videos) hasn't been summarized nearly enough. There shouldn't be any subsections there either (I fixed the level). I also notice that Briancua tried to do this, but his efforts were rejected as one-sided (or something like that). Somehow a new attempt hasn't really been made, so I'll give it a try.

Generally it's easiest to use the lead from the spinoff sub-article as the content. That is the best summary available. This will take some work to make sure all the refs (quite a few don't exist in this article yet) are transported properly, but I'm going to do it now so we all can see how it looks. I will also add hidden editorial instructions to prevent problems in the future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've trimmed it, thank you - agree that this section needs to be kept simple and short, with the spinoff article covering the issue in detail. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that spinoff article was edit-locked on August 17 due to edit-warring. Checkingfax (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We've now reached the point of ridiculous

Another editor thought it was appropriate to add this: [1]

Bruce Rigby, who organized the protest at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City, said that prior to the recent outcry over "the selling and harvesting of body parts", he had "no idea abortions were taking place in Utah — not in my state."[152] "Babies don't have the choice. Consenting adults can do what they want, but babies don't have the choice," Rigby said.[152]
— Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865635143/Utahns-join-nationwide-protests-against-Planned-Parenthood.html

I've left this content in place and placed a POV tag on the containing section here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to revert this material before I realized that I had already reverted some material within the last few hours. If the "Protest" heading is going to stay in then more material should be added to it, but not these impassioned quotations by a relatively obscure abortion protester. Undue weight. Motsebboh (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't made any edits in the last 24 hours so I removed the quotes. They were inappropriate, not to mention the bit about selling body parts not being true. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree about deletion. It's just promotion of an insignificant person's opinion and definitely undue weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: So, a taxpayer citizen in Utah is "an insignificant person", in your (not insignificant, I guess) opinion. Anyone making such an unwarranted and condescending statement as that about someone else, says more about themselves, than they do about the guy from Utah, and should maybe consider stepping down from their high horse for a while. --- Professor JR (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, entirely insignificant in this context. This is all detailed in Wikipedia policy, see for example WP:DUE. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Professor JR, we cannot constantly decry every possible addition in this article that shines a bad light on Planned Parenthood as being "political posturing" or "promotion by an insignificant person". We have to stop this heavy liberal slant. No insult is being lodged here against anybody but there is ample proof, from reliable sources, that Wikipedia is exhibiting a very liberal bias and this is proof of it. Sources for my last statement: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

186.120.130.16: Thank you. I'm glad that someone else among Wikipedians agrees that this article as currently presented is very deficient in its objectivity, or in including almost any mention at all of any opposing viewpoints other than those of pro-abortionists, putting aside for now the question of whether or not U.S. taxpayers should continue to be forced, as they are by current Federal law, to fund PPFA. --- Professor JR (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not a reliable source for anything, neither is an essay by a random wiki editor. Your third link is a blog post (not a RS). None of these, as far as I can tell, even mentions planned parenthood. If you want to claim that the article is biased (and fix it), you need to produce a large number of reliable sources that contradict or undermine what the article says right now. This isn't the place for a general discussion of whether wikipedia (as a whole) has a liberal bias or not. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree removing the quotes is appropriate since they are POV and hearsay, however deleting 100% of the content or the subheading is overkill and/or unwarranted. This cluster of protests is a watershed event in PPs history and needs to be documented but so far no previous Editor had created a more appropriate section to list it in. Prior protests targeted single PP affiliates only. Disclaimer: I started the GENERIC sub-sub-subheading that sparked all the fires. When I bring the GENERIC subheading back next month I expect my fellow Editors to behave with constructive edits and comments. Checkingfax (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: ("now"? --- I fear we reached "the point of ridiculous" a long time ago for this article.) --- Professor JR (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Should "Planned Parenthood" article be proposed for deletion?

Solely disruptive.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If so many Wikipedians cannot bring themselves to countenance even a mere semblance of objectivity in the "Planned Parenthood" article --- and continually insist upon reverting and undoing even any whiff of a dissenting viewpoint --- perhaps the simplest solution would be deletion of the article altogether. As it currently stands, this article is really little more than just a thinly-disguised, blatantly pro-PPFA propaganda "puff piece", with virtually no acknowledgement at all given to any opposing points of view, other than those of the pro-abortion advocates. --- Professor JR (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC) @CFCF: You just made my point --- perhaps better than I did --- when you closed & hid this discussion. Couldn't bring yourself to countenance that discussion, could you. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Professor JR, no, this is the proper thing to do. Your comment is pointy and violates our talk page guidelines (TPG). Focus on content, stop attacking other editors, and stop all the bitching because you don't instantly get your way. If you can't learn to collaborate pleasantly with editors who hold opposing POV, then you'll have a short career here. You're a newbie here and really need to start learning from more experienced editors. Stop seeing them as enemies. Disagreement is okay, but don't make it personal, force yourself to always assume good faith, and don't alienate others. Your reputation is your best, and often only, currency here. Many an editor with great potential and knowledge has been blocked/banned because they couldn't collaborate (I have helped to blocked Nobel Prize winners who just couldn't figure out how to work here. It's tragic when that has to occur.). So, learn the ropes and you may well survive to be a good editor who gains a good reputation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues

I have fully protected this article to give people more time to discuss rather than revert each other. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Locking down the whole article is overkill in my humble opinion. The warring was for a couple of days in a new generic sub-sub-sub-heading I called "Protests" and in which I only inserted basic non-POV information and the best reference I could find. Since then 10 other mainstream references have surfaced. I put the heading under "Controversy and criticism" and since my content was germane to the July and August "Center for Medical Progress undercover videos" I launched the "Protests" subheading there. Wikipedia is a one step at a time process and my effort was the first step to create a generic "Protests" subsection. I hoped that other editors would jump on board and expand the subheading by adding more generic non-POV content and better references but their initial reaction was to entirely delete section without discussion, an action I felt to be excessive. My initial creation was so benign it never occurred to me to take it to Talk first and I did not expect my simple generic insertion to create such a firestorm and the complete edit blocking of the article. I thought the one revert in 24 hour policy was enough to not fan the flames. Once the "Protests" subheading content was expanded by other editors and became less focused I expected the "Protests" subheading to sit under "Controversy and criticism" instead of the more focused "Center for Medical Progress undercover videos" subheading. I was saddened by the negative energy that followed my good faith creation of the subheading "Protests". Please block the Editors that are Warring, and not the whole article.Checkingfax (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Doc James, please do accept Checkingfax's idea and block us ALL editors with a history of edits/reversions/heavy Talk Page postings, long-standing or IP, from editing this article for a week and I will bet 1 BitCoin that this article's quality will increase exponentially. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make a change, get consensus and then post for the change to be made and it will. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

my comments here may not belong in this section but when the editors go back to editing, I wanted to say when I added the 10 sources above, none of them seemed to cause concern for the RS question, I do think that they suggest, at least in part, the notability for these recent protests. Another editor wanted to use the Deseret News as a RS, which editors questioned whether it was an acceptable RS for this topic. I looked up the Deseret News in the RS noticeboard and found an entry there. So I will provide that link for ongoing discussion leave for the editors to determination whether the deseret news should be considered an RS in this context. here it is here --Cityside189 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions Cityside189 I sincerely believe that this being quite a sensible and highly controversial topic, even sincere and honest contributions like yours wil easily be lost under this squabble. My fear here is that we might be suffering under the yoke of extremism and zealotry. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

May be,186... but I'm here to do what I can do, and leave the results in the hands of the group --Cityside189 (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deseret News as a perfectly good and very notable RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Attn: Doc James: Per WP Administrator Guidelines, page-locking and user-blocking are not allowed to be used as a cooling off tool and can in fact "backfire". Checkingfax (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

To which guideline do you refer? What I am seeing is "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus."[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cooldown. Why didn't you warn and/or block the warring users and the users that were section blanking instead of editing, before locking the page? Checkingfax (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not block anyone for a "cooldown", I protected the page because a bunch of experience editors were not discussing enough and reverting too much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood on the political offensive

In case you missed it, Planned Parenthood launched on August 18 ads against Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey, four senators who voted for the bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood. FactCheck.org states these ads exaggerate, mislead and deceive. This is quite interesting noting how several well established editors here constantly referred to politicians speaking against Planned Parenthood as "political posturing" and now Planned Parenthood itself is outright spending funds to air attack ads against some of these same politicians. This should be in the article as an example of political retaliation from Planned Parenthood..

Source: [9] 186.120.130.16 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably none of these events deserve independent mention -- PP has had for several years arms independent of its service providers that do things like lobbying and running political ads. The recent instances are not unusually notable in any respect that I can see. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You, a long standing supporter of Planned Parenthood, just stated that "PP has had for several years arms independent of its service providers that do things like lobbying and running political ads.". This, in and of itself, should be included within this very long article. For a newcomer to Wikipedia who has no clue about Planned Parenthood, it should be clear that it has "political arms" and is used to running these ads, even if we do not refer to specific ones. Remember that according to Open Secrets, Planned Parenthood spent US$6.1 millions on for or against specific candidates on the 2013-2014 election cycle.[10] This is not featured here also. 200.42.234.165 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(1) Go fuck yourself.Refrain from inappropriate personal remarks that are not in keeping with a collaborative editing environment._{[Substituted in light of complaints. JBL (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)]} (2) Then, go actually read the article here. (3) Then, you can come back and apologize for making a complete fool of yourself and wasting my time with this idiotic blather on an article that you haven't actually bothered to read. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Planned Parenthood protests

While I wasn't a big fan of the way which news of the very recent anti-Planned Parenthood protests (now removed) was placed into the article, I did notice something strange about Wikipedia's article. Unless I missed it, protests against the organization, and by that I mean the frequent, persistent, ordinary, sign-carrying type of protests, aren't mentioned at all. There's mention of bombings, arson, chemical attacks, and murder, but nothing that indicates the existence of the more mundane, vastly more common anti-Planned Parenthood activity. Motsebboh (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. That should be fixed. A consensus version GENERIC sentence or paragraph should be formulated, to which can be added appropriate RS for significant organized protests when they occur. Each protest doesn't need to be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. There had been discussion earlier about adding an image, as well, but unfortunately no one was able to produce an appropriately copyrighted one (?). (I hope at some point that will be remedied.) It seems to me that the natural place to put such a discussion would be in the section on "Controversy and criticism," subsection "abortion." --JBL (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In good faith I created the GENERIC sub-sub-sub-heading "Protests" and added relevant non-POV content plus the best reference I could find. When my efforts to start a SUBHEADING were deleted instead of being EDITED I reverted my effort. I made no further reversions or edits, especially because my effort had created unintended edit-warring and snark. The August 22 protest in aggregate was the largest protest by activists against PP in PP history (protests held at over 300 PP affiliates) so it was appropriate content to launch the "Protests" subheading with but since the protests were targeted at a single issue (the harvesting of body parts and tissue) I parked the "Protests" subheading under the subheading "Center for Medical Progress undercover videos". In the spirit of Wiki if another Editor objected to the placement/content of the GENERIC subheading I anticipated subsequent Editors would move/edit and not merely nuke the section entirely. After considerable effort was made to edit the content I was disappointed in the Editor who was unable to return the content to its initial non-POV status and instead opted to join the if-it-sucks let's-nuke-the-whole-section camp. IMHO that was reckless and led to edit blocking of this article. Checkingfax (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be done, but create a consensus version here first. That way most editors will defend it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, long blocks of text rehearsing past events are not usually effective at getting people to agree with you. You'll notice that BullRangifer said a generic sentence or paragraph -- the point is that we should write something about protests against PP more generally, not just about this one protest. Probably a good couple of sentences with sourcing about PP-related protests more generally will also support a sentence of the form "[for example or in particular or in a particularly notable instance], anti-abortion groups organized protests at more than 300 PP locations around the country, the largest of which involved [supported number] of protestors.[citation]" --JBL (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the basic idea. This definitely needs to be done. There is no attempt to block such content, contrary to what some have accused. We just need a consensus version so there won't be any edit warring. Please start writing some suggested versions for discussion.

For our newer editors, this is how collaborative editing works. When an edit is rejected, follow WP:BRD and start a discussion, without attacking other editors. Assume good faith and seek a consensus. The best content is developed when editors who hold opposing POV come to the same table and bring their best evidence (RS). Each will be familiar with sources unknown to the other, so that way all significant POV will be represented and included. Also, learn from more experienced editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the content was blocked and continues to be. The GENERIC sub-sub-subheading and its referenced content was blanked and reverted until it was finally blanked and locked to editing. Checkingfax (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your current approach to this conversation is unlikely to lead to a desirable outcome. Please stop whining and instead try to engage constructively. For a start, you might show some sign that you've actually read the comments that others have written. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Checkingfax, please read others' comments first. The block is not directed at preventing the content. It's directed at stopping edit warring. We agree that the topic should be included, so the time should be used to reach a consensus on wording to use when the block is lifted. Start a new section and suggest some wording, with sources, which we can discuss and work on. That's how we roll here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Numbers and percentages for PP's services

A rather complex(?) edit by Briancua removed a number of specific percentages and numbers for PP's services, based on an article by one fact checker, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who partially relied on doubts and figures from an anti-abortion organization, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBS List).

Well, part of the job of a fact checker and an anti-abortion group is to question the claims made by PP, and that's fine. Their input is definitely worth considering, especially if they publish their doubts in RS, and that is the case here. So, what concerns might there be with this edit?:

1. Lee actually states that SBA List's figures are "misleading". So should we give as much credence to them? I don't think so. They have just as much, or more, motivation to be deceptive and spin things.
2. Lee does rely on doubts from some other RS ([11][12] I would give them more of a voice.
3. She also says we can't be sure that PP's figures are accurate because we don't really know for sure:

"With limited data, there is no accurate way to measure how much of Planned Parenthood’s activities comprise abortions. Both sides are using meaningless and incomplete comparisons to make their argument, and the public should [be] wary of both figures. Thus, both receive Three Pinocchios."

The problem for me is that the actual figures and percentages were removed, even though they were reliably sourced. We don't normally do that. Since we have a conflict between PP's claims and the objections of critics, and both are questionable, I think we should keep those figures as they were, but add a note, with sources, that the figures are disputed. The exact wording can be worked out.

While the actual number for PP's abortions is likely higher than 3%, it is still a minority percentage of their services. Of course critics and SBA List would try to make them the majority portion of PP's work, but they have no evidence for such claims. We just need to point out that there are those who question the 3% number. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The percentages reported by PP and published by other sources such as Guttmacher should be restored. It's fine to include the observation that PP's 3% figure is derived from the sheer number of individual services rather than the total cost of services or the total time involved in providing services. But don't remove 3%. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but such details should go in the body of the article not the lead. Perhaps the lead could briefly make note of the controversy over how much of Planned Parenthod's efforts go into providing abortions but the opposing talking points should be placed in the body of the article. Motsebboh (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

PP and Guttmacher are biased sources. Even though it supports abortion, the Washington Post is a much more reliable source on this one, and they say we just can't know given the information PP has made public. As BullRangifer has noted, they give PP "Three Pinocchios" on the 3% claim.--BrianCUA (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Number one, that sources are "biased" is not an argument against using them. It's just good to know. We use biased sources all the time, and we are actually required to do so in order to fulfill NPOV.

Actually removing the known figures is not the idea proposed above, so don't do it without a consensus. We have a difference of opinion in the sources, and that uncertainty should be documented, so restore the figures, but note that they are disputed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, figures such as the number of abortions Planned Parenthood says its facilities perform each year and the percentage of its total services that Planned Parenthood says abortions represent are both unnecessary and counterproductive in the lead, particularly if those figures are disputed. Motsebboh (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I restored the numbers with the note that they had been challenged.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Motsebboh. Disputed/challenged numbers shouldn't go in the lead. The lead should just mention the controversy/dispute. The actual numbers and figures, as well as the rationale for disputing them, should go in the body. Currently, the lead says 3% of services for abortion, and the lead says this is disputed, but I can't find anywhere in the body of the article "3%" or why 3% is disputed. This does not seem in accordance with WP:LEAD. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but the way the numbers have just been restored in the lead is objectionable. The lead now states flatly that 97% of Planned Parenthood's services are for things other than abortion but that some people dispute this figure. That is like saying that President Obama was born in Hawaii but some people dispute the fact. It casts the objectors as kooks. Motsebboh (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How so? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? One assumes that a simple factual statement made directly in Wikipedia's voice is a true fact and that disagreement is, therefore, simply wrong. If Wikipedia says "Motsebboh was born in Gothenburg, Sweden but some fellow editors dispute this" the disputatious editors are then cast as flat-earthers. Now it is quite different if Wikipedia says "Motsebboh avers to having been born in Gothenburg, Sweden but some fellow editors dispute this." And so with Planned Parenthood, it is okay for Wikipedia to say "Planned Parenthood says that 97% of its services are other than abortion but some people dispute this figure" but not okay for Wikipedia to say "97% of Planned Parenthood's services are other than abortion but some people dispute this figure." Motsebboh (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support CFCF's edits and the overwhelming majority of sources used there are secondary. As far as I can see, no one has put forward a substantial argument to remove those figures. Aside from the sources already used, I think it would be very little trouble to find 20 more that back up those numbers so WP:Weight certainly applies here. Further, finishing out the sentence with "although these numbers have been challenged" is a very clear and neutral way of depicting the WashPost source without violating WP:Undue. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Any evidence that any of those confirming secondary sources have done anything other than to simply accept the figure that Planned Parenthood has fed them? Additionally we would still have the problem (a problem unless one actually likes the idea of Wikipedia disparaging the skeptics) of Wikipedia basically saying -- in the lead, no less -- "Planned Parenthood 97% figure is correct but some yahoos say that it is incorrect." No, this is bad form. Motsebboh (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Having just read the first two sources which are supposed to support the "97 percent" sentence in the lead, I see that neither of them really support that figure. The Fox News story (more than seven years old) does have a sentence reading "In its response, Planned Parenthood emphasized that 97 percent of its services are focused on providing contraceptives, breast and cervical cancer screenings and sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment -- not abortions" but, of course, telling us how someone responds is not the same as confirming the truth of that response (In his response, Tom Brady emphasized that he never told anyone to deflate any game balls). The New York Times article quotes several Planned Parenthood officials who liberally mention the other services that Planned Parenthood provides besides abortion, but the 97 percent figure is never mentioned.Motsebboh (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources

There other, higher quality sources (at least compared to Slate and the NY Post!) that we can use here. this report from NPR states that "abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does — 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report." It also notes that "this 3 percent statistic has many critics, who point out, for example, that it doesn't explain how much of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortion. Others note that the figure counts services provided, not patients served — and some patients receive more than one service from the organization." But the central point which it emphasizes is that "The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception."

This Politifact report points out that SBS List analysis of the issue is also misleading, and manipulates the data in a deceptive way. It concludes, like the NPR report, that STD testing and birth control are by far the largest share of services that Planned Parenthood provides. On abortions, it notes the 3% claim, but suggests that "looking at the share of abortions per patient (and assuming one procedure per patient), the figure rises to 12 percent."

This source (the Washington Post), notes Planned Parenthood's 3% figure and cites it as a fact. It also points to this FactCheck.org analysis, which cites the 3% figure but (like Politifact) suggests that "Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients," does that analysis (using data from 2009) and comes up with a figure of 10 percent.

Most sources report the 3% figure and take it seriously, even if they note that it's not the whole story - so we need to report that, and note that that is PP's position. We can balance that figure by noting that it's been disputed by others - but we should be careful whose critiques we use, and attribute them. There's zero need to cite SBS List of the NY post directly here, we should be directly citing and discussing sources like Factcheck and Politifact instead. Finally, we should stress that virtually all reliable sources agree that the vast majority of PP's services are not abortions. Even if you side with the critics, roughly 90 percent of PP's services are still STD testing, birth control, etc. That's the central point that needs to be made here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Planned Parenthood does many other things besides providing abortions should certainly be made clear. However, simply accepting the 97%/3% ratio as fact in the lead is a bad idea. By the way, are there any reliably sourced figures on what percentage of PP's budget for medical services goes into providing abortions? This, I think, would be a far more significant statistic. Motsebboh (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should state is as fact. It should be along the lines of "According to planned parenthood, only 3 percent of the services that they provide are abortions." then a brief, and similarly attributed mention of one or two of the most reliable sources that have questioned that claim. Something along the lines of "Political opponents of planned parenthood have challenged this figure, and writers for politifact and factcheck.org have suggested that when calculated on a per-patient basis, approximately 10 to 12 percent of the people treated by planned parenthood have an abortion. The great majority of the services which planned parenthood provides, however, are STD and birth control related."

I don't think any of the other numbers thrown around have sufficient weight to be mentioned (in the lede, anyway). And no, I haven't seen any RS that discuss funding in the way you suggest. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I think that the basic wording that you have suggested above is good. The 97 percent versus 3 percent idea should be certainly be attributed to Planned Parenthood rather than be stated directly by Wikipedia, though I think such specific figures, especially contested figures, should go in the body of the article rather than the lead . Motsebboh (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Slate notes that the "3%" figure is "the most meaningless abortion statistic ever" and points out that on a clinic revenue basis (which roughly weights procedures by the amount of effort involved), abortions are "at least a third" of Planned Parenthood's business. I don't think repeating the 3% figure lends any credibility to Wikipedia. It would be better to simply report the number of patients seen and the number of abortions performed. Those at least are objective numbers. -- 120.23.147.139 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Black children"

In the Abortion section of the article there is this sentence:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report indicated that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, while African-Americans make up 13 percent of the total population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, according to that report, and 7 percent were performed on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions performed on minority populations.
— Source: Arina Grossu - "Margaret Sanger, Racist Eugenicist Extraordinaire: The founder of Planned Parenthood would have considered many Americans unworthy of life" - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/

Does any other editor see a problem here? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned this a few weeks ago but perhaps it has been archived. I think probably the whole paragraph should just go, as no one offered any meaningful comments on it. --JBL (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and trimmed. --JBL (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why remove this serious and well founded allegation? How do you define 'meaningful'?Cpsoper (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What allegation? Those statistics are just an indication of who seeks abortions. No one is singling out any racial or ethnic group for abortion. (Some deceptive activists tried to bait PP workers, but there is no evidence that PP targets certain groups.) These groups do it themselves. Yes, it's a sad situation and says a lot about the inequalities, poverty, and racial barriers in the USA, but it's not germane to this article. It's relevant in the Abortion in the United States article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Exclusive focus on legality and lack of reference to international views on PP's practice

Go to Needs better coverage of negative reactions at sub-article. Do not edit this section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am surprised the article carries no reference to widely reported (or curiously completely unreported[13]) outrage and disgust at PP's distribution of body parts (including harvesting from donors with beating hearts[14] and the transfer of whole heads[15]) from terminated foetuses, which is widely regarded as a 'disturbing' 'scandal', irrespective of the distraction about edits, the whole videos now having been released.[16][17][18][19][20][21]etc etc By exclusively focussing on the legal question it has missed the point, and effectively whitewashed the organisation. There was very widespread disgust at the same practice in autopsies children in the UK at Alderhay, this article ought to allude to this widespread repulsion.Cpsoper (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) We have an abortion article where documented expressions of revulsion of the practice can be housed. While a small part of PP's work involves abortion, this article isn't strictly about abortion. Do you have some particular wording which should be added, with sources? You can propose it here and we can discuss it and work on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) One of Cpsoper's links is to a Politico piece; it doesn't say anything about "international views" but it does have this quote from Clinton: “Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country,” the Democratic frontrunner said. “And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one (organization).” Clinton, who has supported a woman’s right to an abortion, said that the group’s funding is at no more of a risk than it has been in the past, despite a spate of new Republican efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer money. What I find to be much more interesting is that the political outrage and calls for defunding have almost entirely come from the right - I think this deserves mention somewhere in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, I cited Clinton because of her quote that the reports were 'disturbing', as indeed they are, she's known to be a major backer of PP. Has she also become a right winger by making this observation? Cpsoper (talk) 20:44, August 29, 2015‎ (UTC) Of course she's not a right winger which is why she is not calling to defund PP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Proposed edit Here is a proposed edit for the current censors of the page to implement if they deem it worthy: In the lede, In 2015, controversy and widespread revulsion was expressed by many sources at reports that PPFA was involved in the sale of foetal body parts, including whole bodies, and intact foetal heads. Many described the affair as a scandal. The PPFA countered by claiming their practice was strictly within legal bounds, and no profit was sought. I'd be happy to suggest a fuller entry under the CMP section. I declare I have no direct interest in CMP, though I am a practising physician and have done small animal work as part of my former research. I trust other editors will feel similarly free to declare themselves free of financial or commercial interests, in accordance with WP:NOTADVOCATE.Cpsoper (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) I am also posting this edit proposal on the wholly disgraceful page on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, I have rarely seen a page characterised by such tendentious editing in years of involvement with wiki. Had I greater confidence in it I would link to it.Cpsoper (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Cpsoper, since this is related to the CMP videos, this content belongs exclusively at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. I know you don't like that article, but it's the one which needs improvement, and this will be your attempt to do so. We can't allow this discussion in two places. Please hat this discussion and encourage everyone to go there and participate. You should change the title of your very emotional section there. I suggest Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy#Needs better coverage of negative reactions. Then use {{hat|Go to [[Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy#Needs better coverage of negative reactions|Needs better coverage of negative reactions]]}} and {{hab}} to hat this thread so we don't have discussions in two places. It should only happen there. If you will allow me, I can do this for you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) To make this easier, and so no doubts will linger about proper procedure, I'll ping the other two involved editors in this thread and ask their permission to actually copy and move all the content here to the other article's talk page. That way this existing discussion can just continue, instead of starting all over again. Pinging: Somedifferentstuff, Cpsoper -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Yes, it makes sense to move it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) References Thanks. I have adjusted my section title on the subpage as requested and will help as time allows, but a balanced reference to this 'scandal' in the main page here also seems entirely appropriate, in the lede, with a cross link, not just in a subsection well down the page, given its current notability. I will park this question for now - it's one of the disadvantages of a complete block even on registered user edits, which seems quite unwikipedian to me.Cpsoper (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I have tweak that heading to make it less emotional and neutral. It will get a better reaction that way and will be take more seriously. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing mention of controversies in the lede

As I'm learning more about Wikipedia articles, WP:LEDE says that some note of controversies can be included in the lede at times if warranted. I like including user:Cpsoper's idea (above) because it puts the controversy right up front, gets it out of the way, and might better allow the article to do it's job, discussing Planned Parenthood. People coming to PP looking for controversy would be redirected right away to the appropriate place for that and the article can be better stand alone. Side note about locking the article, if this article becomes a Featured Article wouldn't it always be locked in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC) --Cityside189 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, you are correct that controversies should be mentioned in the lede. To avoid confusion, since this section is being hatted, please start a new section for further discussion about including mention of controversies in the lede. That lack is an obvious violation of WP:LEDE.

Featured articles are not locked by default, although I wish they were. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, I went ahead and moved the discussion to this new section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)