Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Abby Johnson case

>> proposed addition to controv&crit section. Gerixau (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Abby Johnson worked at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, for nine years, first as a volunteer and then as the director. In 2008, Johnson was named Planned Parenthood's Employee of the Year in the region.

In September 26 2009, she was asked to assist in an ultrasound guided abortion procedure. She said later that she changed her attitude to abortion as a result, and contacted the Coalition for Life, an anti-abortion group in Bryan.

On October 6, Johnson resigned from her position at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood immediately requested a restraining order against her and the Coalition.

"The purpose of the restraining order was to keep her from divulging patient information," Rochelle Tafolla, regional Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, said ,"to keep her from putting our staff, clients and property at risk ... there had been discussions of Abby making claims that something big was going to happen at the end of 40 Days For Life."

The temporary order was granted. The clinic management sent out a statement to local news outlets. On November 10, in a Texas hearing, District Judge J. D. Langley ruled that Planned Parenthood did not offer convincing reasons "to warrant the extreme remedy of injunctive relief." The order was dismissed.

Johnson’s story attracted major media attention, and she has given interviews on several prime-time TV programs.

Far too long/detailed. What would you propose to remove in order to add this? It would present undue weight unless something else gave way. Do you have any reliable citations for the many things stated? - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability must be established first. Do we have reliable and neutral sources, independent from either groups that give substantial coverage to this issue? _WM^O 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without references, this is a no-starter. With references, there might be an issue with WP:WEIGHT. PP has many employees, and some of them quit form time to time. How is this one special? PhGustaf (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless she actually did reveal information about patients, it doesn't seem to be much of anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia should not be a set of lists of every event that gets covered. Here's an article about PP opening a clinic in San Francisco [1]. There are others out there that don't rise to article level.Mattnad (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally heard about this and thought about adding information about it to the article, but I have yet to read the book and as far as I know other then the book she hasn't made any specific allegations of what is going on other then her personal reason for quitting and conversion story. Until specific allegations are made I personally saw no reason to add anything to the article.Marauder40 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be wary of the reliability of a book authored by a person in these circumstances but, hey, it doesn't even figure yet. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'd say it's still a big "so what". One person's change in perspective is important for them. It has little, to no reflection on Planned Parenthood. Likewise, how many pro-life opponents of planned parenthood have, when push came to shove, sought assistance from planned parenthood, including getting an abortion for themselves or someone they know. I'm sure it's more than one or two since Roe v. Wade was decided. An individual decision is all that is and is unlikely to be material for an article.Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said it depends on what is in the book. If the book had something that said "while I was working for PP and I saw this happen and I have proof", that would be one thing. If the book is just her story of her conversion then it doesn't really apply. As of right now it isn't of the scale of things like the story of Norma McCorvey the original Roe of Roe v. Wade converting, but that wouldn't be shown on the PP page.Marauder40 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it contained "I saw this and this," talking about a book is undue weight on this article unless it can be proven from neutral sources that the book is somehow notable. _WM^O 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I'm adding the info to a different article. Here. Gerixau (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"aggressive"

That is the exact word used by the Encyclopedia of Parenthood in America... does anyone have a suggestion for a better on? _WM^O 21:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I declare an interest: I am the person who put a POV query against that word. If the Enc of Parenthood in America is a reliable source (I have no idea - too far away/disconnected), then I'd be happy with it, but perhaps in quotes and with a direct citation. How does that sound? Basically, I'm trying to anticipate a possible NPOV tag on the article for what is really a single word. Probably am being over-cautious but we've all been through the mill of late on this article. I'm sure you're finding this worse than me because you are actually trying to engage and to develop this article, whereas I am feeling as if I am watching a merry-go-round. I salute you for your patience and attempts to resolve the numerous issues which, to me, appear to go off on tangents! - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "far reaching," does that solve your concern? I was also thinking of "most effective" but that isn't in the source.. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm only nipping in here for a mo but will come back and read over all the last 24 hours later today. Far-reaching is less POV than aggressive but, frankly, I'd just remove the whole sub-clause and leave it as "an electoral advocacy campaign" or something similar. Otherwise it is a time-sensitive statement as well as potentially POV. I understand that you want to validate the significance of it but adjectives are often not encyclopedic & s/b avoided where possible. Well, I think so anyway. If you can source a quote with the adjective or can add extra info to prove its effect then that is fine, otherwise I would avoid it. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag

"This section may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2011)"

What viewpoint is neglected here? How is that viewpoint notable, how could it be added while constituting due weight while not violating above consensus? What viewpoint exactly is it unbalanced towards?

In mind that the addition of the not notable "Negro Project" has already been shot down by consensus above, is there anything else that is missing? _WM^O 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has not shot down including the Negro Project. If you consider these discussions consensus you need to re-read the appropriate sections on what consensus is. As I said much earlier today, if you want such detailed information about Guttmacher, Feldt, etc. then you need more detailed information about other things. Right now the History section is the history as seen through rose colored glasses. It does not present any of the other issues that PP has faced, etc. I would have placed an accuracy tag on the section also but I couldn't find the exact format of the tag so refrained from posting it. In general I feel you either need to cut down the detail to make it more of a high level summary of the history or you have to include things like the Negro Project.Marauder40 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, and three editors disagreed. Your comparison of Guttmacher which is an organization that continues to this day independently and the short lived Negro Project really does shine a light on the fact that you want to include as much potentially negative information as possible, these projects are not similar to say the least._WM^O 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am addressing the section on Guttmacher the person not the organization. The Negro Project it is a project at the founding of the organization. It is part of the history. Just as relevent as some of the details in the section on Feldt. You are including good projects and giving lots of space to them without including anything that doesn't shead a good light. An organization as contraversial as PP has stuff against them. I also repeat 3 editors viewing this page at this exact moment do not equal consensus. You are acting like a tag is an end all and be all. It just means the section needs improvement.Marauder40 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly from the Guttmacher section is undue?

"Following Sanger, Alan Guttmacher became president of Planned Parenthood and served from 1962 till 1974.[8]"

Can't be that, I presume, what about:

"During his tenure, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of the original birth control pill, which gave rise to new attitudes towards women's reproductive freedom.[7]"

Very notable, this is still celebrated by the organization today, I would like to add information about their "Pill 50th Anniversary" campaign but that seems to be undue weight in a similar manner to the Negro Project...

"Also during his presidency, Planned Parenthood convinced the federal government to fund both domestic and international family planning programs.[7] "

Certainly that's notable, that got them about a third of their current funding...

"The Federation was also able to block efforts of those who wanted to force a halt to population growth through coercive methods.[7]"

This could use clarification or be removed.

"During his presidency, Planned Parenthood founded the Center for Family Planning Program Development as a semi-autonomous division.[9] This became an independent organization and was renamed as the Guttmacher Institute in 1977.[9]"

Discussed above, Guttmacher Institute is notable for its own article, certainly deserves two sentences in its founding organization's article. So what exactly do you want cut out of Guttmacher? _WM^O 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Guttmacher the person not the organization" - I'm confused. Is this a biographical section/article or what? Sitush (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Guttmacher was the second(I think) president of the organization, there is a section on his presidency which includes the information that he founded a division of PP that is now independent and renamed the Guttmacher Institute. _WM^O 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, I had realised that but Marauder40 seemed to be saying that his/her concern was with "the person not the organisation". If the person is notable then they have/can have their own article. It is exactly the same as Sanger & I don't see why the PP article needs more than the briefest of mentions of person rather than the organisation, together with any appropriate internal link. Sitush (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

IN other words, the article as it stands seems fine re: Guttmacher as it stands. Sitush (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In brief as I already have said I believe the sections on Guttmacher and Feldt reflect more then just a brief overview. If you are doing more then a brief overview with all the projects, things they did "good" and stuff like that then more detail needs to be given to other areas of the history. Either you are doing a brief overview or you are doing an in-depth history. You can't say I want indepth here but I only want an overview here and be NPOV. This history section looks like a puff-piece written for the PP main page. It doesn't look like an independent piece written in a NPOV format about an organization as contentious as Planned Parenthood.Marauder40 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I disagree. It isn't discussing Guttmacher; it discusses a chronology of his PP presidency. Big deal. Sitush (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes PP contentious is that they provide family planning services and abortions. Critics care of little else.Mattnad (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break, tag discussion

We're not here to talk about why PP is contentious, we're here to talk about Planned Parenthood in a general form. Your main that the history section is somehow biased seems to be based on the exclusion of the Negro Project. You sited the section on Guttmacher regarding this, what exactly from that would you remove? This whole thing is quite ridiculous if all you're doing is complaining and demanding that your pet part of Planned Parenthood, which is not significant in a general overview of Planned Parenthood, is not included in the history. _WM^O Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Original paragraph

Planned Parenthood originated in 1916 when Margaret Sanger, already a nationally known birth control advocate, and two associates opened the first US birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York under that name. It resulted in her being jailed. In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s. By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients. In 1942 the League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Since then, it has become the world's largest organization of its kind.

new paragraph

Planned Parenthood can trace its roots to the Brownsville Clinic opened by Margaret Sanger and associates in Brooklyn, New York in 1916. It resulted in her being jailed. In 1921 she founded the American Birth Control League at the first American Birth Control Conference in New York City. Due to differences with other board members she left ABCL and joined the Clinic Research Bureau and renamed it to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB). In 1939, BBCRB and ABCL joined forces to become the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s. By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients. In 1942, the BCFA renamed itself to become the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Since then, it has become the world's largest organization of its kind.

All sentences easily sourced to the original sources and/or the NYU site. Have cites ready to go, but figured I would wait to insert them until everything is worked out. This was what I was talking about very early on due to the original version being wrong. If you want to look at the details in easily found format all organizations are listed here http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/bc_organizations.html The only one I had to think a lot about was the New York Birth Control League since it was founded to assist Sanger but she was never actually a member of it so listing it seemed to be an issue. This is more like I remember the founding of PP to be, not an easy merge from ABCL to PP. This does leave out a lot of the reasons why and what-not but that would be undue weight or should be in the individual articles about the other organizations. The sentence in the lead about ABCL == PP would also need to change.Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't like it. Too wordy, not sure why we need to include all that about the other organizations, the current version seems like a streamlined summary of events.. Basically what you're trying to include in simple terms is organization "x" exists, organization "y" splits from "x" for a little while, later on they come back together and rename themselves organization "p" when we could easily just say organization "x" was founded, went on for a while and then become organization "p" and avoid mention of all that since it doesn't seem all that significant. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think you would since in your own admitance you don't understand what is wrong in your version. But since you aren't the owner of the page we will let others have a look. ABCL is not the organization that became PP, pure and simple. To say that you are stating inaccuracies. This version is pared down a lot from what actually happened. The detailed version would include things like what the differences Sanger had, why the organization name was changed, etc. Many of those things would not look so well in this rosy picture. Marauder40 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the value of the the minutia to a reader?Mattnad (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nada as far as I can tell. Seems like a useless overload of wordiness to me. There are other areas in the article that need more work. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pure and simple ABCL did not become PP. The only organization that became Planned Parenthood is BCFA. If you don't think it is important then get rid of everything before BCFA. To get a better picture of what happened think of it like this. A person founds coorperation A and becomes President of the board. That board of that cooperation takes the company in a different way. The president not liking the direction of the company leaves the company and takes over a different company. That company then becomes the "main" company and gobbles up the original company, a few years down the road due to PR issues the company then changes its name. That is closer to what happened then the rosey picture and what is summarized in the above. To say ABCL became PP is incorrect, inacurate and wrong and does not accurately reflect any of the sources. But I bet since I am saying this it will be totally ignored.Marauder40 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say it became PP? It says Planned Parenthood has its origins there, that is true, going into the nitty gritty of how the different changes/transitions that occurred in the organization becoming Planned Parenthood isn't necessary. Perhaps you would be interested in writing collaborating in writing a detailed history of Planned Parenthood at History of Planned Parenthood or something and we can link to that from here with it including information about all programs Planned Parenthood participated in? It would have to be done in a sandbox and only brought out when complete and npov of course. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)"Where does it say it became PP?" do you read your own stuff it says in plan day "In 1942 the League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America" That is incorrect. BCFA became PP. So you think that an extra two lines CORRECTING things that are inaccurate need an entire new article to say. You are defending stuff that is wrong, pure and simple. I also do not see anything in any of the actual sources that says the original clinic was called Planned Parenthood or ABCL or anything else. I do see things that say the original records of anything from that clinic are sparse and very little actual information survies but it sounds like you don't read the sources anyway.Marauder40 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To Marauder40, I'm still not following how more detailed description of the various name and gyrations are helpful. I get the feeling you want to have more detail so you can use it to coatrack (see WP:Coatrack) some tangential criticism of the current Planned Parenthood. So are you hoping to expand on it to bring out some fringe theories that Planned parenthood was founded to deliver upon Sanger's racist eugenics goals etc.? Seems like a strange reason to add detail that nobody else cares about- the tail wagging the dog- so to speak.Mattnad (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to re-read WP:AGF? Marauder40 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break 2, tag discussion

I must agree with Mattnad, I'm not seeing how the addition of the extra phases are helpful except for the purpose Mattnad laid out above. This isn't a case of AGF, this is a case where there needs to be a good reason to add something to the article. The current paragraph pretty much said, organization "x" started as organization "y" back in so and so, and doesn't concern itself with every little phase of that as that would be undue weight. I'm not seeing why all the other stuff is necessary. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand why AGF is an issue with Mattnad's post. Now I see why you can't see why there is a problem with seeing why saying the league became PP. You can't see what is right in front of your face. My bet is that if anyone else had proposed these changes they would already be in the article. Instead of saying what could be cut or maybe working with it, it is just thrown out without any comment other then to wordy. Fine be inaccurate. Let me find the tags associated with inaccuracy and misquoted/misinterpretted sources. Your own sources say different things then what is in the article.Marauder40 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not a good faith issue. You've been honest in what you feel is lacking. Let me quote you from above "Consensus has not shot down including the Negro Project...... As I said much earlier today, if you want such detailed information about Guttmacher, Feldt, etc. then you need more detailed information about other things. Right now the History section is the history as seen through rose colored glasses." The "Negro Project" is sometimes used by foes of planned parenthood to discuss how they are really (now) racists trying to abort minority children. You feel that the current history section, absent of the Negro Project, is a "history as seen through rose colored classes." Why else would we want to include something that is somewhat a footnote (and not really a negative one except for those who want to read into it).Mattnad (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lots of synthasis and throwing things together that weren't together. As I said before the history section needed modified even without mentioning the Negro Project because it is wrong. I corrected the history, you are not AGF with those changes. I see major entrenchment. I see more of an attack on me then discussing the issues. Marauder40 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, stop trying to get your way with the article against what the majority of editors on this page feel is best for the article using tags, using tags to force your way on the article is a fundamental misuse of tags. You have still failed to provide a rationale why all these different organizations are somehow relevant, if you have a suggestion on how to streamline the first paragraph, I would like to hear it, but adding all this information that few are likely to care about unless they want to read into it is unnecessary. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Again trying to use a discussion between 3 editors as consensus. Shows that you don't really know what it means. I have already provided all the reasons. The biggest being that what is currently written is inaccurate. I have not seen any suggestions as ways my version could be changed other then totally throwing it out. Sounds like major entrenchment.Marauder40 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop being so dismissive, you said it was inaccurate, I disagree, the current version provides a strealined summary of the organization rather than going into every nitty gritty undue weight detail. I will also add that nobody is throwing out everything you say, I removed a sentence from the paragraph about Guttmacher after your complaint that it was going into to much detail, doesn't sound like entrenchment to me. I don't see any attacks on you, but I do see you getting very defensive here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not being dismissive. Your streamlining has made the facts incorrect. The League did not become PP pure and simple, to imply anything else is wrong. As I said earlier if you want to strip out stuff you could strip out everything before the group that immediately proceeded PP. That would mean stripping out the clinic, the league and stuff like that. As I said before 2 lines does not make excessive detail. There are ways of shrinking what I put down without getting rid of the different organization. To leave the current status quo is leaving incorrect information.Marauder40 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the current changes stripping more of the history out is incorrect. First off the lead still states that the league became PP which is incorrect. This line "In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s" is also incorrect, there were multiple organizations until the ABCL and the other organization combined forming the two. The resulting organization is the only organization that can claim to be the "only" organization. This is why I was saying the entire paragraph was wrong. Marauder40 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I saw your messages, I will reply maybe in a few hours or tomorrow after I've thought about it as your ridiculous attacks are not conducive to my being able to give you a reasoned reply. You haven't addressed any of the points that were brought out above by three other editors and yet insist on holding the article hostage through ridiculous tags. All we are saying with the sentence about the clinic in Brooklyn is that it is the origins of Planned Parenthood.[2] Later, the clinic became a part of the ABCL, also true. Then the ABCL became a part of the organization that was renamed Planned Parenthood. That's the big picture, the little details matter little. Labeling labeling it "dubious" doesn't assume good faith. Nobody else (here) agrees with your viewpoint and yet you insist on attacking the work of others claiming they are deliberately making the article misleading even while that is clearly not the case, therefore failing to assume good faith on the part of others, while (falsely) accusing those that disagree with you of not assuming the same. All that other stuff is unnecessary, that's been agreed on by 3/4 of the editors here, now can we go on with improving the article or are you going to continue to insist that the article be remade into your mold? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I just marked the items as dubious for multiple reasons. First you again removed the tag. Second you edited in the area so I figured I would mark the area. You again are failing to AGF. You 3/4 is incorrect since today only 2 people have been discussing the issue. You removed the tag without even letting the 3rd editor comment. Let me put the issue in simple modern day terminology. A company called Apple buys a company called HP. The new company is called Apple, Inc. A few years later the company remains itself to Macintosh. What you have done in this article is the same as saying that HP became Macintosh, instead of the correct statement that Apple or Apple Inc became Macintosh. Step back and stop acting as if you OWN the article. If you don't like having people comment on your edits you might want to work in a different arena.Marauder40 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break 3, new history lead paragraph

Hi folks, sorry for the delay but had a minor medical emergency involving an elderly neighbour. I actually do not see a problem with the draft lead. I do understand that people may suspect ulterior motives but, well, if it turns out that way then the entire thing would be dumped and we would start (yet) again. I am by training a historian and if you look at the Churchill Machine Tool Company and W & J Galloway & Sons articles which, pretty much, I have written then you'll appreciate that I actually quite like the detail. But that's just me. I don't think the draft is particularly more wordy than the extant version, and I'm assuming that the promised citations are there - why should I not? This is basic history, not interpretation, so I really cannot see an argument against it in itself. In a situation like this the question s/b is the extra detail *unhelpful* not whether it is helpful. And prima facie, it is not unhelpful- Sitush (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I should have added that the lead needs to reference the present coverage (820+) etc, Otherwise it is really a brief "early history". - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include detail on minor twists in the organization's founding rather than streamline it, perhaps we should include details of every twist in every part of the organization's history? I'm thinking a paragraph on their campaign for the pill, a paragraph for their international relationships, and more information about everything else? With all due respect, Sitush, I think the additional information is unhelpful. It's confusing and hard to read, that's from someone like me who is not a very big on history.. I'm really not understanding the Apple, HP, Macintosh analogy either. The thing is, these articles are written for everyone, including people who don't give a damn about twists in an organization's history, meaning that a streamlined summary of history is better for articles like this, imho. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

... but equally it includes people who do give a damn? - Sitush (talk)

I still don't see why all this matters but here's a rewrite which I think is less wordy and possibly could be a part of a compromise:

Planned Parenthood originated in 1916 when Margaret Sanger, already a nationally known birth control advocate, and associates opened the first US birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. It resulted in her being jailed. In 1921, it was organized into the American Birth Cnotrol League. Later, Sanger left the ABCL, joined what became the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB). By 1941, the Bureau had merged with the League and was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients. In 1942, the organization became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Since then, it has become the world's largest organization of its kind.

How does that one sound? I still think a lot of the details are unnecessary and would like to cut some of it out but just throwing this version out to see what others have to say. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See what Marauder40 thinks. Right now, the issue is pretty much between the pair of you, as I see it, with others such as me sticking our oar in occasionally. The oars are sometimes important! <g> I not quite sure why you dropped the ref to Brownsville but presume it was merely for brevity. I wouldn't know where/what the place is/was if it were not for M's draft. Which means that it educated me. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Brownsville was just the name they gave the clinic, I don't see why the name is necessary and its already confusing me reading mine, although not as much as the other one is.. I still don't understand why we need to include all these kinks that after reading all the pages on the NYU site, I still don't understand. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but perhaps it is your lack of understanding of the sources that is the reason you think Marauder40's version is too verbose etc? Just thinking aloud - it is not meant as a criticism I've no idea myself and am more confused than the pair of you will ever be. That's why it needs resolving: you are communicating with a wider audience than just people in the US. Let's wait for a response from Marauder. I will say that the address detail for Brownsville in Marauder40's draft is not necessary, unless someone is planning on torching the place post facto. - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the newer proposal. The recent changes to the actual history article however sound horrible in syntax, and pretty close to being weasel wording. Situshi the mention of Brownsville clinic name is because that is what they call it and refer to it. I do have a problem with the fact that I am considering issuing an incident report on stalking and civility. It seems WikiManOne instead of AGF and working together on improving an article has decided to do a tit-for-tat type treatment and decided to go to an article he has never been to before which is referenced in my information page. This article Secular Franciscan Order is in a region he has never edited in and shows a clear case of stalking. This shows the type of person currently in this discussion. I would expect better behavior from a 6th grader. Of course he doesn't realize that other then vandalism reverts and getting a couple cites for the page I have never edited on the page. The page was already tagged with a tag that has existed on the page for a long time. If he had looked he would realize that TAGS ARE NO BIG DEAL. Someone really needs to read the articles on civility and the 5 pillars.Marauder40 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, lets work on the semantics of the newer version and make it live. There is no stalking involved, it is completely appropriate for me to click through to another user's page and click through to an organization I had never heard of, then choose to add some tags to ask for its further improvement. It would be stalking if I had actually gone to your recent contributions and systematically opposed you on each of the discussions you were involved in (which I didn't even look at recent contributions). Again, you are failing to assume good faith here, and then violating WP:NPA in the later part of your message. However, this is completely off topic, so lets get back to improving this article. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And anyone above 6th grade can tell exactly what you were doing in this case. You just happen to add tags to and article mentioned in my information page right after I add dubious tags to this article because you again removed a tag from the article. Maybe reading up on St. Francis will help you a little with humility and having a thick skin. Marauder40 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can you two take the AGF/NPA part of this whenever possible going forward? Mattnad (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

arb break 4, new history lead paragraph

Frankly, I've had enough of your personal attacks, if you want we can assume good faith and continue. It's up to you. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So did the ABCL become PP? - Haymaker (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with some other names in between, but that is in effect what happened and when the history is summarized, that's usually what they say. In depth histories seem to talk about every manifestation though, I think we've reached a compromise but Marander hasn't replied. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This probably doesn't need to be in the lead. Why not move it out and get into that history in the body of the article? - Haymaker (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against B-class criteria

Being checked against the WP:BCLASS criteria (not official evaluation, as I am involved in the article):

• Criterion 1: Needs more reliable sources, but "important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited" by WP:RS for the most part. Needs improvement in some areas which is being worked on. N
• Criterion 2: I think the Services section could use a lot more expansion. N
• Criterion 3: Article passes this easily. Y
• Criterion 4: Not perfect but good enough for B, I think. Y
• Criterion 5: Could use image of an average local clinic, will work on this. Y
• Criterion 6: Looks fine. Y

With all the editors involved, I don't think we'll have much trouble taking this up to B-class pretty quickly if we work together. Most of what we need right now is more reliable sources and some expansion, I think. Let's work together to accomplish this. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Haymaker

This edit is highly inappropriate. First, it is his fourth revert of material today (although I will not report it) on this article. Second, it removes three reliable sources and puts the former single self-published source back in its stead. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll find more sources if thats a concern. That speculative coverage of Bell was outrageous. - Haymaker (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what the reliable source stated. It was also clearly marked as Planned Parenthood's opinion. There is no question that Bell died as a direct result of parental consent laws. That's not the point, the point is it is exactly what the source said. Unless you are claiming that MSNBC isn't a reliable source? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not what the Bell article says, and I doubt that is what source says. - Haymaker (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the source again, that is exactly what it says. I would copy and paste but its copyrighted. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Where can it be referenced? Any why does the Bell article say different? - Haymaker (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference is there, I am accessing it through my school's online research library, where I always find my sources and then look for copies available elsewhere, this one I could not find a copy online. I haven't taken a look at the Bell article but most articles on abortion related topics have a very anti-choice bent on wikipedia so it wouldn't surprise me at all should it be inaccurate, pov, etc. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we see the reference? - Haymaker (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you pay for the database. I get it through my school and no I am not posting my credentials here, and we all know that you can get blocked for knowingly posting copyvio. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a catch-22 to me. I don't see how posting the reference is a copyvio. Arzel (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link [REMOVED&version=1.0] with my credentials removed from the URL, if you can get in or have credentials for that common online library you can see it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is a hack job!

I know that the editors here are mostly guys and whatnot, but the coverage of woman's health issues on wikipedia is dispicable. This article is a case in point, instead of telling about the organization and what people want to know about it, a huge portion of the article is about controversies. This improbably the result of the gender bias in editing as bigoted males are likely to use wikipedia to promote their views while other guys don't care enough to stop it since this issue doesn't affect them. Mattnad, Sitush, and WikiManOne seem to be trying hard to be fair but they're all allowing information into the article that doesn't matter. Who is this "Christian Action Network" and why should normal people care what they think? Why should normal people care what any of these so-called "pro-life" in reality, right wing anti-abortion bozos (and that's a quote from TV) have to say about an organization that provides necessary services to millions of woman around the country who wouldnt have it otherwise? So now I've told you what my problem with the article is, so please stop reverting everything I do! Sizzletimethree (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys and "whatnot"? Since there are only two genders I must assume that the ladies are "whatnot" - that'll go down well, then. Apologies to the ladies present.

I have no idea why you think the WP demographic is primarily male and I'd like to see your proof for that. However, I'd suggest you read back a bit through the discussions on this talk page before launching into something - get a bit of background etc. And, as I said earlier today on your talk page, read up on the policies. You are sailing pretty close to the wind (unintentionally, I am sure) and this is a hectic, controversial topic to for a "clueless" (in wikipedia experience) terms. You're welcome, but you need to understand the boundaries. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I apologise a little. You clearly have read some of this page because you mention various editors. Sorry about that. But the rest of what I said still applies. You might also want to look right at the top here, where the various info boxes are. It includes guidance about what this section is intended for. In particular, remember that WP is not a soapbox. Well, it shouldn't be, at any rate. :) Sitush (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the rest of what the editor says, although I do agree that this article does give too much weight to the controversies.. the gender disparity has been brought up quite a bit, this is just an example.. been all over the news as of late. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems fairly balanced as it is to me. The history section has done a lot to get things into proportion and "round things out". Anyway, we've already had this discussion recently, so if you want to re-open that then you can't possibly oppose Marauder40's desire to re-open other things. Just pointing this out: what anyone does it up to them. Sizzletimethree's edits early this morning (UK time, GMT) were without doubt ridiculously over the top. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and agreed again. The removal of the section is not something that should just be done, we already had a long discussion on that and I'm not particularly excited to reopen that discussion. I do have to agree that the criticism worked in under other headings on the article is probably undue, but taking it slowly is the name of the game. Sizzletimethree, if you would like you should probably weigh in on the other content battles going on above.. I guess Marander is taking a break for now or something but he'll probably be back soon. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything needs to be fixed! Thi article isn't fair to Planned Parenthood at all! We need to make it say good stuff too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS Question

Does anyone oppose using this report from Planned Parenthood as a source for the number of supporters/donors/activists involved? This is self-published but I don't think the claim that they have four million such individuals is particularly controversial. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are presented in a way to make PP look as successful as possible, but there's nothing to suggest they're incorrect (though the "abortions prevented" one is trick). If any third party were to publish such numbers, they'd have to get them from PP. The data is usable as long as its attribution to a particular PP group is made clear. (The same sort of argument would apply to using IBM's annual report as a source for its income or employee count.) PhGustaf (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am bringing this up because some editors seem to think that using anti-choice organizations as sources on this article is reliable and in and of itself can create due weight for whatever controversy they bring up. They cited the PP sources so I wanted to get clear consensus that these attributions are okay, I think that this is pretty uncontroversial considering we would note where the figure came from. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Source question

This source is used to cite this statement:

"In 2008, contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; and other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%."

I have been unable to find third party/reliable/neutral sources for these percentages. I have no qualms with removing this passage from the article and instead writing sentences about each service with good neutral sources or if anyone has any ideas for sourcing. Alternatively, we could choose via consensus to accept a self-published source for the fact at a reliable source. Comments? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An official report should be fine. We use annual reports for orgs all the time. Just make sure we make it clrar inline that its PP sourced. Where else would anyone get these stats?Mattnad (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article to clarify that these are Planned Parenthood stats. I would like to expand that section based on reliable sources however. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Stand on political and legal issues" POV tag

The section tag on this section is obvious. It only includes the one sided views of the organization without providing opposing views. It wasn't to bad before recent edits, but recent edits put it way over the edge. Marauder40 (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. This section as I understand it simply describes Planned Parenthood's position on family planning issues. Wouldn't the opposing views on topics be a) in the articles on the topics (e.g. Birth control, Abortion,) or b) on articles of groups that take a different view? So are you saying that the information on Planned Parenthood's position inaccurately describes their position? Or is it that you want space there to include the debate on those issues. If it's the latter, there's ample material in other articles already.Mattnad (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

I think the purpose of the section is to describe the organizations stand on these issues. So, by necessity, the section will describing that organizations point of view.

• I don't think it would be appropriate to have alternate points of view about there positions here (in other words, just taking one sentence as an example, the article provides a reliable source that supports "Planned Parenthood argues for the wide availability of emergency contraception (EC) measures". I'm sure there are those who argue the opposite position, but the section isn't about those positions. Rather, it is about PP's stand on those positions.
• If reliable sources showed that was not their stand on one or more positions, then it would make sense to change the text accordingly, or state something to the effect of "While PP states that their position is X[ref1], at other times they have stated their position is not-X[ref2].

JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding a thought: I'm unsure if its appropriate to add text to this section that, in essence, rebut the stated positions of PP. Is that what you're proposing as a solution? JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The section is about Planned Parenthood's opinion. I realize your purpose here is to portray the subject in as negative a light as possible but I'm really not seeing a pov there, its correctly describing the organization's positions and why based on reliable sources. There is no reason to add the responses of fringe groups opposing Planned Parenthood to the section. We already devote far too much time to the opposing viewpoints on an article that is supposedly about Planned Parenthood and their positions/history/etc. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I love how User:Marauder40 starts complaining about any section on this article that undergoes revamping based on reliable sources... Would you rather have us rely on annual reports and press releases by anti-choice groups? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The problem here is that this is supposed to be NPOV, not just stating what PP stands for. See articles like Crisis pregnancy center, pro-life, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism or any contraversial page that shows organizations that may believe something against the PC view of the world. The same thing applies here. It seems many people want one set of rules for groups like Crisis pregnancy centers and an entirely different set of rules for groups like Planned Parenthood. Right now many of the things addressed in this section the opposing views are not addressed at all in the article including in the crit section. Things like the Beckey Bell issue state one POV, there is a different POV. Right now the entire section is not a NPOV. All the things mentioned in this section have an opposing viewpoint, just mentioning the one is POV. As usual you complain about me directly instead of addressing the issue. It is pretty clear that the recent edits took it farther away from being NPOV then it was originally.Marauder40 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I realize your purpose here is to portray the subject in as negative a light as possible" WMO, careful with your attributions - the indent makes it seem you're directing that comment at me. I don't see how that can be, as I am (gently and politely disagreeing with the editor who posted the tag, as I don't see that stating well-sourced statements of PP's positions is wrong or unbalanced. I agree with you, and Mattnad, that this section can't contain a statement of PP's positions, and then a rebuttal thereof. Assuming good faith, I'm not 100% certain that is what Marauder40 is proposing, nor exactly what the concern is (other than what's been said, which is that "recent edits put it way over the edge"). I'd like to have a civil discussion to understand exactly what edits the editor thinks were inappropriate, and how. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't directed at you at all. Sorry for the confusion. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it make any different in civility and AGF even if the comment is directed at me? Not really.Marauder40 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for a bad article here. But if it were, I would note that Care Net has a pretty shrill article in its support. The opposing views are not relevant to Planned Parenthood. Sorry, but we don't write the article to attack every position that the subject has, we're writing about the subject and we already include enough opposing viewpoints about abortions which constitute less that 2% of their total services performed. Again, would you please stop demanding changes and instead make suggestions? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is excuse enough. Care Net is not an example because it is still listed as a stub. You should only used establed articles as comparission. If you want this listed as a stub or underconstruction then fine. Using your own words "I find the whole section to be very positive pov which is why I placed the tags."Marauder40 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse. What exactly is positive pov? I don't see how your snarky reply is helping anything here. We're not looking for comparisons, why should criticism be added, this is an article about Planned Parenthood, not their opposition. Feel free to link to relevant policies that require opposing pov in a subject's own article. Here's an established article which does not include criticism Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, heck, the abortion section quotes NARAL but nobody else. When speaking about a subject's positions, I think the idea is to provide information about the subject's positions and their (the subject's) rationale. Again, though, the article listed is only for you to take a look at if you so choose, as other stuff is not an argument on wikipedia. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

break pov discussion

(outdent)WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are important for all - there's no question. Regarding this issue, perhaps I am being too pedantic, but:

• Changing this section simply makes no sense, from the perspective of an uninvolved editor.

Disclaimer: I am not a subject matter expert on this topic, nor this organization. However, that may be a good thing, as I really am an uninvolved editor, just trying to help. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless Maraunder can give us some specific examples of what he sees as pov, I think its time to remove that tag. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE - why rush? Controversies are like wine - they're less sharp when aged a bit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I already stated my issues. The recent edits changed the section from just being a statement of what the issues are to reasons why. It is just one thing to state the purposes and policitical stances without rebuttal it is something totally different to get into the whys and where-withalls without having the opposing stances. Marauder40 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you please post the edit differences to show the changes in question? Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My online time has been very small today so I can't assemble all the individual diffs, but if you look at this diff link and go down to the "Stand on political and legal issues" section and go down until you reach "Actions by Pro-life activists" you will see all the changes over the last day.Marauder40 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly do you have a problem with? Answer the question instead of making vague demand? Are you upset because there are now reliable sources for the statements there? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely did change the section to include an explanation for their positions based on reliable sources, not sure what the problem is. Sounds to me like you would rather have the previous version which was just a list of positions from a self-published source and written with an anti-PP bias. What exactly do you have a problem with? Please provide diffs and explanations as to why each edit is bad. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Marauder40, thank you for the link. In the specific area of the section in question, here're my thoughts on the changes:

• Some seem uncontroversial (with references that seem to support the statements)
• Some of the language seems a bit promotional, and not really needed.

The challenge will be to update it in a neutral way, and not by just reverting edits. Perhaps the best approach would be to try a re-write here and get consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What so bad about it? The rest of the article I so anti-PP and you guys worry about the only fair part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sizzletimethree, I believe thaat's part of the challenge with this article. Some editors feel it is biased and gives undue weight in favor of Planned Parenthood and its positions, while others feel the opposite. That has led to some unfortunate edit warring by otherwise good editors, on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, sometimes the best way to work through controversial issues is to divide and conquer. In this case, there's was a concern raised in good faith about one section. As an uninvolved editor, the section as a whole seemed initially OK. However, when I looked a bit more closely, the editor who raised the concern seemed to have a valid concern, at least in part. The wrong way to approach fixing this would be to make unilateral changes or simply reverting changes.

1. Reverting is easy
2. Crafting an acceptable, well-sourced, neutral section that gains consensus is hard, particularly where there have been disputes.

I'm happy to help, but need other editors to participate. There is no deadline to do so, however, so no need to rush in removing tags nor reverting what's there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

700,000 donors

I could find that in the source. Where are we getting that number from? - Haymaker (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually see 900,000 on page 17 of the cited source. Could "7" be a typo?

A propos of that, the source does separate the accounting for the national org. and for the local affiliates, while we're currently just using the combined numbers. Should we also include the national/local breakdown? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I asked to update it above but apparently accuracy is only secondary to people's pov objectives. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No more government funding.

Obviously, this needs to be noted.

http://www.choiceadvocates.org/2011/02/cecile_on_passage_of_pence.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talk • contribs)

Why? It's just an amendment to the House version of the continuing resolution that is unlikely to pass in the Senate version and whatever passes congress is basically guaranteed to be vetoed by Obama. The Democrats have basically said a government shutdown is coming. There's zero chance this particular PP defunding amendment becomes law. At some point in the future, it may be attached to some other bill - something that is going to pass with a veto proof majority - and once that happens, it's worth mentioning. But you may see this same battle (attach the defunding bill to something that is DOA anyway) played out ten times before that happens. To cover this effort is too much in the way of recentism. --B (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Every year there's a battle over funding. When it happens, then it's relevant.Mattnad (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)