Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pro-life vs. Anti-Abortion

An anonymous editor has been making changes, substituting "Anti-Abortion" for the term "Pro-Life." It's a given these are politicized terms. I'm soliciting opinions from other editors on how we might approach this. I'm personally in favor of using "Pro-Life" since that is how those groups position themselves. Similarly, we would use the term "Pro-Choice" for groups favorable to open access to abortion procedures.Mattnad (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We use "pro-life" and "pro-choice", in line with these groups' self-identification (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)). So I agree with you, and the guidelines support "pro-life" and "pro-choice" rather than "anti-" anything. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are "Pro-Choice", what "choice" are you for? Pregnancy termination(abortion) or giving birth(life)? Why are you folks not Pro-Abortion? I am proud to be Anti-Abortion. Why cannot you be the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.18 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mu. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of our beliefs, or how you refer to yourself, but an issue of writing style. As MastCell mentioned above, there are naming conventions in Wikipedia. Most often, the two sides on this debate refer to themselves as Pro-Life and Pro-Choice so we're favoring that usage. Mattnad (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the proper terms to use on Wikipedia are "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" in conformance with the naming conventions cited above. While other terms may be more descriptively accurate, they aren't how the groups generally identify themselves. Early frosts (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're all ignoring one basic fact: "Pro-choice" is inappropriate. What is the choice about? Chocolate? Vanilla? Killing abortionists? It should be "Pro-abortion". And if you disagree, answer this question: If I was in favor of a man's right to choose to rape you, would you call me "pro-choice" or "pro-rape"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is months old and no longer relevant to the article.-Wafulz (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people who are pro-choice do not agree that abortions in general are a good thing. They believe that abortions are a bad thing, and that it would be best if no abortions ever occurred. Pro-choicers do believe, however, that availability of abortion is a good thing. So, to answer your question, if you believe that rape is a good thing, then you are pro-rape. If you do not believe that, then you are not pro-rape. 173.89.5.57 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

mifepristone

The article had a sentence Planned Parenthood supports and provides FDA-approved abortifacients such as mifepristone. This is of course correct, but in the context of discussing emergency contraception is POV. Mifepristone is an abortifacient, in that it can be used to cause abortion early on in pregnancy. However, it is also used as an emergency contraceptive. There exists a viewpoint that any emergency contraceptive is an abortifacient, but this point of view cannot be taken by the article. (There is no dispute that PP provides abortions; there is dispute (in some sections of the community, anyway) over whether provision of mifepristone before implantation constitutes abortion.)

Following on from this, User:Drsjr added this to the article: which pro-life activists point out most often causes an early abortion. and a link to a site called "fightpp.org". The site fightpp.org is not a reliable source. Further, the fightpp.org page says that mifepristone "typically" causes early abortions, without giving any sources of its own to back up this assertion. Therefore this addition cannot stand, and I have removed it. There was not space enough to explain this in the edit summary, so I have explained it here. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I've also noticed a bit of spamming of fightpp.org recently. It's clearly a partisan, unreliable source which is unsuitable for anything other than a description of what a particular segment of the pro-life advocacy community believes, and it seems to fall below the notability threshold for inclusion here unless its work is referenced in third-party publications. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections from Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has noted several inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry on our organization. We submit the following information as a request that these factual errors (as noted below in bold) be corrected.

Sidebar:

Location: Nearly 880 clinic locations nationwide (Source — frequently updated: Planned Parenthood at a Glance (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

Membership: 99 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates (Source — frequently updated: Planned Parenthood at a Glance (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

Budget: $1,017.9 million (Source: Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2006-2007 Annual Report, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf)

Facilities and funding:

PPFA is a federation of 99 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates in the United States. These affiliates together provide health care services and education at nearly 880 sites across the country. (Source — frequently updated: Planned Parenthood at a Glance (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

Planned Parenthood health center income in FY 2007 totaled $356.9 million. Other operating revenue that same year totaled $65.5 million. (Source: Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2006-2007 Annual Report, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf)

History and organization:

The National Birth Control League was never affiliated with PPFA or its predecessor organizations. Further, Mary Dennett was never a leader or employee of PPFA or its predecessor organizations.

Planned Parenthood can trace its roots to 1916 when Margaret Sanger opened the first U.S. birth control clinic in Brooklyn, NY. Sanger legally incorporated the American Birth Control League in 1923.

Faye Wattleton was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1978 to 1992, the longest term in the organization's history, since Margaret Sanger led the organization.

KDMlibrary (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think I've incorporated/corrected everything. Let us know if anything is incorrect.-Wafulz (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making the corrections. At the current time, though, we have "nearly 880" clinics rather than "more than 880". KDMlibrary (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with your making these factual edits too. So long as you disclose your relationship to PP, you can participate. Then editors can watch for anything that might be considered a conflict of interest edit. Mattnad (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Our # of health centers has changed again, as it often does. I will make these types of small changes. Thanks again. KDMlibrary (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A few more requests to make changes for accuracy:

1. The lead paragraph to the entry conflicts with the information presented in the “History and organization” section. The intro should read as such:

The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York where Margaret Sanger opened the country's first birth control clinic. Sanger incorporated the American Birth Control League in 1923, which changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in 1942.

2. Also in the introductory section - Planned Parenthood was not a party in Roe v. Wade.

3. “Stand on political and legal issues” section – This statement implies that PPFA/American Birth Control League was affiliated with the National Birth Control League, which is inaccurate:

“Planned Parenthood and its predecessor organizations have provided and advocated for access to birth control since the founding of the National Birth Control League in 1916.”

As always, we appreciate reviewers making these changes to improve the accuracy of the entry.

KDMlibrary (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. The first two were largely sloppy writing on my part. Sorry.-Wafulz (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PPFA has noticed some outdated information in the “Controversy and criticism” section of this entry, specifically around medical privacy cases. The entry currently states, “Cases in Indiana and Kansas remain unresolved.” The Indiana case is over, and Planned Parenthood did not have to turn over the records (citation: Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Carter, 854 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). The Kansas case is over, and redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections (citation: Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006)). KDMlibrary (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that you apparently have the references handy, I see no problem with your making the corrections yourself. You've been very clear about possible COI problems, and there are enough eyes on the page that you'll be called on it if what you post seems in any way unbalanced. PhGustaf (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of services

"Facilities and funding" lists the services that PP provides:

Services include abortion services, contraceptive (birth control) services; emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies and tubal ligations, and more.

I'm glad we have this paragraph now. However, I think it's unrepresentative of PP's work to list abortion first, since most of what it does is nothing to do with abortion, and most of its clinics don't provide abortion. Furthermore, many of its critics who haven't taken the time to inform themselves about what PP actually does seem to think that PP is nothing but, or mainly, an abortion provider, and listing it first reinforces that impression. The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Annual Report breaks down the services by incidence. I would prefer listing them this way.-Wafulz (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ordering by incidence sounds reasonable to me. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your opinon on combining the statistics paragraph directly following the list of services with the list of services itself? I recently edited the % statistics (anonymously, due to never creating a wiki account before - fixed now) because I felt the previous rev was slanted. Numbering abortions versus may be of value, based on PP's focus, but failing to mention the breakdown of other statistics and correlating the abortion figure with adotion referal numbers is definite bias. Since my edit was in order of services rendered, it seems now to be a bit redundant with the previous paragraph. Thumbcat (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop erasing the part about Consumer Reports condom test

I have added this to the article a few times, but people keep erasing it, claiming that it's not relevant. They are mistaken - it is very relevant that an organization that makes money from abortion is/was selling defetive condoms. I am a pro-choice libertarian, but even I think this is noteworthy. By the way, when you go to the link, you might have to reload the page to see the entire chart with the ratings.

A February 2005 test report from Consumer Reports rated Planned Parenthood's Honeydew condoms as being "poor" (the lowest possible rating) in the two categories called "strength" and "reliability." Grundle2600 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, low quality condoms are an extraordinarily minor issue.-Wafulz (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A poorly rated condom from 2005 is hardly the stuff that warrants mention in an article. And exactly what's the controversy? Poor quality control by the manufacturer? Were there news reports, public outcry, anything beyond the consumer reports article or (I'm guessing) partisan attack? Anyway, I'll let others weigh in, but your really need to explain your comment that "it is very relevant that an organization that makes money from abortion is/was selling defetive condoms." At most it's ironic that a organization that promotes family planning and disease prevention would have a poorly rated (not necessarily defective) condom. And your biased interpretation is clear: consumer reports article states that these condoms were given away or offered at very low charge. So even the foundation of your argument is based on a false assumption. Mattnad (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, non-notable, likely outdated report. No record of 'controversy' or 'criticism' related to this report. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this back in January, about 6 or 7 threads up from here. I thought we reached an agreeable state. As I recall from that discussion, some of the brands of condoms sold by PP rated "excellent" while others rated poorly. Is there something new to add to the discussion we had back in January? MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Advocate The a young man and woman from The Advocate publicly embarassed PP through a U-Tube video showing a PP employee agreeing to ignore the "fact" that the male was 18 or over and the woman was underage: she was posing as pregnant and wanting an abortion through PP. Even Fox news, which basically approved of their actions, pointed out that they had done so "undercover," and had thus committed basic entrapment. The PP employee was disciplined. Perhaps this was deserved, but it does show PP have enemiesm some of whom perhaps have needed contraceptives and contraceptive information some time in their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of World Net Daily and recent criticism

The recent addition of a 2004 lawsuit is fine (in my view) provided the source meets WP:RS. The sourced site has a sensationalist quality to it, and the article does not have a byline so I've punted this up the the RSN. See this discussion of World Daily News as a reliable source here [1]. Mattnad (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing comments about this source on the reliable sources noticeboard, the consensus is that this does not qualify. If we can find a mainstream media source or other official documentation (like a lawsuit that was filed), this does not rise to WP standards. Mastcell's removal of the material makes sense for now.Mattnad (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: The source may be reliable for these purposes, but there a broader issue of notability. I've searched for any outcome of the complaints and found none. At lease for now, we have little to add except that complaints were made. No known reporting/evidence that they were proven or that there were consequences for planned parenthood. Right now these 5 year old accusations seem to have been noted only by organizations who already have a negative view of Planned Parenthood due to the abortion debate. So (for now) this probably falls below a notability threshold.Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rabbis and Pastors

There are reportedly several rabbis who have served on the Planned Parenthood board of directors. There are also reports that members of liberal Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church have worked alongside the organization. It would interesting of the article could mention this as a source of potential scandal within certain religious congregations. One element that is troubling is that it re-inforces traditional anti-semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories about Jews being sent on a divine mandate to forcibly reduce the Gentile population. ADM (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Map

So.. If 'Planned Parenthood' only operates in the US, why is there a map of the entire earth at the top of the page? why not just a map of the US? Invmog (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The map is for context and shows, by color where this organization operates. A US only map is better for showing state by state differences (like during election coverage on TV). For instance, if you were to look at the article on New York State, we don't just have the outline of the state, but put it in context of the whole country. Mattnad (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

liveaction.org criticism

The liveaction.org press release and related video is not a reliable source. Per the reliable sources guidelines, Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, this is an organization's press release commenting on a video they produced. It does not meet the threshold. What would make it meaningful is it getting picked up by mainstream news organizations. See also WP:Weight. This is not what I'd expect in an encyclopedic article. Mattnad (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion

I had changed the terminology of Planned Parenthood's OP from Pro-Choice to Pro-Abortion to achieve a more neutral POV to it. It was then promptly reverted. Apparently referring to Planned Parenthood as Pro-Abortion is frowned upon as not being neutral? Pro-Choice is clearly not neutral POV. It seems to me that Pro-Choice persons are in favor of abortion rights, therefore are Pro-Abortion and would have no problem referring to themselves as such. Am I wrong in this analysis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylteralmaldo (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed several times on this talk page - see the earlier section titled "Political Correctness". After reading that section, let us know if you still don't understand. Mattnad (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that section. The one thing that is clear is that there is no good term to make abortion sound good. The term I thought was neutral (Pro-abortion) is opposed by those who favor Planned Parenthood's abortion services because it makes it sound like those who chose abortion also favor it. There is a difference between chosing abortion and favoring abortion according to those who oppose the use of that term. Either way, no one wants to favor terminating their unborn child just like no one wants to chose terminating their unborn child. It's a difficult selling point no matter how you look at it. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you review Wikipedia's writing guidelines. It states " Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." You are certainly welcome to your opinion on abortion, but this article is on Planned Parenthood (what it is, what it does, its history, etc.) The basis for using the term pro-choice is because this is the term the variety of society and media use the term. There are pockets of people that use a different term, but that would not be sufficient for Wikipedia to take a political stance regarding this issue. Wikipedia is not a soap box.

If you want to bring this up for further discussion, the Pro-choice and Pro-life page have sections regarding term contravery, which discusses the points you are raising. If these pages were to change how they worded the term Pro-choice and Pro-life, then I'm sure Wikipedia pages that discuss abortion would change their terminology. DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No soap box intended here really nor was it intended to merely promote my personal opinion. I made what seemed like a logical change to a term that appeared to me to be more neutral POV. After reviewing others commentary there might not be a term in existence at the moment that will satisfy even a plurality of people. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge request

I put forward that Planned Parenthood be moved to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and then International Planned Parenthood Federation be moved to Planned Parenthood, or a disambiguation page created to link to one or the other. 'Planned Parenthood' is an overarching name for ALL Planned Parenthood organizations, not just the one in America. Otherwise, I submit that both be merged together under International Planned Parenthood Federation with Planned Parenthood Federation of America as a major subtopic on that page. This is all with the intent to be inclusive of all the Planned Parenthood organizations around the world. Thoughts? DanEdmonds (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood is how it's known in the US. I'd keep it as is.Mattnad (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness

I've noticed that in this article (and all the abortion articles on wikipeida) that the politicly correct termanology, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' is used. I object to this because these are loaded terms designed to create an emotional responce and the non-sugar coated terms, pro- and anti- abortion, anyone who has heard of abortion can know what they mean. 110.32.136.190 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Planned_Parenthood#Pro-life_vs._Anti-Abortion. This is an old and well resolved discussion. It's not Political Correctness, but what's being used in the media and how each group represents itself.Mattnad (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, "well resolved"? There was about a paragraph of unconstructive arguments there none of which, like you, addressed my point! 110.32.137.250 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason we don't use "pro-abortion" is that it doesn't adequately describe the position of people who want abortion to remain legal. If there are any people around who are in favour of abortion, then perhaps those people could be described by "pro-abortion". But the opinion that abortion should remain legal is not an opinion that abortion is a positive and good thing. People who desire the continued legality of abortion generally object to the label "pro-abortion" for this reason. Because of that, it's only used by people who oppose the legality of abortion. Therefore, if Wikipedia used it, it would be taking sides. The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not taking sides if we use that terminology for both sides, both pro and anti abortion. 110.32.131.89 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It's atypical and not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. The US debate is framed around those in favor of allowing a woman to chose when she will have a child, and those in favor of protecting the unborn. Planned parenthood also provides birth control and family planning services which is also part of "Choice". Calling people who are in favor of allowing access to abortion "pro abortion" is a distortion designed to present their position in a negative light which I believe is your intent. Your argument would be akin to saying people who support an individual's right to self-defense as "pro-killing" since the exercise of this right could be the death of another person.

And frankly, your persistence on this matter strikes me more of an effort to engage in politicized debate on this discussion pages rather than improve the article. I think this discussion has run its course.Mattnad (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down; you need to take a wikibreak.There is no need to give me thinly vailed accusations. I actually support abortion. Your point about it being atypical only applies if we do it to just this article. Yet again you did not adress any of my points. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And persistance? I had posted three times, which is dozens of times less than what (in my experience) it takes to make any major change to an article most often. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I will add that if you do an internet search with "Planned Parenthood" and "Pro-abortion" the results are uniformly from groups that oppose abortion. So if we were to take your advice, we'd be violating WP:NPOV. You'd also have more credibility if you were not hiding behind an anon-IP that edits only this talk page and one other.

So, if you want a debate about the semantics of the terms around abortion, join a debate club. How about you go to other talk pages an this topic with this effort and see if your reception is any different. Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, if we change BOTH pc terms then there it's still NPOV. Debate club? Is that supposed to be a thinly vialed personal attack? For god's sake stop missing all the points I make and introducing irrelevancies. If you say "its violating NPOV" don't give the same discreated reason or I will just say PRATT. 110.32.136.108 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed terminology (Pro or Anti Abortion) does not accurately represent either group. Your assertion that they are equal and therefor NPOV is not supported by anyone but you. "Pro-Abortion" is used to paint Pro-Choice/Abortion rights supporters in a negative light which is why group like Operation Save America use the term (see "Pro-abortion Forces to Terrorize OSA National Event"]). By contrast, here are examples from recent article on the Abortion from Fox News, The New York Times, and Time Magazine. Here we see that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are the conventional terms when someone doesn't have an ax to grind.Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence has no evidence. Your second is an argument by popularity, and even then with a sample size of three (including me). Your links aren't relevant; the most common term is not necessarily the right one. In fact, the Fox News link proves my point, it has a pro-abortion group call a bill "anti-abortion", showing that both terms are used by those not of that position. 110.32.155.163 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

However, it doesn't show that anyone but the pro-life movement calls the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion", and with good reason: nobody else does. Please try to understand that the pro-choice movement does not call itself "pro-abortion", because this would mean it was in favour of abortion. Please try to understand that nobody but the opponents of the pro-choice movement uses the term "pro-abortion", and that they use this term because they wish to present the idea that the pro-choice movement is in favour of abortion. You may verify these facts for yourself with a simple Google News search. Please try to understand that the use of a term for a group which is used only by the political enemies of that group is not conducive to a neutral point of view. The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, I know. That is just PRATT. You need to check out WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. 110.32.155.163 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny, WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT seems to be more applicable to you since you completely reject precedent and rationale for the status quo inside and outside of Wikipedia. I think we understand well what you are trying to do here, and it's not about improving the article. Unfortunately for you, you have not been able to build any consensus for your attempt to reject how non-partisan parties present this topic. It's not going to happen here. Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that Wikipedia also has established naming guidelines for article titles that parallel your ongoing complaints that the terms are PC and not precise enough for you: Wikipedia:NC#Non-neutral_but_common_names. If we were to adopt your unique POV on the terms in this article, we'd also need to change the articles related to Pro-choice and Pro-Life. So why don't you start with those, both in title and how they refer to the positions inside the articles. If you can get those changed per your concepts of what's right for the world, I'll back you up 100% on Planned Parenthood. Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now giving me thinly vailed insults, the most graceless way of admitting you have lost the argument. You have no consensus either; 2 on 1 is not a consensus. Likewise, you are the one rejecting "precedent and rationale" as all you have given me is an argument "its not neutral" that I've refuted a thousand times, some insults and baseless accusations, and a link to a PROPOSED Wikipedia policy. If you point out a real one, I will certainly drop the subject. Likewise, if you point out a policy on where to start a multi-page change, I will shift this debate over to the suitable talk page. Last of all, please take a wikibrake, at least from here, as you seem to be too angry to have a constructive argument. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Mattnad that you haven't presented any convincing reason to change our current descriptors. I also think Mattnad has been fairly calm in responding to you, so I don't see that he urgently needs a wikibreak. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On your first sentence, I have, as seen on my original post. On your second, Mattnad has continually given me insults and accusations, so even if he is calm, he still needs to take a break. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdent - Per MastCell, you haven't presented any convincing reason to this board. While you may have convinced yourself, ALL other editors who have weighed in don't agree with you. You may want to take this to another forum, including a formal RFC, or perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion Mattnad. (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you don't address my points, and this time you are again going for a argument by popularity with a spectacular result of three on one. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed over and over again. Continued positing that it is not so does not change this fact. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely ironic coming from you, and to Mr Angry, all he now seems to be saying is a euphemism for "La la la can't hear you". If you have refuted me, then could you please point out, phrase by phrase, where each of the arguments in my original post have been refuted, without posting 'refutations' that I have refuted. Thank you. 110.32.143.42 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no-one has posted in almost a fortnight, I'll give you guys three days to come up with something constructive. If not, I will make the proposed changes. 110.32.141.130 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The very first reply to your original request was constructive, you just didn't like the answer. Many other following responses were constructive also. Feel free to make the changes if you must, but try not to be too upset when they are correctly reverted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't explain how it was constructive, your post was unconstructive too. (Note, you are doing the same thing as The Wednesday Island). QED. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again from the top.

1. There is no consensus to make this change. Therefore, if you change it you will be reverted on sight.
2. There is a policy about the use of such names. Your changes would contravene this policy. Therefore, they will need to be reverted if you make them. You might do better to try to change the policy.
3. There is no better term to use than "pro-choice". "Pro-abortion" is not a better term, for two reasons:
   1. It misrepresents the pro-choice position, because it implies that the pro-choice position is a position in favour of abortion.
   2. In the real world, the term "pro-abortion" is only used by those who oppose the legality of abortion to describe people who wish abortion to be legal. Its use in Wikipedia would therefore be biased.

Which of these points are you disagreeing with? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see:

1. PRATT
2. PRATT
3. I'll go for specifics like you here:
   1. True, but there are so many other reasons (that I posted in my first comments, as well as the 'choice for what question) not to go for 'pro-choice' it's a pretty clear case of the lesser of two evils
   2. PRATT

In short, you are continually repeating yourself, and refusing to accept that all your arguments (bar 1) have been destroyed over and over and over again. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I see we're getting nowhere, so how about a compromise. Instead of "lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation", we could have "lobbies the U.S. political system for right to abortion legislation", "lobbies the U.S. political system for reduced restrictions on abortion legislation" or something similar. It would be helpful if you suggest some things yourself. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It might help if I knew what "PRATT" meant. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Point Refuted A Thousand Times. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been watching this for the past couple of weeks, I will join the chorus and say I will be one of those that I agree with the current naming convention of this article and will revert anything outside of the established norm. Just saying.--Hourick (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this has run its course, and we're well into don't-feed-the-trolls territory at this point. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more insults was all that was. Since no-one is going for a compromise I can do that either. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Will agree with the use of terms 'pro-life' and pro-choice'. Politically correct terms for an online encyclopedia are the best way to avoid loaded language, and a suitable alternative for both sides. It's best to portray both sides with terms they'd agree with, and the pro-choice community objects to the term pro-abortion for some reason. While I might find the term fitting, I recognize the validity of using neutral terms for an online encyclopedic community. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

The first sentence of this section reads as follows: Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states.

The next sentence currently reads as follows: Although there are few known instances of actual broken laws, some pro-life activists have created sting operations to substantiate their claims...

The initial clause of the second sentence has the following issues: (a) dubious; (b) arguably POV; and (c) no citation. I have tagged it multiple times and tried to revise it, but only reverts result. If the initial clause is going to stay in, it at least needs to be sourced--but I think it should come out. Thoughts?184.74.22.161 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at that section before, but I didn't know how to edit it for the very reasons you encountered. While the "sting" is cited in the first example, it can be used to also cite the ending sentence of "sting operations". I think it needs a bit of a rewrite, but I would have to leave it to someone that is fairly neutral on the matter and read and judge it after the fact.

Both sides on this matter have a tendency to be rather "enthusiastic" and that's why I usually just watch the page. --Hourick (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the anon editor had bothered to read the references in the succeeding paragraphs, he or she would have read this Salon.com article [2] which highlights how actual laws were not broken (except by the anti-abortion callers) and includes this "...Suspected abuse can be reported either to the police or child protective services. And in 2005, a federal inspection conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services found that that's exactly what happens when a child who may have been abused comes into a family planning clinic. The inquiry yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest." I've repeated the reference so it's closer to the statement that the editor was attempting to remove for lack of citation reasons. Mattnad (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and work on editing that today. _WikiMan^One 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary Concern

My primary objection is that an entire section on controversy would be removed at a time when it's newsworthy and relevant to another ongoing controversy surrounding said institution, by a user with a clear incentive according to their own profile to protect said institution. They have an incentive for bias, to protect Planned Parenthood. That does not mean they are not being objective, but should be recognized as a possibility.

Why you would remove the entire section on controversies under the guise of reaching consensus first, when this is news relevant at the time, makes no sense unless trying to cover up embarrassing past events that would prove harmful to Planned Parenthood's reputation. I would think that given the newsworthiness of recent events, one would act in caution in removing such crucial, news-relevant historical information until consensus has been reached, rather than before.

In good faith I will assume, for now, that WikiManOne was merely coincidentally acting as they did to remove a section I specifically cited at the EXACT SAME TIME on a recent article, so that a whole news community was seeing it. I find it unbelievably... odd... that the timing would be anything other than purposeful, but will avoid the subject for now.

However, the controversy section needs to remain until it's shown there is good reason for removing it. Otherwise it appears suspicious that it would be removed so readily without discussion first. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the section, and there appears nothing inaccurate I can see in the claims made. Here are some additional sources as well for the 2008/2009 incidents:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-usa-abortion-student-idUSTRE54R37I20090528

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463404,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509736,00.html

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2009/NRL04/PP.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510797,00.html

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2009_1_News.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhfW_SE3c4c

http://www.jillstanek.com/industry-watch/breaking-news-a-3.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020301

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/12/16/state-3713/

Here are some for the recent 2010 scandal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_planned_parenthood_investigation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_planned_parenthood_video_5

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41373207

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2010/2/25/planned-parenthoods-response-to-undercover-sting-videos.html

If anything, I think the section should be expanded to cover the most recent controversy. I see nothing wrong with the current section as it is written. If there is anything debatable about the wording or sources, why don't those trying to have it removed recommend a suitable change in wording or find additional, preferable sources as alternatives? --67.176.248.164 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore

The proposed rewrite by WikiManOne was obviously unacceptable even as a temporary replacement in that it removes all mention of controversy, while deceivingly mentioning the violence against Planned Parenthood, without mentioning the greater number of instances of violence perpetrated BY Planned Parenthood or the pro-choice community:

http://abortionviolence.com/

Both the 2008-2009 and 2010 controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood have most definitely been newsworthy, relevant, controversial, etc. They're being reported on by the AP and Reuters per my sources above. There is no explanation for a rewrite that removes all mention of not just these but the other past incidents of controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood.

While members here are free to mock the concept of a liberal 'conspiracy' - and I never once said anything about a conspiracy, I just said this has been happening - which it has - I will point out that seeking to eliminate a perfectly reasonable section written fairly about newsworthy controversies has no justification for being deleted and mention of all controversies removed, with no mention of the most recent one, unless trying to protect Planned Parenthood. You can't tell me the proposed rewrite makes any sense unless that is WikiManOne's agenda, because the rewrite itself is in all ways nonsensical.

If there's a serious proposal for a rewrite that mentions the prominent newsworthy controversies that have been surrounding Planned Parenthood, then lets hear it, but I think anyone who compares the previous section to the one proposed by WikiManOne can see the newest one is neither fair nor objective. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In the stings are mentioned, but they don't need to be as large as they are. If you look at the article with the expanded controversies section as you would have it, it's nearly half the article. These fringe groups do their stunts, and then it's over. WP:Undue readily applies here. WikiManOne's recommendation is far more objective than have long paragraphs describing efforts to entrap RECEPTIONISTS at planned parenthood. That's really what's going on here with the Stings. If an Pro-Life President like Bush couldn't find problems aftern an investigation, that's a lot more objective than what you'd like to have in there.Mattnad (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. It did seem a bit excessive in length to me, and I'm sure could be made more concise and be better summarized. Even with a 2010 section, I think it could be made considerably shorter than in its current state. It's debatable just what Bush was - he campaigned on being anti-war prior to his 2000 election, too. Regardless, the stings were newsworthy and prominent, and thus relevant for inclusion here. After all, isn't that the standard for Wikipedia inclusion? Nobody's saying to portray the stings as good or bad, just mention them in relation to newsworthiness, as well as the claims by both sides - right? However, I do think the section can be shortened, and will even provide a summarized version as a sample - I'd like to see it more concise, with less verbage and more sources. Will get started on the rewrite, and you can let me know what you think. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the section has now gone off the "everything but the kitchen sink" deep-end with the usual issues of Undue Weight. And someone brings up the Nazis, you know it's gotten ridiculous.Mattnad (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep the discussion in one place? Like up ^ there? Again, insinuations that I am acting in bad faith are certainly not helping, and I would certainly appreciate it if the IP user user would be so kind as to create an account... _WikiMan^One 19:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability of Criticisms

I would like to delete some of the Criticisms, but I'd like to get feedback first. For each entry under "Criticisms," the only sources are pro-life websites. I think the Superhero for Choice is the most dubious entry - there is no mention of it in any third-party sorces. Pro-life websites cannot count as credible, third-party sources, since they have a vested interest in the matter. There's no doubt that Planned Parenthood is a controversial enterprise, but I would like to see controversy and criticism limited to reactions to acts by the organization that have been recorded in the legitimate media. Margrietta 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The first page of results at Google news yields two stories from reliable sources about people protesting a PP clinic in Minnesota. There's some information there about specific criticisms, and that's just looking at this week's news. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got a big problem with prejudice. You are saying "Pro-life websites cannot count as credible" merely on the grounds that they don't agree with your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not prejudice - it's what constitutes a reliable source for a topic touching on controversy. Why don't you read up on it WP:RS and the section on "Extremist and Fringe Sources". Mattnad (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the critics of Planned Parenthood are primarily pro-life. Therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that a majority of the references in a criticism section come from the group that is most critical of Planned Parenthood. To say that "Pro-life websites cannot count as credible, third-party sources, since they have a vested interest in the matter" is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't cite pro-choice sources (including PlannedParenthood.org). --Lacarids (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Planned Parenthood could not be used as a source for criticism of say the "anti-choice movement" or something of that nature. Any criticism has to come from reliable sources, and not be given undue weight. Also, I would note that Planned Parenthood is a mainstream organization that receives government funding and engages only in honest business practices, the same cannot be said of most pro-life organizations. Many of them are even listed as hate groups by the SPLC. _WikiMan^One 19:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you meant to write "the same cannot be said of most pro-life organizations..." I would argue that most pro-life orgs are "honest". Some of the them include mainstream religious orgs. How about we don't get sucked into Fox News vs. MSNBC rhetoric - there are enough Palin/Oberman wannabees in Wikipedia already.Mattnad (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I made the edit to my comment. I would disagree with your characterization of anti-abortion organizations, but then, I think that any organization that calls itself "pro-life" is being dishonest since there is no scientific basis to say life begins at that point, which is what I generally rely on to draw my conclusions. As for MSNBC vs. FOX, see my userpage. :) That being said, what's the discussion on? Let's build consensus to have a good version of the controversies and then ask an administrator to add it since the page is protected. _WikiMan^One 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiMan, anyone who believes differently from you is dishonest? And I find it laughable that you would bring the SPLC into this, seeing as their definition of "hate" is anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with using major news sources (Reuters, AP, FOX News, NBC, NY Times, etc.) as opposed to pro-life websites when possible. Since this is about controversies/criticisms, it is permissible to mention a press release by the NRLC criticizing on a specific ground, but even better I think to find this claim referenced elsewhere in the media for a more neutral and prominent media organization. Still, the NRLC is by no means a 'fringe' group as it's the most prominent pro-life organization in the world. As such, it should be okay to quote them as a source of criticism, and simply state their criticisms. However, it may be necessary to cite Planned Parenthood's defense and related press release as well. I would say it appropriate so long as both sides have their views on the criticism presented. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

The following is my attempt to make the section more concise, per Mattnad's concerns. Hopefully this is a starting point for trimming the section in a way both sides will view as acceptable, portraying legitimate news relevance in relation to its coverage.

The sources may need more work, I focused primarily on the wording for now and left sources in their original form, just to show what the wording should look like - sourcing can be merged with select sources I mentioned above or other sources, whatever everyone agrees on (note - I do NOT expect all those sources I mentioned above to be included or even most - they were simply a quick bunch of suggestions, and I think the AP and Reuters ones might be the most likely for inclusion - they're all debatable, and am just providing a starting point to work off of).

This is just a quick start - I kept some original wording, trimmed, and just cut some sources from the Lila Rose page and tried to keep sources that were already used in the section. Like I said, I was generally ignoring the sourcing for now, and just providing a template if you will, of what I'd like to see this look like. Maybe it can be trimmed more - I kind of skimped on the last part, and left it as is pretty much, but you can see how I really cut down on size by just merging all the Live Action Films stuff into one section. The sources would of course need to be merged and changed, and are not in their final form - like I said, I'll leave that for later. Let me know what you think. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

==Controversy and criticism==

Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states. Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", some pro-life activists have carried our their own investigations to attempt to substantiate their claims:

• 2002: Pro-life group Life Dynamics issues a report detailing 800 phone calls made, with operatives making recorded calls to Planned Parenthood, posing as underage teen girls seeking abortions, to entrap Planned Parenthood employees into violating laws which require reporting of pedophilia and statutory rape. The report claims 90% of the clinics failed to report in line with state guidelines.
• 2007-2011: Pro-life organization, Live Action Films, a UCLA pro-life student organization founded by activist Lila Rose, repeatedly makes headlines for investigative videos and recordings of interviews with Planned Parenthood employees, seeking to entrap said employees into variously supporting statutory rape (2007, 2009) , abortion as racism (2008), and prostitution (2011).

Planned Parenthood has been criticised for withholding court-subpoenaed medical records of patients. Planned Parenthood defended its refusal on the grounds of medical privacy.

• In a case in Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over the records.
• In Kansas, redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections.
• In 2004 a Kansas-based Planned Parenthood clinic was investigated by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, of violating late-term abortion and statutory rape notification laws. After a three year investigation no criminal charges were filed.
• In October 2005, Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violation of a Minnesota state parental consent law.

This really doesn't need to be a lengthy section. Like I said, I really don't care about portraying Planned Parenthood as good or bad, but just neutral. I tried to keep wording neutral, and if you think any change in tone is necessary, by all means, let me know. I don't care to see a lengthy section here, in depth, what have you. I just want the controversy mentioned in relation to its news coverage, so people know it exists, per Wikipedia standards - that's all. Hopefully this is a good starting point to trim with.

I think the last part needs work, like I said, I skimped and just made slight modifications to what was there. It should probably use a year date at the beginning for each bullet to stay consistent, and then start the bullet by saying the location as well. I think the format as a template should work to make this all more concise though. Basically I just trimmed extraneous details, summarized more, merged sources from the Lila Rose page (maybe a source or 2 like the AP/Reuters ones would be good too for the 2011 incident), and moved all the Live Action stuff into a single paragraph. Anyway, lets see if we can go off this - I think the size should be more manageable now. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I tried to keep my own writing out of it as much as possible. I wrote 2 bullet points basically, and otherwise just used what was there. Sources shown were already in use, too. Basically it's what was there, just trimmed and more concise, and I even used the word entrap in deference to those who would defend Planned Parenthood by saying it was political activism. As long as the controversies are reported on objectively (just the facts), hopefully both sides can be happy at the end of the day. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It took me a lot more work, but I created another version with updated sourcing as well. Be aware though, this differs from the one I previously posted. I went over the sourcing in depth, and removed a number I didn't think were as prominently sourced (I replaced with Reuters/AP) or would show just one side when unnecessary.

Also, the Kansas cases appeared related, so I merged them into one bullet. I included more web sources, including the court document url as well for the case. All in all, I made a number of changes from the previously posted proposed edit to this one. I tried to include more internal links as well. Anyway, just consider this another possibility like the one I posted above. Am just throwing out ideas here for a possible section revision, hoping to hear some feedback to help build a consensus with. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

==Controversy and criticism==

Pro-life groups have accused Planned Parenthood of failing to report potential cases of statutory rape, or following parental notification laws in some states. Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", some pro-life activists have carried our their own investigations to attempt to substantiate their claims:

• 2002: Pro-life group Life Dynamics issues a report detailing 800 phone calls made, with operatives making recorded calls to Planned Parenthood, posing as underage teen girls seeking abortions, to entrap Planned Parenthood employees into violating laws which require reporting of pedophilia and statutory rape. The report claims 90% of the clinics failed to report in line with state guidelines.
• 2007-2011: Pro-life organization, Live Action Films, a UCLA pro-life student organization founded by activist Lila Rose, repeatedly makes headlines for investigative videos and recordings of interviews with Planned Parenthood employees, seeking to entrap said employees into variously supporting statutory rape (2007, 2009), abortion as racism (2008), and prostitution (2011).

Planned Parenthood has been criticised for withholding court-subpoenaed medical records of patients. Planned Parenthood defended its refusal on the grounds of medical privacy.

• 2004-2007: After a Kansas-based Planned Parenthood clinic was investigated by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline for violating late-term abortion and statutory rape notification laws redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections. After a three year investigation no criminal charges were filed by Kline's successor, Phil Morrison..
• 2005: Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violation of a Minnesota state parental consent law.
• 2006: In a case in Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over the records of minors as related to suspected child sexual abuse.

Though I'd hoped to wait another day or 2 for feedback on the proposed changes, I suppose I should just 'edit boldly' since others insist that the section be changed as well, by making their own changes. The currently proposed edit is obviously meant to remove all mention of controversies and has been statedly unacceptable by both myself and another user now. If there is going to be a change, I will assert my proposition the one which actually mentions controversies, rather than Planned Parenthood apologism for what's supposedly a controversies section. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this is still to long and detailed. But if there were one area we should limit in particular, its the attempts by some pro-life groups to make Planned Parenthood look bad. These are not "investigations" but stunts. They do not mention or share recordings when a planned parenthood receoptionist throws them out or calls the police. Where there is corroboration by officials (as in the Bush investigation or a fine by a judge when Planned Parenthood does not turn over medical records), then it's more NPOV, but Wikipedia should not be a Soapbox for manufactured and fake "investigations".Mattnad (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: To be more specific, the first section I think captures it, with the paragraph. Adding the bullets gives more weight than I'd think is relevant or correct given the actual stories. Let's be clear, no charges were ever filed. When you read the details in the one or two news articles that did more than just repeat the press releases, no laws were broken - receptionists are just there to take appointments and are not able to assess or even report possible crimes. And many of them did raise a red flag to supervisors, but that's not mentioned by these groups because it doesn't suit their agendas. It's this kind of detail that's needed for balance, IF we wanted to turn this article into a mouthpiece for fringe organizations. Mattnad (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider all the information vital, as these were major controversies. The first section fails to provide any specifics about the case details, and if provided by itself would be a clear violation of WP:Weight rules, in not providing coverage comparable to media prevalence. Furthermore, the 1st section is specifically apologetic to Planned Parenthood, and I left it in only as a node to the other side. By itself, it is actively detrimental to a fair discussion of controversies, or revealing anything useful about the controversies Planned Parenthood has undergone. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mattnad and would add that the bullet points leave things wide open for editors in future to add the (inevitable) further stunts - the thing will become a list and the chance of undue weight being given to it within the article will thereby increase.Give a couple of examples and leave it at that. If someone wants to add a later example then they can delete one of the older ones. Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a new proposal in a above discussion, I agree with the points the previous two users have made. I would like some comments on it so we can slowly work on improving it. _WikiMan^One 17:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet each case has achieved media prominence as a major controversy in its own right. If it's the same group behind a number of them, the entire thing can easily be summarized per my example above, in just using one bullet point to describe the events of several years. This has achieved major media notoriety, and as such is deserving of the space required for such a section. It would be comparably small to everything else mentioned on the page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We may disagree on the level of prominence/notoriety. Sacking a single employee here and there, no criminal charges, and basically the same outcome (nothing really) suggests we concisely summarize their tactics and the outcomes. From what I can tell, the only people paying attention to, and discussing, these controversies are Pro-Life groups who feel Planned Parenthood should be stop providing abortion services. If more had come of this, like what happened to Acorn, then we would be remiss if we didn't expand it.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from above as reply to same comment, that was moved by WikiManOne--67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to WP:DUE guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.

These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)