Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Percentage of PP visits involving abortion

Regarding [1], the claim that "less than 2% of visits to Planned Parenthood involve abortions" disagrees with what Planned Parenthood reports in their fact sheet.[2] They say that "abortion services" are 3% of "patient care provided by affiliate health centers". On the page where they report actual numbers, they say they performed 324,008 abortions out of 10,943,609 total services, which, performing a bit of original research using calc.exe, is 2.96%. I don't know, but it's at least possible that both claims are correct - one is counting medical procedures and the other is counting "visits". Presumably the various surgeries they do are multiple "visits" but only one "medical service". So it's a little deceiving to shift seamlessly from one to the other. (Of course, we're also assuming that the 2% number isn't just plain incorrect - if you google it, 3% is cited far more and I can only find this one source that claims 2%.) --B (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters, which is not especially reliable, claims that abortions make up 15% of Planned Parenthood's revenue.[3] I think they may just be doing the math (as opposed to reporting actual revenue figures) and assuming that PP averages $500 income per abortion. Doing the same math (if their numbers are accurate), that's 40% of their health center revenue. I offer this not because MM is a useful source (and certainly even if they are a useful source, if they are just guessing that abortions cost $500 and then doing the math from that, that's not something that belongs here). But if a reliable source could be found, giving revenue figures is certainly a much more meaningful metric than the percentage of office visits where an abortion is performed. --B (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly PP is the only source that can be used in a situation like this. Its not like there is a 3rd party in the abortion clinics taking figures. Occasionally you will find numbers from the Guttmacher Institute but they can hardly be called 3rd party reliable source. People that have left PP have said that PP plays creative numbers games. Of course those sources would never make it into the article. All they have to do is list a person coming in for an abortion as coming in for family counseling. There is no 3rd party person there checking their numbers. Its been shown that PP stops taking statistics when the numbers don't go the way they want to. An example is that until 1987 they took statistics on all the reasons why people were getting abortions. The percentages didn't look flaterring (i.e. only a maximum of 1% of all abortions for rape/incest type scenarios link) so they stopping taking the statistics. Marauder40 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2% or 3% is not a big difference. I'd go with PPs stats since they are the ones that can track it. To Marauder40, we can speculate whether Planned Parenthood skews their stats, but I'd put more trust in a group that has audited financial reports than the claims of Pro-Life groups who feel their are driven by a moral imperative that's greater than accurate fact reporting. As far as revenue goes, that's simple. Abortions are the most involved procedures they do. It's more expensive, than lets say, pre-natal health check or giving people information on birth control.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

All very good points. I looked at their report and 35% of their "patient care" is contraceptives and 17.3% of that is "non-prescription barrier". In other words, they handed out a condom or a sponge. So while the numbers are probably skewed by including things that aren't really medical procedures, they are audited and they're all we have from reliable sources. --B (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool using what ever numbers they want to put forward (barring some really good source that says something dramatically different) but we probably ought to mention where we are getting the numbers from. - Haymaker (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We should provide the citation. That makes it clear.Mattnad (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a San Francisco Chronicle source for the figure, aren't they considered reliable regardless of what Planned Parenthood says? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That Chron source is the sort of en passant throwaway I don't trust one little bit. Where did the reporter get that number? Barring an audit, we have no choice but to use PP's own numbers. Disclaimer and anecdote: I'm a clinic defense volunteer at the local PP. As such I tread as lightly as possible on the article, and work hard to avoid injecting POV. But, when I'm volunteering, every so often some young men show up asking for condoms. We have a stash, and give them some. Nobody writes anything down. Should this count as a "visit", and is it important whether this changes a rate from 2% to 3%? PhGustaf (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and good to know. It may very well be that they are only counting people who actually get seen by a counselor or something like that. It could also be that they are estimating (you know you bought 500 condoms and if you give out 5 on average, then your paper pushers count that as 100 people. I wouldn't think that would fly in the medical field, but I have seen other organizations report numbers that way.) In any event, I don't think it matters - if we can't prove what the "real" numbers are, it's message board fodder, but that's about it - the self-reported 3% is the only useful number we have. --B (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source with a claim that nobody else makes, then it's theoretically possible that it's a typo. Everyone else says 3%. --B (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did some looking. I did find this that had the two percent figure as well as a few other paywall blocked items (I can see them through school but can't link, yada yada..) but I think you're right that the 3% figure is more common recently. I notice that in the nineties the 2% figure was quite a bit more common so it might be that it increased by a percentage point. I did find a Newsvine article that used wikipedia as a source and used the 2% figure. I added that up above as you can see. lol. I say let's go with the 3% figure since that's more common. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that the discrepancy in the sources is due to an actual change in percentage and/or to a difference in terminology? The SF source seems to be the most recent one (Jan. 2011) and states "less than 2 percent of Planned Parenthood patient visits involve abortions." The second most recent source appears to be the fact sheet linked above (Sept. 2010) says "Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2008." So this could be a change over time, or "abortion services" could encompass referrals for abortion from clinics that do not perform them to clinics/hospitals that do. What do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something, its clear that in the nineties the 2% figure was more prevalent, recently 3% is, but the most recent one seems to be the Chronicle which says 2%. I guess "less than 2%" is the figure to go with then? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't trust that Chron source one little bit. This isn't because the Chron isn't an excellent source, but because it's a lede throwaway with no citations. Go with PP's numbers. The difference between 2% and 3% is not a big deal. Either is enough to establish that PP is not an "abortion clinic". PhGustaf (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a huge issue, but would it be possible to give the reader an idea of what 3% is a % of or some other dimension? May a raw number of annual abortions? - Haymaker (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's in the source, but I don't think it's necessary to include. There's a point at which large numbers cease to have significant meaning, and including the number would just have the effect of "they do THOUSANDS OF ABORTIONS OMG" without providing any context. In any case, we shouldn't provide the raw numbers for abortions without doing the same for other services, though I oppose both because I don't think the numbers are helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No number is needed, we already note that they provide services to five million people, no reason to provide a redundant exact figure for services. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We provide one metric, but it isn't a particularly informative one. I'm wondering if there is a better one that can be found. Maybe the raw number of abortions and the raw number of other operations or other visits or other customers or something in that neighborhood? - Haymaker (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the way it is now, no need for raw numbers. Just have the total number of services and percentages is fine by me. This article is too abortion focussed, we need to write more about their other services that are 97%-98% of their services. Abortion should only account for roughly 3% of the article if we're trying to provide a summary of the organization's services. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence very confusing

This sentence:

"Planned Parenthood fired the employee in question as a result of the initial video release, and their Birmingham affiliate was placed on probation by the Alabama Department of Health after the release of one of the videos on what was described as a "technical violation." Planned Parenthood reported the supposed pimps to the FBI, though they also observed that the visits seemed to be part of a sting."

Why are we connecting the very recent news of the New Jersey sting with the rather unnotable Alabama sting that didn't accomplish much long term (the clinic is still open...)? Sentence needs to be reworked. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Maybe the Alabama probation should have its own sentence then? - Haymaker (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Salon/AOL/Raw Story passage

This passage - [4] - has been added repeatedly to this article as well as to the Lila Rose and Live Action articles. The passage is problematic for several reasons. Please take the time to read these comments and the actual articles before having a knee jerk reaction and hitting undo.

1. Despite "anti-choice groups" being in quotes, none of the sources actually say "anti-choice groups".
2. This sentence - A Salon.com editorial criticized one such action as a "James O'Keefe-style 'sting' in which deceptively edited Internet videos ... is taking the actual quote from the article completely out of context. This is the real quote from the column:

   Between Jan. 11 and Jan. 15, five separate Planned Parenthood clinics received mysterious visits from men who claimed to be involved in underage sex-trafficking. This meant, obviously, that someone was trying to pull a James O'Keefe-style "sting," in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom.

   In other words, when the author heard about the mysterious visits in question, he assumed that this "sting" was going to be similar to the James O'Keefe sting, which he characterized as having deceptively-edited videos. He is NOT stating that the videos in this case (the Lila Rose/Live Action videos) actually were deceptively edited - he is claiming that James O'Keefe's videos were deceptively edited and his assumption was that this sting was going to turn out to be something similar. A portion of this sentence is being taken out of context to mean something that it does not. And if the Lila Rose/Live Action videos actually were deceptively edited, (a) this piece offers no claim that they were and (b) even if it did offer a claim that they were, surely we could find a better source than the not exactly unbiased salon.com.

3. The passage falsely refers to the videos as "hoaxes" designed to entrap the staff. That is false and none of the sources make that claim. The scenario depicted in the video is a hoax. The prostitute and pimp were a hoax. The prostitute and the pimp were designed to entrap the staff. The video was to DOCUMENT that entrapment - the video is not itself the entrapment. If I take a picture of a bowl of ice cream, my picture is not ice cream - it's a depiction of ice cream. Only if the videos were deceptively edited were they hoaxes. But the prostitute+pimp gag is a hoax ... that's kinda the whole point. But calling the videos a hoax is false.

--B (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a big fan of letting that section go. I would also like to know more about the reliability of that aol story. - Haymaker (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There was an entire section of NPRs "One the Media" dedicated to this. Maybe less critical than Salon's, but come to a similar conclusion and connection to both O'Keefe and Breitbart's activitites. [5]. I'll suspect that many people who are against planned parenthood's services probably think anything NPR publishes is part of liberal conspiracy, but it is another reliable source commenting on this.Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is NRP interviewing someone from slate. This is all kinds of sketchy. I am very open to the idea of making that connection, but it probably isn't unreasonable to ask to hear it from a more solid place. - Haymaker (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad it all depends on the what you are trying to say and the source. Is it personal opinion vs. company official position? Are you trying to say in the article it is opinon vs. that is the way it is. NPR can be a valid RS, but it all depends on what is being said and the context. Similar to the discussion over the LDI statement in the funding section.Marauder40 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A slate reporter is commenting on this - a reporter on radio news magazine is no different from a reporter writing something in a newspaper except for the medium. He was reporting on it. Not "opinion" any more than any reporter's article.Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just like any reported both in print, on the news, on NPR, etc. they can be stating their opinion or reporting the news. In any article you can have a person's opinion vs. reporting the news. A traffic reporter reports on a just happened crash, says "Two people were killed in the accident. It appears the car went over the center line." The last sentence may be their personal opinion of what happened or it may be police confirmed opinion after a long investigation. Depends on context and what they meant at the time. Reporters (of all types) add their own opinion to news pieces all the time. Marauder40 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have to be the judge of that. All we need to do is determine whether the reporter is a reliable source. Whew! Do you have a guideline that says we are supposed to parse a reliable source and figure out which if fact vs. opinion? Should we just toss out the entire article on the abortion debate since it's more or less opinions?Mattnad (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I am trying to say. It all depends on what is being written into the article on whether the person is a reliable source. As I quoted several times in the LDI section, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Its one thing to say "Reporter A, believes X is true." and another to say "X is true". The RS has to be weighed whether it is appropriate for the context. That is the case of ALL RS. Is person A qualified to make that statement. Is person A stating their opinion or stating fact? Is it being stated as opinion or fact in the article? Is the person speaking for themselves or their organization? All those things need to be taken into account whenever RS are put into any article. This is why the article on RS is so large because a lot of it is mentioned there or in its sub-articles.Marauder40 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following all of your details, so I'll keep it simple. The reliable source is NPR. And reporters do analysis all the time. If we choose to include some of the content, then we can decide whether it's appropriate. So two things - Are Slate and NPR considered to be reliable sources, and if they provide analyis and comment on topic, is that a reliable source? Do you want to take this up with the reliable sources noticeboard?Mattnad (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In short what exactly are you trying to attribute to this article? Please give the exact quote you want the RS to stand for. Is it one of the versions of text that was in the article? Is it that way exactly? With different words? What? All the back and forths, especially during the edit war got confusing. Just like people did with me in requesting the exact modification that would be made, please do the same here. That way the source can be judged against the text. As your questions about whether Slate and NPR are valid RS. It depends on what you are saying in some circumstances yes, in some no.Marauder40 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We have three reliable sources, Salon, Slate and NPR, seems pretty self evident it should be included to me as notable non-trivial coverage in independent publications and is not fringe. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Salon, on the sliding scale of reliability, isn't very high, but regardless of that, no matter how reliable the source is, if you take what they say completely out of context, it has no business in the article. The Salon guy was giving his preconceived notion that the "sting" would be similar to the O'Keefe sting in that the O'Keefe sting was deceptively edited and all that. When you quote that to make it sound like he was talking about the Lila Rose sting, that's taking it out of context and doesn't belong in the article regardless of how gloriously reliable he might be. --B (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the aforementioned NPR piece, I'm confused what claim it is desired to source from there. It's a logical fallacy to say that because the two stings were similar in one way, they were necessarily similar in another way. They are obviously both using a fictional scenario to entrap the staffs in question doing something with shock value. But whereas the O'Keefe videos were allegedly edited to make it seem worse than it really was, nobody that I am aware of has made that allegation about the Lila Rose videos. That is the point of contention here - using something that a Salon opinion piece said about O'Keefe as though he were saying it about Rose. So I echo the question of Marauder40 above - what is it that you actually want to claim, sourced from the NPR transcript? --B (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is being used to note that the stings have been compared to the widely discredited O'Keefe stings. We also need to list some criticism of the stings rather than just promoting them in a very pov manner as is currently done. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a false analogy to argue that because the two operations are similar in one way (both attempted to embarrass their target with a pimp and an underage prostitute) that they are similar in any other way (eg, being allegedly deceptively edited). If all you want to say is that the two operations involved similar scenarios, trying to embarrass their targets in a similar way, I think that's clearly true. The problem is when you then use the Salon opinion piece's claim that the ACORN videos were deceptively edited and take that out of context as though he were claiming that the PP videos were deceptively edited. --B (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It should at a very minimum be noted that Planned Parenthood claims they were deceptively edited and that Live Action has not released any full length footage of the event. I think it's pretty fair to say that they were deceptively edited however, that seems to be pretty much agreed on from what I've read. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Live Action has released all the full-length footage from their recent stings; the initially released videos were only edited for length. Anyone who wants to vet PP's claim that the initial videos were "deceptively edited" can do so easily. Since the original footage has been released, I reworded the "recorded and edited" part. 166.137.15.47 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to trust Live Action to release full-length footage. PhGustaf (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say we trust that Live Action will release the full-length footage; I said that Live Action *did* release the full footage. Here's the link if you don't want to do the research yourself: http://liveaction.org/blog/full-footage/ 166.137.10.250 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. [6] [7] The videos are edited, I don't care what Live Action says, I care about reliable sources like the Sacramento Bee and Media Matters and others.

By effecting the stings, the Live Action people have established themselves as liars. This makes it hard to trust anything they post at their site. PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so any group that seeks to expose suspected criminal activity in a publicly funded organization has established itself as a liar? That doesn't make one iota of sense. The question is not whether the videos were edited -- obviously, they were edited; LiveAction stated this up front -- but whether the edits were misleading. The full footage has been posted; why would Live Action post the uncut footage if the edited version said something different? Saying that the videos were "edited to make it seemingly appear" that PP "seemingly" was abetting criminals is redundant and misleading, because the uncut footage "seemingly" shows the exact same thing, any edits for length or clarity notwithstanding. If you'd like, the article can state that LA released a "heavily edited" video along with the full footage. The way the article is now, readers are left with the highly POV (not to mention inaccurate) idea that the edited video presents different implications than the full footage. 166.137.8.243 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The LA people lied when they presented themselves at a medical facility and claimed to be in medical need. They lied when they presented selected bits of tape that, at best, showed actions out of context. It's reasonable to presume that they're lying when they say a tape is "uncut". PhGustaf (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So no one who has ever done any sort of undercover investigation can ever be trusted? And no medical facility has ever been involved in criminal activity? So good to know. **sarcasm** Editing *always* presents things "out" of context; the only question is whether these statements are presented contrary to their full context. The full footage has been released, and the answer is a resounding "No". PP fired at least one employee in response to it. Are you going to deny that the footage is uncut until you handle the discs yourself? Every media source agrees that the uncut footage LA released is legitimate. This article needs to reflect the fact that the full footage has been released, unless someone has a reliable source arguing that the full footage is somehow edited. 166.137.8.243 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

IP, I refer you to WP:CIVIL. This is a warning. The full footage has not been released according to the the Sacramento Bee and Media Matters as linked above, both very reliable sources. Similar reports can be provided from NPR and Salon, also highly reliable sources. Your claim that "every media source agrees that the uncut footage LA released" is somehow legitimate is absolutely incorrect. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; the sarcasm was intended to be humorous, not inflammatory. The Media Matters link put "full" in quotes, but they never alleged that the uncut footage released at the beginning is anything but; they rely on this to demonstrate what they feel is an inconsistency in the edited version. The Sacramento Bee never makes mention of the full footage that was released. There is no evidence that the full footage is doctored in any way; unless we have a source for it, then the assertion that the full footage is edited represents original research and needs to be avoided. 166.137.8.243 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, using a primary source from a completely partisan and discredited organization would be considered original research. On wikipedia, we use reliable sources, it doesn't matter what the truth is, what matters is what can be verified through independent/third party sources. I don't see any mainstream media coverage of the "full footage" you refer to so we are forced to ignore it until you are able to prove otherwise. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Actually, using a primary source from a completely partisan and discredited organization would be considered original research." Such as Media Matters? They do a great job of republishing Planned Parenthood press releases, but they are hardly an unbiased third party. I looked for (and cannot find) any mainstream media source saying that the purportedly full (or "uncut") videos were doctored. There's the throwaway line from the Mary Sanchez column. She says, "It’s potent stuff, yet the video is also very obviously edited." But what does she even mean by that? Does she mean, "based on an analysis of the video, it's edited"? Does she mean, "I don't like it, therefore it's edited"? Or does she mean, "I saw the five minute cut of it, which was edited, which nobody said wasn't edited, and of course, it was edited"? We certainly shouldn't give the impression that we endorse the videos and we should say that Planned Parenthood claims that they were doctored, but we shouldn't present it as fact that they were doctored. It's up to the reader to make their own decision. That's fair and balanced. --B (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MMfA research is reliable per this discussion at RSN. I don't see any media source that says they WEREN'T DOCTORED, do you? We do have quite a few that state that it is deceptively edited. Maybe someone should send messages to the AP (just a throwaway example) telling them that Live Action has released "full footage" and see if they want to correct when they said deceptively edited. Unless the outlets that called them edited deceptively want to take it back, we should go with what it says. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how in the world you derive from that discussion that Media Matters is reliable. All that establishes is that some people think it is and some think it isn't. I think you're getting some confirmation bias there. In any event, if you can find actual media outlets (not Media Matters) saying the videos are deceptively edited (not the editorial that started this thread where the guy was clearly talking about the unrelated ACORN videos), then use those and there's no problem. The problem is when you take something out of context or you offer Media Matters' extreme bias as though it were the God's honest truth. To the extent that Media Matters is cited, it should only be for their own opinion as an alternate point of view, eg, Live Action said the videos were authentic, PP and MM said they were edited, with a link to MM's post purporting to "prove" that they were edited and a link to LA's response. That's fair and balanced. Treating MM as truth is biased and skewed. --B (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current rewording has fixed this dispute; everything has been properly cited and accurately explained AFAIK.... Davidstarlingm (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The full videos have been released on their website. The videos were cut because they're usually over half an hour. No content is missing or spliced. - Haymaker (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is mainstream media that has been provided to call the videos edited. Live Action is not a reliable source for items in this article and claims they make do not constitute due weight unless they are republished by third party reliable sources. And yes, that discussion does show consensus for Media Matter's reliability, as you can see in the next section, one of the persons opposing using it as a reliable source even admitted it. You really are not assuming assuming good faith when you accuse me of using "extreme bias" as "God's honest truth," although I honestly don't give a crap what this God says, Media Matters is definitely a very important media research agency and their research is widely considered authoritative. Live Action has shown themselves to be untrustworthy, we should not use them for a source anywhere in the article. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of back-and-forth over how this section ought to be phrased. Here are the verifiable, sourced facts that need to be reflected in the article; I think they are all presented in as objective of a manner as possible:

• There have been previous attempted stings, none of which led to charges being file against PP employees.
• 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.
• The January 2011 "stings" involved individuals posing as pimps who wanted birth control and abortions for underage prostitutes; these were done at several clinics.
• Excerpts of audio and video taken secretly by the "sting" group seemed to show a PP employee in Richmond Virginia being sympathetic to suggestions of criminal activity.
• PP fired that particular employee, but asserted that several of the videos were misleadingly edited.
• Although they suspected that the visits were fake, PP reported the incidents to the FBI before the videos were released.
• The group has claimed that they released the unedited video to the Virginia authorities (the existence of this claim is sourced by CNN), but no charges have been filed as a result of the original release or the supposedly uncut release.

I think these are all the relevant facts that need to be included. They are all completely verifiable and sourced by reliable media sources. I will re-write the paragraph to reflect these points. Davidstarlingm (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Birmingham clinic being put on probation by the DoH is a BD. - Haymaker (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. As they said themselves it was only a "technical violation" and didn't make any difference in the operation of the clinic. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ironic

Funny how the Controversy and criticism section continues to get added on to, while the arguably more important Services and facilities, Funding and other sections only seem to get coat hanger edits. What is it, are we trying to improve the article or just add as many dubious attacks about the organization as possible to it? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wanna help expand the other areas with information about PP? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight issues in funding

This paragraph:

"The Christian Action Council, STOPP International, and Life Decisions International have advocated the boycott of donors to Planned Parenthood.[8] [9]"

The second source is not reliable and I still am not convinced that this is not all undue weight. These are tiny organizations, its akin to mentioning every little organization who's boycotted walmart in their article.. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 16:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention one ref is 20 years old, and the other is over 5 years old. Seems pretty fringy if you have to dig that deep to get a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WikimonOne picked the first source. It was also WikimonOne that decided to change it from a generic "pro-life groups request boycott" to a specific group boycotts it. The fact that WikiMonOne arbitrary requirement that the source that says people are boycotting PP has to be third party news organzation. The sites themselves could be used. One of numerous sites that list the fact can be used. All you have to do is do a google search on Life Decisions International and you will get hits on numerous pro-life group restating the same thing and requesting their members to follow suite. WikiMonOne's arbirtary requirement that goes well above and beyond "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." All that is trying to be sourced is that groups have called for boycotting PP donors. Requiring that a 3rd party news organization say the same thing is going above and beyond the requirement.Marauder40 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

SPSs can be used for self-issued statements. If there is really a questions as to whether or not "pro-life groups request boycott" of PP I can put some digging in and come up with more sources than anyone can shake a stick at. - Haymaker (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is contesting whether these groups actually requested boycott. What we need is third party reliable neutral sources talking about it (recently preferably) to establish due weight and notability and to establish that it is not fringe. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of RS goes well above and beyond the actual requirement for RS. The List of boycotts page actually uses the boycott announcement from LDI as its source. The fact that most pro-life organizations pick up the fact in their newsfeeds and either relay it or promote it shows it isn't fringe. You are creating arbitrary requirements. Technically a Christian or Catholic newfeed would qualify as a 3rd party publisher, but I doubt in your mind it would. But the key is fitting the requirements for RS in the context in which the quote exists and what it is trying to say, not WikimonOne's interpretation of such. This link even praises http://www.all.org/article/index/id/MTQ5MA LDI and list, pretty good at showing it isn't fringe. Marauder40 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If we used your definition of RS in this article we would have to get rid of references 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 32, 36 and that is even without looking in detail at the references. Good thing your definition isn't the WP definition.Marauder40 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you really felt that weight was the issue than why did you change the wording rather removing the sentence? - Haymaker (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If we go back to generic, it makes sense to me to keep. It's a bit of a throwaway sentence, like saying "pro life groups are against Planned Parenthood as a supplier of abortion services" but it adds some dimension.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying walmart sold x amount of this item and quoting walmart announcing that on their article and including information from Civil War Trust about the Wilderness Battlefield on its article as a citation for that controversy, instead you would look for reliable sources in neutral publications. Your attempt to draw a connection between Planned Parenthood statistics used on its own article and fringe groups statements is ridiculous. Would it be okay if I added everything Planned Parenthood has said to criticize Live Action (organization) on their page with Planned Parenthood as a source? No, because you would want reliable sources for that. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I agree that we should find more reliable/neutral sources for facts in the article.. I've reduced the number significantly, but Planned Parenthood reporting non-controversial facts about itself is different that fringe anti-choice groups releasing statements about Planned Parenthood. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not your place to label organizations "fringe". SPS can be used for statements, I too think we should move back to the generic "pro-life groups request boycott". - Haymaker (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As I said your definition of what constitutes a RS is wrong. I never said you had to change the ones that use PP as a source, just using your own article as a example. I was just showing how ridiculous YOUR requirement was for RS. Honestly the original sentence without a source fits into the category of "the sky is blue" type obvious statements. The key for RS is does it fit with what is being sourced. It was only you that put the huge number of RS requirements on it. The fact that LDI was set up to produce boycott lists for PP and the fact that ALL the pro-life sites pick it up is pretty good statement that it isn't fringe. If you want more weight we can add the sources talking about the companies that stopped funding PP because of being on the list and things like that, but I agree with Mattnad that the original sentence could easily be used.Marauder40 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Marauder here as to reliability. Organizations are reliable sources for their own opinions - LDI's call for a boycott, on its website, is a reliable source for the statement that LDI called for a boycott. It's notability and undue weight that are at issue here, not reliability. One sentence seems fine if the boycott has been picked up in mainstream news, like the NYT; are there no notable organizations that have called for a boycott, though? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are only three times when we use Planned Parenthood as a source now. 23, 27 and 28. Take a look at those and if you actually think that these are citing "controversial claims" then post here and we can either cut them out or find reliable neutral sources for them. I'm fine with that, the point of requiring neutral/reliable sources is to cut out the fringe stuff and combat undue weight. All the Planned Parenthood references were basically because editors (including myself) were lazy and just cited it to Planned Parenthood when it was a basic uncontroversial claim but if you want to use that as justification for using fringe anti-choice group's as sources, we can cut out what you think is controversial. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly consider the claim at hand to be a controversial one? - Haymaker (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to look for a less "fringy" critic, see what the Roman Catholic Church has to say about Planned Parenthood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is undue weight and needs reliable/neutral sources to show why its notable for inclusion to the article. RCC is fringe when it comes to family planning issues, even many of their members don't agree with it on these issues.. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to reflect the age of the sources, I still do not see a good rationale for including the sentence to start it. 1) the organizations organizing these events are not even notable, 2) there are no recent reliable/independent sources to show non-trivial coverage, 3) it is undue weight considering the size of the section. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

LDI last updated their list August 2010. They update twice a year. The only thing that is far in the past is what you accept as reliable sources, not what WP accepts as RS. LDI's site itself is a RS for the fact they have asked for this. Again, this isn't fringe. Also every pro-life site/newsfeed picks up this fact. Catholic/Christian sites which MOST people in this case would allow as 3rd party since they aren't in and of themselves pro-life sites also pick this fact up. You could easily just go back to the original sentence that just stated that pro-life sites do this and it would be so much easier. As I said before it is one of those "is the sky blue" that pro-life sites request boycotts of PP and their donors.Marauder40 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you had mainstream publications picking it up that would throw out the fringe claim, but having a few news sites with known support for anti-choice Catholic/Christian goals does not establish that it is fringe. We don't have non-trivial coverage in neutral/independent reliable sources on it which means we need a very good rationale as to why this is not undue weight. I still haven't seen that rationale. Anti-choice organizations picking something up doesn't establish notability. LDI is not a notable organization to start with as far as I'm concerned (if you think it is, start an article and find the non-trivial reliable sources), so having them release a list doesn't establish weight. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Only problem is that none of what you just said is WP policy, pure and simple. It is only your statement of what you think the policy is and it is wrong.Marauder40 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked to policy above. You have not provided a rationale as to how using anti-choice websites as sources for a controversy somehow bestows weight to the controversy. Would you like to take a jab at that? Also, a rationale as to how these are not fringe would be appreciated... That doesn't even go to the neutral/non-reliable source issue. Why is an organization that isn't even notable enough for its own article's criticism notable? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided my reasons numerous times the chef one being you keep adding requirements that are not part of RS. Can you show me the requirement that an organization has to have an article before it is referenced in an article? Just because someone hasn't created the page yet doesn't make them unnotable. More arbitrary requirements. Can you show me a requirement that says that an independant party can't be someone that maybe just favors the same ideals? I guess we have to not allow any sources where the author was a democrat or a republican because they have a few on this to. Your requirements are not what WP says. All it says is that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Marauder40 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your "reasons." If they don't have a page then we need proof that they are notable, feel free to provide that proof. Even if that proof exists, then it needs to be proven that they are not fringe. Finally it must pass the due weight and reliability tests. Provide a rationale for each of those kindly? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That sentence should be taken out! Nobody cares about the crazies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like nobody has demonstrated exactly why this sentence is due weight. Any takers? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty simple it is one sentence in a section on funding. Many organizations have picked up the boycott listing and passed on the message. Organizations have stopped funding PP over being on the list. Makes it notable, and due weight. The paragraph without mentioning it is POV.Marauder40 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Many organizations have picked up the boycott listing and passed on the message." Do you have non-trivial coverage from neutral reliable sources for this? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No rationale provided for the sentence to remain, I will remove it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Ugh, SPS can be used for statements about the organization issuing them. - Haymaker (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can. But the issue here is, I think, WP:UNDUE. I don't know who these orgs are, and I see no reason to care about what they do or think. PhGustaf (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not undue weight, several organizations have requested boycotts. Even WMO totally above and beyond requirements for news media coverage have been met to cover the quotes. Organizations outside of the pro-life movement directly have picked up the boycott requests. It is one sentence. It is not undue weight. It would be simpler to just say that pro-life group request the boycotts but other editors are requiring the lists of people that requested the boycotts. The only way it would be undue weight is if we added several sentences talking about which organizations have removed funding for being on the list and things like that, of course we could argue similar weight since organizations keep being added to the list that ARE funding PP.Marauder40 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is undue weight, the sources are very old and if that's the best you can do then yes it is undue. Maybe once the section is like 3x the size it can be included in one sentence? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

It is not undue weight, the sources are only old because YOUR requirements that you artificially add that are not WP requirements. One sentence is not undue weight especially considering the recent additions of additional organizations that support PP. That could be also be considered undue weight. It also isn't just "one editor".Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the requirement that stuff be sourced from reliable third party sources is a wikipedia guideline. Your comparison of fringe activist groups with reputable major foundations is quite interesting but misguided. These are completely different factors. We should not include information from fringe groups with self-citations on the article about a health care provider one out of every four American women have received services from, if we include what fringe groups think, they should be sourced from reliable independent and neutral sources. It is undue weight, please stop beating a dead horse. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the RS is what is flawed. As I have pointed out several times the official statement is that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made". You are the only person that keeps adding additional requirements to it. There is no requirement that says the source MUST be what you keep claiming it should be. FDI is not a fringe group, it is you that is calling it a fringe group. It was you the changed it from the more generic pro-life groups to be the actual names of the companies. As I said before pro-life groups use this list as the authoritive list. They reproduce it on their sites and call attention to it on their sites. If it was only LDI's site that listed the boycott list it would be fringe, that is not the case. Funny that you are fighting against the same arguments you are using to include things from different groups in pro-life articles, and yet you can't see the parallel.Marauder40 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the following sound like fringe? From the second RS written in 2005 that is in the article. "Approximately 10,000 copies of the $15.75 list are distributed twice a year, including to 33 anti-abortion organizations that endorse it, ranging from Human Life International to Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, American Family Association and Traditional Values Coalition." Doesn't sound like fringe to me.Marauder40 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds both fringe and undue to me. Regardless, another editor has removed it from the article and others have disagreed with its inclusion. There is no consensus for its re-addition. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that it isn't fringe. Other editors have agreed for its inclusion. Earlier in the same thread the editor that removed it stated "If we go back to generic, it makes sense to me to keep. It's a bit of a throwaway sentence, like saying "pro life groups are against Planned Parenthood as a supplier of abortion services" but it adds some dimension." So I will add it back in with the generic sentence like he wanted.Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Womans enews, over 5 years ago, plus a NYTime article from 20 years seems a little fringy or dated. But the main thing is that the section is giving a lot of attention to marginal groups who seem to have little to no impact. But, I take back my earlier edit - sorry about it. It's fair that we can have one line, generic as it is.Mattnad (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reason for the age of the articles is the arbitrary roadblocks that WMO is throwing up in his definition of what makes a RS. But just because something is 5 years old doesn't invalidate it a RS. There was an article posted on several pro-life sites right before the March for Life in DC in January based on information from LDI saying which hotels not to stay in for the March for Life. Just because the news didn't make the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., doesn't mean it's not a RS. Usually the only time those sources cover this type of news is when there is violence on either side or some scandal on either side. In January hundreds of thousands of people marched peacefully in DC. There was only about 12 pro-abortion protesters present yet the only coverage of the entire event was from the Washington Post and it showed a picture of the pro-abortion protestors. Does that sound like NPOV coverage? To get any real coverage of the event you have to go to sources other then MSM. Thanks for the understanding. Marauder40 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the {{who}} to your change. The current version gives a false sense of legitimacy to the boycott. I'm sorry Maraunder, but just because you don't like the Washington Post, doesn't not make it a reliable source. That is exactly the type of source we need in this article, you can claim bias all you want, but it's still a reliable source. On a side note, I dislike the Washington Post as well because they have extremely conservative pov, particularly in their endorsements. Regardless, that sentence needs to be clarified and my concerns about undue weight and verifiability still stand. As Jimbo Wales said, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents," so lets hear the prominent adherents from recent, neutral, reliable sources. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The "who" is clear from the cites. The cites list who. If you really want me to list a "who" LDI and the "33 anti-abortion organizations that endorse it" but I am sure you would complain about undue weight when I add the names of all 33 anti-abortion organization that endorse the list. You are the only person that says we need a "who" there instead of the generic statement. Marauder40 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have third party, neutral, reliable sources that give non-trivial coverage to each of those organization's endorsing the list, then it might be warranted, otherwise its undue weight. What's happening here is we're including information that is undue weight and really insignificant by hiding it under the guise of "pro life groups" when it really is just a few that have gotten coverage in sources I referred to above. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

6 of the 33 pro-life organizations are already listed in the cite which IS a third party RS. Also as I said before your definitition of what constitutes a RS is not what WP says is a reliable source. So those six, plus the coalition mentioned in the first site and LDI itself would make 8 organizations. It is much easier and within normal editing standards on WP to say "pro-life groups" instead of listing all 8.Marauder40 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles, do you have any new arguments? I would question whether womens's e-news is a reliable source, I don't see any previous discussions on the notice board and their Web of Trust rating is lower than Fox News'. You're welcome to make a policy based argument for another source as reliable, you're the only one who has questioned the criteria set forth. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph devoted to recent actions

This is currently a paragraph in the article:

In January 2011, pro-life activists from Live Action visited twelve different health centers posing as pimps who wanted abortions and birth control for child prostitutes. Excerpts of audio and video from footage taken during the visits seem to show a clinic manager in New Jersey being sympathetic to suggestions of criminal activity, leading to assertions by Live Action and by other conservative figures that Planned Parenthood health centers were violating the law. Although they suspected that the visits were staged, Planned Parenthood reported the incidents to the FBI before the videos were released. After Live Action released the videos, Planned Parenthood fired the New Jersey clinic manager, but asserted that the edits to the video footage were misleading. Live Action has claimed that they released the unedited footage to authorities in Virginia, but no charges were filed as a result of the original release or the supposedly uncut release.

There seems to be little justification to devoting an entire paragraph to just one sting. There was previously a consensus on this page that none of the stings were notable enough to be listed individually and that they should simply be summarized rather than providing a listing. I have not seen a discussion to justify moving away from that. Note that this is not news and if we're going to devote an entire paragraph to this, we should include a paragraph on LBJ's support, philanthropists who have supported the subject over the years and other historic developments rather than focusing almost entirely on recent events.

This expansion of the Live Action video is out of proportion to the actual impact. WP:UNDUE all over again.Mattnad (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should just add this to the list of actions in the previous paragraph - maybe under "sex trafficking"? There's been no evidence given that this action was more notable than any of the others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Birmingham side of this thing is very much worth including. - Haymaker (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The criticism section continued to get expanded with minor stuff. Not encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mattnad, not due weight, not encyclopedic, probably not even notable. The criticism section is already about 5x larger than I think it should be in proportion to the article. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand the question properly, but the stings certainly deserve coverage - see the thousands of articles about it on Google News. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence or two summarizing all the stings is certainly in order, a whole paragraph? not so much. There is no reason why actions by a small group of people (the main figure of which has had "significant doubt [cast] on her credibility") who got attention (most of it negative imo) should somehow have such a large portion of an article dedicated to a health care provider who one out of every four American woman have turned to at some point in their life. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 15:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One interesting thread in the article was how the Planned Parenthood in Tennessee was in compliance with Tennessee law, and that Rose didn't care.Mattnad (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The sting videos created the firestorm that's fueling the effort to defund PP. It deserves much more than a sentence or two, and I would say the criticism is smaller than it should be. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news - if the recent stings lead to anything aside from tit for tat news articles, then maybe we need more detail. But the same efforts in the past had temporary news headlines, and then nothing. How is this different?Mattnad (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

break

Well stated Mattnad. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just said how it's different - these videos directly led to the House's vote last week to defund Planned Parenthood. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the house voted to stop funding planned parenthood because of one video of one planned parenthood employee behaving badly (in theory) and not because they provide abortions? There is also discussion about stopping funding for NPR. Is that because of Live Action too? Or maybe a Republican lead house has an agenda to show how tough they are on abortion providers? At any rate, common sense interpretation aside, Planned Parenthood's funding is still intact.Mattnad (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These videos directly lead to that? So let me get this straight, on the SBAL article, you're saying that they're credited with the house vote and on this article you're saying it was the videos? Gimmie a break. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but NYyankees51 wanted to add this blog reference House Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood Over Abortion to another article which give credit to yet another organization. But it's simpler than that. The house was already debating defunding PP when Live Action distributed their video. Do you really think that a vote split down partisan lines over "stopping abortion funding" would have been different? How many republicans would have cross party lines to block a bill by their house leadership in your opinion if Rose had not released the video?Mattnad (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

By definition, things are notable if they have received coverage by 3rd party RSs. Birmingham and several of these other stings are very much notable. - Haymaker (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. By definition, things are not notable if they have not received coverage by RSs. The converse does not apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)