Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unification of both articles

This scandal is becoming so large and involved, that it deserves its own page like the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page so that it can be more complete.

Both the Planned Parenthood and Center for Medical Progress (political organization) pages are becoming excessively long as well as duplicated with information.

Using the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now page as a reference, the ACORN page has a brief section about the controversy and links to the main page/controversy page. This is a good template for the current controversy. It is likely to get much more involved as there are more videos to go, which will only clutter the pages. Unifying the information will also make it easier for readers to parse instead of jumping back and forth between pages.

I did not change any of the content's context, but it is likely that both the PP and CMP pages should and will be reduced in size and return to being pages about the Organizations themselves. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am totally in favor of this article existing since it is very notable, current and will allow for details not pertinent to the much larger Planned Parenthood article to come to light. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for revert

I've just blanket reverted a whole series of changes to the article made by @Briancua:. I apologize for the blanket revert, however:

• You removed content with no explanation. Here's another examaple.

• You used misleading edit summaries (you removed more content as well as breaking up the paragraphs there).
• You added some information which is not NPOV, and is sourced to some very low-quality sources (ie, the New York Post, Fox News).
• You did not use edit summaries on most of these edits. Changes need to made for good reasons, and you need to explain what those are.

I also think we need to discuss if references should be at the bottom or in-line. Personally I think they should stay in-line as I find it easier to check the verifiability of claims while editing that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not better explaining myself if edit summaries. As I don't usually edit controversial articles, there is a whole host of protocols that I'm not used to using, and things like 3RR (or 1RR, which I didn't even know existed) that I don't ever worry about. I'll try to do better in the future. That said, deleting all of my work in one fell swoop is pretty frustrating. If something got deleted that shouldn't have, or was worded in such a way that it could be improved upon, I would much rather you do that than simply undo everything. I'm not saying I didn't make any mistakes, but I think, and I hope you will agree, that I made some positive contributions as well.

For example, the first sentence of the article now makes it appear that the whole thing is about a single video released on a specific day when there are now, I believe, five such videos released over a couple of weeks and possible more to come. I corrected that, and you undid it. As for the references, I understand your concern, but given that many of them are used in multiple places, isn't it easier to have a single location to find the links, rather than searching the entire article? I am going to go back and make my edits again, and try to do a better job explaining myself as I go. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I still have big problems with some of the edits you're making though. here for example, you re-insert the "haggling" quote without attributing it, when the source makes it crystal clear that it's a direct quote from CMP. This is not NPOV, is undue, and is extremely misleading. Here you once again remove text as "unsupported by the sources" when it appears to me that it the text is very well supported by the sources. I will leave it for someone else to revert you this time, but these are not acceptable changes. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. That wasn't my source, and I didn't read it closely the first time through. However, you will notice that the reporter uses "haggling" later in the article, and a quick Google news search pulls up plenty of RS who use the word as well. As for your second example, a temporary restraining order does not mean that a court has found that CMP has broken the law, and my reading of the sources do not indicate that a a definitive ruling has been issued. In either case, if you would like to work on the prose, I would welcome it. I will do the same to try to alleviate your concerns. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It says apparently haggling later in the article, as part of a description of the video. This is not a valid basis for using "haggling" in the article, especially when other, much more reliable sources make it clear that that's a wholly inaccurate description. I see your point about the second diff, but I think if you read this source carefully you'll see that it does suggest that CMP broke the law (using fake driver's licenses, breaching a NDA, etc).

I also just noticed that in this revision, you replaced an extremely reliable NYT source, which verified a claim which is extremely important to maintaining NPOV in this article (the fact that the PP rep repeatedly said they were not making a profit) with an opinion column which seems to have zero relevance to the claim being referenced. Again with a misleading edit summary - "fix refs" is not an appropriate edit summary for a revision where you replace a high-quality, critically important source with an editorial of questionable relevance. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The source you added here still does not justify use of "haggling" - it still only appears in that article in a direct quote from CMP. The quote you've used there is actually from a reader comment on the article, and does not appear in the article itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

California law has clearly been broken, since secret recordings are illegal, and the judges and courts clearly see it that way. PP might well have a good case against CMP. The future may prove interesting. Until PP actually files charges, CMP isn't found guilty, but the judges obviously think they are and have ordered them to stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

List-defined references

BrianCUA, you are imposing a different reference style without consensus. You're not allowed to do that. Without a consensus, you are supposed to use the existing style. What you wish to use are "list-defined references", per WP:LDR. I'm familiar with them and like them. They make things very neat and avoid duplication of references, but most editors don't understand how to use them. On one article I have written, I used them and maintain them for those who don't know how. I have included this hidden editorial note at the top of that References section:

This article uses "list-defined references", per WP:LDR.

• To ease editing, avoid confusion, and prevent duplication of sources, the references below are in alphabetical order by ref name. When possible use the author's last name, possibly with some identifying words from the title. Otherwise be creative.
• While other citation templates are not forbidden, this basic template has been used for most references, and is placed here for convenience:

• <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

So you need to get a consensus before making such a change. Please move the refs back into the body and then start a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize I couldn't change the style without discussing it first. However, it would now be difficult to go back and restore them all since I have made multiple intervening edits. Could we perhaps discuss it here now, and should the consensus be that it should revert back to the old way then I will accept that without any further ado? If the consensus is to keep the LDR, I think that hidden note is a great idea and would welcome you adding it. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We can wait for others to chime in but I firmly oppose using your reference style, and would like to see the article rolled back (again) to a point before your edits today. See my notes about your misleading edit summaries and use of sources above. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say this because I know how difficult it can be to redo each edit one at a time, but it's simplest to do another mass revert. You're dealing with extremely contentious matters here, so seek advice and consensus here first if there's any doubt. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, I have reconsidered what I said and have looked at the article. There are now only two references which are in the body, so it would be simpler to leave it as is and start making this article a list-defined references (LDR) article. We can see if others object strongly and reconsider, but I'd vote for keeping it LDR. Not everyone knows how this works, so we can keep this article on our watchlists and we can fix refs that are placed in the body and move them to the bottom. In fact, I'll move those two refs now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've tagged the article as POV: the primary problem is undue weight to assertions and statements made by CMP representatives and press releases, most of which more reliable sources rebut. The article currently states, for example, that one of the videos shows PP representatives "haggling over the price of fetal parts." The "haggling" there is a NPOV problem in and of itself, since reliable sources make it crystal clear that PP was not "selling" the parts and that the money discussed was to cover the costs of a donation not a "price." Even more problematically, though, the phrase comes from CMP literature/statements - but is not attributed as such in the article. It is sourced to an article where the phrase appears in a reader comment, rather than in the article itself.

The article is full of problems like this, and given some editors' insistence on re-inserting such content even after its been removed (more than once), and the problem explained, I expect NPOV to be a problem for this article in the foreseeable future. Hence the tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, would you please remove that tag and substitute it with specific tags at the relevant places? A general tag is just an irritating and useless badge of shame and doesn't help us improve or solve the problems. (I see that the first problem ("haggling") is solved.) Otherwise good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyday Ethics

User:Fyddlestix has made several edits (example) deleting text sourced to an Everyday Ethics podcast claiming that it was a self-published and thus not a reliable source. I disagree that this is self-published. The press release announcing the creation of the podcast came not from Caplan, but from the Poynter Institute. From the press release, "Craig Kopp, of NPR affiliate WUSF, hosts and edits their conversations. The show is recorded at WUSF Public Media studios." This is not just some guy in his basement (expert though he is) with a microphone and an internet connection. It is produced at an NPR studio by a professional and respected journalist. For this reason, I am restoring that information. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of times Caplan is quoted in the article is excessive. I know that he's a go-too guy for news organizations to talk to about bioethics, but there are other people, and even other bioethics experts whose opinions should be noted as well. Right now the gives excessive weight & attention to Caplan's statements. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing policy

In a recent series of edits, User:Fyddlestix deleted a good deal of text because she felt what was presented in the article and what the sources say differed slightly. See, for example, this edit in which a sentence was deleted because it was attributed to the wrong PP official. Fyddlestix also felt that there was a nuance in the source that was not captured in the article. I'm glad she caught the mistake and is reading the sources so closely. However, I believe that deleting the text, instead of fixing it, is the wrong approach.

The WP:Editing policy says that we should WP:Preserve "the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)." In the example cited above, I think it would have been much better to change the attribution and add the nuance than to simply cut the text. I am going to go through and reinsert some of the material using the helpful thoughts Fyddlestix left in the edit summaries. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep this mind. I hope, in turn, that you will try to avoid introducing further factual inaccuracies to the article (this article hasn't even been around that long, and I've already found many inaccuracies several instances of some very misleading use of sources). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And, funnily enough, you're making misleading and factually inaccurate edits right now: here you use an article from the WSJ to support a statement that "Other states are considering cutting funding" - but the only states mentioned in that article are the three already mentioned in the preceding sentence of the article: Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. No "other" states are considering cutting funding, at least not according to the source that you cited. Your use of the source is misleading, and it does not support the content you added to the article. If you can't produce a source that actually backs up that sentence, I suggest you remove it. More generally, you need to be much more careful that the claims you're adding to the article are verifiable and properly sourced. (I feel like that's maybe the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say that, it's getting old). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The source says "Planned Parenthood said it is evaluating its options in the states that moved to defund clinics. It added it now is watching for potential defunding measures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin." Those two states are also considering it. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that planned parenthood is "watching for potential" defunding measures does not mean that those states are actively considering defunding. Do you have a source which verifies that the legislature is actually considering legislation to defund in PA and WS? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How about this one? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems very vague and non-specific to me - I still can't find any concrete info on what is being considered, by whom. Nevertheless, as a show of good faith I've re-inserted this content (with the added source) after CFCF's revert today (see discussion below). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your gesture of good faith. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and my apologies if I sounded grumpy/combative in the discussion above (or on other sections of the talk page). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone for their serious and good work. Yes, there can be differences of opinion, and misunderstandings can happen, but there is a good collaborative spirit, and that's great to see. You may wish to note the reminder about 1RR in the section below. I also left a comment there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sectioning article after videos

This article was sectioned after the videos without consensus and included references to youtube videos. I have restored it to state it was in yesterday so that any of these types of edits can be discussed in full before they are implemented. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you. However, your massive, large scale deletion of 20% of this article is unacceptable. I wasn't initially a fan of separate sections for each video, however I didn't feel strongly enough about to revert an edit that another editor obviously did feel strongly about. In addition, your massive deletion is like taking a sledgehammer to the article when a scalpel will do. Please read the section above this, and especially the WP:Editing Policy. If you want to make edits to segments of the article, that's fine. We would all welcome your contributions. However, please do not delete large sections of the article in one fell swoop. I am reverting your deletions. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire section was written by a single editor over a few short hours. I feel a 20% addition including some very questionable sources be subject to discussion before it is implemented. All I see in the above discussion is that you have been reverted previously and chose to ignore the rational presented there. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not reintroduce it before consulting WP:BRD and seeing this talk page for discussion. Ping Fyddlestix -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources? Which of the following do you consider questionable? CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, or Vox? Or is it the I added references with links to each of the six videos? If it is the latter, as I suggest it is, you can delete those without undoing everything else, including contributions by other editors. Additionally, what part of WP:PRESERVE don't you understand? As that policy says, "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." Are you saying that every edit made since your preferred version is absolutely and completely unacceptable? I do not find your methods constructive. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Brian, WP:PRESERVE does not mean that other editors have an obligation to help you make the article read how you'd like it to. Our central concern here is to ensure that the article is accurate, NPOV and reliably sourced. Useful content can always be salvaged after the fact. I support the revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But when 12k of text is deleted in one fell swoop, how is anyone supposed to know what is objectionable and what isn't? Why delete this edit, which simply improves the quality of several references, because you don't like some other edit? How am I supposed to know what is acceptable, and what isn't, when such a massive deletion is made? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can help copy-paste the references and other useful fixes back in, that is easy. Bigger and controversial changes need to be discussed first. I assume you're familiar with WP:BOLD right? When you make the kinds of dramatic changes you did, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you'll get reverted, especially when editing a controversial article like this one. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I am familiar. I also am familiar with the part of WP:BRD that says "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." There was nothing specific about the reversion that was made here. ---BrianCUA (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the ref fixes that you (and others did), and several other constructive edits. I have not restored any edits which did not (in my opinion) improve the article. Happy to discuss or see further constructive changes made, but I'm pretty convinced that the article is now in a better state than it was before CFCF's revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that this is now in a better position than what was there after CFCF's revert, but I am still lacking specificity on what was objectionable in what you didn't restore. I made many series of small edits, just so if something needed to be fixed it could be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the better process would be to revert to my version, and then edits could be made to that as needed. Or, if you could even provide a couple suggestions here on talk, I could go back in and make them. Would you object to that? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wtf, we're adding direct links to CMP's youtube channel as "references" now? No, that's completely unacceptable. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. I wasn't using them to support any content, simply as a tool for readers. I am not wedded to them by any means. Let's get rid of them. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we don't normally link to YouTube videos. Also the direct use of the transcript is OR. We can only refer to it when it's already been mentioned in a RS. We don't "create" content, we "document" it (or something like that ). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just by way of reminder to all editors, this article is subject to WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions, so edit-warring is a Very Bad Idea. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Good reminder. Thanks. It was getting a bit "hot" there. It's better to discuss if there's any doubt that an edit might be controversial. This is a collaborative project, so it's better to discuss at the table before publishing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made another large revert because there is not editorial oversight whatsover here. Briancua and HandsomeMrToad have added very questionable material, often without any sourcing. Can we please take any expansion here so that it can be reviewed properly before being implemented? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, What do you mean that there is no editorial oversight? I dare you to find a single word I added that it unsourced, or a sing source that fails WP:RS. Please, show me the edit where I added new information with no reference (or one in which the ref didn't immediately follow). Additionally, with your massive reversion you have eliminated lots of edits (some for the second time) to which I can not possibly fathom a valid reason. What, for example, is your objection to more fully filling out references so they are not just URLs, to clarifying that there are two lawsuits, not one, or that Stem Express cut ties with PP?

Furthermore, your editing shows bias and a POV, given that in addition to deleting the edits I cited above, you also deleted a large deal of material that portrays PP in a negative light, and yet somehow felt it was important to go back and restore the NEJM editorial that defends them. I'm not saying that doesn't deserve to be in here, but you clearly have a POV and it is showing. I also admittedly have a POV, but I am willing to work with anyone else to improve the article, including you, as long as it doesn't descend into an edit war. I am going to restore the material you deleted. I will remind you again, if you have a problem with anything that is in there, please [WP:PRESERVE]] what is of value, edit the material so that it complies with WP policies, and go slowly, using the edit summaries. Please do not make massive deletions again. That is not how WP:BRD is supposed to work. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, we cannot have the article swinging back and forth between two different versions like this. Brian, you made a whole bunch of BOLD edits that were reverted, you need to discuss and get consensus before putting them back in, as you did here. I'm about to start a new discussion section where we can compare the two versions, and hopefully reach a consensus over how much, and which parts, of the added content should go back in. Please be patient and avoid further reverts/edit warring while we discuss. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Deviation from usual procedure"

I have corrected some biased language in the "Deviation from usual procedure" section. Dr. Gatter's comments about the tweaking of the techniques and instrumentation used in the abortion procedures were taken out of context and require fuller explanation, as given in the WaPo source.

Also, I have changed the section title to "Variations in abortion technique". No one has accused PP of changing from one procedure to another in order to get usable specimens; only of varying the technique used within a procedure. All the proposed variations in technique--grasping one part of the fetus rather than another part in a D&E, or using a weaker source of suction rather than a stronger one in a suction abortion--fall within the limits defined by normal case-to-case variations and are not "deviations" from "normal" or "usual" procedures. Therefore, the previous section title was misleading and inappropriate. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I would rather say you've introduced biased language, please take this type of change up before you make it. This is a controversial article, and it is better for everyone if we can create changes that stick. The article shouldn't be entirely different one day to the next. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your removing the stuff about Dr. Gatter altogether, as too detailed and of questionable meaning, but the section title "Deviation from usual procedure" is highly misleading and inappropriate for the reasons I detailed above--the proposed variations are not "deviations" but are within the limits of normal case-to-case variations. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I restored some of your edits, but this article still focuses too much on the people in the videos rather than the topics. If could rewrite and properly source the following it would be fine to include it:

She calls the possible objection against doing so a "spurious little argument" and points out that the variations in technique and instrumentation have no effect on the patient--no additional pain, risk, or trauma. Nonetheless, because she is uncertain about the point, she says she will discuss it with the surgeon who does the abortions. The "buyer" offers to "compensate more" for changing procedures, and she turns him down with a stern rebuke.

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section title "Lack of consent from donors" include the word "alleged", since the accuser has made no police report or formal accusation, and also has never worked for PP? Without the word "alleged" the article gives her undeserved credibility. I am restoring the word "alleged"; I hope no one minds! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is Fox News considered a reliable source for an article on this topic? Several sentences in the "Variations in abortion technique" section (formerly the "Deviation from usual procedure" section) use a Fox News broadcast as a source. Please advise! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it use a video transcript? In that case it most definately should be removed. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

When I click the link, I get an actual video which starts to play on my screen, not a transcript. Not sure if this matters or why. I was asking about whether the political bias of Fox News makes it an unreliable source. These are the folks who called Dr. Tiller "Tiller the baby-killer." HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a worthy discussion to be had, but if Fox News is not considered to be a RS, then I would also want to raise the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, which is also used in the article, as well. I think both unabashedly have a POV (as does just about every other news source we use here, and every other person), but I think both Fox News and MSNBC can be considered RS. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We cannot turn this into a political bash against one or another source. For every claimant out there that Fox News is biased, there is ample evidence that MSNBC and others are.[1] Remember that "...85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news.""[2]186.120.130.16 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No matter if you think it is considered authorative it can not be included, because we do not cite video transcripts regardless of source. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy for that statement, User:CFCF? I am unfamiliar with that rule. Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these are primary sources, and WP:RS covers that.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not, by definition, a primary source if it is quoted in a secondary source. I would agree that simply quoting from the CMP transcript would be problematic. However, we are relying on a RS to independently verify what was said on the tape, and then we can cite that. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rival versions, lets sort this out

We've had the article yo-yo back and forth a couple of times now over a set of revisions that were primarily made by Briancua. See this diff for a run-down of the changes. Can we all take a step back and discuss how much and which parts of this content are an improvement, please? I will post my own thoughts shortly but encourage anyone and everyone to weigh in. In the meantime, it would be great to avoid further large-scale reverts and revisions until we can reach a consensus. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, some of the central questions here are:

1. Should individual planned parenthood employees who are seen in the videos be named?
2. What level of detail should we go into when laying out the content of the videos? To what extent should we include the same quotes from PP employee's that CMP and the news media have singled out as important?
3. Should the Vox/Kliff article be given as much weight as it is given in Briancua's version?

Am I missing anything? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, my primary concern with the revisions relates to point #2: I think Briancua's version of the page goes into far too much detail on the content of the videos, especially in terms of recycling the more "juicy" quotes from them, like the staff member finding a Kidney and saying "five stars," the "it's another boy," etc. I note that a lot of that section of the article is sourced to some very low-quality sources, like the NY Post (which is a tabloid), and an opinion column in the times. I firmly believe that the article should take the same approach that high-quality, reliable news sources like the NY times have taken: they use a few quotes, but generally avoid the tabloid-style sensationalism. I think Briancua's revision is undue and not NPOV because it dwells too much and too long on these various quotations and descriptions. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not selling newspapers, and this revision is far too sensationalistic in my opinion. We should summarize the content of the videos in general terms, and only use direct quotes like that when high-quality, reliable sources (for example: the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, etc) have highlighted the quotes we're using. The fact that lower-quality news sources like Fox News, or partisan opinion columnists (much less CMP themselves) highlight a quote or particular description from the videos is not a reason for us to do so. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that sums up most of what my concerns are as well, but there are two other factors.

1. Briancua is introducing material that is not neutral and using terms and languages not suitable for Wikipedia.

2. Massive introductions and reintroductions of material are being made without so much as a word of discussion or even an edit summary. So that we don't have to engage in an all-out edit war could we please bring proposed major edits to the talk page instead?

As for your comments Fyddlestix I do not think we should name anything but the highest officials as names of individual personell are irrelevant, and including them is quite possibly in violation of WP:BLP. I suggest we discuss this matter first.

Quoting is also a practice that should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, see WP:MOSQUOTE. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concern about Briancua's editing style/habits (and have actually prodded them to use edit summaries once already), but lets try to keep the focus on content as much as possible here, and not get sidetracked by making it personal. I think they know and have acknowledged our concerns, if it becomes a chronic problem then there are other places where we can have a discussion about it (bringing it up on user talk is always a good way to start).

On the subject of names, I'm finding it hard to see a reason for excluding them. These people's names are all over the news, as long as we (in wikipedia's voice) aren't accusing them or implicating them in a crime or wrong-doing I'm not sure there's a valid policy-based rationale for keeping them out. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if I'm wrong about that - what part of WP:BLP were you thinking might justify exclusion? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly in my reading there are a number of sections, maybe most prominently WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I think until the has been sufficient quality reporting on the topic we should refrain from using the names of individuals filmed without their knowledge. It is a different thing entirely to state public comments, and I support including them.

Secondly I don't understand how these names are relevant – do they contribute anything? I find they make the article harder to read and more difficult to follow. The people aren't the issue here, and having 10+ names is only confusing for everyone.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

First, User:Fyddlestix, to your three points. I believe that the names do add something, and help keep clear who is saying what. I don't have terribly strong feeling on the topic, but I do think they add value, particularly where the speakers are already public figures, like Nucatola. Secondly, this is an article about a controversy. I think it makes sense to include the controversial statements made. Thirdly, as I said in an edit summary, as far as I know Kliff is the only RS who has watched all of the unedited videos. Kliff's is a unique perspective that I think deserves inclusion. (Not for nothing, but I think some of the details included from her put PP in a mopre favorable light.) We can discuss how much, but rather than simply delete all of it I think the better approach is to single out which parts you think is too much, and which deserves to stay.

As to the quality of sources, let's look at the sources that are getting deleted in these massive deletions: the Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Independent Journal Review, the Washington Post, WUSF Public Media studios, Vox, MSNBC, KSL, Yahoo Health. I did not add all these sources, but please tell me why these are so low quality as to not deserve inclusion here.

Now to User:CFCF's points. Firstly, if you think the terminology I am using could be improved upon, then please do so. No one is arguing that point. However, as I've pointed out many times, WP:PRESERVE calls for you to keep what is of value, and to fix what needs fixing. Not to simply wholesale delete everything that isn't absolutely perfect. After all, WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Again, please read the WP:Editing Policy. As to your second point, are you kidding me? I am making a series of small edits, and I'd venture that 95%+ have edit summaries. You, on the other hand, simply come in and make massive deletions in a single edit without any kind of explanation.

Once again, I am going to restore the older version. If you have specific problems with any of it, please make specific edits, with edit summaries, so that we can work on the details. When you cut 10k of text in a single edit, it makes it damn near impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about it. On several occasions I have pointed out edits that couldn't possibly be considered contentious, but have become the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. CFCF has [‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy&diff=676522786&oldid=676522258 reverted once again on a massive scale] saying that WP:PRESERVE does not apply. Could you please explain why it does not apply? --BrianCUA (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously they are being percieved as problematic or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just because there are new news reports every day doesn't mean we should include them all. WP:NOTNEWS. Just adding everything we can find isn't the way to write an encyclopaedia, and because this is a controversial topic we need to move slowly. We have to wait for more editors to weigh in on the topic, and it is important to understand that many do not have unlimited time to divert to one topic. See WP:BRD.

Also note (as mentioned earlier) "WP:Preserve does not mean that other editors have an obligation to help you make the article read how you'd like it to"

The largest portion of the additions are extended details concerning the videos – details that are being discribed as problematic. We need to decide how in depth we should go and also why we should be making these additions. Does detailing everything – and quoting everything actually help a reader understand the controversy – or is it merely confusing? Please make some concrete suggestions at this talk page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also to the point of adding names for everyone – WP:NOTNEWS has a pertinent section:

3.Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Briancua: I think CFCF probably reverted you because you once again reverted away from the last version of the page that had any kind of consensus, despite specifically and repeatedly having been asked not to, and while there was an attempt to reach a consensus ongoing on the talk page. Congrats, you got the page protected! Now, can we talk about this like grown ups? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obama administration finds no lawbreaking

I cannot edit the article, not being an administrator, but the following might be worthy of inclusion:

The Obama administration has released a letter to Senators Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt (both Republicans) stating that HHS has not found any violations by PP of the Federal laws regarding donation of human fetal tissue.

Admins, feel free to insert this into the article without attribution or acknowledgement! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

That's not quite what the ref says, it says that "there are no known violations of the country’s fetal tissue laws among government researchers or the companies that supply the tissue." They're referring to HHS and NIH researchers, and their suppliers - not to Planned Parenthood specifically. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But planned parenthood is one such supplier, no? I realize another source would be needed, but it doesn't seem incorrect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems likely, but that's not what the source says. I will see if I can find more detail on this somewhere. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess having the statement that Obama said no suppliers of govt are in the wrong followed by the statement that PP supplies govt researchers is not WP:OR? Stating that Obama said PP don't would be.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)