Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Needs better coverage of negative reactions

Starting over again by moving better coverage and discussion from main article talk page. Edit below this hatted section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where is the mention of the widespread outrage, the protests, the technician testimony of still heart beating babies being vivisected, in profound violation of guidelines on experimentation on primates, let alone human beings, where was the explicit signed consent for babies intact heads or bodies being sent by courier to labs? Even the use of autopsy samples after death caused huge controversy here in the UK, at Alderhay, this is a completely different order of magnitude. This page as it stands is a sheer disgrace to wikipedia's NPOV policy, and frankly to the editors policing it. Here is a suggested and referenced edit to improve the balance, similar to that which I have recommended on the PPFA main page: Widespread revulsion has been expressed by many sources at the reports that PPFA was involved in the sale of foetal body parts, including whole bodies, and intact foetal heads. Many described the affair as a scandal. The PPFA countered by claiming their practice was strictly within legal bounds, and no profit was sought. I am willing to help more, despite paucity of time, but I'd like to see better evidence of good faith first. Cpsoper (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) References Cpsoper (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit below this line.

---

Pinging current participants that discussion occurs here now: Somedifferentstuff, Cpsoper Cityside189. BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised the article carries no reference to widely reported (or curiously completely unreported[1]) outrage and disgust at PP's distribution of body parts (including harvesting from donors with beating hearts[2] and the transfer of whole heads[3]) from terminated foetuses, which is widely regarded as a 'disturbing' 'scandal', irrespective of the distraction about edits, the whole videos now having been released.[4][5][6][7][8][9]etc etc By exclusively focussing on the legal question it has missed the point, and effectively whitewashed the organisation. There was very widespread disgust at the same practice in autopsies children in the UK at Alderhay, this article ought to allude to this widespread repulsion.Cpsoper (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an abortion article where documented expressions of revulsion of the practice can be housed. While a small part of PP's work involves abortion, this article isn't strictly about abortion.

Do you have some particular wording which should be added, with sources? You can propose it here and we can discuss it and work on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

One of Cpsoper's links is to a Politico piece; it doesn't say anything about "international views" but it does have this quote from Clinton:

“Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country,” the Democratic frontrunner said. “And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one (organization).” Clinton, who has supported a woman’s right to an abortion, said that the group’s funding is at no more of a risk than it has been in the past, despite a spate of new Republican efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer money.

What I find to be much more interesting is that the political outrage and calls for defunding have almost entirely come from the right - I think this deserves mention somewhere in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I cited Clinton because of her quote that the reports were 'disturbing', as indeed they are, she's known to be a major backer of PP. Has she also become a right winger by making this observation? Cpsoper (talk) 20:44, August 29, 2015‎ (UTC)

Of course she's not a right winger which is why she is not calling to defund PP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a proposed edit for the current censors of the page to implement if they deem it worthy

In the lede,

• In 2015, controversy and widespread revulsion was expressed by many sources at reports that PPFA was involved in the sale of foetal body parts, including whole bodies, and intact foetal heads. Many described the affair as a scandal. The PPFA countered by claiming their practice was strictly within legal bounds, and no profit was sought.

I'd be happy to suggest a fuller entry under the CMP section. I declare I have no direct interest in CMP, though I am a practising physician and have done small animal work as part of my former research. I trust other editors will feel similarly free to declare themselves free of financial or commercial interests, in accordance with WP:NOTADVOCATE.Cpsoper (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also posting this edit proposal on the wholly disgraceful page on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, I have rarely seen a page characterised by such tendentious editing in years of involvement with wiki. Had I greater confidence in it I would link to it.Cpsoper (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cpsoper, since this is related to the CMP videos, this content belongs exclusively at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. I know you don't like that article, but it's the one which needs improvement, and this will be your attempt to do so. We can't allow this discussion in two places. Please hat this discussion and encourage everyone to go there and participate. You should change the title of your very emotional section there. I suggest Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy#Needs better coverage of negative reactions. If you will allow me, I can do this for you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To make this easier, and so no doubts will linger about proper procedure, I'll ping the other two involved editors in this thread and ask their permission to actually copy and move all the content here to the other article's talk page. That way this existing discussion can just continue, instead of starting all over again. Pinging: Somedifferentstuff, Cpsoper -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to move it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Cpsoper (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on adding this to the lede, we need to focus on adding this content to the body, and then adding a brief summary to the lede. Then we will also update the section in the main PP article, and possibly add brief mention in the lede there. That's the proper procedure.

This needs to be added to the Reception section, possibly as a new sub-section. There are actually three aspects to this subject:

1. The initial reactions to the edited videos;
2. The subsequent, and better informed, reactions to those reactions;
3. The reactions after analyzing the actual full videos and transcripts (which turn out to also be edited, incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading).

Here's my view on possible content for those aspects:

1. We know that most of the first reactions were very strong and emotional, and were generally not informed by any analysis of the full videos. Those reactions were the ones which CMP hoped to elicit, and because they were so well covered in RS, we must mention them, even if they were inaccurate and contain misconceptions and repetitions of lies and libelous statements. The sources proposed so far are mostly of this nature. We can use some of them, and I'm sure there are others.
2. The second group of reactions is more nuanced, since they had the advantage of scrutinizing and analyzing the previous reactions.
3. The third group are the most nuanced and informed, since they have the advantage of hindsight and professional analysis of the full (not really full...) videos and transcripts released by CMP. They also compare the edited and unedited videos, and show discrepancies between those video versions, and discrepancies between the full videos and the transcripts, which are also defective. We actually have some of this type of content in the article.

Now we need to start developing that content. When that is done, a brief summary can be added to the lede.

The first aspect is dealt with and presented as a possible version by Cpsoper. Thanks for that! This is needed content. It may need a bit of tweaking, but you have done some good work.

The second and third aspects need creation, so let's start collecting sources and identify which of the three aspects they are good for. Then propose some wordings.

The page protection will be lifted tomorrow, but since this is controversial content, I appeal to all editors to NOT attempt to include any of it until we have a consensus version. An edit war would only ruin things and cause more page protection. There is no rush. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible titles

We need a clear focus for content, and the title should reflect this. Then we can focus our efforts on those goals. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on August 26, 2015 (2)

Done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following content belongs in the "Court orders" section, near the beginning of the first paragraph. To avoid self-incrimination, the defendants plan to plead the Fifth Amendment. Before this change, the start of the first paragraph looked like this On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden, and a Los Angeles judge placed... After this is done, the start of the first paragraph should look like this On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden. To avoid self-incrimination, the defendants plan to plead the Fifth Amendment. A Los Angeles judge placed... These refs should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name. References BullRangifer (talk) 23:36, August 26, 2015‎ (UTC) No objections so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 30, 2015

In the "Reception" section we have this:

• actions as a „campaign of misinformation“

Both quote marks are wrong and it should be:

• actions as a "campaign of misinformation"

BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request September 1, 2015

Please update:

In the first video there is discussion fetal hearts

To:

In the first video there is a discussion of fetal hearts Checkingfax (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Skip the a, and instead of of add concerning. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add categories

It would be useful to add the following categories:

• Category:Media-related controversies in the United States
• Category:Political controversies in the United States
• Category:2015 controversies
• Category:2015 in the United States

--Sanya3 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please seek input from other editors before using {{edit protected}}. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support MSGJ, I love categorization of articles. Checkingfax (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I personally tend to ignore categories, but none of these seem controversial. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Good idea, Sanya3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs)
•  Added all but last which was already included. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Change text of fifth video to reflect that the organization themselves have admitted that an image used in the video was stillborn, but initially, falsely passed off as an aborted fetus. Multiple reports say that the image was used permission, and without attribution to the woman who took a photograph of her own stillborn fetus, and contacted the media to explain that she is livid that her own photograph was used without permission.

Alexis Fretz published the image of the 19 week stillborn on 20 January 2014.

Sources:

• https://www.yahoo.com/health/undercover-anti-abortion-video-showed-images-of-127289829487.html
• http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/251651-video-by-anti-abortion-group-used-photo-of-stillborn-baby-not-aborted-fetus

Change from

The fifth video shows activists posing leading questions and devoting nearly one-third of the video to a "stomach-churning sequence of anti-abortion activists picking through a bowl of fetal tissue." The videos include graphic footage of a technician picking through the remains of an aborted fetus looking for specific organs and body parts. Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the actions as "an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab," and said the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood.

To

The fifth video shows activists posing leading questions and devoting nearly one-third of the video to a "stomach-churning sequence of anti-abortion activists picking through a bowl of fetal tissue." The videos include graphic footage of a technician picking through the remains of an aborted fetus looking for specific organs and body parts. Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the actions as "an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab," and said the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. The video includes an image of a stillborn fetus, published in the Daily Mail in January 2014, used without the permission of the woman in the photo, and in a way that falsely suggests that the stillborn was aborted.

-- Callinus (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose this request, not because I think that this information shouldn't be in the article, but because I think it would defeat the purpose of the page protection. There is a lot of new information that has come to light since the page was protected that should be added, not just this. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is properly sourced with reliable sources and the argument that it goes against page protection is wrong. Page protection is only there so that discussion is held about changes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Brian, I'm not sure that's a legitimate objection. Just because there is other stuff to add doesn't mean we don't allow any changes. You are welcome to make protected edit requests for those other matters. This is a proper request with good sourcing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Although I could wish for better sources. Are TheHill and Yahoo health really the best sources that we can find for this? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there is doubt about the veracity of their stories, they are good enough. MSNBC also covers it. Many other sources, mostly strongly partisan, such as the strongly right-wing and anti-abortion website Infowars.com, also cover the story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Mattnad (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Sorry for the delay on this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, thanks for making the edit, but there is a bit more. The two references need to be added for that content. They need ref names so they can be placed in the refs section at the bottom in alphabetical order. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Please lower page protection and warn/block warring editors

Doc James, please lower the page protection to semi-protection, 1RR, and please instead warn and block warring editors. How many editors were warned and blocked before this page was fully locked? This page can never thrive if it is continuously blocked. Thank you for your answers and consideration. Checkingfax (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like a demonstration of people developing consensus here first. Ping me when consensus has developed on something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, We have elected by 100% consensus not to participate in group editing of this article. Group editing is not the Wikipedia way. There is no requirement on Wikipedia to get Talk page consensus first. The protocol is: BRD. BrianCUA was reckless instead of bold when doubling the size of the article without consensus. CFCF was entitled to a 1RR. Please unlock the page and give BrianCUA an L4 disruptive editing warning and then block him if he persists. Please lower the protection to semi-protected, 1RR. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, blocking a disruptive editor is the way to go, not preventing everyone else from editing the page.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, where is this "100% consensus not to participate in group editing"? That's ridiculous. The idea of developing consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits is good practice. That doesn't prevent normal bold editing and BRD, but when BRD gets to "Discussion" of an obviously controversial edit which was "Reverted", then we do group editing. We work on the content until we have a consensus, and then someone adds that version to the article. This is standard practice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree BRD is a good practice, Bull, but part of the reverting process is to "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." There has been, and could never be, anything specific about the large deletions that CFCF engaged in. I've asked for this repeatedly, but haven't gotten it. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, that's why such large edits are a bad idea, unless you have a clear !voted consensus on the talk page. You never got that. You went directly from the Draft page to the article, and bypassed seeking !voted support here. You assumed there was agreement because there was no voiced objection. That's an inference based on lack of evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, would you consider lifting the protection when actual collaborative editing has produced consensus content and we ping you? We must learn to do it and keep doing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here it is BullRangifer: Draft:Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy&offset=&limit=500&action=history

100% consensus against group editing by 100% lack of participation in group editing. Checkingfax (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, your wording indicated an actual formal agreement, with some type of verbal or vote agreement. Instead, I see you're inferring such an agreement based on lack of evidence. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. That lack is not an active agreement and you can't infer anything from it. Even then, it would only apply to that Draft page, not here. You are also (now) referring to the Draft page, but Doc James makes no such limitation. He's referring just as much to this talk page, and this is where group collaboration and consensus usually takes place. We have not agreed 100% to not participate in such editing here. We actually encourage it. That's the way we move forward whenever controversial edits are rejected. We collaboratively do group work on them until there is a consensus version we can accept. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 26, 2015

1. The following content belongs in the "Court orders" section, near the end of the first paragraph.

The restraining order has since been lifted, allowing release of more videos.

2. The following content belongs at the end of the second paragraph.

StemExpress has denied Daleiden's "intact fetuses" claims:

"CMP's accusations that this conversation somehow refers to 'intact fetuses,' which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety of the illegally recorded conversation, are false. StemExpress has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an 'intact fetus.' CMP and (organization head David) Daleiden's claims to the contrary are unequivocally false."

StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer explained the discrepancy as a misuse of terms by CMP operatives:

"As anyone can see and read, the entire discussion was, in fact, about 'intact livers,'... My use of the term 'intact cases' is a medical term of art that refers solely to 'intact livers,' as there was absolutely no mention of 'intact fetuses' at any point in over two hours of illegally recorded video."

StemExpress has severed ties with Planned Parenthood as a result of the controversy. They stated that their business with Planned Parenthood was a small percentage of their activities.

After this is done, the entire content in that section should read like this

On July 31, the National Abortion Federation sued CMP and Daleiden, and a Los Angeles judge placed a temporary restraining order on the release of further videos of employees of StemExpress, one company with which Planned Parenthood does business, based on California's anti-wiretapping law. The order also prohibited the group from disclosing names or addresses of National Abortion Federation members, or dates and locations of future meetings. The restraining order has since been lifted, allowing release of more videos. A hearing will be held on August 27, 2015.

CMP says that they follow "all applicable laws." Daleiden has stated that in the suppressed video the "top leadership" of StemExpress "admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics that they work with and that could be prima facie evidence of born-alive infants." StemExpress has denied Daleiden's "intact fetuses" claims:

"CMP's accusations that this conversation somehow refers to 'intact fetuses,' which were never mentioned at any point during the entirety of the illegally recorded conversation, are false. StemExpress has never requested, received or provided to a researcher an 'intact fetus.' CMP and (organization head David) Daleiden's claims to the contrary are unequivocally false."

StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer explained the discrepancy as a misuse of terms by CMP operatives:

"As anyone can see and read, the entire discussion was, in fact, about 'intact livers,'... My use of the term 'intact cases' is a medical term of art that refers solely to 'intact livers,' as there was absolutely no mention of 'intact fetuses' at any point in over two hours of illegally recorded video."

StemExpress has severed ties with Planned Parenthood as a result of the controversy. They stated that their business with Planned Parenthood was a small percentage of their activities.

One more edit

I removed a "clarification needed" tag, since there has been no discussion about this. It seems unnecessary. It was after "all applicable laws". If anyone wishes to restore it, they should only do so in connection with a discussion on the talk page.

These refs should be placed in the refs section at the bottom of the page, alphabetically by ref name.

References

BullRangifer (talk) 23:06, August 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

• Oppose, but again not because I don't think this was useful. With the release of the 8th video, I don't think all of this is relevant anymore. Good work, though, Bull. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  BrianCUA, to avoid confusion, I have added numbers to the different content I'm suggesting for addition. I suspect you are objecting to number one, since number two is still relevant and unaffected by the release of more videos. Is that the case? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  BrianCUA, I'm still waiting for a response so we can move forward with this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  Any progress on this. I intend to implement this shortly unless there any objections. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Highly edited"

I removed the words "highly edited" from the lead. The relevant sentence in the article says "Supporters of Planned Parenthood have complained that the videos were edited, although the Center for Medical Progress has released unedited videos along with the much shorter edited versions." That indicates that calling it "highly edited" is POV. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If this article is going to stay live for any significant length of time then the whole lede (and probably much of the article) needs a major re-write. If you've looked at mainstream media sources on this, the lede is very clearly misleading and very clearly not NPOV as currently written. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream sources certainly say "edited" - it seems that the phrase "highly edited" is coming from pro-PP statements. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Any comparison shows that the MUCH shorter versions must be "highly edited". That's not POV, that's accuracy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's quoting multiple non-PP sources which use that phrase. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really care if we just say "edited" or "highly edited" - but since BullRangifer had re-added the "highly" last, I added some additional, mainstream media sources which used that language. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care a lot for it too but we should all have in mind that some of the editors here, posting on this Talk Page and editing the article, have already stated very Pro-Planned Parenthood views on the original Planned Parenthood lengthy Talk Page so we should all be wary of a lack of WP:IMPARTIAL tone on this article. Note: I am not attacking anyone in particular but we must always be wary of politically-motivated editors. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Edited" is sufficient and gets the message across. "Highly-edited" has no precise meaning is not encyclopedic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "edited" too, the "highly" just comes across as POV. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think you kind of threw out the baby with the bathwater with this revert. Whatever your feelings about the "highly," Bobo had made a lot of good edits and corrections in that revision. Can we salvage those please? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I totally goofed there. BoBo notified me and I have fixed it. So sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Speziale&diff=675002311&oldid=674982970 "Highly" is back in the article. Also, it confuses me that CMP released all the full-length unedited videos right alongside the edited ones, and that is not mentioned at all here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

?? "Highly" is what RS say! CMP didn't release both version at exactly the same time, did they? They issued the edited versions first so maximum damage could be achieved. It was only when the press got the unedited full videos later that they could start to compare them. By then politicians and others had worked themselves up into a frenzy, which was exactly CMP's intent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are parroting Planned Parenthood's talking points. That is their wording, and it's not neutral. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "Per talk, WP:NPOV". I don't see a consensus here for you to make that change. Where is that consensus? It's quite the contrary! We follow the sources. Please self-revert and seek a consensus. Remember this article is under a 1RR, and your revert has no consensus.

That wording does not violate NPOV, no matter who wrote it. It's precise, accurate, and reliably sourced. Do you have a better way to describe it, without OR? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the ONLY one who's argued here against the neutral wording. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You would think that at least the opening sentence would make some sense. What are "clips"? Audio clips? Clips of hair and fingernails? How about using the word "videos"? Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. I don't think that would be a controversial change. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I said this above already, but I really don't think it's worth fighting over the "highly." The fact that they were edited is the central/salient point, that's all we need to say in the lede. If you really want to include the "highly" then put an attributed quote in the sections covering either planned parenthood's or the media's response. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Edited", while technically accurate, is very vague and gives no sense of the actual degree of editing. Journalists who have compared the videos note that the CMP versions are "heavily edited" or "highly edited". That's non-PP neutral and accurate language. Using a vague term is not being a neutral editor. It's the imposition of editorial judgment over what RS actually say, without a good reason. The term is neutral and accurate. It doesn't conjure up something that didn't happen, and it's not partisan language. None of the four sources ( [10] [11] [12] "highly edited") ([13] "heavily edited") we use are PP sources. It's the journalists describing the videos. What motivation is there for not following the sources? Why the censorship? -- BullRangifer (talk)

No, there is a good reason to override the non-neutral language used by some sources. The phrase "highly edited" is highly subjective, and lends itself to pushing the POV that the videos were not just "highly edited", but were in fact dishonestly edited. If that, in fact, is not the actual goal, then surely a less noxious modifier can be found. Eclipsoid (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way is an accurate description used by RS wrong to use? We follow the sources which most accurately describe the situation. "Edited" is technically accurate, but tells us nothing. Was only 2% removed? Well, "edited" can mean that. It gives no sense of the degree of editing. "Highly" and "heavily" are descriptions used by RS to convey a more accurate impression about the relative lengths of the videos.

Those words do not indicate anything about the honesty of the edits. Not at all. There are sources, even from non-PP sources, which do convey that impression, and we use them. NPOV requires that we document such reactions: Quote: "A New York Times editorial wrote that the "video campaign is a dishonest attempt to....""[14] That's an extremely significant source and opinion, and we always include such information at Wikipedia. Keep in mind that it is only editors here who are not supposed to add their own unsourced "non-neutral language" to articles.

There is no policy which requires us to censor "non-neutral language" from RS. On the contrary. (Find such a policy!) NPOV requires that we preserve such wordings and convey the actual spirit of the source. Failure to do so is a violation of NPOV and censorship. Content at Wikipedia contains plenty of properly sourced "non-neutral language", and that's how it's supposed to be. Without it we'd have blah articles with much less content, and we'd fail our goal to document "the sum total of human knowledge," much of which is opinions conveyed by "non-neutral language". -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're still the only one arguing it should be inserted. WP:WTW is a guideline which demonstrates clearly that some words can introduce bias. If you want to put "highly-edited" in quotation marks or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it then I would not have a problem. Just seems a little wierd to take words out of Cecile Richards' mouth and put them in the lede sentence in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Eclipsoid, I have taken a look at your editing across many articles and notice that you carry this opinion of yours wherever you go. You don't understand NPOV. As a newbie, we've given you some slack and time to learn how things work here, but it's time to stop. You're just creating disruption. You need to learn from more experienced editors and drop this false idea that we don't have "non-neutral" content here. NPOV has nothing to do with that, so please stop fighting such content unless it's unsourced editorializing by an editor. That's what NPOV primarily refers to. Editors must remain neutral in their editing and not allow their personal POV (and we all have them, which is fine) to shine through by adding their own unsourced words. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23, we can add quote marks to the words. No problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bullrangifer, I have also observed your editing, and I have noticed that you often bend policies to suit your whim (sometimes against the consensus of other editors). I don't find your appeal to authority very convincing.

In this case, there are plenty of sources that describe the videos as "edited", with no modifier. There is absolutely no reason to privilege those sources you prefer (the ones that say "highly edited"), other than your own personal need to add spin to this article. I agree with Elizium--that attributing the POV with quotes is OK--but only insofar as it is OK to do that in the body of the article. The lead is neutral without the word "highly" and it is still 100% accurate, because reasonable people understand that the universe of "edited videos" includes the subset of "highly edited videos", which would still be mentioned further down (where all the partisan shrieking belongs). Eclipsoid (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with user:BullRangifer that the material belongs there; albeit in quotes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious why there's mentions of 'unedited videos' and the like when the Texas video alone was missing 90 minutes. Some of which they later released after being called out by the Fusion report. I personally think it's important to include the fact they were defending their videos as full versions while their own transcripts proved otherwise. I'm not much of a wiki editor and don't want to step on toes. But I'm very curious. 174.116.71.90 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)