![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
{{
editrequest}}
Coming here from the
ANI, my take on the edit war is that WikiManOne removed the entire controversial section favored by the IP
in this edit, implying above that it should remain blank while under discussion; but then later added a paragraph favored by himself and warred to retain it, which is the version frozen to. This has potential for gaming: if an editor knows that an admin will freeze the last version, tag-team-reverts alternates to that version within minutes (as happened twice), and combines this with an initial not-well-honored offer to leave the section blank during the discussion, it has the potential for a pretty reliable freeze to the preferred POV version (my quick review suggests both nonblank versions had POV problems, but the blank version's only problem was failure to state the controversy). Accordingly, I respectfully request that the blank version, from the above diff, replace the currently frozen version (or that the POV paragraph with its header simply be removed for the duration of the lock), because the current version is much more POV and was accepted by WikiManOne as the original position of his goalposts. Also, there may be BLP problems with O'Keeffe et al., which may require the deletion regardless of the gaming ruling. No disrespect to NuclearWarfare who was in accord with lock policy, but this does seem to me like a gamed situation.
JJB 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears there is now consensus in favor of blanking and discussing on talk without warring, which is a sufficient condition (per the locking admin) for unlocking early. Please unlock or blank the section. JJB 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiManOne, Those in the consensus have bent over backwards to help sanitize this stinking pile of @#!%. Five more bottles of perfume will not help. It's now time to restore the remnants of this material back to the article and the unsuspecting (not!) general public. JGabbard ( talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:
2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.
3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.
4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.
5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.
On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.
All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.
Because of the activism of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. Within 2 days it's been removed due to their edit warring and admin intervention. So much for Wikipedia fairness, huh? -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The above is an accurate synopsis of the activities of the past few days. So much for assumption of good faith, because there is NONE here. It is clear that bias and censorship are prevailing!-- JGabbard ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Protected, ironic the critics (which by a simple head count as seen reviewd by 67.176.248.164) shows that a few can call concensus when its obvious its not. Add another to the leave the criticism in with me 63.163.213.249 ( talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Also how is it WikiManOne avoids the whole three R thing about multiple reverts without warning? 63.163.213.249 ( talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed above the discussion may be producing a consensus on what the new section should involve, so hopefully we can get this worked out. I'm just annoyed that they can claim consensus off 2 users who are clearly outnumbered and edit warring to protect removal of a section that's been around for years, and keep the section from being on the page for days while a major public event is going on, to prevent the public from seeing any mention of related material on Wikipedia. The combination of abuse by 2 editors and at best, horrible mistakes by admins in freezing the page afterward and blanking the material, has resulted in yet another debacle on Wikipedia. -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly feel and identify with your frustration, 67.176.248.164. This is nothing but obstructionism. I applaud your efforts. Fox and WND need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP.-- JGabbard ( talk) 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiMan1, Please, you need to withdraw from this discussion posthaste. I accuse you of obstructionism, not acting in good faith, bias, and censorship. Just allow others to handle this discussion because we can all see through your bias and do not accept your actions here. JGabbard ( talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
i came here looking for info about preventing stds for health class because i know planned parenthood does that but now im reading stuff about nazis. why is this here?? its crazy. ive got a report due and your not helping me wikipedia. AnimeCraze ( talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've returned the section to what appears a longtime stable version existing much in its present form for several years, the Dec. 21st version by Uncle Milty, until consensus is reached on a new section.
My concerns with proposed new sections to be dealt with are as follows (still being updated):
1. Bush administration mention. This was not mentioned until the last few weeks in the section, and the only source is this Salon article. The article mentions it just in passing, in one paragraph, in one sentence, at the bottom of the article. Even apart from the question of whether Salon is a neutral organization (just look at the politics of its longtime editor-in-chief Joan Walsh), there's the question of whether this fact should be considered well sourced based on its 1-sentence mention in the article. For it to feature prominently in a new section, I would like it better sourced than this, with an article that mentions it as a major fact, rather than an aside.
2. Disciplinary measures. Recent proposed sections have differed from long-time stable versions in that they fail to include any mention of Planned Parenthood firing or suspending employees as a result, receiving state fines, or facing other state disciplinary measures. These are the crux of what make the events in question controversial and noteworthy, whether measures occurred as a result. To omit mention of them as new sections have been doing is to bias the section and prevent public knowledge, as seen from the page, of how the cases carried out. My concern is that only information positive to Planned Parenthood is being displayed in the recently proposed versions concerning outcomes, without mentioning anything negative such as firings or state disciplinary measures.
3. Remove the Anti-Abortion Violence Mention. This was not mentioned at all until these recent section proposals and has no place in the section. If this is to be mentioned, it should certainly belong elsewhere in the article, not here, where it has no place. This is about controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement, right? In fact, more appropriate would be the mention of acts of violence credited TO Planned Parenthood or the broader pro-choice movement, per here (see here for a pro-choice rebuttal of the claims). Now, note that I am NOT saying pro-choice violence should be mentioned, or that it meets standards of notoriety, merely that it WOULD be relevant in the section, whereas mentions of anti-abortion violence are clearly out of place here.
4. Case Specifics. While I understand the desire to shorten the section, the previous proposal would have made it less than half the size of any of the 3 sections above it. To mention a line or 2 of detail about specific court decisions would be appropriate. However, I did notice just now the information previously in this section was moved to the 'Stand on political and legal issues' section, alleviating this concern somewhat. However, the 'Legal Troubles' subsection there appears out of place, and would probably be better off back where it was, as it seemingly relates more to controversies than Planned Parenthood stances.
5.(NEW) Sourcing. Right now, all the sources, apart from the Legal Troubles subsection (the only part of the section carried over from the old) appear inappropriate. 4 of the 6 apply to the last sentence on anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section. A 5th is virtually useless as a source, a Salon article that only mentions in 1 sentence at the bottom of the article the claim it is sourcing. The 6th is so POV favorable to Planned Parenthood in its dismissal of the incidents that it is effectively a 3 paragraph opinion piece bashing the incidents with no reporting value, and is certainly not neutral. None of these are valid sources in any way, shape, or form. I mentioned AP and Reuters articles as sources previously. There are a number of sources that could and should be provided, per these examples. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
I'd like to see a new section put together as soon as possible, but these are the concerns I have about the section proposals of Mattnad and WikiManOne, and that differ from the long-time stable version I recently returned the page to. I'd like to see a Consensus approve a section that finds a middle ground between the older and newer versions without removing key facets of the older long-time stable version. -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The following is all taken from the article, we can work on making it meet WP:NPOV standards here and then re-include it in the article. (So as to avoid any major edit wars breaking out in the article, we can reach consensus here first..) Wiki Man One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", [1] some anti-abortion activists have created elaborate "sting" operations in attempts to substantiate their claims. These "stings" have been decried as " 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." [2] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Please note changes you make here and discuss further improvement, look at previous conversation for concerns. Wiki Man One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the specific mention of controversies constitute WP:UNDUE weight, does anyone have any comments on this or opposition to removing this based on wikipedia policies? Wiki Man One 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant reply that does not address topic being discussed
|
---|
|
I am in full agreement with 67.176.248.164. This flagrant suppression of information needs to stop, and all the material in the "Criticism and Controversy" section needs to be reverted NOW. The fact that some of it pertains to current events make it just that much more relevant and contribute to the value of the article. These incidents are fully verifiable and reliably sourced, and if it embarrasses PP so be it! Wikipedia editors are not duty-bound to protect this organization from its own scandals, as WikiManOne seems to be. JGabbard ( talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo, I totally concur! WikiManOne has clearly violated Wiki policy on several levels and needs to stand down, or be made to do so.-- JGabbard ( talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I refer you, Kentipo, to WP:CIVIL, WP:UNDUE and note that you have had past wars of this type, including a 3RR. Look, if something is as controversial as this then it is always better to seek consensus before publishing in the article because otherwise someone may really overstep the mark and land WP in trouble. I am aware that much of what is going back and forth is verifiable but the tone is extremely POV and it is a worrying trend. It needs more civil discussion, less name-calling and moe WP:AGF on all sides. Sitush ( talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. A 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion 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." [1] These "stings" have been criticised as " 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." [8] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [9] [10] [11]
Do you have a suggestion on how to incorporate it then? I'm trying to satisfy those editors who want to include a specific mention of the stings although I am still not convinced that stunts pulled by small (fringe) activist groups constitute due weight... Suggestions? Wiki Man One 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Futhermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion 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." [1] These "stings" have been criticised as " 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." [12] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [13] [14] [15]
I agree with Mattnad here that we should simply summarize the whole thing... I don't mean to say a sentence or two as a "restriction" more as a general idea of how large I think the article should be. I think Mattnad's proposed mention combined with my edit is a step in the right direction, and clearly gives mention (than I would personally prefer) to the controversies as it is. Wiki Man One 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from above to keep messages in order
Wiki
Man
One
I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to
WP:DUE guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.
These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --
67.176.248.164 (
talk)
22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, I agree that it sounds more NPOV. If someone wants to challenge and revert it and seek consensus for something different here, I'm not against that. I think the new wording shouldn't be very controversial. Wiki Man One 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe there's no section on racism since their founder was an avowed racist eugenicist. I'll try write it up, and will use sources. NYyankees51 ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
{{
editrequest}}
Coming here from the
ANI, my take on the edit war is that WikiManOne removed the entire controversial section favored by the IP
in this edit, implying above that it should remain blank while under discussion; but then later added a paragraph favored by himself and warred to retain it, which is the version frozen to. This has potential for gaming: if an editor knows that an admin will freeze the last version, tag-team-reverts alternates to that version within minutes (as happened twice), and combines this with an initial not-well-honored offer to leave the section blank during the discussion, it has the potential for a pretty reliable freeze to the preferred POV version (my quick review suggests both nonblank versions had POV problems, but the blank version's only problem was failure to state the controversy). Accordingly, I respectfully request that the blank version, from the above diff, replace the currently frozen version (or that the POV paragraph with its header simply be removed for the duration of the lock), because the current version is much more POV and was accepted by WikiManOne as the original position of his goalposts. Also, there may be BLP problems with O'Keeffe et al., which may require the deletion regardless of the gaming ruling. No disrespect to NuclearWarfare who was in accord with lock policy, but this does seem to me like a gamed situation.
JJB 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears there is now consensus in favor of blanking and discussing on talk without warring, which is a sufficient condition (per the locking admin) for unlocking early. Please unlock or blank the section. JJB 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiManOne, Those in the consensus have bent over backwards to help sanitize this stinking pile of @#!%. Five more bottles of perfume will not help. It's now time to restore the remnants of this material back to the article and the unsuspecting (not!) general public. JGabbard ( talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:
2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.
3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.
4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.
5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.
On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.
All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.
Because of the activism of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. Within 2 days it's been removed due to their edit warring and admin intervention. So much for Wikipedia fairness, huh? -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The above is an accurate synopsis of the activities of the past few days. So much for assumption of good faith, because there is NONE here. It is clear that bias and censorship are prevailing!-- JGabbard ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Protected, ironic the critics (which by a simple head count as seen reviewd by 67.176.248.164) shows that a few can call concensus when its obvious its not. Add another to the leave the criticism in with me 63.163.213.249 ( talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Also how is it WikiManOne avoids the whole three R thing about multiple reverts without warning? 63.163.213.249 ( talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed above the discussion may be producing a consensus on what the new section should involve, so hopefully we can get this worked out. I'm just annoyed that they can claim consensus off 2 users who are clearly outnumbered and edit warring to protect removal of a section that's been around for years, and keep the section from being on the page for days while a major public event is going on, to prevent the public from seeing any mention of related material on Wikipedia. The combination of abuse by 2 editors and at best, horrible mistakes by admins in freezing the page afterward and blanking the material, has resulted in yet another debacle on Wikipedia. -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly feel and identify with your frustration, 67.176.248.164. This is nothing but obstructionism. I applaud your efforts. Fox and WND need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP.-- JGabbard ( talk) 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiMan1, Please, you need to withdraw from this discussion posthaste. I accuse you of obstructionism, not acting in good faith, bias, and censorship. Just allow others to handle this discussion because we can all see through your bias and do not accept your actions here. JGabbard ( talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
i came here looking for info about preventing stds for health class because i know planned parenthood does that but now im reading stuff about nazis. why is this here?? its crazy. ive got a report due and your not helping me wikipedia. AnimeCraze ( talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've returned the section to what appears a longtime stable version existing much in its present form for several years, the Dec. 21st version by Uncle Milty, until consensus is reached on a new section.
My concerns with proposed new sections to be dealt with are as follows (still being updated):
1. Bush administration mention. This was not mentioned until the last few weeks in the section, and the only source is this Salon article. The article mentions it just in passing, in one paragraph, in one sentence, at the bottom of the article. Even apart from the question of whether Salon is a neutral organization (just look at the politics of its longtime editor-in-chief Joan Walsh), there's the question of whether this fact should be considered well sourced based on its 1-sentence mention in the article. For it to feature prominently in a new section, I would like it better sourced than this, with an article that mentions it as a major fact, rather than an aside.
2. Disciplinary measures. Recent proposed sections have differed from long-time stable versions in that they fail to include any mention of Planned Parenthood firing or suspending employees as a result, receiving state fines, or facing other state disciplinary measures. These are the crux of what make the events in question controversial and noteworthy, whether measures occurred as a result. To omit mention of them as new sections have been doing is to bias the section and prevent public knowledge, as seen from the page, of how the cases carried out. My concern is that only information positive to Planned Parenthood is being displayed in the recently proposed versions concerning outcomes, without mentioning anything negative such as firings or state disciplinary measures.
3. Remove the Anti-Abortion Violence Mention. This was not mentioned at all until these recent section proposals and has no place in the section. If this is to be mentioned, it should certainly belong elsewhere in the article, not here, where it has no place. This is about controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement, right? In fact, more appropriate would be the mention of acts of violence credited TO Planned Parenthood or the broader pro-choice movement, per here (see here for a pro-choice rebuttal of the claims). Now, note that I am NOT saying pro-choice violence should be mentioned, or that it meets standards of notoriety, merely that it WOULD be relevant in the section, whereas mentions of anti-abortion violence are clearly out of place here.
4. Case Specifics. While I understand the desire to shorten the section, the previous proposal would have made it less than half the size of any of the 3 sections above it. To mention a line or 2 of detail about specific court decisions would be appropriate. However, I did notice just now the information previously in this section was moved to the 'Stand on political and legal issues' section, alleviating this concern somewhat. However, the 'Legal Troubles' subsection there appears out of place, and would probably be better off back where it was, as it seemingly relates more to controversies than Planned Parenthood stances.
5.(NEW) Sourcing. Right now, all the sources, apart from the Legal Troubles subsection (the only part of the section carried over from the old) appear inappropriate. 4 of the 6 apply to the last sentence on anti-abortion violence that doesn't even belong in the section. A 5th is virtually useless as a source, a Salon article that only mentions in 1 sentence at the bottom of the article the claim it is sourcing. The 6th is so POV favorable to Planned Parenthood in its dismissal of the incidents that it is effectively a 3 paragraph opinion piece bashing the incidents with no reporting value, and is certainly not neutral. None of these are valid sources in any way, shape, or form. I mentioned AP and Reuters articles as sources previously. There are a number of sources that could and should be provided, per these examples. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
I'd like to see a new section put together as soon as possible, but these are the concerns I have about the section proposals of Mattnad and WikiManOne, and that differ from the long-time stable version I recently returned the page to. I'd like to see a Consensus approve a section that finds a middle ground between the older and newer versions without removing key facets of the older long-time stable version. -- 67.176.248.164 ( talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The following is all taken from the article, we can work on making it meet WP:NPOV standards here and then re-include it in the article. (So as to avoid any major edit wars breaking out in the article, we can reach consensus here first..) Wiki Man One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Although a 2005 federal inspection by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest", [1] some anti-abortion activists have created elaborate "sting" operations in attempts to substantiate their claims. These "stings" have been decried as " 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." [2] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Please note changes you make here and discuss further improvement, look at previous conversation for concerns. Wiki Man One 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the specific mention of controversies constitute WP:UNDUE weight, does anyone have any comments on this or opposition to removing this based on wikipedia policies? Wiki Man One 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant reply that does not address topic being discussed
|
---|
|
I am in full agreement with 67.176.248.164. This flagrant suppression of information needs to stop, and all the material in the "Criticism and Controversy" section needs to be reverted NOW. The fact that some of it pertains to current events make it just that much more relevant and contribute to the value of the article. These incidents are fully verifiable and reliably sourced, and if it embarrasses PP so be it! Wikipedia editors are not duty-bound to protect this organization from its own scandals, as WikiManOne seems to be. JGabbard ( talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo, I totally concur! WikiManOne has clearly violated Wiki policy on several levels and needs to stand down, or be made to do so.-- JGabbard ( talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I refer you, Kentipo, to WP:CIVIL, WP:UNDUE and note that you have had past wars of this type, including a 3RR. Look, if something is as controversial as this then it is always better to seek consensus before publishing in the article because otherwise someone may really overstep the mark and land WP in trouble. I am aware that much of what is going back and forth is verifiable but the tone is extremely POV and it is a worrying trend. It needs more civil discussion, less name-calling and moe WP:AGF on all sides. Sitush ( talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. A 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion 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." [1] These "stings" have been criticised as " 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." [8] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [9] [10] [11]
Do you have a suggestion on how to incorporate it then? I'm trying to satisfy those editors who want to include a specific mention of the stings although I am still not convinced that stunts pulled by small (fringe) activist groups constitute due weight... Suggestions? Wiki Man One 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of anti-abortion organizations have carried out "sting" operations against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood clinic with varying acts: sometimes posing as victims of statutory rape, minors who would need parental notification for abortion, racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women, or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes. The dialogs are recorded and edited to show a clinic receptionist being sympathetic to a potentially criminal act. They then report on how the clinics are somehow breaking the law. However, none of these stings have led to criminal conviction. Futhermore, a 2005 federal inspection by the anti-abortion 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." [1] These "stings" have been criticised as " 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." [12] Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of multiple instances of anti-abortion violence by anti-abortion advocates. [3] [13] [14] [15]
I agree with Mattnad here that we should simply summarize the whole thing... I don't mean to say a sentence or two as a "restriction" more as a general idea of how large I think the article should be. I think Mattnad's proposed mention combined with my edit is a step in the right direction, and clearly gives mention (than I would personally prefer) to the controversies as it is. Wiki Man One 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from above to keep messages in order
Wiki
Man
One
I have some problems with this statement, though. First, the pro-life movement, like the pro-choice movement, would fit the definition of a significant group, and according to
WP:DUE guidelines, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
Secondly, when it comes to prominence/notoriety, the current controversy is being widely reported by the AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post - as have previous controversies. Therefore, simply going by Due Weight guidelines, they should be mentioned in proportion to that coverage. If anything, I think my proposed rewrite erred on the side of mentioning less about the controversies than Due Weight guidelines would require, rather than more.
These have been major controversies, and a sentence or 2 of mention for each, or at least a few sentences for the Live Action ones which have been particularly prominent, per my proposed rewrite, is certainly not asking too much in light of the Due Weight guidelines. The size, given the scope of these controversies, would be alright even with the older section, given how prominent these controversies were in terms of news coverage. --
67.176.248.164 (
talk)
22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, I agree that it sounds more NPOV. If someone wants to challenge and revert it and seek consensus for something different here, I'm not against that. I think the new wording shouldn't be very controversial. Wiki Man One 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe there's no section on racism since their founder was an avowed racist eugenicist. I'll try write it up, and will use sources. NYyankees51 ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)