This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Should this article include content from this source and/or this one about DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics? natemup ( talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Relevant content from the source:
"Two sister companies in Yorba Linda must shut down and cease doing business in California as part of a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney’s office, which had sued them for unlawfully selling stem cells and fetal tissue for profit. Before prosecutors investigated DV Biologics LLC and DaVinci Biosciences LLC, the companies’ shady operations had been uncovered by Irvine-based anti-abortion activists pulling a hidden camera sting on Planned Parenthood."
"The Center for Medical Progress in 2015 unveiled undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials around the country meeting with David Daleiden, founder of CMP, and others from the activist group posing as fetal tissue traders. One such video featured a conversation where the name of an official with Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties came up, as did DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences."
"While announcing his office’s case against the Yorba Linda companies, Rackauckas made it clear there was no evidence at that time of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood."
" “Documents produced to the panel show that, from 2008 through 2015, DaVinci Biosciences obtained its fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC),” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the panel’s chairwoman, stated at the time. “DaVinci has told the panel that PPOSBC ‘donated’ the fetal tissue. But DaVinci has also told the panel that its executives contributed thousands of dollars to PPOSBC starting before the Planned Parenthood affiliate began ‘donating’ fetal tissue to DaVinci. Planned Parenthood has said PPOSBC was its only affiliate that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company.” " natemup ( talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
"If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."Consensus is established in the previous section. The user just doesn't like it and is trying to game the system. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that I keep responding. I imagine that I'm not supposed to comment much on here. Again, it's my first time. natemup ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to insinuate anythingOy vey. Anyhow, it would be wonderful if you would learn from the fact that not a single person has expressed support for your efforts here, and not merely continue forward blindly in the same way. -- JBL ( talk) 21:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
It looks like some new information is needed in this article, since the videos are now the subject of a whole mess of testimony-under-oath in the San Francisco criminal trial (under judge Christopher Hite) and civil trial (under judge William Orrick) that are ongoing as of 11/4/2019. 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
https://www.courthousenews.com/anti-abortion-foe-grilled-on-motives-for-secretly-videotaping-doctors/ "A Planned Parenthood lawyer Thursday tried to discredit anti-abortion activist David Daleiden’s motives for secretly videotaping abortion doctors and releasing the videos on the 15th day of a civil fraud and conspiracy trial.
...
Daleiden, Merritt and Center for Medical Progress associates Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez are accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and violation of federal anti-racketeering law.
The trial is expected to continue through at least Nov. 8."
https://www.courthousenews.com/criminal-privacy-hearing-on-undercover-video-by-abortion-foes-begins/ ..."David Daleiden, an anti-abortion activist charged with invasion of privacy for filming attendees at National Abortion Federation conferences in California. Daleiden and co-defendant Sandra Merritt are each charged with 15 counts of felony invasion of privacy, accused of creating the fake company BioMax and posing as phony procurers of fetal tissue."
https://www.courthousenews.com/abortion-foe-defends-secret-taping-as-investigative-work/ ... "Agents with the California Department of Justice raided Daleidens’ home in April 2016, seizing several computers and hundreds of hours of video footage, along with mockups for BioMax business cards and phony identification documents. Daleiden’s attorneys have challenged the probable cause behind that warrant, asserting Daleiden is entitled to protection under California’s Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist.
Hite declined to quash the warrant Tuesday, finding 'there was sufficient probable cause in the warrant that Daleiden was engaged in criminal activity irrespective of his journalistic status and that the items seized were related to the criminal activity.'"
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/staff-cuts-new-fees-for-patients-follow-decision-by-health-clinics-to-pull-out-of-federal-family-funding-program/ ..."Politico Pro: Anti-Abortion Activists Behind Secret Videos Face Trial | Two anti-abortion activists who secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue are set to face trial this week, more than four years after their videos ignited a political firestorm. David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress and colleague Sandra Merritt are facing 14 felony charges of illegally recording Planned Parenthood employees. (Colliver, 9/3)" ( https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/09/anti-abortion-activists-behind-secret-videos-face-trial-1697435) https://calmatters.org/politics/2019/11/abortion-law-california-settlement-nifla-becerra-daleiden-sekulow/ https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/shawn-hubler/article73835982.html 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, a hearing was held in San Francisco to determine whether David Daleiden and his associate Sandra Merritt should go to trial for fifteen criminal counts of felony invasion of privacy. [1] In this hearing, Daleiden's attorneys disputed the warrant by which agents with the California Dept of Justice entered Daleiden's home and seized computers and digital storage devices, along with some phony identification documents in April, 2016. The court, however, denied their claim that Daleiden was protected by California's Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist, because the Dept of Justice had sufficient probable cause of criminal activity to make the seizures. [2] Following this hearing, Planned Parenthood and others affected by Daleiden's videos initiated a civil jury trial against Daleiden, Merritt and also Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez in state court. They are being accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and also violation of federal anti-racketeering law. [3]
References
170.54.58.11 ( talk) 16:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Snopes-style official findings: https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
So some journalists op ed piece is a primary source, but your members of parliament and the house oversight committee of the united states of America isn't even a reliable secondary source? Ay caramba. This isn't helping my homework project besides telling me that Wikipedia is c%nt%%lled by some very p0litic4lly motivated and b1a5ed p3ople to the point of c0rrupt1on. :/ (Sorry for silly spelling, there is a 'constructive comment' filter saying that my comment 'is potentially unconstructive' because it has naughty words in it. Orwellian AF.) 121.210.33.50 ( talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This article still contains biased and colorful language. Many sentences are written as if it has been agreed that the videos were fake. It is quite difficult to maintain a balance because the fights are still ongoing in the courts. There is a tendency to only report the side that you believe/support and then using the language from that side of the dispute. I tried to improve some balance by including court rulings that were in favor of CMP. -- Ferdilouw ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
this exposure of their alleged illegal actions. Every part of Wikipedia must have a source; your statement misrepresents and is unsupported by the source.
This article is really too big and clumsy - needs to be shortened.is NOT shared by me. The lead summarizes the article, and any reliably sourced info in Independent Sources that covers the subject can be and should be included. And as far as your comments about Neutral Point of View go, you should read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am relatively new to the Wikipedia community, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on proper procedure/protocol.
I would like to propose the addition of this paragraph:
On September 29, 2015, Alliance Defending Freedom published an analysis of raw footage provided by the Center for Medical Progress to cybersecurity and media forensics firm Coalfire Systems, Inc. [1] [2] [3]
Their task differed from that of Fusion GPS, as Fusion's August report relied on four YouTube videos (termed "full footage" or "full conversation" videos by the Center for Medical Progress) while Coalfire reviewed the source material for ten videos in total, including a previously missing 30 minute segment of conversation footage. [4] [5] [6]
Coalfire deemed the videos authentic and free from fabrication or misrepresentative editing. [7]
As a result of this analysis, footage concerning Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was accepted as evidence by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [8] [9]
References
RJByrd ( talk) 10:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)RJByrd
Thank you Elizium23. I have alternate sources for the links you pointed out as primary sources.
Here is an alternate source for link #3:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2015-09-29/pdf/CREC-2015-09-29-house.pdf#page=21
And here are alternate sources for link #7:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20151008/104048/HHRG-114-JU00-20151008-SD025.pdf
(Hosted here:
https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=1836)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/planned-parenthood-videos-forensic-analysis
I am curious about one thing. If the Fusion GPS analysis uploaded to the Planned Parenthood website (link #4 that I provided) isn't considered primary, shouldn't the Coalfire analysis on the ADF Legal site (link #3) be included in the article?
RJByrd ( talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)RJByrd
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Should this article include content from this source and/or this one about DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics? natemup ( talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Relevant content from the source:
"Two sister companies in Yorba Linda must shut down and cease doing business in California as part of a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney’s office, which had sued them for unlawfully selling stem cells and fetal tissue for profit. Before prosecutors investigated DV Biologics LLC and DaVinci Biosciences LLC, the companies’ shady operations had been uncovered by Irvine-based anti-abortion activists pulling a hidden camera sting on Planned Parenthood."
"The Center for Medical Progress in 2015 unveiled undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials around the country meeting with David Daleiden, founder of CMP, and others from the activist group posing as fetal tissue traders. One such video featured a conversation where the name of an official with Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties came up, as did DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences."
"While announcing his office’s case against the Yorba Linda companies, Rackauckas made it clear there was no evidence at that time of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood."
" “Documents produced to the panel show that, from 2008 through 2015, DaVinci Biosciences obtained its fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC),” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the panel’s chairwoman, stated at the time. “DaVinci has told the panel that PPOSBC ‘donated’ the fetal tissue. But DaVinci has also told the panel that its executives contributed thousands of dollars to PPOSBC starting before the Planned Parenthood affiliate began ‘donating’ fetal tissue to DaVinci. Planned Parenthood has said PPOSBC was its only affiliate that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company.” " natemup ( talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
"If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."Consensus is established in the previous section. The user just doesn't like it and is trying to game the system. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that I keep responding. I imagine that I'm not supposed to comment much on here. Again, it's my first time. natemup ( talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to insinuate anythingOy vey. Anyhow, it would be wonderful if you would learn from the fact that not a single person has expressed support for your efforts here, and not merely continue forward blindly in the same way. -- JBL ( talk) 21:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
It looks like some new information is needed in this article, since the videos are now the subject of a whole mess of testimony-under-oath in the San Francisco criminal trial (under judge Christopher Hite) and civil trial (under judge William Orrick) that are ongoing as of 11/4/2019. 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
https://www.courthousenews.com/anti-abortion-foe-grilled-on-motives-for-secretly-videotaping-doctors/ "A Planned Parenthood lawyer Thursday tried to discredit anti-abortion activist David Daleiden’s motives for secretly videotaping abortion doctors and releasing the videos on the 15th day of a civil fraud and conspiracy trial.
...
Daleiden, Merritt and Center for Medical Progress associates Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez are accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and violation of federal anti-racketeering law.
The trial is expected to continue through at least Nov. 8."
https://www.courthousenews.com/criminal-privacy-hearing-on-undercover-video-by-abortion-foes-begins/ ..."David Daleiden, an anti-abortion activist charged with invasion of privacy for filming attendees at National Abortion Federation conferences in California. Daleiden and co-defendant Sandra Merritt are each charged with 15 counts of felony invasion of privacy, accused of creating the fake company BioMax and posing as phony procurers of fetal tissue."
https://www.courthousenews.com/abortion-foe-defends-secret-taping-as-investigative-work/ ... "Agents with the California Department of Justice raided Daleidens’ home in April 2016, seizing several computers and hundreds of hours of video footage, along with mockups for BioMax business cards and phony identification documents. Daleiden’s attorneys have challenged the probable cause behind that warrant, asserting Daleiden is entitled to protection under California’s Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist.
Hite declined to quash the warrant Tuesday, finding 'there was sufficient probable cause in the warrant that Daleiden was engaged in criminal activity irrespective of his journalistic status and that the items seized were related to the criminal activity.'"
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/staff-cuts-new-fees-for-patients-follow-decision-by-health-clinics-to-pull-out-of-federal-family-funding-program/ ..."Politico Pro: Anti-Abortion Activists Behind Secret Videos Face Trial | Two anti-abortion activists who secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue are set to face trial this week, more than four years after their videos ignited a political firestorm. David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress and colleague Sandra Merritt are facing 14 felony charges of illegally recording Planned Parenthood employees. (Colliver, 9/3)" ( https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/09/anti-abortion-activists-behind-secret-videos-face-trial-1697435) https://calmatters.org/politics/2019/11/abortion-law-california-settlement-nifla-becerra-daleiden-sekulow/ https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/shawn-hubler/article73835982.html 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
In September 2019, a hearing was held in San Francisco to determine whether David Daleiden and his associate Sandra Merritt should go to trial for fifteen criminal counts of felony invasion of privacy. [1] In this hearing, Daleiden's attorneys disputed the warrant by which agents with the California Dept of Justice entered Daleiden's home and seized computers and digital storage devices, along with some phony identification documents in April, 2016. The court, however, denied their claim that Daleiden was protected by California's Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist, because the Dept of Justice had sufficient probable cause of criminal activity to make the seizures. [2] Following this hearing, Planned Parenthood and others affected by Daleiden's videos initiated a civil jury trial against Daleiden, Merritt and also Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez in state court. They are being accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and also violation of federal anti-racketeering law. [3]
References
170.54.58.11 ( talk) 16:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Snopes-style official findings: https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
So some journalists op ed piece is a primary source, but your members of parliament and the house oversight committee of the united states of America isn't even a reliable secondary source? Ay caramba. This isn't helping my homework project besides telling me that Wikipedia is c%nt%%lled by some very p0litic4lly motivated and b1a5ed p3ople to the point of c0rrupt1on. :/ (Sorry for silly spelling, there is a 'constructive comment' filter saying that my comment 'is potentially unconstructive' because it has naughty words in it. Orwellian AF.) 121.210.33.50 ( talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This article still contains biased and colorful language. Many sentences are written as if it has been agreed that the videos were fake. It is quite difficult to maintain a balance because the fights are still ongoing in the courts. There is a tendency to only report the side that you believe/support and then using the language from that side of the dispute. I tried to improve some balance by including court rulings that were in favor of CMP. -- Ferdilouw ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
this exposure of their alleged illegal actions. Every part of Wikipedia must have a source; your statement misrepresents and is unsupported by the source.
This article is really too big and clumsy - needs to be shortened.is NOT shared by me. The lead summarizes the article, and any reliably sourced info in Independent Sources that covers the subject can be and should be included. And as far as your comments about Neutral Point of View go, you should read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am relatively new to the Wikipedia community, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on proper procedure/protocol.
I would like to propose the addition of this paragraph:
On September 29, 2015, Alliance Defending Freedom published an analysis of raw footage provided by the Center for Medical Progress to cybersecurity and media forensics firm Coalfire Systems, Inc. [1] [2] [3]
Their task differed from that of Fusion GPS, as Fusion's August report relied on four YouTube videos (termed "full footage" or "full conversation" videos by the Center for Medical Progress) while Coalfire reviewed the source material for ten videos in total, including a previously missing 30 minute segment of conversation footage. [4] [5] [6]
Coalfire deemed the videos authentic and free from fabrication or misrepresentative editing. [7]
As a result of this analysis, footage concerning Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was accepted as evidence by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [8] [9]
References
RJByrd ( talk) 10:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)RJByrd
Thank you Elizium23. I have alternate sources for the links you pointed out as primary sources.
Here is an alternate source for link #3:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2015-09-29/pdf/CREC-2015-09-29-house.pdf#page=21
And here are alternate sources for link #7:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20151008/104048/HHRG-114-JU00-20151008-SD025.pdf
(Hosted here:
https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=1836)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/planned-parenthood-videos-forensic-analysis
I am curious about one thing. If the Fusion GPS analysis uploaded to the Planned Parenthood website (link #4 that I provided) isn't considered primary, shouldn't the Coalfire analysis on the ADF Legal site (link #3) be included in the article?
RJByrd ( talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)RJByrd