Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 14

Making changes to the article once it is unprotected
Given how contentious this article has become, I want to start a talk page section regarding the future of this article. I think the best way to move forward is to start subsections here with proposed changes (or entirely new talk page sections if necessary) in an effort to create both transparency as well as clarity. My personal opinion is that any substantial changes should not be instituted without having a clear consensus on this talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good goal. I would point out that two subsections above have some discussion in this direction: here and here.  I would say that rough consensuses emerged in both cases (though maybe not on exact wording) but there's also been a lot of disruption not related to reaching agreement on phrasing.  Both these conversations could be moved forward.  --JBL (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As it currently stands, this article --- rather than being of true encyclopedia quality --- is really little more than just a thinly-disguised, blatantly pro-PPFA propaganda "puff piece". There is almost no --- or only very token --- acknowledgement given to any opposing points of view, other than those of the pro-abortion advocates, and the proponents of continued Federal funding for PPFA. We all seriously need to strive for a more objectively inclusive, non-POV article here --- that lives up to Wikipedia's high standards for objectivity --- as we work towards a less disruptive, more constructive future for this Wikipedia entry. --- Professor JR (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Professor, these kinds of sweeping declarations aren't really all that helpful or constructive - if you're unhappy with the article, suggest an improvement! It's not going to write/fix itself... Fyddlestix (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fiddlesticks, Fyddlestix --- you missed my point. Occasionally it behooves all well-intentioned, good-faith editors to step back collectively from a situation of endless arguing and edit-warring over the "micro" weeds of an article, catch their breath, and take a look at the entry in a "macro" sense --- relative to how the article may have certain deficiencies overall --- which in this case has led to the necessity of Planned Parenthood and a couple of spin-off articles being blocked. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. This does not mean several editors are doing PR work for Planned Parenthood but it does read a lot like an apology instead of an encyclopedia in several parts. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Very brief list of additions needed to this article
Dear all, once users are able to freely contribute to this, this is a small list of additions that should be worked in based on WP:N and WP:SIGCOV: The agreement on the wording would be best left to experienced editors who have not been part of the recent edit warring. Those are my two cents. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Planned Parenthood being the source of it's own data. It's numbers being challenged. This definitely needs to be addressed with independent sources, possibly governmental. Also there's several standing issues regarding their own published data of health examinations they perform.,.
 * Addition of anti-Planned Parenthood protests. As several editors have mentioned "... the frequent, persistent, ordinary, sign-carrying type of protests, aren't mentioned at all" nor has the very large, massive nation-wide protests been featured. Plenty of articles on much lesser known topics have the even the slightest tint of opposition heavily featured but not here., ,.
 * There is a clear lack of concise Planned Parenthood fraudulent practices. In recent years Planned Parenthood have settled several millions USD over several fraud allegations.,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.120.130.16 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Images featured in this article. Out of the 6 images featured, 2 are of people being in favor of Planned Parenthood. Not a single image of the hundreds of protests. This appears to hide the fact that Planned Parenthood is a very controversial organization.
 * Accusations that this article is a think-veiled fluff piece. This is a serious accusation and I see a lot of merit in it. I am not accusing anybody but this specific articles, specially the Margaret Sanger part, reads like an apology instead of an encyclopedia.
 * Political movements on behalf of Planned Parenthood. I don't see anywhere the fact that Planned Parenthood recently sued Bobby Jindal nor anything regarding the very large budget dedicated to TV ads against political candidates that do not favor Planned Parenthood,.
 * 186.120.130.16, I saw that you were blocked today - Some users might take you more seriously if you bothered to register. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Deprecation of controversy and criticism sections
Wikipedia has deprecated Controversy and Criticism sections and encourages writers and editors to seamlessly incorporate controversy and criticism in to the lede and article.

It's a lot of work but we need to bring this article up to current Wikipedia house standards. Checkingfax (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Number and date conventions in article
I don't know where in the talk page to put the following comment but there are numbers mentioned that are expressed as digits (1,2,3, etc,) then other places the numbers are expressed with letters (million). I will review the WP: Manual of Style but thus far it's my only comment... --Cityside189 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You probably already found this MOS: Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) Checkingfax (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did.. thanks... looks like it's ship-shape --Cityside189 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Support, controversy, and protests now mentioned in lede
Per previous comments I have generically included a short paragraph in the lede to broach these topics. Please salt prose throughout the article. Per WP house style do not add controversy and criticism to the current controversy and criticism section as that article structure has been deprecated. Checkingfax (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that part looks good. --Cityside189 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 28, 2015 (Subsection)
The opening sentence of this subsections opens with "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" and unedited videos." (emphasis added). According to recently reported findings, even the "fully footage videos" were edited. Quoting an investigative reporter, Glenn Simpson: "So what we found was, I think importantly, perhaps most importantly, that the full footage CMP tapes were, in fact, missing large sections." I propose that it be changed to "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of "highly edited" shorter, and edited longer versions that CMP inaccurately claimed were "full footage".

Mattnad (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


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






 * Oppose. Mattnad, as you know, I totally support this idea, but this is the wrong place to deal with this. We shouldn't continue to build that section's content here, but in the accepted sub-article, so deal with it ONLY there: Protected edit request on August 28, 2015 (Lede). -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I understand your opposition. If the facts are wrong for one article, should we ignore another as well?  The same sentence appears in both. My proposal does not build the section as much as it corrects misinformation.Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. As long as we're not substantially adding more content, then no problem. We just need to remember that the sub-article is the major source of content for this section. Because we have much more freedom for developing this subject there, we should fix it there first, and then use that as the basis of our change here, not the other way around. Working on the same content in two different places is usually a recipe for confusion and problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If none of the videos were unedited, then shouldn't that be taken out of the sentence? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed sentence is very hard to understand as written, and is also overloaded with information. E.g., the statement that CMR said that the longer versions were unedited but this was not true really is too much to fit in the same sentence with the first part, in my opinion. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just say "In July and August 2015 the anti-abortion organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a number of edited videos." That's the point, and this is the first sentence where brevity is helpful to the reader. Back this up with the two references. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest rebalancing the material in the first two sentences, and incidentally rephrasing this part: "... released a number of videos showing edited footage of secret recordings of PP staff. In the videos, paid actors pretended to be ..." or something like that. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on August 29, 2015 (Subsection)
I am suggesting that the last two paragraphs of the 'Early history' section of Planned Parenthood:

In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, which became part of the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and "against families" so the League began discussions for a new name.[3] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[4] By 1942 the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[3]

By 1960, the Federation's grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the country.[4] Planned Parenthood was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[4][5]

would be changed to read as the following (I have omitted the working article reference links below)

In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League which became part of the only national birth control organization in the United States until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and "against families" so the League began discussions for a new name.[3] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[4] By 1942 the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[3] Prescott Bush served as the treasurer of the first national Planned Parenthood capital campaign in 1947.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[4][5] By 1960, the Planned Parenthood grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the United States.[4]

Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is good, except that the removed comma before "which" should be restored. --JBL (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

NY Times article
A nice piece in the Times about Louisiana:  possibly usable as a source somewhere. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to incorporate this information into the funding section,feel free to revert..., but it was just a first trial --Cityside189 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Title X Law
Hello trying to address the "citations needed" tags... this section of the article: "The law had bipartisan support from liberals, who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives,[citation needed] and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare.[citation needed]". The actual law is here.There is a reference to "bipartisan support" but I haven't found *(yet) a reference for the two statements above relating what views the liberals and conservatives were attributed as having. If that part is vital I will keep digging. I propose to leave out the part of the Liberals and Conservatives and make the sentence shorter, re-wording the sentence to: The legislation was uncontroversial, it passed both houses with widespread bipartisan support. As cited here.

I think this covers the bipartisan support issue and would remove the two separate citations needed tags.??? --Cityside189 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * support Sounds uncontroversial to me. Checkingfax (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * agree that this is appropriate (and can of course be edited in the future to include such detail if someone produces a decent source). --JBL (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of federal money for abortion
I see that the statement "federal money is not used to fund abortion services" has been placed back in the lead. Very bad move for a couple of reasons. First, the statement isn't entirely correct since the Hyde Amendment DOES NOT ban the use of federal funds for abortion in the cases of danger to the woman's life, rape and incest. See. Second, even if the ban on the use of federal funds for abortion were complete, which it isn't, the statement would still be misleadingly selective. Why should the lead focus entirely of the use of federal funds rather than on government funds in general which would also include state and local funds which are not necessarily so restricted? Why should we invite the reader to consider only the use of federal funds?Motsebboh (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because states vary on their restrictions, and it's only at the federal level that has a blanket prohibition for most abortions.Mattnad (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so what? If we going to bring up the subject of government funding for abortion in lead (and I actually think that it is best placed in the body) why not say pretty much what you've said above leaving out the "because."? Motsebboh (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence specifically mentions "federal" government. Not sure what else we need to do here.Mattnad (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the current sentence "federal money is not used to fund abortion services" is actually false; US federal Medicaid funds are used to fund certain categories of abortion, as noted by Motsebboh above. The sentence should be corrected or removed. -- 120.23.188.28 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That pdf is on state funding. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your point here, CFCF? . . that if the stated topic of the Guttmacher article is state funding then it is unreliable when it mentions federal funding?? The Guttmacher pdf says that the Hyde Amendment "forbids the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest." In other words (according to Guttmacher) the Hyde Amendment does not forbid the use of federal funds for abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Thus the statement currently in the lead of our article is not completely true.
 * And, once again, even if it were true that FEDERAL funding of abortion was entirely forbidden, such a statement, without any mention of state and local options on the issue, would tend to mislead readers into thinking that GOVERNMENT funding of abortion is prohibited. It isn't. Motsebboh (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have a clear disagreement among editors, so we need to seek a compromise and consensus. Okay? Instead of arguing, get down to business and seek to take each others' objections seriously.

Even though it's a small minority of cases, there are exceptions to the "no Federal funds" idea (which LOTS of RS state), so we need to make that clear. It is "generally the case that Federal funds must not be used for abortions, but there is an exception for....." Something like that. Can we develop this and agree on a version? Please compromise and move forward. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Right now, we have lots of RS that say that PP doesn't use federal money for abortion, and we have a tortured synthesized argument whose conclusion is that it would not be illegal for PP to use federal money for some [very small number of] abortions, but no RS that actually connects this theoretical argument to PP. One of these arguments is straightforward and is grounded in basic WP principles, the other one is garbage.  There are probably non-garbage arguments in favor of removing or relocating this sentence in the lead, but they haven't been offered here.  I disagree strongly with the proposed compromise as it follows the garbage argument down a path that no RS has actually connected to PP -- it's just a wild tangent, and the lead paragraph in an article about PP shouldn't be following wild tangents. --JBL (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I will concede that there are a lot of "RS"s" that follow the party line like lemmings on the issue. Of course the implicit idea, that federal funds don't enhance Planned Parenthood's ability to perform abortions, is utter garbage. Money is fungible so whatever money PP receives for other purposes frees more money to be used for abortions. There is a reason that PP stresses its restrictions under the Hyde Amendment and that is because PP thinks that it is good propaganda. As editors,however, we are not obliged to follow the party line. My objections to placing "federal money is not used to fund abortion services" in the lead, stated above, still stand. Motsebboh (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on, this just seems like your personal analysis Motsebboh. Do have any RS that specifically say that federal funds are used (or sometimes used) to fund abortions? Simply pointing out that there's a loophole in the Hyde amendment isn't evidence that that loophole is ever used. Lets try to refocus this conversation on what RS actually say, we can't go down the rabbit hole of assuming that "money is fungible," etc.  That's OR unless you have a lot of RS to back it up. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, shorter: when you have something to say for which the underlying principle is "how can I make this article better?" and not "how can I make this article more negative towards PP?" then it will be worthwhile to talk to you.
 * The repetitive talking points about how the MSM is biased against your point of view just emphasize how unsuitable the offered arguments are for editing an encyclopedia. Which, again, is not to say that there couldn't be actually decent arguments in favor of moving or removing this sentence--just that none have been offered. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My "repetitive talking points" are designed to " make this article better." Making the article better does not mean kissing Planned Parenthood's ass. The absolute declaration that "federal money is not used to fund abortion services" is false according to Guttmacher which is much like saying that it is false according to PP itself. There is no synthesis here. Medicaid funds are combined state and federal funds, so when states fund "hard case" abortions, which they do, they are using both state and federal money. Motsebboh (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeating yourself -- it does not make you less wrong and it does not prevent your entire argument from being an elaborate synthesis not present in any RS that you have presented. --JBL (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply saying that I am wrong isn't really responsive. Do you have anything substantive to say? Motsebboh (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think his response is you need to provide a reliable source for the points you'd like to see in the article.Mattnad (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a RS showing that abortions are federally funded in some cases: "At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury." In its current form, the lede is clearly incorrect when it says "federal money is not used to fund abortion services." The source supporting that statement is not really a RS either. -- 120.23.216.123 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * These two sources present the law relating to federal funds for abortion pretty well: . It is strange, I admit, that the Section 507 of the Hyde Amendment seems to absolutely prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion, but Section 508 makes clear that this prohibition is NOT ABSOLUTE. As for the point raised by Joel B. Lewis that these are merely theoretical exceptions, refer to the Guttmacher document under "Highlights": "32 states and the district of Columbia follow the federal standard and provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest." Motsebboh (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, it seems like this section of discussion is completely off the topic of the article.  The article is about Planned Parenthood, and the current lede has the consensus overall.   It may be a fine point but these recent RS' are all about abortion but not about PP.   Maybe that part of the sentence could be written to better reflect the consensus that "federal money is not used to fund abortion services at PP, but most people already agree that it relates to PP since it's embedded there.  But I'll make that edit to the article and see what follows.  --Cityside189 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at my note from yesterday and it's coming across as choppier and more matter-of-fact than I wanted. I really do value the dialog aspect of participating here and although I have some really great ideas, I realize I'm just one voice among many.  -- Cityside189 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Given this source by NPR it makes sense to me to remove the following sentence: federal money is not used by the organization to fund abortion services -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? This source does not address the question of whether any federal money pays for any abortions at PP.  --JBL (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source states, "The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother." We know that PP uses federal Medicaid funds so that sentence isn't true which is why I removed it. Is your objection that it's WP:OR because the source doesn't explicitly say it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that JBL doesn't want me to repeat myself but when he continually fails to get the point it becomes hard to avoid. Guttmacher (which for all intents and purposes is the same as PP) says "32 states follow the federal standard [allowing federal funds to be used for certain abortions] and provide abortions in the cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest." Of course, substantial numbers of these are done at Planned Parenthood clinics. When some supposedly reliable sources make the statement that PP does not receive federal funds for abortions they are simply discounting these "hard case" abortions as a given. Motsebboh (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * somedifferentstuff: yes. The source could have said that federal funds are used to pay for some abortions at PP, but it does not actually say this.  Motsebboh: Where is the source for the "of course" part of your chain?  This is a gap; no one has actually provided a source to fill it.  If you find an actual source to bridge that gap, I will (happily) drop this objection. --JBL (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm...what about something like this:


 * "While the Hyde Amendment says that federal money must not used to fund most abortion services, an exception is made for cases of danger to the woman's life, rape and incest. While it's true that generally PP does not use federal funds for most abortions, legal exemptions exist for these special cases."

Feel free to propose tweaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit wordy for the lead. Why not something like "Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortions except in the limited circumstances allowed under the Hyde Amendment' if we are going to include it at all? Details should really go in the body. By the way, this source confirms that PP does use Medicaid funds (administered by the states but largely provided by the federal government) for abortions. Motsebboh (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How about "Planned Parenthood uses federal funds for abortions only in the limited circumstances allowed under the Hyde Amendment" Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Motsebboh (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Because using federal funds for abortion is the exception and not the rule, we should use the wording first suggested by Motsebboh: Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortions except in the limited circumstances allowed under the Hyde Amendment. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I support Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortions except in the limited circumstances allowed under the Hyde Amendment. The affected section is part of a larger sentence so I think this is it's own sentence and the prior section (before the semicolon) should be it's own sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this last version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Violent attacks against Planned Parenthood
I wanted to get input regarding making a change to the last sentence of the lead. Currently it reads: Over its history, PPFA has experienced support, controversy, and protests. An article came out today in The Washington Post called Arson was cause of Planned Parenthood fire in Washington - here is the source - Given this new report as well as this section that is currently in the article, I'd like to change the last sentence to: Over its history, PPFA has experienced support, controversy, protests, and violent attacks. - Let me know what you think. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal --Cityside189 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Be bold, do it. I support it. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, particularly since the articles's last section is on violent attacks. We might consider rewording that last sentence in the lead, however. I'm not a big fan of the construction "experienced support . . . " Motsebboh (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They have experienced support, experienced controversy, experienced protests, and experienced violent attacks. That's the obvious meaning of the sentence. What's wrong with that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, the basic meaning is clear enough but the construction is more that of a story-telling saga rather than that of an encyclopedia. Motsebboh (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not a great sentence for non-content-based reasons. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only improvement I can think of is changing the first word from Over to Throughout and removing the first comma. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff, good suggestion. That works for me. It's a very concise summary sentence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sanger 1916 conviction
Hello editors, I was crawling through the article and went looking for a reference that Sanger's conviction in 1916 was "eventually overturned". I found instead that the conviction was upheld, it appears she appealed on grounds the conviction was unconstitutional but this was denied in 1917 and the lower court ruling upheld in 1918. The Appellate ruling in 1918 was the one that opened the door for physician-prescribed birth control. The reference is "People v. Sanger, 179 App. Div. 939, 166 N.Y.S. 1107 (1917)", which can be viewed here. I started tracking this down from the discussion here. I'd appreciate folks checking this out and make sure I've gotten the details right... --Cityside189 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what other opinions would be on this proposal (above). Should I make the edit? --Cityside189 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the edit and included the source...  changed my signature to Cityside    --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you add here 1. paragraph on what the original text you want changed it, and 2 – your new suggestion? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll get that out of the history and post.... --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 12:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the old text is "'and although Sanger and her co-defendants were convicted, their convictions were eventually overturned. Their campaign led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States.[15]'"
 * the new text is "'Sanger and her co-defendants were convicted on misdemeanor charges, and they appealed this through two subsequent appeals courts. While the convictions were not overturned,[15] the Judge that issued the final ruling also modified the law to permit physician prescribed birth control. Their campaign overall, then, led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States'"
 * if you can still see the references above, that's where I got the information. I originally went looking for the legal reference that the convictions were overturned, and there are a lot of sites on google that were repeating the Wikipedia information.  It took some digging but I found the information that the lower courts sustained the earlier court's rulings.   Do you think this is OK or should I revert and allow more discussion?   --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 12:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Will look this evening. Also added some blockquotes to make it easier to see what the suggestion is. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On the books.google.com reference above, the legal section I referred to is 1142, Indecent Articles. Would any of you know what the best way to cite legal references in the cleanest, most permanent way?  I will go off to WP:cite and the WP:reference desk and read that over... if there are tricks or shortcuts to share, I will give you a cookie.   --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 12:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Before the US Supreme Court
The title of this heading should be changed to Before US Federal Courts as the section talks about district court and appellate court decisions not just the Supreme Court. I imagine that this material should be left in rather than deleted so that the section only talks about US Supreme Court decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.51.21 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All but one of the mentioned cases went to the SC in some form or other, no? And the other reached the 9th Circuit.  Almost every case the SC hears must first proceed through lower courts, and that history is often important to understanding SC decisions, so I think the title is pretty apt.  (But I also do not feel strongly that the current title is the only possible reasonable title for the section.)  --JBL (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Budget
Why does the info box use the 2008-2009 budget information? PP's 2013-2014 budget is available in their annual report on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoobyH (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 September 2015‎

It not only includes old information - it seems to be wrong. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, total (consolidated) revenue was $201 million: clinic revenue totaling $2 million, grants and donations of $190 million, investment income of $2 million, and $7 million other income.[56] ... Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).[54] Based on current information, the latter is probably right. From the 2013-14 annual report: 305.3M Non-Governmental Health Services Revenue, 528.4M Government Health Services Grants & Reimbursements, 391.8M Private Contributions and Bequests, 77.9M Other Operating Revenue: Spamalittle (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)spamalittle (September 25, 2015 - I would edit, but I'm new to this and don't want to step on any toes).
 * I say go for it. If someone has overly large toes, that's what BRD is for. --JBL (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015
The section that addresses the CMP videos mentions that they were edited but does not mention that the videos were recently forensically certified by CoalFire (which is a very reputable digital forensics company) to show that only non-material footage was removed such as bathroom breaks and eating of the meals. It also does not mention that any analysis performed for, or on behalf of, Planned Parenthood was done with footage obtained from YouTube, where-as CoalFire used the original source material.

There are dozens of sources. Pick your favorite and most trusted. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/29/forensic-analysis-planned-parenthood-videos-show-no-evidence-manipulation/

Abwillingham (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, Fox News as a "trusted" source. I disagree with this edit. The independent investigation carried out by Fusion GPS found deceptive edits by CMP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * Edits on highly contentious articles such as this require consensus. Especially when there are conflicting opinions. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated PPFA Business Facts. New section on international work.
I put some work into this article today, amounting to a lot of edits. I kept finding outdated facts in the article--- so I fixed as many as I could get to in one day. I added a section on PPFA's international division, Planned Parenthood Global. Confusingly, this is under the PPF of America, which is under IPPF. No mistake there. Anybody have any content to add besides locations of effort for that division? SocraticOath (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed "and child" from the lede paragraph, since it doesn't look like there are any children getting treated there from my reading, and this was an unsourced wikifact.SocraticOath (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anybody have any objection to the last paragraph under 'Services', discussing the meaning of the famous 3% abortions figure?SocraticOath (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a source for a proper budget figure. I had previously put in $200 million, as shown on the audited financial statement, but it seems that Medicaid spending and reimbursements do not appear on this statement.  The Annual Report shows the much-higher $1.3 billion figure, the one commonly seen in the news.  -SocraticOath (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pedicures versus pediatrics
This edit mentions pediatrics, not pedicures. Checkingfax (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the edit summary is that Planned Parenthood does not provide a lot of services, but why bring it up? Was that mentioned in a reliable source? They are a family planning and women's health provider.  What does pediatrics have to do with that.  You could have just as well written they don't do neurology either. Even if some affiliate clinics offer more services, that some don't is not notable unless we can find it in a reliable source.  Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I read it, instead of listing the 817 affiliates that do offer pediatrics, the editor, for brevity listed the minorty that do not. No PP offers neurology. Checkingfax (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mattnad's explanation of the edit summary is correct. On the substance: the only mention of pediatrics in the article was that single sentence, and the source for that sentence was just the standard PP website that lists their clinics and services.  And it's not even like that webpage says "NY clinics don't provide pediatric services" or something that would give the statement some weight.  WP is not the right place to answer the question, "is some particular service offered by some particular health clinic?"  If someone wants to add the statement "pediatric services are offered at PP clinics in all states except CA and NY" (which is almost certainly false), they should find an appropriate source. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

PPAF Section expanded. Please review!!!
I put some information here today from a few of Planned Parenthood Action Fund's website. Comments? Concerns? -SocraticOath (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My only comment is that the material you have added shouldn't, as of now, be in a separate subtopic. Simply place it under the title "Political advocacy" since outline form requires two or more subtopics under a topic. Motsebboh (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It ends up as a single paragraph. Had too many lines but otherwise the info is good. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Statistics of Services
user:Joel B. Lewis, I changed "1 in 10" to "1 in 8" to more accurately reflect the following ratio, based on numbers from the 2013 Annual Report: 327,653 abortion procedures and 2.7 million patients. At one point in reporting these numbers, I had rounded them to 300,000 and 3 million: 1 in 10. But using more accurate figures, 2,700,000 / 327,653 = 8.24- equivalent to 1 in 8.24 or 1 in 8. This is why I changed the number without changing the reference. -SocraticOath (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, my apologies. --JBL (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015
Opening date under "Early History" is incorrect. It's not October 16, 1916; it's October 16, 1917. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=236476.xml

Craigthesaint (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources say 1916, so it's possible that the linked document is in error or contains a typo. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing answered parameter to yes as request has been answered. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sexual ethics and recreational sex" subtopic
SuperCarnivore591's restoration of the above subtopic is unwarranted, it seems to me, under WP:UNDUE. Our article is about Planned Parenthood, not Criticisms of Planned Parenthood. That is not to say that no criticism should be presented, but making an entire subtopic from one critic's not especially well known or widely sourced criticism is bad form; especially when the subtopic mainly consists of an extended direct quotation. Perhaps Monica Miller's basic criticism could be worked into the article somewhere but not in the over-long and highlighted form that it is in this separate subtopic. Motsebboh (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, we are supposed to weave controversy and criticism in to the prose and not call it out with a heading. Yep. Yep. Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 19:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Motsebboh; the issue Checkingfax raises has nothing to do with it. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , just to clarify: I did not "raise an issue". I was agreeing with :
 * By consensus, Controversy and criticism headings have been deprecated on Wikipedia. They are history. Cheers!  19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By consensus, Controversy and criticism headings have been deprecated on Wikipedia. They are history. Cheers!  19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger Discussion for Live Action and Lila Rose
I've opened a merger discussion here. Since it's related to PPFA, looking for editor opinions. Please take a look.Mattnad (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)