Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 16

Abortion Section - PPFA Abortion Market Share
Hi guys! Just piggy backing off of the Number of abortions per year thread. It's important to contextualize PPFA's abortion market share in the US given that it's not a small organization. I know Beyond My Ken feels strongly about this so let's come to a consensus. What percent of abortions are performed by PPFA?

I believe they perform 35% (one-third) of the abortions (323,999/926,200 )*100% = 35% (one-third). This study uses slightly different methods to calculate abortion incidence than CDC but it's safe to say between 35-50% of abortions in the U.S. are performed by Planned Parenthood.

I will add in the edits if no one objects but I do want to hear from Beyond My Ken first, since he seems passionate about the epidemiology on this matter. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What you "believe" is completely and totally irrelevant, per WP:OR. The only pertinent question is "What do reliable secondary -- not primary --sources say."BTW, your use of "epidemiology" in this context is a slip on your part indicating your POV about abortions -- which, of course, is the entire point of your edits.You will not add it to the article unless and until you have a consensus to do so on this talk page.  It will be removed otherwise.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken Thank you for that passionate response. I'm using medical and scientific terminology because this is the language I use as a clinician. If the scientific jargon is too much for you, we can use lay terms so it's easier for you.
 * Beyond that, the following secondary source does the calculation of PPAF's abortion numbers, using PPAF's reported 2014 abortion counts, and a nation-wide study looking at total number of abortions. Given that the basic math of (323,999/926,200)*100% checks out, the 35% abortion services provision number is reliable. -Mwright1469 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, you can't do "basic math" with numbers drawn from two different sources, that's WP:SYNTHESIS and it's not allowed. You need a reliable secondary source which says the percentage of abortions done by PP.BTW, cut the crap and assume that I'm an educated adult human being, not an ignorant clod; keep your "thank you for your passionate response" bullshit to yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, your source is not reliable, it's a anti-abortion site -- just another indication that your purpose is to push a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ken, I can see that this conversation is clearly upsetting you. Perhaps we should allow others to weigh in and build a consensus that way. I took a glance through your contributions and it seems perhaps your experience and expertise are better aligned with editing pages like the Alt-right and Holocaust denial.
 * -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing the language "Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S." to 35% or "one-third" or any specific quantity, absent consensus among reliable sources of such a quantity. RSes agree that it's the "largest single provider"; that language is commonly used to describe PP. AFAIK, RSes do not agree on a specific percentage, largely because RSes do not agree as to the exact total quantity of procedures performed per year. AFAIK, RSes agree that we don't know exactly how many procedures are performed per year. To state a quantity in WP's voice would be stating something false: that all the procedures are counted. Finally, I don't see that the reader's understanding of PP will be aided at all by knowing whether it performs 35% or 30% or 40% or whatever % of the total. "Largest single provider," what RSes agree upon, is an accurate enough description for an encyclopedia article summarizing this organization. Levivich (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the average American reader would definitely want to know what percent of the country's abortions are provided by a government-subsidized organization.
 * In any case, how do we even know that PP provides the most abortions? Some Seattle Times article mentions it in passing? No offense to the Seattle Times but the article literally just says Republicans wanted any legislation keeping the government operating to bar federal dollars for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if PP performed (for example) as few as 2% of all abortions performed in the USA, they could still qualify as the SINGLE largest provider, since thousands of hospitals, when added together, would still be performing the remaining 98% and yet not be greater SINGLE providers. Also, only some PP clinics provide abortions. Most don't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer sure, but how do we know? The Seattle Times article doesn't cite its sources. What public health or epidemiological study was carried out to determine that PP is the largest abortion services provider? Are we going to blindly take a reporter's word for it? -Mwright1469 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We don't know, and even if they were the largest SINGLE provider, it still might not be very many abortions since hospitals perform far more. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. We should remove that piece then -Mwright1469 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

3% of PP's services is abortions, but that's not the "market share". It just shows how it is a very small part of what they do. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mwright1469, your arguments are tedious and the relevant Wikipedia policies are clear, as is the consensus here. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We are saying PP is the largest abortions provider based on low quality evidence. This is obviously wrong. Can you give one good reason why we should keep this? -Mwright1469 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What "low-quality evidence" are you talking about? Here are the sources given for the statement in the article: NPR, USA Today, and Forbes. Brad  v  🍁 18:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood - Statistical Measure
After having did research to find the statistic directly from Planned Parenthood, I was told that the statistic was already covered in the article. I would like to disagree, there is statistic on one year but I'd added information on two separate following years. I added them in the same paragraph so as to simply continue the information, and if you look in edit history you'll see it was stated factually, not as written from any particular viewpoint. The user that undid my change is Joel_B._Lewis - I'm new to editing and don't know the best way to make sure that they and others see my explanation of an edit. MaiMas52 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're talking about this addition of two more years' worth of stats in the introduction section. I should think the introduction should remain as trim and concise as possible, while the body of the article can accept more statistics. The guideline WP:LEAD talks about how write a good lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to replace the statistic given in the lead with the most up-to-date one? Cheers, gnu 57 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The bias in this article is extreme
How is this a Wikipedia article? It looks like an About page for PP. Editor8778 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2019
Change President Leana Wen to Acting President Alexis McGill Johnson.

Change section 'After Sanger': On September 12, 2018, the organization announced that Leana Wen would take over as president, effective November 2018. Wen was removed as President of Planned Parenthood by the organization's board of directors on July 16, 2019. Alexis McGill Johnson, co-founder and co-director of the Perception Institute, is now the Acting President. Cowtownshowdown (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Website
That cannot be the official website of Planned Parenthood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:8400:34D0:B552:2DBA:320D:A409 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Someone tricked a wikidata field at some point. fixed. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can one of you explain what you actually see? There are two places the template  was used on the article (now one, after Anastrophe replaced it with a hard-coded URL), and for me they both appear to point to the correct place (www.plannedparenthood.org).  --JBL (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the bogus url from the wikidata page that housed the 'official website' designation. the official site up in the infobox can be restored to just tag it as - I just simply haven't gotten to it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2019
Add Planned Parenthood v. Alaska in the “See Also” section. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this suit is too fresh and the article too barebones. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, doesn't include enough information for it to be interesting to a reader yet, also not shown that the suit has or will have a significant impact. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2020
In see also add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada_3301 2607:FCC8:B6C9:3F00:94EE:10FE:4E55:7A45 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant enough to place in the See Also section, as it was not even this group that was involved with Planned Parenthood but some unrelated group. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Baby parts sales
Court documents recently released detail the dollar amounts that this organization charged when selling fetus tissue. AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't sales, PP has repeatedly been compensated for delivery to medical companies. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Charges for incurred costs of collection and transport are considered allowed legitimate costs to be reimbursed. Fox News and Daleiden are terribly unreliable sources for this matter, so this is a non-starter on several points. I see that AppliedCharisma has now received a checkuser block. It's about time. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fox News and Daleiden are terribly unreliable sources for this matter" As opposed to being reliable sources for other matters? Should not their false reporting disqualify them? Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone other than the sockpuppet OP has expressed any support for using this source for anything, and general discussion of the reliability of Fox News or Daleiden are totally off-topic here. --JBL (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Conspicuous ommission
So I was reading the article on Lothrop Stoddard, whose article brands him a "white supremacist" in its opening sentence, among several other interesting facts:

"Stoddard wrote several books which advocated eugenics and scientific racism"

"He advocated a racial hierarchy which he believed needed to be preserved through anti-miscegenation laws."

"He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, where his books were recommended reading. He was also a member of the American Eugenics Society..."

"Stoddard's work influenced the Nazi government of Germany...[and] introduced the term...sub-human...into Nazi conceptions of race."

Now, you might be asking yourself, what does any of this have to do with Planned Parenthood? Well' here's the entirety of the sentence at the end of which I put an ellipsis:

"He was also a member of the American Eugenics Society, as well as a founding member and board member of the American Birth Control League."

Intrigued, I clicked on the link to the American Birth Control League, and I discovered a fascinating fact: the American Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood in its later years. Yet, I noticed that any mention of Stoddard was conspicuously absent from the articles on either the American Birth Control League or Planned Parenthood, which strikes me as odd, considering that he was evidently a founding member. I added a paragraph about Stoddard's role in the founding the American Birth Control League to its article, except now, it seems to have mysteriously disappeared. I checked the page's history, and saw that my edit was reverted just 28 minutes after I made it, the editor who did so branding it "uncited, argumentative." How interesting.

Wikipedia is not censored, and censorship includes the removal of certain unsavory figures from articles on organizations in whose establishment they clearly had an integral role, just because it might compromise said organization's modern-day image. Give people the facts, and let them make their own decisions, but please, don't hide some of the facts from the people just because you might not agree with the decisions to which those facts lead them. Please do better, Wikipedia. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RGW. --JBL (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing this page
Why can I not edit some mistakes on this page? InformationOrg (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2020
Facts need to be added to Margaret Sangers life. InformationOrg (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2020
change "As part of her efforts to promote birth control, however, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that she and they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".[155]"

to

"As part of her efforts to promote birth control, however, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that she and they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".[155] Additionally stating that "Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.""

this more accurately represents the fact that both groups shared a singular goal as she plainly states. source: https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml 98.194.196.32 (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Presentation of an individual’s possible support of eugenics is likely to be quite controversial and should be discussed with other editors on this talk page before a change is made. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 10:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2020
Propose removing

"Corporate donors include CREDO Mobile. "

from end of second paragraph in "Funding" section. Not only does the article cited require a subscription to access, it seems suspect that the only corporate donor listed is a mobile virtual network operator of debatable notoriety.  Illini407  talk 17:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. A cursory search of the internet reveals other websites, including news sites, that confirm Credo's support for PP. So it would require a consensus of editors' opinions to remove this sourced content. Thank you for your concerns!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021
After seeing this youtube video which explains that Alexis McGill Johnson has been named the permanent Planned Parenthood President, I think that you should change Alexis McGill Johnson's status from Acting President to Permanent President, or just President and CEO JBJB1029 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NightWolf1223 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022
The last paragraph of the "Debate and Opposition" section ends with a comma instead of a period. Change the comma to a period. AlatarTheBlue (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)AlatarTheBlue AlatarTheBlue (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed wonky transclusion Cannolis (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Original name
This organization was once called "Planned Parenthood-World Population". The origins and evolution of the name should be included in the article. 209.2.227.108 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That is not accurate; but also a correct version of the statement is already in the article. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox error
The Infobox is supposed to list the entire legal name of the organization. WiinterU (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)