Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy/Archive 5

Can somebody integrate this? | Assisted by Citation bot
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/10/07/Dems-say-GOP-chairman-is-hiding-unedited-Planned-Parenthood-footage/2251444267449/

Checkingfax (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a blip so far. Let's see if it gets some legs to make it more notable.  It's really the same as GOP posturing on this.Mattnad (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Financial aspects
Why did someone remove the quotations from qualified experts in tissue procurement--heads of biorepositories at prestigious institutions--which showed that the prices charged by PP for specimens were not "profit" and were reasonable compensation as allowed by Federal law? These quotations were reliably sourced and clearly relevant to the issue. Please restore! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that! -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

PP stops accepting compensation for research specimen donations
I have added a sentence stating that PP has stopped accepting compensation for donated tissue specimens. Hope this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I have tweaked it. I hope this is a good solution. It's amazing how this molehill has been made into such a mountain. It shows that the real objection is not to reimbursement for tissue donations, but to abortion itself. Can we find a RS which says this? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original NY TImes article was a republishing of the breaking AP report, which included "Planned Parenthood says its fetal tissue programs currently take place in only two states — California and Washington — at about a half-dozen of the 700 health centers run by the organization nationwide." Not sure if it's 2 or about 6 clinics based on conflicting sources.Mattnad (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. If there's a real discrepancy, we need to resolve it. Let's examine the relevant parts of each source, using our content and the source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that we do have conflicting information:

Our content: "On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced it would no longer accept reimbursement for the costs of collecting and shipping fetal tissue to research labs, a move which affects only one of the two clinics which provide this service, out of a total of 700 Planned Parenthood clinics. Citing an "anti-abortion agenda" by some in Congress, Planned Parenthood's move was designed to remove a reason for politically motivated attacks." Until we can resolve this, let's include both sources and quotes and attribute them. I'll give it a try. Tweak as necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) NYT:
 * 2) AP:


 * @BullRangifer: you seem to be exceedingly eager to find sources that support your angle on the controversy. However the specific idea that you have pressed in your response to HandsomeMrToad doesn't make much sense. The Center for Medical Progress clearly works to undermine legal abortion in general; it is no secret. On the other hand, what Planned Parenthood's decision to end its policy of accepting compensation for fetal tissue tells me (and most people, I think) is that PP thinks that it has been damaged by the revelations and has been forced to do something that it otherwise would not have done. Motsebboh (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to AGF. Someone else discovered a discrepancy, and I tried to fix it. I did not find the sources, so there could not be any cherrypicking. My personal POV has nothing to do with this. Regardless of what our personal POV may be, we must try to reproduce the spirit and ideas found in RS. What other RS may say about this matter is another matter. If they exist, please bring them forward. Maybe they should be included.
 * In the future, please follow our WP:TPG, because your complaint is not constructive. It only comes across like a personal attack by an abortion opposer. You're welcome to have that position. I don't like abortion either, and I don't know of any defender of a woman's right to choose abortion who "likes" abortion. That is not the issue. Its a matter of human rights and freedom. Many have difficulty separating their personal religious beliefs from their civic duties in a democratic and pluralistic society, where the Golden Rule means one protects the rights of others to do things one does not believe to be right. Discrimination against others is a boomerang that is best unused. Don't let your beliefs affect how you other editors, because that form of attack will only boomerang against you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My response was not a personal attack. It was a criticism of your strange idea that PP's decision to no longer seek compensation for collecting fetal tissue "shows that [CMP's] real objection is not to reimbursement for tissue donation, but to abortion itself;" a notion which makes absolutely no sense. I said nothing about my views on abortion as this Talk page is not supposed to a forum to bloviate one's ideas on that subject.I trust you get the point. Motsebboh (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Motsebboh, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I saw your first sentence as a failure to AGF. Can you see that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see that you were responding to a comment of mine much further up. I couldn't know that.
 * You have also created an improper synthesis of ideas, putting one idea ("that PP's decision to no longer...") together with my statement ("shows that [CMP's] real objection..."), a combination that indeed does not make sense. I didn't write that, you did. No, it is CMP's making such a mountain by using a molehill as an excuse, which shows their real intent. My actual statement is this: "It's amazing how this molehill has been made into such a mountain. It shows that the real objection is not to reimbursement for tissue donations, but to abortion itself." That makes more sense, and is in line with your statement above: "The Center for Medical Progress clearly works to undermine legal abortion in general; it is no secret."
 * I actually agree with that comment, as well as your other comment: "On the other hand, what Planned Parenthood's decision...tells me...is that PP thinks that it has been damaged by the revelations and has been forced to do something that it otherwise would not have done." I agree with both comments. It has definitely been damaged by the false charges. People believe them, and Congress is trying to defund them. This is a damage control move. You apparently misunderstood me and chose to attack me. An AGF would have prevented that. In the future, just ask for clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion from PP2015UVC article to Planned Parenthood article completed
I have created a transclusion so the lead of the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover video controversy automagically transcludes to the Center for Medical Progress videos section on the Planned Parenthood article. Any updates made to the lead of the PP2015UVC article will automatically update over there to that section only. Cheers! 10:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. One thing.....how about references? Will they be transferred as well? -- 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked. They don't all transfer. The only way to fix that may be to use the full refs in the lead so they transfer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I verified that all the references were repeated at least once in the body of the article then I removed all the references from the lead.


 * References will NOT transclude either as named refs or as full refs, so we have to leave the lead bare of refs.


 * All refs should be in the body anyway. The lead is supposed to be a snapshot of the body of the article, so the body should already be referenced. There is no requirement to have references in the lead.


 * I ran it by the transclusion gurus to see if there was a way to transclude refs and there is not.


 * I put edit notes on the page advising editors NOT to add any refs to the lead.


 * Another thing, is by transcluding we don't run in to copyright attribution issues like we do when we copy stuff from one article to the other. Cheers!  11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire for no refs in the lead, and yet, if any content in the lead is challenged, a ref must be added, since the requirement for in-line refs for any content which is challenged still applies to the lead. The best solution would be to leave the refs in place, but comment them out by using  . That way you can say that the ref is still there and the doubter can check it. That way you avoid any problems. Whenever the lead gets updated and refs added, just comment them out, rather than remove them. Also make sure it's the short name in the lead, and the full ref in the body. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Another option which would work, and benefit the main article, would be to have the full refs in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , great idea about commenting out refs.


 * Neither short refs or long refs will transclude. They will make a giant red error message show up up the target page (Planned Parenthood). Bummer.


 * Anything in the lead should already be referenced in the body, so yes, a commented out pointer to the named full ref in the body would work for anything being challenged. Great idea. Feel free to append the edit note that currently exists in the lead.


 * As a bonus, if we go to the Planned Parenthood page and read the transcluded section and it does not adequately summarize in the section then we know to come back to the lead here and refine it. Cheers!  22:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That all sounds good, but I don't understand why a full ref wouldn't work. I'll make an experiment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't work right. I wonder if it's because the ref is already used? If it were a ref which wasn't already used in the main article, maybe it would work. I notice that the "violence" section is still transcluded. That needs to be undone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been through the article and fixed a few ref problems. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)!

Colorado Springs shooting
It is premature to include a section about the Colorado Springs shooting in this article. There is no evidence that there is any connection between the two. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except the sources that expressely connect the two? CFCF   💌 📧 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is also missing details on the arsons/vandalisms in clinics in Washington, New Hampshire, and California. And yes, sources do tie those events to these videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

CMP has been indicted
Just one of many. No time to splice in, but this is needed. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I added some information about the indictment of David Daleiden. The indictment includes an exhibit with a picture of a California driver's license. The photocopy is of poor quality. It appears that the name on the license is either "Robert David Sarkis" or possibly "Robert Daoud Sarkis." Famspear (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been searching online for a copy of the actual indictment, but cannot find it. Please provide a link!  Thanks.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I obtained the indictment from the web site for the Harris County District Clerk. There is no "link". To access the document, you have to have an account, and you have to do a search of the official records. Famspear (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: This morning, there seems to be a problem with the Harris County web site. I can't even access the files that were available last night. Hopefully this will clear up later. I still haven't seen the indictment on the misdemeanor charge that was reported in the media. I'll try to locate that later. Famspear (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be public domain, you could upload it to Commons. CFCF  💌 📧 17:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the rush to use a primary source for a recent event which may or may not have much lasting import?Motsebboh (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Luckily, the Times article provides an actually usable source for this information. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of secondary sources reporting on this event. And, the indictment document itself doesn't shed much light, anyway. The most interesting thing in that two-page document is the photocopy of the driver's license, and even that is a really bad quality copy. I would argue that the citation currently shown in the article is sufficient for the indictment. The citation includes the case number and other relevant information for anyone who wants to look it up. Famspear (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Npov
Clear pro abortion slant.


 * You need to provide specific examples, otherwise your complaint goes nowhere. Motsebboh (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any examples to back up your claim? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving. Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy → Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos hoax – Multiple reliable sources are now referring to this event a "hoax". . Using the word "controversy" gives undue weight to a fringe theory. 147.153.84.5 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Suggested title is massively POV. The CNN article cited does not even use the word "hoax". StAnselm (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NPOV. Not the most common name per the references in the article. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- WP:NPOV -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - POV. The "hoax" factors can be addressed in text, but there are many who don't see it that way. Current title more neutral.Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Political Impact
Absolutely nuts to suggest that defunding Planned Parenthood would be akin to a bill of attainder. Bills of attainder are about condemning someone to death or to prison, exile etc by act of Parliament/Congress. That is not the same as withdrawing funding which was voluntarily and freely given in the first place and can just as easily be withdrawn. Not funding a healthcare charity is not 'punishment without a court finding of guilt'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.43.163 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But you are in fact, legislating a 'punishment' in the form of defunding PP, for their perceived wrong doing. Does it matter whether the target of that punishment is a person or an organization? That would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. In addition, every State Constitution has verbiage that is actually a little clearer. For example, the Texas Constitution states "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made." As funding for PP typically been a routine addition to every Federal budget, stopping that funding on the basis of a perceived wrong doing would clearly be a case of 'impairing the obligation of contracts'. Coradon (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Move?
This is the 1st article I've seen that doesn't have the year in front. I propose moving this to 2015 Planned Parenthood undercover videos controversy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your proposal makes sense (at least to this total outsider).

Can I suggest that you take the opportunity to change the heading to 2015 Heavily edited undercover videos of Planned Parenthood activities released by anti-abortion activists(or something similar), to better reflect the content? As currently written, the title:
 * 1)  implies that Planned Parenthood was the maker of these videos;
 * 2)  suggests that there is some (non-contrived) controversy;
 * 3)  does not indicate the basis for the 'controversy'; and
 * 4)  does not clearly indicate that the released videos did not reflect reality.

Can I also suggest that:
 * the first use of "PPFA" spell out what the acronym represents? As someone who has just stumbled upon this article, I have no context within which to place it.
 * any available information about the basis for dismissal of charges against CMP activists should be included in this article; and
 * the list of CMP donors referred to in section 2.2 should - if it has been released - be linked to from this article?

You may not have all of the answers to my questions, Mr Lockjam10, but I am hopeful that there are Wikipedians who can add further information to this intriguing tale of misadventure. Ambiguosity (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and Joel B. Lewis keeps retracting my edit saying that i need a second source.
Do the Terms say that a government report needs a second source? Is someone going to doubt that a government report, available on multiple government pages, is fabricated? He (Joel) said to cite a news article as a second source lol. Is this a joke? What difference is a news article going to make? It's just going to paraphrase and quote the report as I did... i searched the Teahouse threads for help but didn't find any helpful threads. I will post my query there now as well. This report needs to be included on the page and the details of the Report's findings should be detailed below. I haven't done it yet because I was worried I was going to have some kind of contestant trying to waste my time.

Thanks, G 4truth4 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4truth4 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is certainly an important part of the controversy and needs to be added in - I'm not sure why it was reverted, but we can easily find a secondary source - here is a report on the Science website. The information should also be added to the United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood article, which should be linked to from this article. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A secondary source, not a second source. The point is that we, as writers of an encyclopedia, should not rely on and provide our own interpretation for, primary-source documents like the committee report; instead, we should rely on analyses from secondary sources (together with editorial judgement, of course).
 * The Science article is a perfectly reasonable source; however, it is very odd to think that it should be used to source the statement "[the panel recommended] that the National Institutes of Health be required to stop funding fetal tissue research, and that the huge health provider Planned Parenthood be stripped of U.S. funding" without noting the substantive analytical conclusion of the source, namely that the report is full of inaccurate statements. I would be happy to discuss non-absurd approaches to mentioning the panel report (i.e., those that provide appropriate analysis of its quality).  --JBL (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article for neutrality and updating - the article must mention the SIP report. It is ridiculous to mention that the committee was formed without mentioning its findings. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine -- and also without mentioning the quality of the committee's product, as in reliable secondary sources. Wouldn't you agree?  --JBL (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References to Coalfire Study Are Being Intentionally Scrubbed
The Coalfire study confirming the validity of the Planned Parenthood tape content has been sourced directly multiple times as has the company themselves yet it is still being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.194.114 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing story
This story appears to be onging, with continuing legal actions, court rulings and criminal charges. It doesn't make sense to have a section titled "Aftermath" as there is no clear chronological endpoint. Also, the section titled "2017 developments" should be removed and its content integrated into the article (which appears to be orginized by the various aspects of the story, rather than chronologically).  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  02:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Daleiden accusations against Judge Orrick
Today, in a televised interview, David Daleiden accused District Judge William Orrick (who apparently is the judge who recently issued a gag order prohibiting CMP from releasing further videos) of having a conflict of interest. Daleiden said that the judge "is basically someone who used to run a planned parenthood clinic in San Fransisco". He said the judge was a long-time board member of a family resource center in SF which hosted a Planned Parenthood center in the center's facility. He said the judge didn't disclose this to the defendants in the case.

I don't know if the allegation is true or not, but either way, it's probably part of this story and should be included in this article (once the allegation is confirmed or refuted with reliable sourcing).  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  02:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fusion GPS
The WP article on Fusion GPS says, "In August 2015, Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to defensively investigate the veracity of a series of undercover videos..." This article mentions that Fusion GPS found that the video were altered, but it does not mention that the firm was retained by Planned Parenthood, or explain the nature of the alteration.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  02:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It also makes no mention that unlike the Coalfire study done by an actual digital forensic firm, Fusion GPS did not have access to original unedited source tapes to even evaluate against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.194.114 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017
In the section on the Colorado shooting, please change "civilians" to "members of the public". Civilians are people who are not soldiers; using the term to refer to members of the public, as opposed to police, is law enforcement slang and incorrect. (Sadly, the errant use may also encourage further militarization of our civilian police forces.) Thank you! Felix Lechner (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018
Change... "All of the videos were found to be altered, according to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The CMP disputed this finding, attributed the alterations to the editing out of "bathroom breaks and waiting periods".[1]"

to... "According to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal, the videos were edited. A digital forensic analysis by Coalfire CyberSecurity also concluded edits were made from original source tapes but qualified that edited out content was not pertinent to the controversy and contained "bathroom breaks and waiting periods". This conclusion supported earlier claims made by CMP.[1]

From the report, "With regard to the “Full Footage” YouTube videos released by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including “commuting,” “waiting,” “adjusting recording equipment,” “meals,” or “restroom breaks,” lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report.""

76.14.205.126 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And undone: you should not edit this (cited!) sentence in the lead to say something that is not in the body nor in the reference. The IP's proposed reference (which you did not use) is obviously not a WP:RS. --JBL (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The article links to the actual study itself hosted by the client who commissioned the study. There is nothing more reliable that can be provided. And in reverse, there is no link to the mentioned Fusion GPS study whatsoever to even support the claim made. And Fusion GPS is a highly biased organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.205.126 (talk)


 * Unreliable source, conclusion is at odds with other reports that edited material was critically important to context, and that the editing created a false narrative. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Coalfire is a forensic cybersecurity firm that had access to actual source files and the study is linked directly. They have no history of being affiliated with pro-life causes and serve a host of fortune 500 companies as clients. If that is unreliable, Fusion GPS, a firm with a known history of serving DNC efforts and doing opposition research against Republicans, fails miserably. And the conclusion is only at odds with pro-abortion publications who also had no access to source files. You are steering a narrative with your selective fact presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.205.126 (talk)


 * This page is not a forum. You proposed an edit; it has been rejected correctly for lack of a reliable source; please stop whining about it.  The phrase "reliable source" has a technical meaning on Wikipedia; you can follow the link to read the details, if you care to, and if you want to find people to explain to you why your sources aren't, you can try the RS noticeboard.  --JBL (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The source page was read prior. The link fulfills being a source as defined by your suggested link as "The piece of work itself (the article, book)" in regards to it being a direct link to the study referred to on the video edits. The company that compiled the study is an authority in the field of digital forensics with no reputation of political affiliations. By that same standard, the Fusion GPS study is not sourced, Fusion GPS is not a credible source in the field of digital forensics, Fusion GPS has known poltical biases and doesn't even have a website. And this source has been discredited because the "conclusion is at odds with other reports" that arent even sourced. 76.14.205.126 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2018‎
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra

(talk) 07:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Some Basic Incontrovertible Facts Were Included
I included a some information on the content of the videos that had been heretofore omitted. This has not been categorized as either pro-life or anti-abortion. The fact is the content of the videos was extremely relevant because of its shocking nature, in the off-hand treatment of brutal medical procedures. This is important for innumerable reasons, and suppression of the facts which make up the basis of this controversy is reprehensible and reflects extremely poorly on Wikipedia and whoever wrote the article. It is entirely inappropriate to omit some of the very compelling facts which were revealed during these videos. This becomes a ethical question confronting all medical personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your changes were reverted because you removed a great deal of well-referenced text describing how the videos were falsified by Daleiden, how Daleiden was charged with felonies, and how Planned Parenthood was exonerated. The stuff you added was opinionated and poorly sourced. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Reputable uncontradicted secondary sources
I posted the following paragraph to this article. It was reverted by Muboshgu on the ground that it was "factually inaccurate POV pushing." However, there are at least three reputable uncontradicted secondary sources. Let's start with the article from findlaw.com, which is owned by Thompson Reuters. The guidelines say that "Law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources." Furthermore it says in WP:BLP that “Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Is it enough for Muboshgu (or any of the others who have said it) to say that, based on his personal evaluation, the reporting by findlaw.com is "factually inaccurate"? Where is the conflicting secondary source or other reliable evidence that findlaw.com is not reliable? Does anarchy prevail here?

In a ruling on the case of excluding Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood in Texas, a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos, that the authenticity of the videos was supported by a forensic firm, and that Planned Parenthood did not identify a single omission or addition in the video footage. The Fifth Circuit also found that Planned Parenthood has sold fetal tissue for use in outside research and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether Planned Parenthood is entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent Texas from revoking its Medicaid funding. Subsequently, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to reconsider the decision of the three-judge panel. Swood100 (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as well. This is obviously relevant to the article and well sourced. Why was it reverted? What exactly is claimed to be "factually inaccurate"? Periander6 (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Footnotes are obiter dicta, side observations and do not necessarily reflect any conclusions of law. To treat those footnotes as if they constitute a "ruling" is not supported by the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, the very reason for the requirement of a valid secondary source is to remove the issue of the interpretation of the primary source. The secondary source performs that function. Does findlaw.com report that “A panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the videos were not deceptively edited”? You appear to be answering 'yes' but saying that nevertheless findlaw.com’s reporting was deficient or incomplete in that it failed to address the question of dicta, and your personal analysis (not supported by any secondary source so far presented) causes you to conclude that their failure to do so was misleading, rendering the findlaw.com piece not suitable to support the statements it makes. Is this your position?


 * Don’t you need to present a conflicting secondary source if you want to assert that a given secondary source's interpretation of the primary source should be rejected (or at least present evidence leading to the conclusion that the proposed source should be deemed unreliable)? Swood100 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not required to include everything ever published. You need consensus that this material is relevant and properly written, and I don't see any such consensus here. Valid objections have been raised, and I would suggest opening up a RFC if you want to get more opinions on the matter. If the RFC results in a consensus that the material is relevant and appropriate, I will of course defer to that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you explain the doubt that the material is relevant? Also, what do you mean by “properly written”? Law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources. Are you saying that people who cite authoritative experts writing in respected independent publishing houses have to be able to prove the truth of what is written? Of course, that can only be done though another reliable secondary source and we are back where we started. Is this your argument? Do you have a reference to a secondary source that contradicts findlaw.com and that supports your position, or to one that demonstrates that findlaw.com is not reliable?


 * What valid objections are you referring to? Could you list the ones that, in your opinion, have not been answered adequately? Swood100 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Washington Times is a partisan source; they don't pass WP:RS for controversial statements of fact, especially not when other sources are available. Two of the others are law blogs, which aren't great sources.  The only usable source there is the Washington Post, and it is far more cautious than the other two, describing this as a procedural maneuver rather than something that says anything about the legitimacy of the videos; it describes the conclusion as But Jones, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said Sparks was wrong to make these judgments. She said Texas’s report should have been given "deference” over the outside testimony from Planned Parenthood’s experts — regardless of Sparks’s opinions of the authors' qualifications.  It also provides very different context, citing an expert saying that “There are some signs of hostility to abortion in that opinion," he said, “and the 5th Circuit has pretty strongly hinted how it’s going to come out.”  It also describes the judge as Even if Sparks again rules for Planned Parenthood, Chandler said it’s clear from Jones’s ruling that the 5th Circuit isn’t inclined to do any favors for the health-care provider. Jones, in particular, has openly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. In this ruling, she included a graphic photo of bloody fetal tissue that came from the video footage, apparently for dramatic effect, Chandler said. Given that, presenting it the way the proposed addition did seems misleading and WP:UNDUE - we would have to use the framing, focus, and context of the Washington Post source if we were going to include it at all. --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Washington Times reference is superfluous and can be removed. You say that law blogs “aren’t great sources.” However, the guidelines say that "Law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources." This seems to contradict you.


 * Furthermore, “Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” The fact that findlaw.com is owned by Thompson Reuters seems to be enough to give it the presumption of legitimacy, don’t you agree? The burden would seem to be on you to demonstrate otherwise. Do you have any such evidence?  Are you claiming that if there is a statement by a secondary source that is not also found in a Washington Post article on the same subject, this is evidence of illegitimacy?  Findlaw.com specializes in legal news, which the Washington Post does not, and this article was written by an attorney while the Washington Post article was written by a journalist. Does that touch on reliability?


 * You say that “the Washington Post…is far more cautious than the other two,” but I don’t quite follow your reasoning. Apparently you base it on some conflict you see in the reporting. Can you clarify exactly the point that is in conflict as well as your method of determining which source is correct?  It seems to me that there was just a difference in what the reporters thought were the salient aspects of the case. Furthermore, can you supply a reference to demonstrate that sources that are more cautious are more reliable?  Clearly, the dividing line is between (a) cautious and (b) reckless or careless or intentionally deceitful. If there are two sources and neither is shown to be reckless or careless or deceitful, I am unaware of any Wikipedia principle saying that the more cautious one is presumed to be more reliable, and explaining how levels of cautiousness can be determined.


 * You attempt to buttress your argument by explaining your analysis of the primary sources (court opinions). But, just as with the question of dicta, you cannot declare that since your personal analysis of a primary source differs from that of a cited secondary source, the cited source is therefore misleading (as if your personal opinion surely trumps findlaw.com). You can only contradict findlaw.com with another secondary source. Wikipedia edits must have a foundation in secondary sources, not primary sources, and certainly not in an editor’s personal interpretation of primary sources. Swood100 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't really enjoy reading through walls of words, but it's clear that your addition is both factually wrong and does not adhere to the sources. In particular, your addition begins "a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos", which is not in the sources (well, I haven't checked Washington Times, but since it's garbage who cares?): FindLaw quotes the judge writing that Texas submitted something that says that the videos weren't deceptively edited, ditto courthousenews, etc.  The difference between "X said Y said Z" and "X ruled that Z is true" is vast, as NorthBySouthBaranof explained a week ago, and elsewhere before that.  So please desist. --JBL (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Consider these two statements:


 * “a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos.”
 * “According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.”


 * Do these say different things? The second, from findlaw.com, says that the Fifth Circuit, in response to the charge that an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos in order to produce a misleading appearance, said that’s not what happened. What exactly is the “vast” difference in meaning that you see here?


 * When you say that my addition is “both factually wrong and does not adhere to the sources,” are you simply claiming that your personal interpretation of the primary source differs from that of findlaw.com? Are you still arguing the dicta question? Is it your position that if a secondary source reports that a primary source (a court opinion) “said” X, this can be excluded if a majority of Wikipedia editors disagree with that interpretation? You need another secondary source for that. What is factually wrong? Swood100 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is tedious to request that people explain the same thing repeatedly. There is a clear consensus here (and in the other places you've added it) that your addition is misleading and inappropriate, and no one has an obligation to personally satisfy you on these points.  You are of course welcome to solicit additional feedback, e.g., via an RfC.  --JBL (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * First, let me know if you disagree with any of the following as an accurate and neutral framing of the agreements and disagreements on this issue:


 * It is agreed (a) that law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources, (b) that the very reason for the requirement of a valid secondary source is to remove the issue of the interpretation of the primary source — the secondary source performs that function, and (c) that personal opinions or interpretations of primary sources by Wikipedia editors may not be treated as reliable sources.


 * However, it is claimed by some editors that a normally reliable law source may be excluded as unreliable if a majority of Wikipedia editors disagree with the source’s interpretation of a primary source (for example, a court case). In such a case, according to this understanding, a contradicting secondary source is not necessary.


 * It is claimed that if a normally reliable law source reports that a primary source (a court case) “said X” this can be excluded in an article if (a) a majority of editors, based on their personal interpretations, believe that the primary source did not “say X,” or if (b) a Washington Post story on the same topic doesn’t mention either way whether the primary source “said X.” In these cases it is claimed that a contradicting secondary source is not necessary.


 * If consensus is reached that the above claims are rejected would there be any other reason to exclude this edit? Swood100 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's one more:


 * A secondary source wrote “According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.” This was included in the article as follows: “a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos.” It is claimed that the statement in the article has no foundation in what the source actually said, the differences in meaning between the two versions being “vast.” Swood100 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is tedious to request that people explain the same thing repeatedly. There is a clear consensus here (and in the other places you've added it) that your addition is misleading and inappropriate, and no one has an obligation to personally satisfy you on these points.  You are of course welcome to solicit additional feedback, e.g., via an RfC.  --JBL (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no actual arguments for not using this source and removing the material, just opinions from one editor that said content isn’t accurate. Toa Nidhiki05 20:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Most people are embarrassed to admit that they can't read or count. But, more importantly, there is no possible way this contribution could be helpful for establishing a consensus. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are intent on proving my point, but, as you insist: you are wrong about both the number of editors who have objected and the content of the objections, as anyone glancing over the section can easily see. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC concerning the requirement of a secondary source to reach a valid interpretation of a primary source
This RfC was withdrawn and replaced by another with a reformulated question. Swood100 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

May the reporting of a “normally reliable” secondary source be declared unreliable by Wikipedia editors solely on the basis of their personal interpretation of the primary source (a court opinion), or is another secondary source required? Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Argument
An objection is made below that the characterization of what the dispute is about is not correct (this from a person who spurned my request when I earlier invited him to respond to my proposed list of core issues in dispute). In my view, all the objections seem to rest on what the objecting editors believed was the “true meaning” of the primary source, although perhaps the true meaning of the secondary sources is also in dispute, and whether that was accurately portrayed. The objections can be individually broken down as follows:


 * The proposed text was “factually inaccurate.”


 * The secondary sources rely on footnotes, which the editor asserts are obiter dicta, side observations and do not necessarily reflect any conclusions of law. To treat those footnotes as if they constitute a "ruling" is not supported by the sources.


 * The proposed text is neither relevant nor properly written.


 * The two sources mentioned are law blogs and not great sources.


 * Given the actual text in the primary source, presenting it the way the proposed addition did seems misleading and WP:UNDUE.


 * The difference between the proposed text and what the secondary sources actually said was “vast.”


 * The absence of identical reporting in the Washington Post (but also without a reporting conflict) is evidence that these sources are unreliable.

These questions, to the extent they are different from the question posed in the RfC, are also at issue. Swood100 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting by secondary sources was declared unreliable by a group of Wikipedia editors on the grounds that, in their personal opinion, the cited sources misinterpreted the primary source (a court opinion). Is this an appropriate exception to the Wikipedia policy that (a) Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources, secondary or otherwise, and (b) to challenge the interpretation of a “normally reliable” secondary source one needs another secondary source to either contradict the first or to demonstrate that the first is unreliable?

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling with respect a case wherein Texas was trying to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program in Texas as a result of the fallout from a private undercover investigation by the Center for Medical Progress into Planned Parenthood’s practices and whether they were selling fetal body parts. As a part of its case, Planned Parenthood claimed that the videos had been deceptively edited and were therefore unreliable.

Planned Parenthood essentially won in the lower court and the case was appealed. The decision by the Court of Appeals panel was described in the Wikipedia article as follows:


 * In a ruling on the case of excluding Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood in Texas, a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos, that the authenticity of the videos was supported by a forensic firm, and that Planned Parenthood did not identify a single omission or addition in the video footage. …The Fifth Circuit also found that Planned Parenthood has sold fetal tissue for use in outside research…

One of the references for this was findlaw.com, which reported the Court of Appeals decision as follows:


 * According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.


 * “The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” Judith Edith Jones wrote for the appeals panel.


 * Jones said the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. Swood100 (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A different source, Courthouse News Service, reported the same opinion as follows:


 * The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has sold tissue for outside research…

The relevant Wikipedia policy is:


 * Law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(law)


 * Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons


 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. …
 * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary

Findlaw.com is owned by Thompson Reuters. One objection is the Wikipedia article misrepresents the secondary sources on which it is based. The primary objection, however, seems to be that the reporting was deficient in that Wikipedia editors came to a different conclusion as to what the court “said” and “found” since, according to these editors, the referenced pronouncements by the court were dicta and therefore it is improper to refer to them as a finding or holding or what the court “said.”

Certainly, secondary sources make mistakes. But these need to be pointed out by other secondary sources, not by Wikipedia editors. This is why we require secondary sources to interpret complex primary sources such as court opinions. Neither findlaw.com nor Courthouse News Service has been contradicted in this reporting by any secondary source so far presented. Swood100 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a properly posed RfC, it is an elaborate exercise in begging the question. Please delete it and replace it with a properly posed RfC, focused on the relevant content question.  --JBL (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why does it beg the question? What premise assumes the truth of the conclusion? How do you think it would be correctly posed? Swood100 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If your characterization of what the dispute is about were correct, your position about how to resolve it would follow trivially. However, no one else agrees with your characterization of what the discussion is about. --JBL (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well then how would you characterize the dispute? We can add that to the bullet points at the beginning. Swood100 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute is about a particular piece of text that you have repeatedly and inflexibly attempted to add, whether it is accurate, and whether it respects the available sourcing. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But the argument that it is not “accurate” is founded on a contrary interpretation of the primary source by Wikipedia editors and not on a conflict with any other secondary source, right? And whether it “respects the available sourcing” can be answered by (a) whether it accurately represents the reporting of normally reliable secondary sources, and (b) whether that reporting is contradicted or those sources are asserted to be unreliable by other normally reliable secondary sources, right?  Didn’t I capture all of these, at least in the bullet points? I don't understand your objection. If the secondary source reports that the court "said X" and therefore we report that the court "said X" how does that deviate from the source? Swood100 (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no sense in trying to engage in a collaborative process with a person who is rigidly against taking on comments from other people. I am sorry for suggesting an RfC, I should have realized the same problematic behavior would render it pointless, as well.  --JBL (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your attitude astounding. How am I rigidly against taking on comments from other people? Let’s take your assertion that the text "a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos" is factually wrong. Why do you say it is factually wrong? What are the correct facts and how do you arrive at that conclusion? You also assert that this text does not adhere to the sources. Which sources are you referring to here? Swood100 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute is about a particular piece of text that you have repeatedly and inflexibly attempted to add to the article. --JBL (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and can you help me understand why you resist adding it to the article? Why do you say it is factually wrong and why do you say that it does not adhere to the sources? Swood100 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree this is not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC for instructions. A simple question should be neutrally posed, while this is an elaborate persuasion piece.  The direct question asked is basically a bunch of wikilawyering/gaming about rules to thump, and WP doesn't really work that way.  Editorial consensus not only can evaluate the ostensible reliability of any source in any context, it  does so, continually.  The  questions – whether the secondary sources have reliably summarized the court's primary source and whether we can use that material and how – are a separate matter. It's correct that footnotes are generally dicta, and also correct that news sources frequently don't understand this, or will try to worm around it.  It is not safe to extrapolate from footnotes into a legal finding.  However, it's not just noise, either. This material is probably usable, just with caution and with attribution, and probably with some other kind of care best addressed by regular legal editors.  It's important to remember that when a normally-secondary source is just parroting (or in this case attempting questionably to parrot) a primary source, it is not in fact secondary, but tertiary (i.e., summarizing, and doing so with unclear authority/diligence).  Secondary sourcing requires competent analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and/or synthesis (AEIS) and is subject to editorial review by others. That's what secondary sourcing, and that AEIS part is what WP editors cannot do on our own in Wikipedia's voice.  The confusion here is a misunderstanding that editorial judgement about in situ source reliability is somehow a form of WP:OR, when it is not. It's part of our central job as encyclopedia editors.  OR pertains to what is  and claimed to be a fact, not to the talk-page discussions by which we arrive at consensus on what to include and why.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC) PS: A chain of corporate ownership does not translate into reputable publishing.  Most major periodicals, from the best to the worst, are owned by the same handful of media conglomerates by now. When we look at the reputability of a publisher, we mean the entity and its people exercising direct editorial control, not who is ultimately banking the profits through convoluted paths of contracts and shareholding. E.g. the fact that Hearst is 50% or majority (I forget) owner of A&E, and A&E owns Discovery Channel, doesn't magically make DC a reliable source for pseudoscientific nonsense they broadcast about ancient aliens, etc.  Hearst being a major newspaper publisher does not "rub off" reliability from one publishing operation they own onto another.  Same applies to academic publishers; they may produce exceedingly reliable hard-science journals on the one hand and exceedingly dubious social "science" journals that are basically a bunch of politicized opinion-mongering on the other.
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What aspect of the question is not neutrally posed? Here’s the question:
 * May the reporting of a “normally reliable” secondary source be declared unreliable by Wikipedia editors solely on the basis of their personal interpretation of the primary source (a court opinion), or is another secondary source required?


 * How would the question be posed neutrally?


 * You said “Secondary sourcing requires competent analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and/or synthesis (AEIS) and is subject to editorial review by others.” Must the secondary source disclose every step in his analysis or can he simply announce the result of his analysis?  Let’s take this statement: “According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.” Isn’t this an announcement of an analysis, evaluation and interpretation of what the primary source said?


 * You say “Editorial consensus not only can evaluate the ostensible reliability of any source in any context, it necessarily does so, continually. The underlying questions – whether the secondary sources have reliably summarized the court's primary source and whether we can use that material and how – are a separate matter.” I assume that what you mean here is that editors can evaluate the reliability of any secondary source but not by comparing the secondary source’s analysis of the primary source with the Wikipedia editor's analysis of the primary source. Do I understand you correctly? Whether any particular text in a court opinion represents what the court “said” requires the analysis of a secondary source and cannot be performed by a Wikipedia editor, correct?  If so, then such analysis by a Wikipedia editor cannot be the foundation of a declaration by the editor that the secondary source is unreliable. Swood100 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How many people need to tell you the same thing before you show any sign of comprehension? Please, knock it off. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you actually gave reasons instead of just insulting everyone who disagrees with you, people would stop asking. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your refusal or inability to read the things that people have written (e.g., the long and detailed comments by SMcCandlish and David Tornheim, neither of whom is me) reflects poorly on you but otherwise has no consequences for this discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only one here who is reflecting poorly here is you. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You agree with ? If I read him correctly he declined to affirm that editorial consensus can evaluate whether secondary sources have reliably summarized a court's primary source and whether we can use that material and how. He also surmised that this material is probably usable, just with caution and with attribution. Glad you’re also on board this far.


 * It’s also very curious that you steadfastly refuse to respond to my questions or explain your objections, apparently taking the position that because of editorial consensus this is not required. What risk to you perceive? Swood100 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with SMcCandlish that this is not a proper RfC. You can tell that he and I agree about this because each of us chose to begin our comments here by pointing it out.  How many separate people need to say the same thing before you show any sign of comprehension?  --JBL (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree this is not a proper RfC. with reasons given above. I could not even understand precisely what the question meant--even after reading the entire statement, it's still not clear.  I suspected immediately that this was not a general policy question about the use of legal sources, but instead, a very specific content dispute more appropriate for WP:RS/N.  If it were a policy question it would be at a policy page rather than here.  This RfC should be withdrawn and started over.  I think it would be better to just post it at WP:RS/N.  If it is a policy issue, it should be at the policy page or at a legal forum like WikiProject Law where I found notice of this.
 * Looking at the question:
 * May the reporting of a “normally reliable” secondary source be declared unreliable by Wikipedia editors solely on the basis of their personal interpretation of the primary source (a court opinion), or is another secondary source required?
 * I am just puzzled what that means. When it comes to law, "normally reliable" secondary sources from the mainstream media can get legal cases wrong.  Consider the McDonald's coffee cup spill case:  "[T]he story was distorted in the media, in which the 'condensed telling of the story created its own version of the truth' where McDonald's rather than Liebeck was portrayed as the victim."   But a "normally reliable" legal review article prepared by legal scholar(s) is going to be far more reliable.  So, it's really not clear what secondary sources are meant to be "declared unreliable" and in what contexts.  That makes a big difference when it comes to law.  If it is law, are we talking about findings of fact, or about case law that might be binding on other courts?  That's not clear either, and that makes a big difference.  And if it is dicta, that just makes it all the more complex.
 * There is no way to answer to this question, because the question is not sufficiently specific, and it creates a false-dilemma.  That's because this is actually not a general question about how to use court opinions and "normally reliable" secondary sources, in general.  Instead, it is really a specific question about how to use a specific court opinion and sources that comment on that specific court opinion, but that question is not the one that was asked.  If it were rephrased to ask that question, using the exact court opinion, the exact sources, I might be able to answer the question.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem with rephrasing the question using exact text from the court’s opinion and from the secondary source’s analysis is that this would seem to run afoul of the WP:RFC admonition that the question be brief.
 * I don’t really understand the difficulty you are having. Suppose a secondary source reports that “The court said X.” A Wikipedia editor then objects to the inclusion in the article of the statement “The court said X” because based on his reading of the primary source (the court’s opinion) it is factually incorrect. According to his interpretation, “The court did not say X.”


 * According to WP:PRIMARY, “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. …Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.” This clearly means in the above example that a Wikipedia editor would not be permitted to include in an article the text “The court did not say X” founded only on his personal analysis of the primary source. But may an editor exclude text from an article founded only on his personal analysis of the primary source?


 * The reasons for the requirement of a secondary source are (a) to establish the notability of the addition, (b) to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, and (c) to avoid material for which no reliable, verifiable published sources exist. If we assume that there is an unacceptable risk that the inclusion of factual statements or characterizations will be unreliable or inferior or a novel interpretation unless that addition is supported by a secondary source, what would be the rationale for ignoring that risk completely for purposes of supplying sole support for the exclusion of factual statements? Is the omission of a truthful and relevant statement or characterization in an article not a concern if this is caused by a novel or unreliable or inferior interpretation? Is that in accord with Wikipedia guidelines and policies? A secondary source is required to support the content of an article. Swood100 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a brief question: "Should the following text be added to the article? [text]"  Here is another brief question: "Should the article say that the Fifth Circuit ruled that ...?"  When you eventually get around to abandoning this failed attempt at an RfC and starting over with a well-formulated one with a question like that, you will discover that there is no consensus to add the text you've proposed to this or any other article.  (I mean, this is already knowable, because six or seven different editors have explained problems with it, but whatever.)  Then, perhaps, discussion will be able continue in a more constructive direction about ways to address the Fifth Circuit decision in this article.  --JBL (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reformulated RfC concerning whether verbatim quotes from secondary sources can be included in the article
'''Withdrawn. See proposed RfC below this section.'''

In the absence of any contradictory secondary source is there any reason why the article titled "Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy" cannot include the following verbatim quotes from secondary sources: (1) According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened. (2) "The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited," Judith Edith Jones wrote for the appeals panel. (3) Jones said the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. That was enough to support the decision by health and human service officials. (4) The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has sold tissue for outside research. Swood100 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you not understand what it means to ask a question neutrally?! This is becoming seriously disruptive.  Here is a very good essay that may help you avoid some of the things you are doing wrong.  --JBL (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Improper RFC, since every numbered statement in the description is flatly untrue; and, moreover, many people have pointed out to you, above, repeatedly, that the things you are claiming are flatly untrue and do not reflect how the Fifth Circuit's conclusions were reported in any reliable sources. Since WP:RFC requires that an RFC be neutrally-worded, this is an improper RFC. I understand how you feel about your desire to include your preferred interpretation of these sources in the article, but given that you still haven't produced a single usable source to support that interpretation, while numerous sources have been found that characterize it in a way that can't reasonably be reconciled with your opinions on the topic, I feel that your insistence on starting a second RFC with your groundless opinions stated as fact is approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT levels.  You need to recognize and engage with the actual criticisms people are making about your edits if you're going to produce a useful RFC on them.  Again, you have to step back and think about what the neutral requirement in an RFC means - you need to write a description that the people you're in a dispute with will say "yes, that accurately represents our position in the locus of disagreement."  Treating the things that numerous people have repeatedly told you you lack the sources for as established fact in the RFC's description is the opposite of that.  For example, you could word your RFC as something along the lines of...  "Are these sources sufficient to cite this statement, and does the statement accurately reflect what those sources say?"  That's the crux of the dispute.  You can't lead into the RFC with the assumption that the sources are sufficient, usable, and say what you want them to say when the core disagreement is that virtually everyone else on the page is telling you otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You say “numerous sources have been found that characterize it in a way that can't reasonably be reconciled with your opinions on the topic.” First, I am not stating my opinion. I am citing the analysis of a source. Second, we are talking about what the court said about what actually happened, not what somebody else said about what actually happened. Please identify the sources that characterize the court’s opinion in a way that cannot be reconciled with the analysis of the sources I cited.  To my knowledge there are none.


 * You say “every numbered statement in the description is flatly untrue.” OK, how do you know that? Is it because a published secondary source says that this is not what the Fifth Circuit said? Can somebody please provide a reference to them? Somebody who has been involved with this page for some time, such as, should have no difficulty coming up with those in no time.  Is it because Wikipedia editors keep saying that these statements are untrue?  What is the foundation of the claim that these statements are untrue?


 * You say "Are these sources sufficient to cite this statement, and does the statement accurately reflect what those sources say? That's the crux of the dispute.” If I am quoting the sources then how could this not accurately reflect what they say? Swood100 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no point whatsoever in engaging with you as long as you remain unable or unwilling to approach this issue in anything like an acceptable way. You have just been told (again) that this is an improper RfC; no other discussion under this heading is going to lead anywhere. If you cannot formulate a neutrally worded question, you should not be trying to edit articles on contentious topics. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My question is simply this: “According to secondary sources, the court said X. Is there any reason that this article cannot state that the court said X?”
 * What if I phrased it this way: “According to secondary sources, the court said X. Can this article state that the court said X”? Would this be a more neutral phrasing? Until the question is framed this way you refuse to cite any sources contradicting that the court said X?  Or do you assert that even that would not be a neutral phrasing? Is the question non-neutral if you believe that the court did not say X or if you believe that X is a partisan statement? Swood100 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of your proposed questions consist of two sentences. In both cases, the second sentence is a neutrally phrased question that would make an ok RfC question.  In both cases, the first sentence is argumentative -- it presents (part of) your argument for why the answer to the question should come out a certain way -- and so it is not neutral and not a question.  In both cases, deleting the first sentence would leave something acceptable.  I linked to this essay in an earlier comment; it is short and provides really good guidance.  I also think David Tornheim has been offering you very good advice. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Improper RfC. Close but no cigar. Ordinarily I'd provide my substantive comment for an RfC posed this way, but it seems the requestor needs a bit more guidance, and I don't want to short circuit the learning process. Since they seem to be proposing the addition of new content, I think the RfC should read something like this: "Should we add the following information to the article? (bulleted list of items)" For each item, provide a link to at least one reliable source. R2 (bleep) 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Improper RfC as per my previous comments and comments above. This is better than the last one but is still not sufficiently clear and neutral.   gives some examples of what would be a proper RfC in this area here.  The editor can give multiple options, such as here. Please try again.  I don't see this as disruptive.  I think the relatively new user with less than 500 edits is not sufficiently familiar with what a good WP:RfC looks like.  I advise that the editor withdraw the current RfC, prepare a draft of another RfC and ask for feedback on whether is neutral and spend some time reviewing successful RfC's in other controversial areas before launching another one that has the same defects.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the relatively new user with less than 500 edits ... Thank you for pointing this out, I had not noticed -- I will try to be more patient. I think your advice to Swood100 is very good. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed RfC
Requesting feedback on whether the following would be considered a neutral and appropriate RfC.

Is it appropriate for the Wikipedia article about the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy to include the following text? Each bulleted line is a proposed item of text. Below each of these is the reference text upon which the statement purports to be based:


 * a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos


 * “According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.”


 * a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the authenticity of the videos was supported by a forensic firm


 * ““The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” Judith Edith Jones wrote for the appeals panel.”


 * a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Planned Parenthood did not identify a single omission or addition in the video footage


 * “Jones said the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. That was enough to support the decision by health and human service officials.”


 * The Fifth Circuit also found that Planned Parenthood has sold fetal tissue for use in outside research


 * “The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has sold tissue for outside research and directed Sparks to give greater consideration to state findings on whether clinic staff members are “qualified” under Medicaid’s medical and ethical standards.” Swood100 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest separating the quotes-from-sources out, and instead including them in your first comment on the RfC. (The footnotes could be left.) Others can say if they think that's important, too.  Otherwise, this seems like a fairly clear, neutral question. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Joel. PS: Thank you for taking the time to try to redraft this instead of just getting huffy/blustery like so many people do, especially at controversial-topic pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of certain additions to the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy article
Is it appropriate for the Wikipedia article about the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy to include the following text? Each numbered line is a proposed item of text.

(1) a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Center for Medical Progress had not deceptively edited the videos

(2) a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the authenticity of the videos was supported by a forensic firm

(3) a panel of judges from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Planned Parenthood did not identify a single omission or addition in the video footage

(4) The Fifth Circuit also found that Planned Parenthood has sold fetal tissue for use in outside research

Swood100 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
The specific source text reference upon which each numbered item depends is shown below.

(1) “According to reports, an anti-abortion group heavily edited the videos to make it appear Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened.”

(1) ”And while the district judge also suggested the videos hadn’t been authenticated and might’ve been edited, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out that assertion is inaccurate”

(2) ““The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” Judith Edith Jones wrote for the appeals panel.”

(3) “Jones said the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. That was enough to support the decision by health and human service officials.”

(4) “The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has sold tissue for outside research and directed Sparks to give greater consideration to state findings on whether clinic staff members are “qualified” under Medicaid’s medical and ethical standards.”

The source countable.us has been added, which is described by the New York Times as follows:


 * ”Countable also offers political news, with a few interactive extras. In addition to short summaries of recent bills in the House and Senate, it also lists some arguments for and against the measure. You can even directly contact your senator or representative to express your views on a pending bill. Countable is slick, easy to use and could definitely help inform your opinions.”

Also worth noting is that the author of the courthousenews article (that reported that the Fifth Circuit found that Planned Parenthood had sold fetal tissue for outside research) appeared actually to be seeing things from Planned Parenthood’s point of view. Other text from the cited article:


 * “The videos in question were made as part of a sting operation by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which heavily edited footage to make it appear as if Planned Parenthood sells tissue from aborted fetuses for research.

However, we are talking here about what the Fifth Circuit said. It goes without saying that not everybody agreed with them. Swood100 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Some additional information about the sources cited:

According to the organization mediabiasfactcheck.com:


 * “In review, Courthouse News Service reports on new court filing across the country as well as updates to trials and testimony. Their primary focus is on civil litigation cases. The reporting has minimal bias and typically quotes legal documents and what is heard in the courtroom. CNS also sources all information properly. Overall, this is a least biased news service and high for factual reporting.” https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/courthouse-news-service/

Also, the Center for Legal Studies at Northwestern University includes findlaw.com in its list of “5 Legal Sources Online that You Can Trust.” Swood100 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Your unbiased courthousenews source says twice that the video was "heavily edited", which contradicts the other sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues:


 * The opinion of the secondary source as to whether the tapes were deceptively edited.
 * What the secondary source reports that the Fifth Circuit said about whether the tapes were deceptively edited.


 * What we are talking about here is what secondary sources report that the Fifth Circuit said. It would only be a contradiction if one secondary source reported that the Fifth Circuit said “X” and another secondary source reported that the Fifth Circuit said “not X.” It is not a contradiction if one secondary source said “The Fifth Circuit said X but I disagree with them.” These sources are being supplied for their ability to reliably report what a court said.  Their personal opinions as to the underlying subject under discussion is a different question. Certainly many people do not see things the same way the Fifth Circuit did. Swood100 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. The Fifth Circuit ruling definitely merits mention in this article (and also in the article Center for Medical Progress, which was the locus of related discussion and additions).  And there is nothing wrong with the sources being used (nor with the WaPo article that was mentioned in earlier discussions).  The problem is that the proposed additions misuse awkward or sloppy wording in some sources to present a false picture of what has actually happened, putting all the weight on a couple of passing remarks and none on what the actual ruling is.  The WaPo article is very good in terms of accurately describing the substance and meaning of the ruling, but the other sources do as well.  For example, from courthousenews we have "The unanimous panel ruled that Sparks hadn’t followed proper standard in his decision to issue the injunction" -- in other words, what the ruling says is that the district court should have given more deference to what the state of Texas says, not that the state government is correct.  All the sources agree on this, and it's actually true.  Meanwhile, circuit courts do not rule on factual questions in the US, but the proposed inclusions all draw on infelicitous wording in the sources to put emphasis on a couple of statements in the circuit court opinion as if they were a ruling on a factual question.  We can see one clear example of this in Swood100's first quote of the FindLaw article, which cuts off just before the following quote: ""The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited," Judith Edith Jones wrote for the appeals panel."  This is supposed to be the sentence of the opinion that justifies "the Fifth Circuit said that's not what happened", but obviously it doesn't, and there's no reason we should amplify this minor error of the author of that article when we have more correct and better-supported statements to make. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This post gets to the crux of the issue, which I believe comes down to this question:


 * Can a Wikipedia editor object to the way that a reliable secondary source characterizes a primary source (court opinion), based only on his own interpretation of the primary source?


 * An example of this deals with the following quote from a secondary source:


 * Here the objection is that in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, the interpretation “the Fifth Circuit said that’s not what happened” is not supported by the sentence immediately following it. But the problem is that the secondary source refers not just to the first following sentence but also to the second following sentence as well as to the entire linked opinion as the ground upon which he reaches his interpretation. Is there some reason to conclude that if a secondary source quotes one or two sentences from a primary source he is claiming that those sentences justify all his conclusions?


 * But more to the point, can a Wikipedia editor say “This particular interpretation of the primary source differs from my personal interpretation of what the court “actually says” and therefore must be excluded from the article”?


 * According to WP:PRIMARY, “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. …Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.” This clearly means that a Wikipedia editor would not be permitted to include in an article the text “The court did not say X” founded only on his personal analysis of the primary source. But may an editor exclude text from an article founded only on his personal analysis of the primary source?


 * The reasons for the requirement of a secondary source are (a) to establish the notability of the addition, (b) to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, and (c) to avoid material for which no reliable, verifiable published sources exist. If we assume that there is an unacceptable risk that the inclusion of factual statements or characterizations will be unreliable or inferior or a novel interpretation unless that addition is supported by a secondary source, what would be the rationale for ignoring that risk completely for purposes of supplying sole support for the exclusion of factual statements? Is the omission of a truthful and relevant statement or characterization in an article not a concern if this is caused by a novel or unreliable or inferior interpretation? Is that in accord with Wikipedia guidelines and policies? A secondary source is required to support the content of an article. Swood100 (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Wikipedia editor can say that. The inclusion of any content in an article is based on consensus. Having reliable sources is a precondition for inclusion, but we are not required to include anything. I acknowledge your strongly-held beliefs about this material. But just as we do not include everything ever said about Donald Trump in his biography, the choice to include anything in this article is a matter of editorial consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the reason not to include everything about Donald Trump is determined by issues other than whether the information is true. Much of it is not noteworthy or its inclusion will make the article unwieldy. Here we are talking about information that is relevant and the only question is whether it is true. Swood100 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe that is required to make a paid-contribution disclosure. R2 (bleep) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That suggestion is false, ridiculous, inappropriate and malicious. Do you have even the tiniest bit of evidence to support such a charge? Swood100 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is this, a court of law? We are Wikipedians here, not lawyers. Discussion continued on your user talk. R2 (bleep) 16:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all, in anything like this form. I agree with, word-for-word. (IANAL, but I say this as a professional policy analyst, from 1993 to 2004, or arguably until 2016 counting a lengthy though hardly full-time volunteer capacity for a nonprofit, in addition to my tech consulting career).  The entire problem here is misconstruing and giving grossly WP:UNDUE weight to obiter dicta as if they are a court ruling, when they are footnotes and do not represent an official and binding legal decision and finding of law by the court, which would have required much more research and testimony. (Important here is that a key bit of opposition "testimony" was simply an agency assertion that  came to a conclusion about the footage – it's actually hearsay, which is third-hand in the court document, fourth-hand by the time a secondary source mentions it, and fifth-hand if we do.)  can be done with this information, but not in the forms proposed here.  I can envision something like a statement that various parties have made these claims against the organization, and that they even appear as non-authoritative notes in a court-issued document. (Another approach, if the desire is to cover the case in detail, would be to indicate that the court did not accept PP's assertion that the videos were doctored, based on testimony from ..., nor their denial of having sold tissue for ....)  In any event, they remain just claims and non-authoritative notes.  The opinion of a judge/court isn't magically transmuted into fact, nor dicta into a ruling.  Presenting such off-hand material as not just a ruling but the most important part of a ruling is very misleading; it's akin to someone supposing that my personal rationale for opposing these proposed changes is itself a policy that people can later cite as a rule. (After all, the editors participating in a WP RfC or other consensus discussion are effectively a panel of judges for the proposal under discussion. The actual decisions reached may be binding, but any given editor's !vote rationale might actually be wacky bullshit.)  It's both a WP:NPOV problem, even if not intended as one, and a WP:NOR issue (specifically, a form of WP:AEIS by an editor – novel, subjective ). It is not sufficient that "secondary" sources have made the claim about what these statements in primary-source legal material mean/signify, when almost all of them lack any authoritativeness or even basic competence in legal interpretation (anyone with any legal or policy analysis background knows how frequently and how badly mainstream news sources misconstrue legal material, just as they do with science material). Even the one or two law-focused sources are iffy "new bites" venues, not in-depth analysis works such as might be produced in book form by a professor of law, or appear as a paper in a refereed and respected law review journal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd 07:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the underlying question needs to be closed with some authority.


 * You said:


 * It is not sufficient that "secondary" sources have made the claim about what these statements in primary-source legal material mean/signify, when almost all of them lack any authoritativeness or even basic competence in legal interpretation (anyone with any legal or policy analysis background knows how frequently and how badly mainstream news sources misconstrue legal material, just as they do with science material).


 * Isn’t this just an argument that secondary sources in the area of law (and science) are generally bogus and that analysis of primary sources in these areas should really be grounded in the analysis of Wikipedia editors? Is that your position? You add:


 * Even the one or two law-focused sources are iffy "new bites" venues, not in-depth analysis works such as might be produced in book form by a professor of law, or appear as a paper in a refereed and respected law review journal.


 * Here you seem to assume that a legal analysis is not well-considered unless it is laid out in laborious detail. But obviously many legal conclusions are announced by legal analysists without disclosing their entire thought process and we don’t declare that the analysis was not in-depth or well-considered. Under what conditions do we need to see the analysis laid out point by point in order to rebut the presumption that it was ill-considered?


 * You say:


 * The entire problem here is misconstruing and giving grossly WP:UNDUE weight to obiter dicta as if they are a court ruling, when they are footnotes and do not represent an official and binding legal decision and finding of law by the court, which would have required much more research and testimony.


 * How do you respond to my point below that, in order to rule against Planned Parenthood’s argument on appeal that the case should be dismissed under Abbeville (because the OIG’s findings were not “bona fide” or “supported by some minimum quantum of evidence”) the Fifth Circuit merely had to find a minimum quantum of evidence (or enough to support the conclusion that the OIG’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious) and that the statement of such evidence, since the outcome of the appeal depended on it, was not a mere “aside” by the court (or at least its characterization as such is not so clear-cut an error as to justify a Wikipedia editor in substituting his or her analysis of the primary source for that of a secondary source listed by the Center for Legal Studies at Northwestern University as one of “5 Legal Sources Online that You Can Trust”)?


 * You claim that the analysis of the secondary sources was based on footnotes but it was not in a footnote that the courts stated “The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited.” What the court meant by this was amplified in footnotes but are you claiming that the contents of footnotes never enter into the ratio decidendi, or that in this case it is utterly clear that facts stated in footnotes were not considered by the Fifth Circuit as a part of its rationale for denying PP’s claim on appeal?


 * How can you say that these characterizations were hearsay? They are not out of court statements. They are observations by the Fifth Circuit as to whether the OIG’s findings were “supported by some minimum quantum of evidence.”


 * You say:


 * (Another approach, if the desire is to cover the case in detail, would be to indicate that the court did not accept PP's assertion that the videos were doctored, based on testimony from ..., nor their denial of having sold tissue for ....)


 * But how, if all the statements related thereto were asides by the court, could it be indicated that the court neither accepted PP’s assertion that the videos were doctored, nor their denial of having sold tissue? Swood100 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Isn’t this just an argument that secondary sources ... are generally bogus" in favor of "the analysis of Wikipedia editors"? No. It's an argument – one most of us are very familiar with and accept – that no source is magically reliable for everything all the time. You're confusing Wikipedian analysis of a source's contextual reliability with Wikipedian original research about what the facts are regardless what any sources say. General news sources are often insufficiently reliable on technical questions, such that better sources have to be sought.  "Secondary" doesn't translate to "newspaper" (and not even everything in newspapers is secondary at all; editorials, op-eds, advice columns, most forms of reviews, and many other things in news publications are primary).  Hearsay is a specific legal concept; please read the article. Actually, just its first sentence should suffice.  An agency claiming that a third-party organization determined something, without that organization presenting and defending their own work in court, is a textbook example of "an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein".  As for the rest of this, I think others have covered it with more precision below than I would in re-replying here (e.g. "Appeal courts only rule on the law, not the facts.", etc.).  The fact that even some judges sometimes confuse dicta and holdings (a point you rely on below) isn't a reason for WP to do so, or to depend on non-authoritative sources that do it. I also agree with Ahrtoodeetoo's advice much further below.  In particular, your habit of mass-repeating what everyone says (as if they have brain damage and can't remember their own rationales) then recycling repetitive arguments against them (as if none of these arguments have yet been addressed), with lots of rhetorical questions (often laced with stacked straw man and appeal to ridicule fallacies) is maddening, and derails discussions like this.   Quoting previous statements should only be done for contextually necessary clarity (as I did at the start of this post). Using the "pose a question" technique only works in small doses.  I covered this at WP:HOTHEADS and I think the entire essay may be of benefit to you (cf. Ahrtoodeetoo's "don't throw a fit if editors disagree with you" point). You've trainwrecked your own RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My principal claim has not yet been addressed by anybody. Please give it a go:


 * Planned Parenthood argued on appeal that the case should be dismissed under Abbeville because the OIG’s findings were not “bona fide” or “supported by some minimum quantum of evidence.” The Fifth Circuit denied this claim, citing facts that it believed satisfied the required minimum quantum of evidence, and concluded that Planned Parenthood was unlikely to prevail on the merits since the OIG’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. How can it be said that a statement of facts constituting the necessary “minimum quantum of evidence” was a mere “aside” by the court when the outcome of the appeal depended on it? Swood100 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing you are (now) calling your principal claim does not bear any particular relationship to anything in either sources or reality. You are merely trying to fit disconnected fragments of sources to your predetermined idea of what you want the article to say. Once this RfC is over, someone will use the good sources available to write an accurate summary of this case, and it won't bear much similarity to what you've proposed. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I really have two claims. The first is that Wikipedia policy requires that Wikipedia content be based on reliable secondary sources, and this policy is violated when content is based on Wikipedia editor personal evaluations of primary sources. Content is presumed true if it is provided by a reliable secondary source.  In order to rebut the presumption either the reliability of the source must be impeached or the information must be contradicted by other reliable secondary sources.


 * My second claim is that the objections to this content are flawed. The principal objection is that the court statements referred to are “asides” and are unreliable since they don’t go to the heart of the court’s decision. However, the “minimum quantum of evidence” that the court needed to find in order to deny Planned Parenthood’s appeal definitely goes to the heart of the court’s decision, and the court statements objected to were a part of this evidence. If you believe that I am mistaken, please explain where my mistake lies. Swood100 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Scene 1: [Two months of long, repetitive talk-page comments]. Scene 2: My principal claim not yet been addressed by anybody ... followed by something completely different from the preceding discussion; and a response.  Scene 3: Well, I really have two claims ... [more of the same old, plus no substantive acknowledgement of the latest response].  Really, it is a total mystery why other users are not interested in engaging with you. --JBL (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all - adopting the cogent statements above in full. IANAL, but as a journalist and public servant I've done enough reading of court decisions to understand the difference between meaningful rulings on the merits and obiter dicta. These articles fail to understand that difference, and we are not required to adopt their failure into Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all: Appeal courts only rule on the law, not the facts. If the trial court found that the videos were heavily edited, then the appeals court cannot contradict them. The thing that appears to have happened, according to the WaPo source, is not that the Fifth Circuit ruled that the videos were accurate but merely that the court said that the standard of review required the trial court to, basically, take the use of the videos in good faith. LokiTheLiar (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question of obiter dictum provides a perfect example of the problems that are involved here. How clear-cut is the distinction between dicta and holding? “Second, dicta and holding are regularly conflated. In all circuits, dictum is often inadvertently treated as binding authority. Judges fail to perceive the difference between dicta and holding and consequently treat the former as the latter.” https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2346&context=plr  Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put  it: “[L]awyers, like other men, frequently see well enough how they ought to decide on a given state of facts without being very clear as to the ratio decidendi.”  https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2346&context=plr  If lawyers and judges regularly have difficulty with this distinction what is the argument for the proposition that Wikipedia editors have the necessary judgment and absence of bias to be second-guessing reliable sources as to their identification of a court’s holding?


 * Suppose a reliable secondary source analyzes a primary source regarding a matter that is not black and white but is in a grey area, and therefore requires the application of judgment. Is it Wikipedia policy that the analysis of any such source can be excluded by a consensus of Wikipedia editors working on that story? Editor bias obviously becomes a significant issue in this situation, especially on politically-charged subjects. It is clear that in such a case many editors would tend to find more reasonable the analysis that is in line with their political preferences. Is this an exception to the general rule that every effort must be made to keep editor bias from influencing the content of articles.  If so, then issues that are not black and white will be decided by a process in which partisan preference is known to play a significant role. If not, what should be in place to provide a check on it?  The obvious solution is to either require another reliable secondary source to provide conflicting analysis or to dispute the reliability of the given source.  Which is the greater risk: (a) opening up analysis of non-black and white issues to a process known to be influenced by partisan bias, or (b) reporting mistaken analysis of non-black and white issues by reliable sources? Reliable sources typically are not biased. Wikipedia editors often are biased. Which is a greater threat to a story: bias or mistake? Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Planned Parenthood argued on appeal that the case should be dismissed under Abbeville because the OIG’s findings were not “bona fide” or “supported by some minimum quantum of evidence.” The Fifth Circuit denied this claim, citing facts that it believed satisfied the required minimum quantum of evidence, and concluded that Planned Parenthood was unlikely to prevail on the merits since the OIG’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
 * How can it be said that the statement of facts constituting the necessary “minimum quantum of evidence” was mere dicta when the outcome of the appeal depended on it? Or, more to the point, is this question so clear that Wikipedia editors are justified in substituting their evaluation of the primary source for that of a reliable secondary source? How likely is it that such judgments on controversial issues will be free of partisan bias? Swood100 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have yet to hear anybody explain how the reliance on the personal analysis of primary sources by Wikipedia editors is in compliance with Wikipedia policy:


 * Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. ...If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts... WP:VERIFYOR Swood100 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SATISFY: no one is obligated to respond to every point that you make. You are welcome, after a reasonable time has passed, to request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure that an uninvolved editor close this -- the closer will take into consideration the relative strengths of the arguments made. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Stonewalling, including “Ignoring good faith questions.” Why would there be reluctance to respond to the points that I make? For example, why would there be reluctance to explain why a position taken does not contravene Wikipedia policy, or whether mistake or bias is a greater threat to a story? It’s not as if anybody has yet taken a shot at those. Similarly, nobody has yet responded to my assertion that the Fifth Circuit was stating facts that had to be found into order for it to reach the conclusion that PP’s appeal must be denied, and therefore such facts were not mere “asides.”  I would expect somebody to at least deny it and explain why. These are not minor tangential issues that have already been answered. They have not been addressed and they go to the heart of the question. Swood100 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Several people spent a lot of time and energy coaching you how to produce a usable RfC (point 7 on Status quo stonewalling), and the section Status quo stonewalling makes no sense in the context of an RfC. You are welcome, after a reasonable time has passed, to request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure that an uninvolved editor close this -- the closer will take into consideration the relative strengths of the arguments made. --JBL (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion for polling seems to put the cart before the horse. And I don't understand why ignoring good faith questions makes no sense in the context of an RfC. However, that's enough bickering with no progress between you and me. Respond if you wish and I'll just wait and see if there are to be any substantive replies. Swood100 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Swood100, first, you might get more traction with your inquiries if you avoid walls of text and avoid bludgeoning. Look at how many bytes you've contributed to this RfC, compared to the total bytes contributed by all editors. A good rule of thumb: if that ratio is approaching 50% then it's a good idea to back off. Second, consider asking fewer questions. The Socratic method is unpleasant, and most people prefer not to participate in it when their law school grades don't depend on it. Third, don't throw a fit if editors disagree with you. It's highly unlikely you'll succeed in forcing them to change their !votes, but you might succeed in convincing newcomers before their opinions are fully formed. R2 (bleep) 18:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude. I have yet to see a compelling reason why this information should be included. The question isn't so much about its verifiability, but whether the material is both noteworthy and presented neutrally. What I see here are facts that appear to have been cherry-picked from sources to present the Center for Medical Progress in the best possible light and Planned Parenthood in the worst possible light. Perhaps this content would be used to balance other content already in the article, but I don't think that case has been made. All of this back-and-forth about dicta vs. holding is really beside the point. That's a legal distinction that has little bearing on Wikipedia inclusion standards. It only serves to demonstrate why we should be cautious when directly citing court documents. R2 (bleep) 17:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all This looks like a massive misrepresentation of the facts and an attempt bias in how this is represented. Casprings (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. This proposal relies on a flat misrepresentation of what the sources say.  The relevant text from the source is"The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited", a much more cautiously-worded statement than any of the proposals here and one that specifically avoids stating any of the things in the proposed edit - there's a huge difference between "the Texas Office of Inspector General submitted a report saying X" and "the court affirms X as fact."  Beyond that, the sourcing is weak (these are just blogs) and generally skeptical of that very narrow statement, which itself is a mere footnote, so there's no particular justification for including it in any form - but definitely not in any of the ones proposed here, which don't even reflect what it actually says. --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourced edits reverted
I'm curious why my edit was reverted. A bioscience company affiliated with Planned Parenthood and secretly recorded by the Center For Medical Progress in 2015—literally the topic of the Wikipedia article—was found to have committed the crime CMP accused them of. Why was this content removed? Someone mentioned coatracking and trying to decrease the quality of the article, but gave no details. I will add the content back soon if I receive no feedback, since it is relevant and comes from quality sources. natemup (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Affiliated with Planned Parenthood - affiliated how? Is there any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood alleged here? No? Then it doesn't belong in an article about false accusations against Planned Parenthood. Perhaps it belongs in an article about the CMP, or an article about the controversy over fetal tissue research. That's not this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's what's alleged! The content stated: "From 2008 through 2015, one of the companies, DaVinci Biosciences, obtained its fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC), according to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). DaVinci reps said that PPOSBC ‘donated’ the fetal tissue, but DaVinci also told the panel that its executives contributed thousands of dollars to PPOSBC starting before they began ‘donating’ fetal tissue to DaVinci. Planned Parenthood has said PPOSBC was its only affiliate that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company." And the article isn't about false accusations against PP. That is hardly NPOV. It's about the *entire* controversy surrounding the undercover videos in 2015 concerning Planned Parenthood, which obviously includes this content. natemup (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the source you cite explicitly says that the prosecutor in the case says there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. The content you quoted above is from a partisan Republican lawmaker's unrelated and unsubstantiated claims. This is a clear attempt to create guilt by association - that DaVinci broke the law is not evidence, much less proof, of any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. You're welcome to create an article about DaVinci Biosciences and include this material there, where it would be indisputably relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it's WP:SYNTH, since you're encouraging the reader to reach a conclusion about Planned Parenthood and the accusations against it (especially with the 'however') which isn't in the source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The source in fact states only that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by PP *at the time they announced their case*. I'm not saying that there is such evidence now, but the source goes immediately on to state a lawmaker's case for her claim that PP in fact did do something wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of well-sourced claims. "Verifiability, not truth"; this is the site's policy. Besides, you're stating your case as if being partisan and/or a Republican somehow makes one's claim invalid or dubious, a standard that you probably wouldn't apply to a politician you agree with and that has no bearing on whether certain content belongs on Wikipedia. The quotes were deemed relevant by a quality source, so I included it. Moreover, my edit is not meant to reach a conclusion about anything. I don't think Planned Parenthood necessarily did anything wrong—which, again, isn't what this Wikipedia article is about; I posted relevant info about the 2015 CMP videos controversy as it *relates* to PP. The "However" was to contrast grammatically with the previous paragraph that stated California opted not to investigate—since while the state did not do so, a county within the state did in fact perform an investigation based on 2015 CMP videos that were intended to discredit Planned Parenthood. natemup (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An anti-abortion Republican lawmaker's unsubstantiated claims are not entitled to deference here, particularly given the multiple cited reliable sources which describe her investigation as a partisan witch hunt. The committee in question no longer exists and there do not appear to be any ongoing investigations into the matter (unless you have a more recent reliable source which states otherwise). We cannot leave readers with the suggestion or implication you are attempting to plant here. The relevant sourced fact here is that a prosecutor found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. Speculative claims to the contrary, particularly partisan ones presented without a shred of evidence, are at best prejudicial and at worst misleading.
 * We are not required to include any particular content in the encyclopedia, and at this point, there is clearly no consensus for your proposed inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So include her quotes and the assessment of them as a witch hunt. No one is asking for deference, but rather inclusion of relevant claims. Your assumptions about both my motives and the (in)ability of Wikipedia readers to draw reasoned conclusions from opposing claims is what should not be given deference. You are begging the question and have made no logical argument for why the content should not be included. We're not required to include anything, but you are required not to delete content that follows the rules of the site. Also, 2 people disagreeing with content on a talk page is not really indicative that there's "clearly no consensus", except among the 3 of us. I posted here just to make my case, given the relevant Wikipedia policies. You have failed thus far to make yours. natemup (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a bit of both sidesing the issue. There is no value in bringing up a debunked claim only tangentially related to an article, then crucifying it right afterwards. Consensus is against you, therefore we are not required to do anything. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to say it's not two people, it's three people, but now it's four. I agree with Zero Serenity, NorthBySouthBaranof and Aquillion. They haven't "failed" to make the case it's WP:SYNTH to tie this to PP. We can give time to see if anyone else wants to chime in here before we call it "consensus", but so far it seems we have it. No to adding Marsha Blackburn's comments. She's said a lot of things about abortion and PP that are not true. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again I'm confused by your appraisal. "Marsha Blackburn's comments" were one sentence from the ~1600 characters I added. You removed them all. Moreover, the only claim from Blackburn included in the content—that DaVinci obtained their fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood—was not at all debunked. In fact, as the content thereafter stated, DaVinci admitted this was true, saying that the fetal tissue was donated to them by Planned Parenthood sometime after they, Davinci, contributed thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood. If Blackburn made some further claims beyond this that were debunked, they were not included in the content I added. I sympathize with your concern that certain Conservative politicians will lie to put abortion providers in a negative light, but the rationale being used by you all is alien to Wikipedia policies. The content is from a solid source, fact-based, and relevant to this article's topic. natemup (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you're trying to create guilt by association, and that's just not going to fly here. You have cited no source which says Planned Parenthood committed any wrongdoing, and the source you cite in fact says the exact opposite - a prosecutor explicitly says there is no evidence of any such thing. Go write an article about DaVinci Biosciences if you think this event is important, and stop trying to shoehorn it into an article about Planned Parenthood. That you have repeatedly declined this suggestion creates the inference that you care more about trying to make Planned Parenthood look bad than you do about writing an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm trying to imply guilt or make PP look bad? I did not do so here, the source did not do so in the content I added (though it includes the name of a person, Marsha Blackburn, who does), and yet you continue to base your argument on this idea existing only in your (and I guess Blackburn's) mind. The DaVinci wrongdoing was uncovered as a result of the undercover videos that the CMP conducted in 2015 to impugn PP; from these videos and further investigation, it was discovered one of PP's (unique) fetal tissue recipients and donors was buying fetal tissue illegally. Does this make PP guilty? Obviously not. But The content is relevant to this article and is well-sourced; you seem to think Wikipedia demands some other criteria, but it does not. natemup (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please knock it off. The content you want to add is an irrelevant coatrack here. --JBL (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's begging the question. No one has made a sound argument for why it's irrelevant. They've all jumped to the topic of whether PP did something wrong, which isn't what the article is about. It's about the undercover videos in general as they relate to PP—which are why DaVinci was investigated in the first place. natemup (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary that you be personally satisfied by our explanations, it is enough that there is a clear consensus in this discussion to not include it. Since we are well past third opinion territory, your next option would be to start an RfC. --JBL (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)