Talk:Unplanned/Archive 2

New category: Propaganda films
I would like to add the Propaganda films category below this page. It's time to show the movie for what it truly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattNor91 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, please take a look at Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It isn't up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not a film is propaganda: our job is to report on what reliable, published sources say about the film. Please also familiarize yourself with the policies on edit warring; in particular, note that this page falls under the one-revert rule. Cheers, gnu 57 15:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the film is going to be in the Propaganda Films category, shouldn't that also be mentioned in the lede?? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot
Plot sections drawn from personal observation of a film, with no independent sources, are kind of tolerated a lot of the time, mainly because nobody can be bothered to try and stop it. In this case, however, we have credible sources saying that the film is propaganda, and we have extensive secondary coverage of the movie, so we should either stick to the overview in secondary sources or exclude personal observations of the plot. Wikipedia is here to describe propaganda, not promote it. Guy (help!) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMPLOT the film itself is a perfectly acceptable source for the plot of the film. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not just a matter of "kind of tolerated". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) Guy, If you consider any sections to be personal observations, feel free to edit those, but that is not an excuse to delete the whole plot section, any more than an error in one sentence would be an excuse to delete an unrelated sentence. I'm not going to edit war here, but, dude. Dude. DUDE. DUDE. You know this stuff. You're a respected (heck, I respect you!), experienced editor, an administrator even, you've been here for years, and here you are, deleting a whole section, edit warring to keep it deleted, making comments like why do we have an entirely unsourced "plot" section for a film that pretends to be a documentary?, when at no point does it pretend to be a documentary, it's got professional actors and everything; and Would we do this for Triumph des Willens? - come on, bringing in Nazis now? Godwin's law, so soon? By the way our article on that film, Triumph of the Will has a perfectly fine plot synopsis section; yes, unsourced to anything other than the film itself. If you want to make this one look like that, and have seen the film, go ahead. I haven't, so can't; but neither can either I or you go to any other article and delete all their plot sections outright. You know this stuff. --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the sourcing requirements for movie plots, (other than what I've now read here) so I'll let others decide that, but wouldn't it be helpful to at least leave the "Accuracy of portrayal" section in? It is reasonably well sourced...could be better sourced and written to sources. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to rewrite/to source/improve the "Accuracy of portrayal" section if we agree to have it in.--- Avatar317 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ? --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS: everything must be drawn from reliable independent sources. Film fans have invented an exception for plots - basically WP:PRIMARY. Fine, as long as it's not contentious, but, per standard Wikipedia practice, anything contentious, you fall back to secondary sources. This is contentious. The movie is propaganda, and to describe tis plot from the primary source is WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help!) 17:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only does WP:RS not say that everything must be drawn from "reliable independent sources", it specifically includes a section discussing when non-independent sources can be appropriate (WP:SELFSOURCE.) Do you have any sources contending what the plot of the film is?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, as a qualified exception to independent sourcing for uncontroversial information.
 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * From WP:V: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * Personal observations of a film have been allowed to slide by. When the film is (a) propaganda and (b) very unlikely to be watched by any editor who does not already agree with its premise, independent sources are a must. Guy (help!) 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "When the film is [...] very unlikely to be watched by any editor who does not already agree with its premise"??? That's a huge slide in WP:V; now to be verifiable, the source not only has to be available, it has to be to the taste of the editor who wants to verify it? No. A film is a direct source on its own plot. That you don't want to verify it does not make it contentious. If there are things that you feel are inherently subjective in the description, you could edit those rather than trashing an important aspect of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree just a bit with one sentence there: the film is pretty clearly contentious, I think both people who support it and who oppose it will agree on that, that there are strong views on both sides. However, WP:FILMPLOT doesn't make an exception for contentious films. They're still films, and a perfectly good source for their own contents. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Filmplot can't override WP:V and WP:RS. It carves out an exception basically giving carte blanche for original research in plot summaries, and that's not a problem for an ordinary movie, but this is not an ordinary movie, it's a propaganda film, and you can't have a self-sourced plot summary without basically repeating the propaganda. Exactly the same as something like Vaxxed.
 * Everywhere on Wikipedia where self-sourced material is used, it's understood that if it's challenged, an independent source is needed. Why would that be different for movies, and especially movies that are designed to promote a fringe agenda? Guy (help!) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the relevance is this: this is an anti-abortion propaganda film. Describing the plot from the primary source is, inherently, anti-abortion propaganda. It might be that an editor who (like the supermajority of Americans) is not anti-abortion might watch the film and summarise the plot here, but it's unlikely, and even if they did it would still be an in-universe summary because the film is anti-abortion propaganda.
 * If, however, we rely on professional critics and reviewers, we can get a fully WP:NPOV description of the film which notes its factual inaccuracies, distortions and absurdities.
 * A plot summary of a Star Wars movie is uncontentious because it's openly fictional. This is semi-fictional pretending to be fact. Why would we override WP:V/WP:RS to allow us to override WP:NPOV by directly summarising it from the primary source? That seems like pretty much the worst thing we could do here. Guy (help!) 18:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not challenging it, in the sense that you disagree with what it says, you're deleting it outright, without distinguishing between perfectly innocuous sentences and sentences that you might actually have a problem with, then sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "I refuse to view the movie, so am challenging that it has any content at all". Note that WP:FILMPLOT specifically says not to draw any conclusions, so if you think any of the plot section does that, feel free to edit. The place for professional critics and reviewers is in the section on their opinions. The plot section is there to relate what the movie actually says. That doesn't mean we endorse that as true. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were saying that the plot of the movie was what happened in real life, you might have a point. We're not. We're saying it's the plot of movie, and we are specifically saying that there is contention on its accuracy in depicting real events... or at least we were, until you decided to edit war away the section documenting the contention over its accuracy. The idea that you don't want to verify it means that we've overridden WP:V suggests a very odd view of verifiability. Do you have any actual corrections to the specific description that was contained in the plot section??? Or are you just making believe that it's contentious? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: in this edit summary, you ask why do we have an entirely uinsourced plot drawn entirely from personal observations of what is clearly identified as propaganda? Would we do this for Triumph des Willens?. Well, in the "Synopsis" section of the Triumph of the Will article, there are zero sources listed. It is presumably a description of the film done by an editor here. So apparently, yes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , ugh. At least that article has the benefit of being unambiguous about it being propaganda and the Nazis being evil. Perhaps if we put that context in here the blow might be softened. Guy (help!) 12:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me instead compare it to a Featured article: Boys Don't Cry (film). Also a dramatization of actual events. Also highly controversial - it's about a murder after all. Also prominently criticized for not portraying events accurately. Has a plot section. Not cited to anything other than the film. Another: The Whistleblower, featured article, about a dramatization of actual events, plot section, no third party citations for the plot. There are probably others; clearly citations are not required for the plot section of a film. These have been judged to be the best articles on films Wikipedia has. We have the trifecta: policy on our side; precedent on our side; and more participants who believe the section should be restored. Guy, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to see if you have other arguments, but if you don't I'm going to restore the deleted sections. Please feel free to edit the to add any third party sources you believe to be required (no objection, just not required), or even remove the specific parts of the sections that you believe are not an accurate portrayal of the plot, but don't just delete it wholesale, or we'll have to go to other methods of dispute resolution. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you all for this discussion, because it brought up many good points. Now that I have actually READ the plot description, I agree with JzG that it doesn't belong in the article.  Before I read the plot summary, I thought that it could be written in an objective way, but now I don't think it can be included without furthering the propaganda of the film.  Here's some examples:
 * the boyfriend which gets her pregnant and pushes her to have an abortion is described as a "deadbeat". Maybe he's protrayed as that, but this is propaganda: the new husband with whom she now gets pregnant but disapproves of her career "loves her."
 * "and is told it will "gently empty out her uterus and there will be a little bleeding", but the experience is painful, resulting in extreme bleeding and eight weeks of cramping." a very misleading and false depiction. In an entertainment movie, "inaccuracies"/"movie physics" isn't put in to psychologially influence a belief in the viewer, but in this movie it is, and repeating it in this article would do the same.
 * "she is concerned when she sees the fetus on the ultrasound, which is moving away from the suction tube." The criticism from independent sources say that this is not an accurate description, yet it is described to the reader as fact.  Again, many viewers understand that movie-physics isn't real, and even if they don't, it doesn't change their beliefs in anything, and isn't intended to; this movie is.
 * To me, including this would be the same as giving a plot description of the Vaxxed2 movie, where parents state that "my kid got an MMR vaccine, which CAUSED my kid to get autism".


 * To conclude, I don't think this plot summary belongs without INDEPENDENT sources because I think it is impossible to remove the propaganda from the plot description. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * All right; restored plot section, all cited to reviews per talk page requests. Removed a few sentences I couldn't cite, replaced with others I could. --GRuban (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no consensus for this yet. See above. Among the bits you left in is the "non-profit is a tax status not a business model" line, which is pure anti-abortion propaganda. Planned Parenthood does not drive abortions as a business booster, its money comes mainly from preventive healthcare and uncontroversial (other than to the wildest evangelicals and Catholic leadership) family planning.
 * The implication that Planned Parenthood are increasing abortions for financial motives has been rebutted in numerous independent sources, so including it as a "plot point" without rebuttal violates NPOV.
 * That is virtually impossible to fix, as points out. Better to summarise it from independent sources with context rather than try and present it as a plot summary which necessarily give priority to the propaganda and talking points the producers want you to focus on. Guy (help!) 12:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * is indeed a baseless conspiracy theory, but that the movie was intended to promote. As such, per fringe guidelines, it would be better to describe it as such using an independent source than to uncritically echo their claims.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the core issue there is that Boys Don't Cry and The Whistleblower are made by mainstream studios with mainstream actors and mainstream distribution. They are emotive depictions of controversial subjects, but they adhere to norms of cinematic production and finance: the film was made to make money, not converts.
 * Unplanned is made and distributed by evangelical fundamentalist anti-abortionists. Its goal is to bolster anti-abortionism and, where possible, scare vulnerable women out of having abortions. They do not care iof the film makes $0 at the box office, they are running a religious mission, not an entertainment business. Guy (help!) 12:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your objection seems to be "I don't like this movie". I cited every sentence from independent sources, which is what you and Avatar demanded. You are quite right, we can't describe the plot without describing the plot. And yet, that is what we need to do. --GRuban (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should not discuss the content of a work because it was not made for financial profit seems ridiculous, and would call for deleting descriptions of many of the most important works in history (and indeed, of Wikipedia itself.) Your ongoing edit war to remove the plot barring any consensus to do so is not appropriate. I suspect that the makers of Boys Don't Cry (activist Kimberly Peirce) wouldn't agree that her film wasn't trying to convince you of anything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a brief description of the story is consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Isn't the purpose to allow a reader to get a general idea of what happens in the movie without having to watch the whole thing? Since the movie is presented as fiction, isn't it safe to assume that readers won't take it as literal realism? After all, there is a listing of criticisms and other disclaimers. Maybe it would help to have a "NOTE: " at the beginning with a brief disclaimer, followed by a brief summary of the events in the story. Otherwise it just seems like burying knowledge in the name of silencing a controversial agenda. The goal should be to explain different views to the readers and let them make up their own minds, not assume that they are fools who take everything at face value. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with the plot as newly added if we also used the info in the sources to include fact checking and neutral wording of the deceptive/propaganda parts, most notably something like: (better to paraphrase than use the movie quote and repeat their propaganda) and  (These are examples, not necessarily the exact text of my preferred wording.)  ...and same for the mifeprestone section, as I believe that plot part is also likely exaggerated/false, but have not read enough references yet to see if it was criticised in the references.  One reference I did read also criticised the movie for making abortion seem much bloodier than it is (obviously a motivation of anti-abortionists)....so the blood on shoes statement might be another case of questionable propaganda.


 * My preference would be for all those criticisms to be incorporated into the plot section as stated above, so at least three places for criticism/fact checking to keep NPOV. To have a propaganda plot section FIRST and a criticism section after, would be biased toward propaganda for those who partially read the article.--- Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just putting in the lead that the film has been criticized for the accuracy of its portrayal of events should be sufficient; the criticism section that JzG has been trying to edit war away works fine after the plot. The two sections should not be confused, for claritiy's sake. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A brief disclaimer should be sufficient at the beginning. More specific criticisms should be after the story synopsis for the sake of clarity. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer the plot to describe the plot and the criticism to be separate. (Though I admit, I mainly just want some reasonable plot section, in an article of this length about a film.) Avatar, is there a way we can satisfy the "those who partially read the article" concern? How about if we put the criticism first, would that suffice? --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, that's insufficient. It amounts to: "What follows is propaganda" then repeating th epropaganda. Guy (help!) 20:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is essentially what should be done. As long as the summary isn't so detailed as to overdo it, this is a perfectly reasonable standard. No literate person should be having their mind unduly poisoned from reading a brief story summary. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With all respect, if you actually make a specific proposal, such as inserting what you're like the Plot section to look like instead of just deleting whatever anyone puts in, we'd have something to work with. Wouldn't you agree that Doctor No was just a movie, not a suggestion of how to behave in an editing discussion? What do you think about the "criticism section before plot section" suggestion? --GRuban (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with having an "Accuracy of portrayal" section just BEFORE the plot section, with the three or four items I talked about above maybe bulleted in order of occurrence in the movie. I agree that if we can neutrally relate what the plot is from the independent sources you found, it would be nice to have a plot section.  I just want the inaccuracies pointed out so we don't use Wikipedia to re-promote the movie's propaganda. And I agree with JzG it would amount to "What follows is propaganda" then repeating the propaganda.", but I don't have a better solution.


 * Maybe we could have a less detailed plot section, kind of like the "Overview" section in The Silent Scream ? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though what I'm proposing isn't just a "What follows is propaganda" warning, but a comprehensive listing of the several points misrepresented in the movie with a fact checking of each, in the "Accuracy of portrayal" section. (I do agree that it is more like The Silent Scream than a standard Hollywood movie)


 * Additionally, an "Accuracy of portrayal" section as I describe would rebut the falsehoods from the movie, which right now are not mentioned/rebutted in the article. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I did make a specific proposal. Don't treat this dreck like a movie. Treat is like the agit-prop it is. Describe it by reference tot he reliable independent sources, and don't include a "plot" section. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. So what if a MoS says movies should have plot sections? We are free to ignore that when it's likely to promote dangerous fringe ideas. Guy (help!) 22:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy, with respect, have you considered whether the intensity of your antipathy toward this film might be interfering with your editing? SunCrow (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , My problem with this film is simple: it is propaganda in service of a fringe agenda. It would be the same if it were climate change denial, Velikovskian catastrophism or homeopathy. Guy (help!) 23:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that we should not describe the contents or pretend that it's not a movie are anathema to an encyclopedic mission. The idea that opposition to abortion is "fringe" in a country where close to half of people think there should be some restriction on abortion and a fifth believe it should be banned outright is misunderstanding "fringe". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as calling it a "movie" goes, is NOT a standard Hollywood ENTERTAINMENT movie. It wasn't created or released with the goal of making money or entertaining people, it was created and released for the same reasons as Hillary: The Movie and should be treated as such.--- Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "It wasn't created or released with the goal of making money or entertaining people"? Source on that? It had the format, distribution, and much of the promotion of many a for-profit film; Pure Flix released the highest-grossing indie film of 2014. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , PureFlix is a religious ministry, not a film production company. It makes money, but that's not its core function. If they wanted to really make money they would not allow David A. R. White anywhere near the product. Guy (help!) 15:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They are actually indeed a film production company, one that happens to cater to a certain market. I've deal with people in the Christian media business before, and believe me, they knew they were in a business. (Don't mistake being a registered non-profit with not being a business and not seeking to make profit off of certain operations; the difference is in what they do with the profits from each effort, not in not seeking to bring in money. In the words of a PureFlik, "non-profit is a tax status not a business model".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The removal of the entire plot section was inappropriate, and I am reinstating it. GRuban is correct in asserting that the plot section should describe the plot of the film, not argue with it. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." The plot section can and should be worded in a neutral manner so that the assertions made in the film are not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Critiques of the film's factual accuracy or disagreements with its content have no place in the plot section; they can and should be included elsewhere in the article. Sanitizing the plot section would run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED, and adding disclaimers to it would likely violate WP:NPOV. SunCrow (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Treat it like we treat Vaxxed
Vaxxed is another film where if we simply do like we do on many films and present the plot with no real sourcing other than the film, we will be uncritically inserting material that violates NPOV. In that film, we created a "Narrative" section that documents what various secondary sources said about the plot.

Compare what we say about the following films:

Tremors (film): "As they leave, they discover the dead body of another resident, Edgar Deems, perched atop an electrical tower, still grasping the tower's crossbeams and his .30-30 Winchester rifle. Jim Wallace, the town's doctor, determines that Edgar died of dehydration, apparently afraid for some reason to climb down"

No source needed. The film is the source. No source is needed because the film does not claim that Edgar Deems actually existed.

Vaxxed: "According to Variety, the film 'purports to investigate the claims of a senior scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who revealed that the CDC had allegedly manipulated and destroyed data on an important study about autism and the MMR vaccine.' The film features the so-called 'CDC whistleblower' narrative that is based on anti-vaccination activist[21] and associate professor Brian Hooker's paper..."

Here we have a source which disputes the film's claims about the whistleblower

I say we do the same basic thing with this film. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I would be completely happy with this style.--- Avatar317 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, yup. Perhaps a rider should be added to MOS:FILM as a reminder that plot summaries can't be used for an end run around NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This sounds appropriate and within policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, works for me. Guy (help!) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I respectfully disagree with your suggested approach. The plot section--whatever we call it--should be about the plot, and should not turn into a battleground on which to fight about others' reactions to the plot. I would say the same thing regardless of the subject matter. Here, the "accuracy of portrayal" section provides space for claims about, and reactions to, the material presented in the film. I support sticking with the existing format. SunCrow (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First. Let's all agree that WP:NPOV -- a Wikipedia policy -- always overrides WP:FILMPLOT, which "is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Any objections to that?
 * So this hangs on WP:NPOV. My position is that using the FILMPLOT "no reliable secondary sources required to demonstrate accuracy, notability or weight" rule works just fine on films like Tremors or Jurassic Park (which make no claim to be factual), but my position is that allowing unsourced and dubious claims of fact into the encyclopedia just because they are part of a movie plot (Movies that make such claims include Hillary: The Movie, Vaxxed, Unplanned, and Triumph of the Will) is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. In fact I plan to wait until we finish our discussion here and propose a change to WP:FILMPLOT to remove the loophole, a proposal which I expect to pass.


 * You appear to be saying (please clarify if I got it wrong) that not allowing unsourced and dubious factual claims of fact into the encyclopedia just because they are part of a movie plot violates WP:NPOV. Is that an accurate description of your position? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that describing a film's plot is the same as claiming the plot is accurate fact is bewildering. Under that call, we'd basically have to excise plot from all fiction works. We don't give that sort of treatment to other dramatizations like Green Book (film), we give the sourced controversy over the accuracy of the depiction later in the article. We don't do it for the bad science in Gravity (2013 film), we give the description of the inaccurate science later in the article. Your desire to use the plot section not for plot but to push your anti-anti-abortion POV is inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence that I am either anti-abortion or pro-abortion or retract your accusation. As far as I know I have never expressed an opinion on the subject privately or publicly.
 * I would never suggest putting my POV into this or any other Wikipedia article. The only POV that should be allowed is that of reliable secondary sources. I have on multiple occasions fought long and hard to have an article reflect the sources even when what the sources say is the opposite of my personal view. This is an important skill to have when writing an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was confused by the two Guys in this conversation. That accusation in your direction is withdrawn. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , anti-anti-abortion is the same as anti-anti-vaccination. It's not an endorsement or promotion of abortion, it's a position against advocacy of coerced birth.
 * I would be as adamant if this was pro-abortion propaganda (if such a thing existed). The issue is that the film includes falsehoods designed to coerce vulnerable women into making health choices that align with the preferences of the film-makers, not with their own medical needs. Women with unwanted pregnancies need neutral advice, not propaganda, and they can get this from medical professionals (except in states where anti-abortionists have prevented this). Guy (help!) 19:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You think vulnerable women are thinking "where should I go for my information on abortion? Let's check out the Wikipedia article about a movie that the lead casts as inaccurate and ignore all the other parts of the article?" I'm all in favor of having a section that discusses the errors and the controversies (that section that you repeatedly deleted.) But we should also have the plot of the film. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be possible to summarize the story of Unplanned WITHOUT promoting any propaganda. I don't see how a bare summary of a story, in and of itself becomes propaganda. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how" is not a very convincing argument. Most of Infowars consists of "stories". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at, is that a bare summary of a story IS NOT PROPAGANDA, by the very DEFINITION of propaganda. The actual work itself may be propaganda, but a simple description of it is not. Another example: a Soviet novel may very well be propaganda, but a brief summary of its contents is not propaganda itself. It's important to make clear that the novel is propaganda and why it's propaganda. There is no problem with summarizing propaganda if its nature is clear. Indeed, a summary of the content may be part of the evidence of why it is considered propaganda. It's not some kind of poison that is unclean to even touch. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your use of ALL CAPS does not strengthen your argument. Your basic premise (The actual work itself may be propaganda, but a simple description of it is not) is not convincing no matter how many caps you use.
 * I don't know how I can make it any clearer then. Maybe there's no hope for you. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of a film I recently saw. It was a documentary about how George Spelvin is a Nazi pedophile bed-wetter. The film showed a video of him speaking at the annual "We love National Socialists" convention, showed interviews with several urologists about George's involvement with the bed-wetting acceptance movement, and a spokesman for the FBI talked about him being the first pedophile to make the FBI's ten most wanted list, an honor usually reserved for terrorists, bank robbers, and murderers.
 * What's that you say? None of the above is true? Hey, I never said anything bad about George Spelvin. I just described the plot of  Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas  ...oops. Strike that. I just described the plot of Evil: The George Spelvin Story... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with including that in the summary of Evil: The George Spelvin Story? I don't really see anything wrong with including what you wrote in that article. I'm serious. Maybe it could use some slight adjustments, but I don't really see a problem there. I also don't understand the reference to "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas". I literally don't know what that is. I suppose I could wiki it, but I'm not in the habit of looking up Kirk Cameron movies. I read that Left Behind was pretty lame. Are you assuming I'm a Kirk Cameron fan or something?? I think you're just being paranoid now. Are you assuming I agree with Kirk Cameron about abortion? I doubt that very much. I'm pro-abortion rights but it shouldn't really be relevant. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also take exception to the idea that falsehoods "coerce". Ideas do not coerce, including false ones. Coercion NECESSARILY requires PHYSICAL FORCE to be used. It's not coercion unless physical force is used. A film does not coerce, and neither does a stage play, a book or a Chick tract. I may strongly disagree with the content, but expressing an idea is not "coercion". The viewers are not physically being held there as far as I know, so no coercion is involved. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to crack open a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "Coercion". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats." - Oxford English Dictionary. No force or threats are involved in people watching this movie. I don't care what your professor said. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, Guy Macon addressed exactly that point. It's not a problem for fictional films because the content doesn't pretend to be fact. It's not a problem for documentaries, either. It's only a problem for propaganda - and that should be called out in FILMPLOT. It applies as much to the work of Michael Moore as it does to that of Dinesh d'Souza, or to this. Guy (help!) 19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fine reason for us not saying that the film is fact... which we don't. It's a dramatization of a book, and we have, before the plot, indicated that the claims of both the book and the film have been challenged. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to make believe that we've said that the film is fact, or that we haven't cast shade upon it. Just about every major dramatization has doubts cast upon it for accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of Guy Macon's approach. jps (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I agree with Nat Gertler and Doctorx0079. A plot section is a plot section. It is not a fact-checking section or a POV-checking section. It should just straightforwardly describe the film's plot. For reference, I would respectfully refer you and other editors to The Hurricane (1999 film). In that article, the plot section straightforwardly lays out the film's plot. Issues with the film's factual accuracy are addressed in a separate section (Controversy:Film accuracy). While I'd prefer to avoid using the term "controversy", I think the overall approach makes sense and should be emulated here. So my answer to your question is "yes". If necessary, in articles about controversial films, a footnote could be dropped in the plot section to indicate that the description of the plot is not intended as an indicator of its factual accuracy. SunCrow (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're missing the point. Yes, a plot section is a plot section, but when the plot is dangerous fiction pretending to be fact, that violates WP:NPOV. A stylistic preference cannot override core policy. Guy (help!) 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I believe you may be missing the point. Your belief that the film is "dangerous" has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. It's not the encylopedia's job to include or exclude information based on editors' subjective viewpoints about its dangerousness. In My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the protagonist's father (hilariously) uses Windex as a "personal-care cure-all" (see https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/lowdown-windex-seizes-big-fat-greek-wedding-sequel/303245). If that information were included in a plot summary, would you have us remove it? Or add a disclaimer to the plot section about the appropriate uses of Windex? (If not, someone might read the plot summary and start Windexing themselves for poison ivy, right? Dangerous!) I hope you wouldn't do that, but it's very similar to what you want to do here. No one is trying to remove any mention of the issues with the film's accuracy; I'm certainly not. Those issues belong in the encyclopedia. They just don't belong in the plot section. That's not what it's for. So why not take "yes" for an answer and move on? SunCrow (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , nobody is going to take healthcare advice form My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The anti-abortion religious group that made this film absolutely wants women to take medical advice from it. And given the documented inaccuracies and distortions in the movie, that is a clear problem per WP:NPOV.
 * NPOV is policy. We do not promote dangerous fringe views, we describe them by reference to reliable independent sources. That's what makes us an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. There's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS around movies to include plot sections written direct from personal observation of the film. That's not great, but it doesn't violate policy when describing obvious fiction. This does: it gives an uncritical presentation of propaganda that endangers lives. Guy (help!) 21:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The plot parts which I described above in my comments which I see as propaganda are an attempt to push FRINGE conspiracy theories of 1) Planned Parenthood ENCOURAGES abortion BECAUSE they make profit from it and 2)abortion is (harder/more bloody/less safe) for women than most people believe. The first is more fringe conspiracy, while the second is more an attempt to push the status quo belief more toward anti-abortion by using false depictions. (The medical abortion Abby has and the lots of blood and gore in the movie.)   Per NPOV, we don't use Wikipedia to help others push their fringe theories.--- Avatar317 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Summarizing the plot of a film does not promote anything. Get a grip. SunCrow (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one here gets to scream "propaganda" as an excuse to load their POV into the plot section of an article about a film. Some of you are so inflamed about this topic that you're not thinking clearly. SunCrow (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It really depends on the way the summary happens. If the summary is including excessive details included in the movie that both (a) intend to show things as the filmmakers believe they actually occurred (b) may be at odds with the way most WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of what happens in such contexts, there is a legitimate case to be made for keeping the summary more concise. I am of the inclination that right now the plot description may be a bit overdeveloped, even as I see some parts of the film which are not currently discussed (such as the murder of George Tiller). What I think may need to happen is a careful investigation of which scenes in the movie are most noticed and which ones are glossed over. A good case could be made that because Wikipedia is supposed to be thoroughly lacking in innovation, we should emphasize plot points that are emphasized by independent sources and de-emphasize or even excise plot points that are marginalized or completely ignored by independent sources. jps (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is neither scientific nor ideological, but is merely about the angst resulting from quoting reliable sources fully and accurately. I think we are done here. - User:JGabbard JGabbard (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is neither scientific nor ideological, but is merely about citing reliable sources fully and accurately. I think we are done here. JGabbard (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What propaganda is and what coercion is
coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Source: OED. Printing or showing propaganda does not normally involve using force or threats. There is nothing inherently coercive about propaganda. There is no force or threat involved in a person willingly reading a propaganda book or going to see a propaganda movie. It's really a freedom of speech issue.

propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Source: OED.

Unplanned may very well be propaganda. It does not follow that anyone is forced to believe it or take its story as literal truth. I think its reasonable to assume that adults in the industrialized world realize that a movie that tells a story is made by people to tell a story and should not be automatically taken at face value. This goes even more so for a brief text summary of the storyline of that movie.

As I indicated further back, if you disagree with such basic facts as these, then I don't think there's much else I can say to convince you. We simply are going to disagree no matter what. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A plot summary at least needs to summarize what actually happens in the film
I see there are some good heads working on this, but just a quick note to explain what I tried to do. If you're going to summarize the plot of the movie, you ought to summarize the actual plot of the movie. Not the book it was based on, and also not the testimony of the person who wrote the memoir. I was appalled that it appeared whoever penned the plot synopsis wrote it as though it were a history rather than focusing on the movie as it was presented. It may need to be culled further, but at least now it is telling the reader what actually happened in the film in part. jps (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree summary should indeed summarize what actually happens in the film. What else would a summary be for? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. I hesitate to guess what the motivation may have been to do something other than summarize the film. jps (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No need to suppress the plot summary
I get the impression that some editors believe that the plot summary needs to be suppressed, because of some pressing political issue. I'm not convinced of this, even though I'm an advocate of abortion rights. As always, Wikipedia is not censored. To me this is similar to censoring the Muhammad article. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Who performs abortions"
The text "Jennifer Villavicencio, an obstetrician who performs abortions" is framing language designed to poison the well. The correct medical term for an obstetrician who performs abortions is: an obstetrician. It is the default position - training in terminations has been mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as part of the core curriculum for Ob-Gyn residents for over twenty years. Some obstetricians may refuse to perform abortions, and that might be notable, but the fact that an obstetrician performs a set of procedures that is part of the standard mandatory training for an Ob-Gyn seems designed solely to allow anti-abortionists to discount her opinion. Which is of course what they will do. Guy (help!) 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, it seems to me that the fact that Dr. Villavicencio performs abortions is relevant. It indicates that her perspective on abortion may be influenced by her involvement in it. SunCrow (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! If that's what is being indicated then JzG is right. jps (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow wow! What a concept--someone who makes money off of a procedure might, perchance, have an incentive to describe that procedure in glowing terms!! SunCrow (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the place of Wikipedia to determine, and be careful because you are walking a thin line of a WP:BLP violation as you are referring to a living person here. jps (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * jps, I'm not walking a thin line of anything. I want the article to include a piece of information about Dr. Villavicencio that is relevant and sourced. You want to omit that information. SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been warned. Ignore the warning at your own peril. jps (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dial down the drama. SunCrow (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , she's an obstetrician. Obstetricians all perform abortions unless they explicitly decide not to. It's like an article on an anti-vaccine movie talking about "a paediatrician, who administers vaccinations". Guy (help!) 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true, Guy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 54% of obstetricians in private practice do not perform abortions (see https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/most-us-obstetrician-gynecologists-private-practice-do-not-provide-abortions-and). SunCrow (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , read what I wrote. Abortion is a mandatory part of Ob-Gyn training. Whether one's practice includes performance of the procedure or not is dependent on two factors: one is where you practice (for example, an outpatient midwifery centre will typically refer terminations elsewhere), the other is personal choice. Personal choice not to perform terminations is a minority position. Guy (help!) 14:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I read what you wrote. Any basis for your assertion, which (for obstetricians in private practice) is flatly contradicted by the source I offered? SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The prefix "Dr." or the suffix "M.D." are sufficient to establish what kind of bias the reader can expect. Adding a qualifier that is standard equipment among obstetricians is indeed framing language designed to poison the well, just as "Jennifer Villavicencio, an obstetrician who has saved the lives of numerous unborn children" (also a completely accurate statement and also normally true of any obstetrician) would be. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, as JGabbard mentioned in an edit summary, "'Poisoning the well' is defined as irrelevant negative info, such as 'an obstetrician arrested for shoplifting'. This tidbit, however, is both relevant and pertinent because it reveals inherent bias, and concealing that fact is disingenuous". SunCrow (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources which say that the "tidbit" is relevant, pertinent, or reveals inherent bias then it is not our place to declare that this is so. jps (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT quotes Dr. Villavicencio as an authority on abortion in an article about a movie that deals with abortion. In what galaxy is the fact that she performs abortions not relevant or pertinent? And if that fact is so irrelevant, why does the NYT even mention it? SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What does NYT call her? jps (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It calls her Jennifer Villavicencio, a fellow with the nonpartisan American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who performs ultrasound-guided abortions but has not seen the film, gnu 57 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite the mouthful, but, sadly, in cases where WP:ASSERTions are problematic, it is sometimes best to just quote the source directly. jps (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, for the reasons noted above, I have undone your "fix". SunCrow (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you are disagreeing with three editors, and that you're a minority of 3 to 1? My "fix" resolved the issues described above, and your insistence on including unnecessary wording seems to be POV editing. Those are the reasons why I agree with the other two editors and made the edit. I suggest you self-revert. The addition of those words is awkward, highly unusual, and unnecessary, except for making an editorial non-NPOV point, and we don't do that here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, no dice. I suggest you check your own POV. You want us to believe that you want to omit the fact that Dr. Villavicencio performs abortions because including it would make the sentence awkward? Another word beginning with "bull" would seem appropriate. SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer: Count again, 3 to 2. "Obstetrician" by itself is to some extent an obfuscation, just as it would be if she were referred to only as "a doctor."  How about we just come right out and say "abortionist"? That is clearly what she is, because she is drawing upon her 'professional' experience. There, awkward wording solved. - JGabbard (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,: yes, that is exactly what the message is intended to be. Unfortunately for the anti-abortion crowd, WP:NPOV prevents it. Guy (help!) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, WP:NPOV applies to the pro-abortion crowd just as much as it applies to the anti-abortion crowd. SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , adding Avatar317, per their edit and edit summary, makes the tally 4 to 2. My point is that editors who are in the minority should be careful how they edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, is abortionist a term in use by anyone other than anti-abortion activists like yourself? Do you think it is neutral? jps (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * jps, do you want other editors to call you a pro-abortion activist? If not, reconsider your description of JGabbard. SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume most people who self-identify as being pro-life on their userpage may not be aware that there are other points of view on how various terms and labels are appropriately used. As far as I know, the term "abortionist" is essentially only used in those anti-abortion activist circles. Do you think that is not true? Incidentally, the idea that an editor is an WP:ACTIVIST is well-trodden ground, which is exactly the issue here. There is even a problem below where I think I may end up having to take this particular user to WP:AE. It's unfortunate that this is the case, but not surprising. jps (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, jps. I suppose 'terminator' won't do. How about 'abortion doctor' as a compromise? No awkward wording, no obfuscation, and no non-NPOV. - JGabbard (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that abortion doctor (note the redlink which perhaps indicates a neologism) is overly limiting in describing Villavicencio's particular expertise in these areas. After all, she's talking about more than just abortions in her critique. I'm unclear why obstetrician is objected to... what do you think obstetrics obscures? Do you really think there is a meaningful professional separation between abortions and other procedures of obstetrics? I don't see any indication of that in the professional literature which defines these disciplines. jps (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While all obstetricians have training in abortion procedures, most do not perform elective terminations. The objection to using the more general term should be self-evident, because it serves to conceal the inherent bias and lack of objectivity from any source speaking about a topic from which they derive their income. - JGabbard (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we cannot accommodate concerns about source bias unless we have reliable sources which indicate that this may be an issue for that particular individual. So far, I've not seen any source which indicates that Villavicencio is possibly inherently biased or lacking in objectivity in the way you and others are claiming that she may be. We are not empowered as editors at Wikipedia to make such a call. jps (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Making such a call would violate NPOV by introducing editorial bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, editorial bias is the only reason you are trying to remove a relevant and sourced fact from the encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's WP:UNDUE because it is poisoning the well. As above: this is like saying "X, a paediatrician who administers vaccines" in an article rebutting antivaccinationism. Guy (help!) 09:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, the Wikipedia page on "poisoning the well" (to which you wikilinked in your comment) says: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say". OK, then. The first question is: Is the statement at issue here--a factual statement that someone performs abortions--"adverse information"? If your answer is "no", the inclusion of the statement cannot be considered "poisoning the well". The second and more important question is: Is the statement at issue here "irrelevant"? It most certainly is relevant. If Dr. Villavicencio were being quoted on her views about opera or winetasting, that would be a different story, but the NYT article presented her as an authority on abortion and on fetal development. Therefore, by your own proferred definition, the inclusion of the statement cannot be considered "poisoning the well". SunCrow (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The information is designed to frame the criticism in such a way as to allow anti-abortionists to dismiss it. That is clearly deliberate. It is functionally equivalent to framing criticism of an antivax film as "X, a paediatrician who administers vaccines, criticised the film..." Gynaecologists are all trained in abortion care (or should be - it is a mandatory part of their residency). Performing abortions is a normal part of gynaecological practice. Guy (help!) 08:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, without being rude, your assertion about obstetricians is inaccurate (see https://rewire.news/article/2019/07/05/medical-residents-struggle-to-find-abortion-training-as-statewide-restrictions-tighten/) and your argument doesn't make sense. SunCrow (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the entire reason this is a problem is that it is a mandatory part of residency. There are several news stories covering the fact that trainee Ob-Gyns are struggling to fulfill this element which has been mandatory since 1996. And that is precisely why it (and indeed this film) is a problem. Anti-abortion zealots are deliberately and proudly working to eliminate abortion as an available option. Guy (help!) 09:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SunCrow and JGabbard; it's worth the three words. It is not an accurate assumption that all obstetricians actually and regularly perform abortions. The fact that someone is trained to do something is not the same as saying they actually do it. All soldiers and police officers are trained to shoot people, most do not do so regularly, and many have never actually done it; if we're writing an article about shooting people it's not enough to specify that someone is a police officer without specifying whether or not they have. Personally I'm a computer programmer, I'm trained in writing compilers, it's part of the required curriculum for computer science, and I wrote a couple in college courses. But I haven't done it in 20 years, and mentioning me in an article on compilers just as "a programmer" without specifying whether or not I actively work on compilers would be actively deceptive.

Our article for Obstetricians defines it as "the field of study concentrated on pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period", and the whole article, which is not short, mentions "abortion" exactly twice. There is a lot that obstetricians do without providing abortions. Our article Abortion clinic says "90% of all counties in the United States do not have a provider in 2014" (not just a clinic, any abortion provider), so unless the assertion is that all US obstetricians work in 10% of US counties, it follows that many obstetricians do not, in fact, perform abortions regularly, and a noticeable number do not do so at all; not as a minority, or due to "explicitly deciding not to", but due to numerous reasons, not least due to the legal difficulties involved in multiple US states (also detailed in that same article). --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The question as to whether a person performs abortions or not is not the subject of any of the sources as I read them. Do you have a quote from the sources where she is cited indicating that her work with abortion is worthy of demarcation? jps (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Er; what? It's a direct quote in the article, and Gnu57 quoted it above, to you. And you responded to it, even! When the NYT brought it up. "Jennifer Villavicencio, a fellow with the nonpartisan American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who performs ultrasound-guided abortions". They've got more space restrictions than we have, and they considered it worthy of the 4(-5) words. --GRuban (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I read that to indicate that NYTimes thinks it is relevant to have a doctor who has performed the specific procedure to comment on the procedure. That's a bit hard to get across in nuance and is a rather different motivation from the one you outline. Still, if we must argue perhaps a blockquote is best like the one I inserted? jps (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't say anything about motivation, and neither do the three words as the title of this section. It is certainly relevant whether the commenting doctor has performed the specific procedure, but "performs" is even more than "has performed". I'll accept the full quote, though it's a bit lengthy, just the three words would suffice. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there is perhaps some (unintended?) motivation one can read into your use of police and soldiers shooting people as an exemplar, but it seems reasonable at this point to start with full quotes and then pare down when people can agree on how to summarize without bias. jps (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with GRuban and SunCrow. It is transparently disingenuous naïveté to obtusely deny the potential, if not likely, conflict of interest such a person working in the industry would have. - JGabbard (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP violation. Strike it or I will report you to WP:AE and ask for a topic ban from abortion-related pages. jps (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Altered accordingly. - JGabbard (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. jps (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you missed the point that abortion care is a mandatory element of the training of Ob-Gyn residents. Guy (help!) 09:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure most of my post was directly addressing that, actually. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with GRuban. This information is quite relevant and should be included in the article. aboideautalk 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the same way that a paediatrician giving vaccines would be relevant when trying to dismiss their opinions on an anti-vaccine movie. Guy (help!) 22:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how saying that someone performs abortions could be construed as "dismiss[ing] their opinions." aboideautalk 15:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's a form of ad hominem tactic, as seen in our WP:NPA policy: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." It's an attempt to poison the well against them in an ad hominem manner. Context matters, and there are plenty of comments here which reveal the reasons why some editors insist on including that wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, what "affiliation" are you referring to? Saying that a doctor performs abortions has nothing to do with an affiliation. You are grasping at straws here. Also, see above for my debunking of the "poisoning the well" argument. SunCrow (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Here is what is going on with that statement: File:Donald Sutherland bodysnatchers scream.jpg. Guy (help!) 09:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Attempt to reach a resolution: At present, the article contains a block quotation from the NYT that includes the following paragraph: "Given a description of this scene, Jennifer Villavicencio, a fellow with the nonpartisan American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who performs ultrasound-guided abortions but has not seen the film, said that while an ultrasound of a 13-week-old fetus may show a visible head and body, the notion that it would be 'fighting for its life' is misleading". The NYT's own description of Dr. Villavicencio should be something everyone can live with. Let's agree to leave the description in its current form, shall we? SunCrow (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's even worse. Guy (help!) 08:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, worse in what way? Please don't tell me you're going to argue that the NYT's description is pushing an anti-abortion POV. That would really be off the wall. SunCrow (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, concur with SunCrow. The description of the source is accurate, sufficiently descriptive, and should stand without further dispute.  I appeal to Guy to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - JGabbard (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately this parses to me as "leave the militant anti-abortionists to control the message". That's unfortunate since I hope nobody here is an anti-abortionist (that's a fringe position, whereas debate around term limits and such is entirely mainstream). Guy (help!) 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? SunCrow (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, seriously. Even Ireland, a Catholic country, permits abortion. Abortion bans kill women. Guy (help!) 07:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue here is neither scientific nor ideological, but is merely about angst resulting from quoting reliable sources fully and accurately. I think we are done here. - User:JGabbard
 * Yep. SunCrow (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)