Talk:Center for Medical Progress

3RR

Pinging @Mattnad: @Professor JR: @Roscelese: recent editors on Planned Parenthood

If there's extensive content or long quotes it probably belongs on this page, which, unless anyone objects, is probably 3RR.

Per summary style, the content on Planned Parenthood#Undercover recordings by pro-life activists should probably be a short summary. -- Callinus (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. There's a tendency for editors to add a lot of detail in one place because it's a locus of activity. But as you've noted, Summary Style should be considered.Mattnad (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: - Roscelese says on PP talk that 1RR applies. -- Callinus (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily beast source

Daily beast source here being removed by single purpose account.-- Callinus (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside any problems with the source for the moment... why does that particular content merit inclusion? Unless it can be shown that support from Operation Rescue is of particular significance, placing that line in the lead seems awfully POV-ish. Eclipsoid (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy WP:SOAP is expanded upon in this discussion of controversial content by WMF - Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups - the average reader who wants to gain information about the abortion debate in the United States (note, I'm in Sydney, Australia) should have the ability to understand how activist groups interact and how they campaign. Readers benefit from being able to know which groups are funding activist groups and how politicians are influenced by them. I've moved the sentence to "organization." It's important to include as it provides background to the information that the organization was listed as a biomedicine charity on IRS forms. -- Callinus (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is "political organization" accurate for the nature of this org?

Currently this article is categorized as a "political organization". I question the accuracy and neutrality of calling it that and suggest that it would be appropriate to choose a different categorization or label than that. The organization itself describes states on its website: "The Center for Medical Progress is a group o citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances." Indeed, muckraking citizen journalism, of an advocacy variety, objectively seems to describe what CMP has done so far; they have done original undercover reporting and their findings may have uncovered illegal activity, but the Center for Medical Progress thus far is not known to engage in lobbying as such, nor electoral politics nor other obvious "political" activity. A CNN.com article describes it as "an anti-abortion nonprofit" which is one suggestion of a basically accurate descriptor since according to its website they "oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings" and " The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization." Though of course the neutrality issues of using the negative sounding term "anti-abortion" versus the positive term "pro-life" usually used by such organizations themselves (and reflecting the broader range of human life and human dignity ethical concerns of these groups) are well known. To sum up, wether CMP is "political" is doubtful, but most people would probably allow that their undercover investigations constitute a form of "journalism" and that the organization is also objectively "nonprofit". --Elizdelphi (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I agree that the name should be changed, either to "anti-abortion organization" or "pro-life organization". I would lead towards "pro-life" since that is the name of the category: Category:American pro-life organizations. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That category Category:American pro-life organizations would seem to be by far a closer fit than Category:Political organizations, since the most similar types of organizations, such as undercover pro-life investigative group Live Action are in that category. Indeed, a check of these two categories shows that as I write this, Center for Medical Progress is ALREADY in the category Category:American pro-life organizations and not in Category:Political organizations, so the label on the title "(political organization)" does not even describe a Wikipedia category it is in, but may have been some individual's intention to editorialize in a particularly visible way. Clearly this label in the title of the article needs to be changed or simply removed. Elizdelphi (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, on closer examination the title "Center for Medical Progress (political organization)" dates from the very founding of the article by User:Callinus, whose pro-choice views come through in his or her original version of the article which can be seen at this link. So, tendentious inclusion of "(political organization)" in the title would seem to be due to the bias of the article creator, whose reference sources are mostly The Daily Beast and Huffington Post. I looked up how the article title can be changed, and apparently it cannot exactly, but what you have to do is "move" it to a new title. The instructions for moving a Wikipedia page to a new title are here: Wikipedia:Moving a page. A short and simpler explanation of the process for those new to moving a page is at Help:How to move a page. Wikipedia's conventions for Wikipedia:Article titles permit the use of parenthetical additions for disambiguation purposes, however the title must be precise and neutral. There seems to also be a preference for conciseness. I suggest that "Center for Medical Progress (pro-life organization)" would make sense because refers to a category the article belongs to. I am going to request a move to that title using the method Wikipedia directs for controversial or potentially controversial page moves. The proposed change can then, if I understand correctly, be discussed here. Elizdelphi (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminology is used by Reuters and the Associated press as follows:

• Reuters - Anti-abortion group is sued over video releases
• Associated press Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group
• Associated press Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos.

Reuters and AP are held by the reliable sources noticeboard and Neutral point of view Noticeboard to meet standards of reliability and neutrality. Editors are welcome to raise any issues at RSN and NPOVN but arguing that both Reuters and the Associated press are not reliable or neutral in this case would require compelling new information. Per WP:SOAP, articles should include sources from reliable, independent secondary sources rather than promotional self-published primary sources.

Talk pages exist to discuss article improvements, not as a forum to grandstand and attack editors. Accusations of "tendentious" and "bias" are not within the scope of article talk pages.

There is a CMP at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the common name title Center for Medical Progress is a disambig page - any logical move would be to the common name with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in a hatnote as disambig without the disambig page. -- Callinus (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2015

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to non-parenthesis title per WP:TWODABS and DAB page deleted by request of page creator ~~~~

---

Center for Medical Progress (political organization) → Center for Medical Progress (pro-life organization) – While a parenthetical note on the title of this article makes sense for disambiguation purposes, the current parenthetical note "(political organization)" seems inaccurate, imprecise and/or non-neutral to some Wikipedians. This proposed change reflects the fact that the organization does not self-describe as a political organization but as "a group o citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances" and "concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings", as well as the fact the article belongs to Category:American pro-life organizations and not Category:Political organizations, and resembles other articles in Category:American pro-life organizations much more than the ones in Category:Political organizations. The Center for Medical Progress appears to have only been framed as "political" by those opposed to its pro-life/anti-abortion ethical views who regard apparent advance knowledge of the videos by some pro-life Republican politicians as making the group itself fundamentally "political". Supporters of Center for Medical Progress seem to see it as a pro-life nonprofit whose citizen journalism initiative is primarily meant to expose possible illegal activity by Planned Parenthood and by for-profit companies that deal in fetal tissue, and influence public opinion via the media. Using the label "(pro-life organization)" in the title seems perfectly clear for disambiguation purposes, is equally as concise as "(political organization)" and would make the title consistent with the group's self-identity and this article's actual categorization in the structure of Wikipedia. Elizdelphi (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• support move. Proposed title is both neutral and accurate. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Move to Center for Medical Progress per arguments below. I don't know why I didn't think of this myself, but it is undoubtedly the primary topic now. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Propose Center for Medical Progress as COMMONNAME. As above.

There is a CMP at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the common name title Center for Medical Progress is a disambig page - any logical move would be to the common name with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in a hatnote as disambig without the disambig page.

Terminology used by Reuters and the Associated press is as follows:

• Reuters - Anti-abortion group is sued over video releases
• Associated press Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group
• Associated press Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos.

Reuters and AP are held by the reliable sources noticeboard and Neutral point of view Noticeboard to meet standards of reliability and neutrality. -- Callinus (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted twice) Why not just move to Center for Medical Progress? We currently have a WP:TWODABS situation, with no other article specifically about the other organization; the dabpage that currently occupies the plain title is not needed, though hatnote disambiguation definitely is. Simplifying the page title would avoid any need to parse out what the "correct" or "best" disambiguator is, because there would be none. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress without parenthetical disambiguation, as this article is clearly the primary. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress, period. No need for anything else. IOW, oppose proposed change. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress without disambig. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress. This is a good solution and looks like there s pretty good consensus. Elizdelphi (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note as the creator of the article and the Center for Medical Progress article (currently disambig) I'm calling this closed in favour of the move per WP:TWODABS. -- Callinus (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Requesting close as article creator I've db-move tagged the target page. -- Callinus (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Center for Medical Progress (anti-abortion organization) per the above discussion. As there is another organization with the same name I do not think the main page should be a disambiguation page.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: why not just use the Common name without parentheses and without the shitfights over pov parts of the parens that will come up again and again. -- Callinus (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I stated why in my motivation. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caplan's speculation leaves a false impression

Caplan's speculation leaves a false impression of wrongdoing by PP. It doesn't belong since it's about a hypothetical situation which does not apply here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, August 2, 2015‎ (UTC)

Reception

Its seems rather POV that the "reception" sections is entirely supportive of PP's position. Has no one organization or prominent political commentator found anything to worry about here? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit concerned by the separation of "reception" and "political impact". I presume the latter refers to efforts to defund PP. But Carly Fiorina's comments quoted here don't mention that at all, so it would be more appropriate to put it in "reactions". StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

Reverted per WP:BRD. Please discuss. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not much to discuss really. Since there is an article on Daleiden, any pertinent biographical information belongs there, not as a paragraph long well poisoning exercise on this article. The information on why Daleiden thinks Stemmexpress wanted the restraining order seems relevant as well. WeldNeck (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, I endorse Weldneck's changes. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled. yes, we have an article on Daleiden, but why to preclude this information, which is good context for our readers? It provides information that is required in this article, as it presents its origins.

Daleiden, an associate of Lila Rose, James O'Keefe, Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger, worked for Live Action for five years, and was the organization’s director of research "during the early stages" of the project to make secret recordings of Planned Parenthood clinics. Daleiden went on to set up a group called the "Center for Medical Progress" and registered it as a tax-exempt biomedicine charity.

Also, why the POV tag? What is the issue that requires it? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we need to list all known associates. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. But the other material is highly relevant. The organization was initially registered as a bio medicine charity. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the history and associates is highly relevant here. It's part of CMP's history, and removing that info has deprived this article of its history. That's not right.

There is no justification for a separate article for Daleiden, since all that's there is here, and he's only known for this work. He was a relatively unknown associate of James O'Keefe during his Live Action days. The CMP is what gives him notability, so everything about him belongs here. If he gains independent notability outside of this work, then maybe a bio article can be justified. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A history of the founding is certainly relevant and appropriate. The reader wants to know what Daleiden was doing before CMP. The reliable sources tell us these things, and we relay that to the reader. If WP:SECONDARY sources find it of interest then we should pay attention. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This material is being deleted again and again by a single editor (WeldNeck) on the basis that it does not belong in the article, as there is a Daleiden bio article already.

He worked for Live Action for five years, and was the organization’s director of research "during the early stages" of the project to make secret recordings of Planned Parenthood clinics.

References

IMO, this material belongs here as it provides useful context to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-abortion vs Pro-life

We can't use Wikipedia voice to assert that this organization is "pro-life". The sources we have describe it as "anti-abortion", so we need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I had a good look, and it was really only the Washington Times[1] and The Hill[2] that call it "pro-life". But I don't know why Category:Pro-life organizations is not called "anti-abortion organisations"; I imagine this things have been hotly debated in the past. StAnselm (talk)

Terminology used by Reuters and the Associated press is as follows:

• Reuters - Anti-abortion group is sued over video releases
• Associated press Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group
• Associated press Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos.
• Reuters - Judge 'inclined' to keep injunction against anti-abortion groups on videos
• This article is currently at the top of the front page of Reuters.com: Senate blocks Planned Parenthood defunding measure

  "online posting of hidden-camera videos produced by an anti-abortion group, Center for Medical Progress."

Top story on AP today Senate blocks GOP bill to halt Planned Parenthood fed funds

"The derailed legislation was the Republican response to videos, recorded secretly by anti-abortion activists"

Note that AP stories are included on the conservative website FoxNews.com:

• Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group (FoxNews hosting Associated Press story)
• Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos of Calif. company officials (FoxNews hosting Associated Press story)
• Also California AG to review group behind Planned Parenthood videos listing the agency as "FoxNews.com" "California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Friday she plans to review two undercover videos released by anti-abortion activists"

Reuters and AP are held by the reliable sources noticeboard and Neutral point of view Noticeboard to meet standards of reliability and neutrality. Reuters and the AP are frequently used as newswire sources for reporting by major, independent, mainstream newspapers for a general audience (not niche, Christian Right activist websites that are founded to push for a particular political goal).

Note that the category "Pro-life orgs" existed before 2015 - the media's choice of terminology used by Reuters, AP and FoxNews.com may have changed in 2015 when referring to this group. Given that a plurality of mainstream sources use the term "anti-abortion" to describe this group it's appropriate to use.

Attributing the statement to the New York Times is a violation of WP:CHERRY - because it suggests falsely that only the NYT uses the term. -- Callinus (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To avoid 1RR, pinging @Cwobeel: and @WeldNeck:. -- Callinus (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree and reverted the drive by IP edits which used invalid reasons in their edit summaries. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"anti-abortion" is POV and so WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV needs to be used here. I agreed and made the proper edit. Please restore it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"pro-life" is also POV. What we do in WP is report significant viewpoints are expressed in reliable sources. And in this case "anti-abortion" seems to be the prevalent viewpoint expressed in such sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

So if both are POV, why does it hurt anything to attribute the description? Why not just say what has been said on this talk page? "A plurality of mainstream sources describe the CMP as anti-abortion". Anyway, the two terms are not synonyms. Perhaps this needs to be a situation where we "teach the controversy". Elizium23 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Both terms express a POV. "Anti-abortion" is simply descriptive, without any political spin. "Pro-life" is an artificial term of art using lots of political spin to make it sound more positive, but it's considered inaccurate because those who promote it only favor protecting life before birth, and the same people and political organizations ignore protecting quality of life after birth. To conservatives, once you're born you have no right to protection. That's why the term is often ridiculed as deceptive by liberals.

The same argument (an artificial term of art using lots of political spin) could be made for the term "pro-choice", except that it's more accurate than "pro-abortion", since most people who support the right to abortion don't like the idea of abortion, but defend the right of others to have that choice. Nobody actually "likes" abortion!

So basically it comes down to a different POV on each side as to which personal rights to give others. One side seeks to force their own POV on others and forces others to live by their own norms, while the other side allows others to do something they might not believe in for themselves. It's the same with the gay rights battle ("straight men for gay rights"), cannabis legalization (most who favor it don't think it's good to use drugs), etc.. Conservatives can't separate their own beliefs from what they require of others. Liberals allow others to do things they don't believe in for themselves. Liberals follow this wisdom from Thomas Paine: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."

As to our wording, we follow the sources, and they overwhelmingly say "anti-abortion". -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended polemic, I'm sure we're all really in awe of your acumen and insight. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I’m grateful for BullRangifer’s “acumen and insight”, and I don’t see that it warrants your snide response. Also in fact BullRangifer is correct: WP articles must comply with the sources, and in this instance they do overwhelmingly describe CMP as an “anti-abortion” organization. Writegeist (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Current events subject / Disclaimer needed?

Just wondering, since this organization is the antagonist of a controversial political issue and current events topic, shouldn't there be something on the article page and not just the talk page letting readers know that this wiki is still developing? It seems premature to let the article at least appear to be settled upon by the community. Yadojado (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Many articles are edited all the time and in a state of flux. There is no such a thing as a finished article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

True, but it's also not unheard of for articles about controversial current events subjects to contain some sort of disclaimer, and this certainly would qualify. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Current Yadojado (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No. {{current}} is for articles receiving hundreds of edits in one day, and specifically not merely for current-event topics. Did you read the documentation? Elizium23 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Misleading claim not supported by source

(I think this is the essentially the same problem an above poster has in a section about Caplan's "speculation.")

The article includes the following sentence: "In the first video, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood describes altering the abortion procedure to preserve fetal organs." Now, that sentence is contested. That's not what Planned Parenthood would say that they're doing.

That passage is sourced to a CNN article. Here's a long copy of the relevant passages they have:

Another part of the video also raised concerns for Caplan. Nucatola talks about doctors performing abortions in which ultrasound is used to ascertain the best location to grab the fetus with forceps.

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part," she says.

Altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a "big no-no," the bioethicist said, because the patient's health is paramount and that should be the only concern for doctors. Caplan did not comment specifically on whether the ultrasound procedure would endanger the mother, but he made it clear that any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable.

"In abortion the primary goal is to give the safest abortion possible," Caplan said. "Your sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

There's a parallel in patient care, he said. When someone is dying, doctors shouldn't change how they treat the patient in order to harvest good tissue for donation after death.

Doctors should treat the patient as they normally would, and then use whatever is available after death. If a provider is considering how to get the tissue that's in the best shape, "that's a huge conflict of interest. ... If you modify how someone dies, that's unethical."

The Center for Medical Progress also alleges that Nucatola describes a method -- using ultrasound to manipulate the fetus so it comes out feet first, or breech presentation, instead of head first, or vertex presentation -- that "is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure."

So in other words, the source does not say that Nucatola is talking about altering procedures. They report a bioethicist's speculation about what would be the case if that is what they're discussing. The Center for Medical Progress, a party in the dispute, alleges that this is what Nucatola is discussing, but they're not a reliable secondary source, and the reliable secondary source doesn't say that. (The lede in the article also includes this claim as an allegation by the Center for Medical Progress.)

Anyway, the offending sentence isn't supported by the source, and should either be resourced or removed. I doubt it will reliably be resourced, since it's at the core of part of the controversy in this case, such as it is.2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Altering procedures to produce "intact specimens" is discussed in a completely unambiguous way in a new video released today: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-fifth-video-shows-planned-parenthood-official-saying-they-provide . To quote from that article (which also has the new video embedded):

The director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, told undercover investigators that abortionists are willing to alter the abortion process to obtain the body parts researchers request, or to deliver a child essentially intact.

“They can make it happen,” she said. “We bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that...we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

“Some of our doctors,” she said, “do it [the abortion procedure] in a way that they get the best specimens, so, I know it can happen.”

So, while Dr Nucatola was probably alluding that procedures can be tailored to getting the desired specimens, Melissa Farrell's comments are more clear about that and might be a better citation for the information that Planned Parenthood is sometimes willing to deviate from standard procedures for the purposes of getting "the best specimens". They have a conversation about getting whole fetal cadavers and how this would be preferable for some research customers. But be aware that this one has very gruesome footage. Elizdelphi (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We can have a discussion, but please tone down the rhetoric. Remember WP:NOTFORUM. Any comments that start a back and forth about abortion, fetuses, and babies will be summarily deleted from this talk page. This talk page is for discussing the article and nothing else. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Excessive content

An edit I made was discourteously reverted here, so I'll accept that kind invitation and make my case here, briefly. a. This section in no way is "Reception" of the CMP. b. 90% of that content, with the exception of the NTY editorial, is about Planned Parenthood and fetal tissue. In other words, it's excessive, it's undue, and it should go. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In any case, it belongs at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. StAnselm (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) No, it's about fact checking the videos that were released. A claim was made about PP costs in the video - the quotes are from articles that evaluate and react to the coverage. The factcheck reference evaluates the claims made by the organization - this is DUE as fact-checking is important. -- Callinus (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In other places, maybe. It's sufficient to say that the video was...a serious misrepresentation, or whatever the sources call it. A point-by-point rebuttal is completely undue. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As the proper FORK is being developed, it becomes more apparent that we will be able to go into more detail there, and leave a shorter summary here. This is how we're supposed to deal with these types of issues. Right now there is an AfD, and we need to keep developing the content here until the result is in. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible fork/copy-paste problems

This version of this article was copy-pasted here today. Can someone with a better understanding of WP:COPYWITHIN than me take a look to see if a history merge is needed? Note the target article is at AFD, I mistook it for a POVFORK from Planned Parenthood initially. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is an AFD ongoing on that possible POV fork, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The FORK will be able to cover what could be seen as excessive coverage in both the PP and CMP articles. Both articles will benefit from the FORK, so please help develop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This article has NO encyclopedic value

The subject is declared as 'anti-aborition' within two words following its name and continues this theme throughout its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7743:5460:51D1:55BF:C1D5:7603 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

TeleSUR =

Why is the TeleSUR line here? TeleSUR = "Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia that is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela." ... that's pretty much 100% irrelevant here, and is more an ad for TeleSUR than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.39.121 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

I'm no friend/fan of CMP but I maintain that these edits are way too heavy-handed. Neither of the sources cited even mentions fraud, and the one that mentions it as a "front group" only does so once, in a quotation from someone else (ie, doesn't state it as fact). I am reverting one last time, please get consensus (and present some better sources) before restoring it. Thanks. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that CMP is a front group for Live Action. Now can you EXPLAIN your problem with reliable sources I provided to you??? I shouldn't have to be psychic.

We need reliable sources. You need to sign your posts with 4 tilfrs. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The fuck is a tilfr? Also "we need reliable sources" is meaningless because I provided reliable sources.

Here I have provided three reliable sources below. Maybe Fyddlestix will explain what they mean complaining about the previous sources now instead of acting like I should be a fucking mind reader. Maybe you Doug Weller can reply to me without coming across like a jerk. I'm trying to improve this article.

TexasHistory2017 - A tilfr is this character: ~ - It's typically located on the key to the left of your '1' key and under the 'ESC' key (use Shift to enter it). I understand that you're frustrated over this dispute, but you need to remain civil, try and keep the discussion towards the issue at-hand, and avoid making personal attacks. If another editor is repeatedly or consistently being uncivil and/or making personal attacks at you, definitely let someone know so that they can step in and try and defuse the situation or take necessary action to stop it. I wish you well and I hope the dispute comes to a resolution. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Look I should not need to be a fucking mind reader @Oshwah. If they have issues with a source shouldn't THEY be required to spell it out and say what their issues are?

https://rewire.news/article/2016/10/03/planned-parenthood-gets-good-news-lawsuit-against-center-medical-progress/

"United States District Judge William Orrick ruled that Planned Parenthood could proceed with its lawsuit against Daleiden and the anti-choice front group known as the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which helped engineer the smear campaign that began when CMP published its first deceptively edited video in July 2015." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/15/live_action_distributed_the_planned_parenthood_sting_video_why_aren_t_they.html

"So why is Live Action giving credit for making the video to a group called the Center for Medical Progress, which the New York Times calls “a little-known activist group”?

The amount of effort put into this elaborate kabuki is stunning—and confusing. Why not publish these videos under the Live Action name and let the Center for Medical Progress exist as nothing more than the phony organization created to trick Planned Parenthood? Live Action is a real organization with a real staff, and Live Action did all the promotion. It doesn't seem to add up.

But consider this: Making the video a CMP production instead of a Live Action joint means that Live Action's name is dropped from much of the coverage. The New York Times doesn't mention Live Action at all. The Washington Post only mentions it once, way down in the story, and only to note that Daleien used to (?) work for it. Despite years of effort, Lila Rose and her crew have never been able to prove any of their accusations of illegal behavior. The organization has a credibility problem, one that might have interfered with getting mainstream media traction for a video with its name on it. But the Center for Medical Progress didn't have the same name recognition problem—or it didn't until now." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/30697/anti-abortion-propaganda-is-big-buine

"Violations of federal law likely do exist—by the entity doing the secret filming. The Center for Medical Progress filed paperwork as a 501(c)(3) engaged in biomedical research, when actually, they exist solely to act as a front group for anti-abortion activism. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a complaint with the IRS, and several members of Congress have asked Attorney Loretta Lynch to investigate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

First, Doug meant tildes - when you post on a talk page, please put four of them at the end of you post, like this: ~~~~

On the sources, some of these (like the slate piece) are useful and it does seem like the Live Action connection bears mention, but we can't call it a "front" or "fraudulent" in the lede unless there is broad agreement among reliable sources. But RS rarely use these terms to describe CMP: the best we can do is say that "x person calls them fraudulent, but even that doesn't belong in the first sentence/Paragraph. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck is "RS"? Reliable Sources? Burnt Orange Report is the UT newspaper. The other two are reliable news sites too.

Sorry, damn iPad, yes, I meant tildes. Please read reliable sources. BurntOrange looks interesting but I'm not sure it would meet WP:RS without looking closer at its editorial control. Fyddlestix is right about needing broad agreement and probably even then 'described as'. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I read what you said. It looks like all 3 are good sources for the word. What more do you want?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response

Ok no responses in a week, so I'm putting it back. If you want to discuss it, then you need to discuss it instead of being dishonest delaying jerks.

The first sentence is much more reasonable now (The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is an anti-abortion organization founded by David Daleiden in 2013) than calling it a fake or fraudulent organization. Please don't block me Binksternet for stating my opinion. I hope Binksternet doesn't revert the changes this time. I am in agreement with the changes by Fyddlestix, for now. The article still has various biases in it, but it is much less biased than saying "fraudulent" or "fake" when the organizations both exist and are registered with the Secretary of State in California, therefore not fake or fraudulent. If they engaged in fraud, then stating this with proper citations seems much less biased. Also, one of the citations is Media Matters, which does not seem to be an unbiased organization or a news organization, since their stated mission is "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" as well as their well publicized "War on Fox". Their charitable tax exempt status has been challenged as well. They are at best a media monitoring site with questionable unbiasedness. It would be like citing the Drudge Report as factual on an anti-liberal Wikipedia page, when the Drudge Report mostly just links to other news organization websites. Stating things like "The WHOLE THING was fraudulent, set up to fool PP." also seems either biased or factually incorrect to me unless the organization has been found to be fraudulent in a court of law or at least charged for fraud. Has it or have the CMP employees been found guilty of committing fraud or charged for fraud? My understanding is that two CMP employees have been indicted and charged with several felonies but have any of the charges been "fraud"? I am not finding any references that state this. They have also not been found guilty of any charge. Their Texas charges have been dropped and the CA charges involve filming without consent and conspiracy to invade privacy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmoore2004 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Grand Jury Findings

I am not finding a reference or citation to the facts in this statement: "The Texas charges against Daleiden and Merritt, however, were eventually dropped under a cloud of threats against the prosecutors by lieutenant governor Dan Patrick (politician); Patrick had been outraged when the grand jury he had demanded returned indictments against Daleiden instead of against Planned Parenthood". I do not find the referenced citations stating that there was a "cloud of threats against prosecutors". The NY Times is reporting that the charges were dropped due to questions about the grand jury having authority to indict Daleiden and Merritt, and the "prosecutors" (in this case the District Attorney) agreeing stating “The grand jury took the investigation where the facts led it; however, Texas law limits what can be investigated after a grand jury extension order is issued. In light of this and after careful research and review, this office dismissed the indictments.”

References

I propose we change this to:

The Texas charges against Daleiden and Merritt, however, were eventually dropped due to questions surrounding the authority of the grand jury to indict Daleiden and Merritt, due to the extension of the grand jury's term, with District Attorney Devon Anderson stating "The grand jury took the investigation where the facts led it; however, Texas law limits what can be investigated after a grand jury extension order is issued. In light of this and after careful research and review, this office dismissed the indictments.” Jdmoore2004 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Since there has been no comment since April 28th, I am putting in the change. Jdmoore2004 (talk)

Second Sentence

The second sentence states "Daleiden set up a fake biomedical research company, called Biomax Procurement Services, as a cover to enable activists to pose as buyers of fetal tissue and secretly record Planned Parenthood executives during meetings." and cites this article. While this article does state that "He appears to have created a sham business called Biomax Procurement Services as a cover, so he and colleagues (and occasionally paid actors) could pose as buyers of fetal tissue, secretly recording the Planned Parenthood officials during meetings. ", I am not finding a reference on the Secretary of State of California's business search that Daleiden is the one who setup Biomax Procurement Services, LLC. Is there a reference where it shows definitively that Daleiden is the one who actually setup Biomax Procurement Services, LLC. It's agent has resigned per the Sec. of State's website on 7/7/2015.

References

I propose we change this to

"A biomedical research company, called Biomax Procurement Services, LLC which has been called a sham and fake company in the media was registered as a limited liability company with the California Secretary of State and allegedly set up to provide a cover, so Daleiden and colleagues (and occasionally paid actors) could pose as buyers of fetal tissue, secretly recording the Planned Parenthood officials during meetings." Jdmoore2004 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Jdmoore2004 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Jdmoore2004 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

No, your proposed text whitewashes the CMP case, ignoring the guilty verdict laid down on them, which defines them as intentional frauds. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. How are you today? Which court convicted the CMP employees? My understanding is that they have been indicted but not convicted. They were indicted in Texas, and the charges were dropped. More recently they have been indicted in California, but their case has not made it to trial and therefore have not been convicted. Being indicted is not the same thing as being convicted of crime with a "guilty verdict". Can you please provide a reference which states that they have been convicted with a "guilty verdict" for "intentional fraud" in a court in front of a judge? If you can I will stand corrected. My reading of the various news articles finds that none of the CMP employees nor CMP itself nor Biomax have been convicted of any crime (if a LLC or corporation could even be convicted of a crime), nor have the CMP employees even been charged for fraud, let alone convicted of fraud. Perhaps this is where some of the disconnect comes from. Maybe people think they have been found guilty of fraud or at least charged when they have not. I think we should help to clarify this and not promote something that never happened. Jdmoore2004 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment since April 28th, I am putting in the change. Jdmoore2004 (talk)

edits incoming

I'll be happy to replace references to Breitbart. The facts are by no means in question on those points and can be readily supported through multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.170 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy?

Sorry I'm late to the party, but is there anything noteworthy about CMP than would not fit into Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, and if not, shouldn't we merge these two articles? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2017

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: moved. There is a consensus that "T/the" is not capitalised in running text by independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The Center for Medical Progress → Center for Medical Progress – Consistent with WP:THE. The "The" in the current title does not confer any special meaning, and it is not capitalized in the reliable sources. -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed. see CMP official webpage the title of the organization clearly includes "The" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsetter22 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• You will have seen, of course, that the organization's abbreviation CMP does not include 'The' to make TCMP, and the website www.centerformedicalprogress.org also doesn't have 'the'. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Go to the website it clearly says The in the top left, and the website title page says this as wellRedsetter22 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the website also tells the reader that the abbreviation is CMP, not TCMP. Obviously, the website is not www.thecenterformedicalprogress.org. Which is what I already said. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question How do most reliable sources refer to the organization? A couple of quick searches showed "the Center for Medical Progress", lower-case t, not upper-case. Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well should it be named by what sources refer to it as or how it identifies itself? the sources could be referring to it incorrectly whats the protocol?Redsetter22 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The "protocol" is WP:THE, as already mentioned. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before !voting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ravensfire, the vast majority reliable sources refer to it with a lowercase "t." I don't know how to prove this conclusively but you can browse through the Google News search results for "the center for medical progress". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to the source, but it kind of proves my point. It says use The for "the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company". It seems that the CMP webpage title does use TheRedsetter22 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support obviously. --JBL (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2017 (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.

FBI investigation of Planned Parenthood

73.114.23.35, please stop repeatedly adding content to the lead about the FBI requesting unredacted Planned Parenthood documents. This is known as edit warring and is considered disruptive. Please obtain consensus here before re-added such content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this content belongs in the article since it's about Planned Parenthood, not about the CMP, and even if it belongs it doesn't seem sufficiently important to include in the lead section. I have copied it over to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This content most definitely belongs in the lead section as it directly pertains to the videos mentioned. If we were to remove any mention of the video controversy from the lead section, I would tend to agree with you. However, I do believe that the video controversy should still be included in the lead section, as well as any pertinent updates.73.114.23.35 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)editor

I think the edit made by Binksternet is fine for now, and when new developments occur we can address this again. 73.114.23.35 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and have tagged the content accordingly. Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? Binksternet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit, rather than representing my wishes, is a response to the WP:1RR limitation on abortion articles. Rather than revert IP 73.114.23.35 again, I tweaked the text to attribute Fox News. The analysis by Fox is their own, not the consensus of most media outlets. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Understood, but should we demote this content to the body and/or remove it from the article entirely on undue/relevance grounds? I also think the prognostications violate WP:CBALL, even with the in-text attribution you added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, demote or delete. The Fox article looks like an outlier to me. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the content per this discussion. It can be restored if a consensus forms to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay then I will remove all mention of the video controversy and court rulings if the consensus is that this should not be in the opening lead. We must stay consistent: either don't include the video controversy, or include it with all updates. It is very misleading to only include select, politically motivated updates. 73.114.23.15 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I suggest you remind yourself of what a discussion is, as you never obtained my input before inappropriately removing content.73.114.23.15 (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If we want to leave the intro about the video controversy I propose we add: "However on November 13, 2017 The FBI made a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee for access to un-redacted comments obtained from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.[27]". Excluding the Fox News interpretation so that we stay consistent with updates while not posting opinions.132.198.18.255 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. This article is about the CMP, not about Planned Parenthood. A hint that the FBI might be investigating Planned Parenthood isn't sufficient relevant to this article. However hopefully it will reassure you that a added this content to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, which is the more appropriate place for it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please post user comments here before removing, thanks: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.18.255 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to resolve edit war, any users objecting please voice now. I propose we remove the Fox News interpretation of the FBI update but still include the update as strictly factual. it will read: "However on November 13, 2017 The FBI made a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee for access to un-redacted comments obtained from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers."132.198.18.255 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You are causing the edit war, not resolving it. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet I'm just trying to get user opinions...132.198.18.255 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• 132.198.18.255, neither your article edits nor your comments here are constructive. You do not have consensus to make any of the edits you are trying to ram through, including your insistence on creating so-called consistency. Please stop battling and work constructively with your fellow editors, or you will end up getting blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, do you have an opinion in the matter? I removed the Fox News interpretation from the edit to try and appease you and Binksternet, yet you still seem to have an issue with the fact that the FBI has requested un-redacted documents. This is a completely objective statement that is a direct update to the video controversy: "However on November 13, 2017 The FBI made a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee for access to un-redacted comments obtained from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers." It is actually quite disturbing that you are trying to censor objective facts. Please let me know what you take issue with and we can try to generate a new text, rather than blindly reverting my and 73.114.23.15's edits. 132.198.18.255 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my objections repeatedly, most recently immediately above. Both Binksternet and I believe that this content does not belong here. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in the article of your particular choosing, or anywhere at all in Wikipedia for that matter. Please do not accuse me of "trying to censor objective facts" when I have taken the content you added and simply moved it another article, and in fact I expanded on it. So this censorship thing is total hogwash. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, while I appreciate you expanding on the FBI update in a different article, I still believe my modified version of 73.114.23.15's statement can be a compromise with you and Binksternet for the following reasons: 1) The intro of this article directly mentions the video controversy and states "The videos led anti-abortion politicians to request a criminal investigation of Planned Parenthood for allegedly profiting from the donation of fetal tissue." I would argue that it would be unethical to mention the request and then fail to provide updates on it, because it would cause people to assume the issue is resolved. 2) At the end of the intro it states "A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, took no action against Planned Parenthood and instead indicted Daleiden and a second CMP employee on felony charges of tampering with governmental records and attempting to purchase human organs.[14] The charges were dropped six months later, but on March 28, 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged with 15 felonies in California--one for each of the people whom they had filmed without consent, and one for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy." This is implying that the sole consequence of the videos was to incriminate CMP, when in fact there is a recent update on the issue from the FBI that they incriminate PP. 3) The updated sentence proposed has been modified so that it no longer conjures an opinion that influences wiki readers, but rather simply states an objective fact. Wiki readers can infer what they want from the fact that the FBI has requested un-redacted documents from PP, but they deserve the right to know this updated information. 4) There is no harm in the updated statement because it is strictly factual with a reputable source.

I think that you are making a one sentence edit into a way bigger issue than it has to be, and frankly this is starting to get silly. 132.198.18.252 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I was going to thank you for commenting constructively until I saw that you're continuing to edit war against consensus. Stop edit warring and I will be happy to discuss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree to the compromised version written by 132.198.18.255. This is all factual information and directly pertains to the articleRedsetter22 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise with 132.198.18.255's modification and I agree with the four reasons listed. I will assume consensus and revert to 132.198.18.255's modification if there is no further discussion in the next 24hrs.Redsetter22 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Um no. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it looks like we have until 11/23 to figure this out...Redsetter22 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You and your fellow Vermonter(s) have not comported yourself very well so far. Let's try again. Despite the edit warring I appreciate the constructive tone of a portion of 132.198.18.252's comment. If sources say that there were indictments against Planned Parenthood then I'd probably think that was sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion here. But we're talking about something very minor--a request for information that might or might not lead to anything at all. To me, this simply doesn't seem noteworthy in an article about a different organization. This stands in stark contrast with the content about the Texas grand jury proceedings, which led to indictments against CMP personnel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope no affiliation with 132.198.18.252, but I fully agree with their modified statement. However, upon looking into you (Dr. Fleischman) and Binksternet I do suspect some collusion as I see both of you have a notorious track record for alt-left bias in any of your editing. Frankly, I am shocked to read about some of Binksternet's past ethics violations. Alas, it comes as no surprise that you would act as an obstructionist to a one sentence stated fact and not be willing to compromise. I however, am willing to compromise on this one sentence FBI update as it directly pertains to the video controversy mentioned as a subsection in the CMP article. I'll offer you a chance to propose the sentence that includes this update, and we can work on modifying it together. Let's act as adults and figure this out!Redsetter22 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes let's. Now perhaps you can say something about why you feel inclusion is better than exclusion beyond saying you fully agree with 132.198.18.252. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I feel that because the video controversy is mentioned in the article as a subsection, readers have the right to know about all updates related to the controversy. Whether you like it or not, the FBI request is a factual update. The intro is designed to state pertinent details from each of the subsections, including the most recent developments. This is currently done for the criminal investigation into CMP by stating the indictments in the lead, so I propose we do the same for the video controversy. Of note, the Washington Post has also mentioned the FBI request There are also other articles on this if you search. I now offer you the chance to propose the FBI update in your own words...Redsetter22 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The controversy is only mentioned here inasmuch as it involves CMP. If part of the controversy wanders off topic then we don't tell the readers about it. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not true, the subsection is titled undercover videos controversy and actually includes a link to "Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy". Controversy means all aspects of the controversy not just those pertaining to CMP indictmentsRedsetter22 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) And I would also invite you Binksternet to propose a one sentence FBI update you find acceptableRedsetter22 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice how the Washington Post source you cite as evidence of the importance of this development doesn't even mention the CMP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter thats not the point. Fox News does. Is that all you have to say? We are trying to compromise here, and so far you have been stonewalling me. What do you propose as a compromise?, I already made my offerRedsetter22 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not stonewalling, I'm politely disagreeing. I don't propose anything as a compromise because I don't this a compromise would be appropriate here. I don't think this content belongs in this article. In a sense I have already "compromised" by adding the content to a different article. Why are you so fixated on this article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

lol your stonewalling right now, don't try to use different terms. Why are you so fixated with preventing a one sentence update unless you have other political motivations? I'll give you a few days to think it over and see if you can accept my compromise or offer one of your own, otherwise I will unfortunately have to escalate...Redsetter22 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. What exactly do you mean by "escalate?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediationRedsetter22 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note, there may be some sockpuppetry going on here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please post response to compromise or alternative compromise here:Redsetter22 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Asked and answered. I have already explained my objections to your "compromise," and my "alternative compromise" was to move the content to a different article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

open for other user commentsRedsetter22 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I already said no. Just a reminder... Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Needs discussion

I just added this confirmed update from 40 minutes ago: "However on December 7th, 2017 the United States Justice Department formally launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood after the Senate Judiciary Committee found enough evidence that abortion providers did indeed transfer fetal tissue and body parts from aborted fetuses for research at rates higher than they actually cost." Let me know if you think it should be reworded in any way. thanks Redsetter22 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also just a quote from the Fox News article confirming this is an investigation and not just speculation: "Fox News is told that Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said they needed to receive a letter and be assured that the documents would be used for investigative purposes. The letter, sent to Grassley and Feinstein on Thursday, is a rare confirmation by the Justice Department of a federal investigation." Redsetter22 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Grassley isn't a reliable source. We should stick with the information that Fox News has vouched for in its own voice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring/content dispute

This page is currently protected so that discussion of contested edits/material may occur. In the event of an impasse, please seek dispute resolution. Further edit warring may be viewed as disruptive. Admins have the ability to apply restrictions to this article under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions. Please read linked information carefully and understand its contents. Cheers, and happy editing -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Template:Ds/editnotice|must adhere to [[Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules|3RR, broadly construed]],|ab}}

Dlohcierekim, I appreciate the supervision, but is 1RR really necessary? This article hasn't seen persistent disruption; before yesterday, the only significant edit warring was short, quickly resolved flare-ups in April and May. It seems to me the issues could be readily addressed with semi-prot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Just wanted to be in keeping with the whole DS thing, Do we even need DS? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to 3rr. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting from a court opinion

Recently there was this entry: “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 noted that the videos were found to be authentic by an independent video forensics firm, and furthermore Planned Parenthood did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.”

In support, the following was quoted from the Fifth Circuit court decision:

“The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited. ...In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.”

The above was deleted with this explanation:

(we don't typically use court opinions, which are primary sources, for material with BLP implications, because they're easy to abuse (e.g. other courts have found the videos to lack credibility); if there are reliable third-party sources describing this ruling and providing context, then those could be cited)

How is it permissible to cite the New England Journal of Medicine for an opinion that the CMP conducted a “campaign of misinformation” and “twist(s) the facts,” or Media Matters for America for the opinion that CMP is a “misinformer” but it is not permissible to cite the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for its conclusion that CMP did not deceptively edit the video, or for its conclusion that Planned Parenthood did not point out to the court any particular omission or addition to the video?

The policy is that “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary

So if this entry had interpreted the court’s opinion, and concluded that the court’s decision conclusively means that CMP did not deceptively edit the video then this would be improper and would require a secondary source since, as pointed out, a different court might come to a different conclusion. However that is not what the entry said. It said that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that CMP did not deceptively edit the video. This is a straightforward descriptive statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person. How is this an impermissible primary source? If the New York Times reports that “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded…” and then supplies the above quotation, then the quotation can be used?

Finally, with respect to “BLP implications,” who is the living person in an article about the Center for Medical Progress? Swood100 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the quote. It wasn't excessive, and, as argued above, the article is imbalanced without it. Very poor reversion, in my opinion. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Observation: The quote is obiter dictum as the passage does not go to the issue decided by the Court. As the concurring judgement notes, the area of law is unclear with different circuits having come to different conclusions. Further, the decision here overturned an injuction and returned the case to the trial court for further action. Also, if you look at the page before the quote and how the lower court is described and consider that the three judges were all appointed by Reagan or GW Bush, an inference of bias is arguable. The Fifth Circuit was not tasked with deciding anything about the video, it was ruling on an injunction. It was also not ruling on the credibility of witnesses who testified before the lower Court, which was an issue of fact for the lower Court, but it commented on those too. Quoting directly from judgements must be done with care, especially when looking to comments that do not go to the actual ruling being made. I can understand why the use of the quote appears desirable, but it is not reasonable (IMO) to write "the Fifth Circuit concluded the video is authentic" or anything that implies this when the Fifth Circuits only conclusions related to the injunction that they overturned. EdChem (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But the proposed entry did not say that "the Fifth Circuit concluded the video is authentic." It said that (a) the Fifth Circuit “noted that the videos were found to be authentic by an independent video forensics firm,” and that (b) “Planned Parenthood did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” These are simply two indisputable statements of fact. Swood100 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Obiter dictum is described as follows: “A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta.” The videos were the principal evidence in this case, as they were the basis for the action taken against Planned Parenthood by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General. Are you saying that a court’s statements related to the authenticity of the principal evidence are references to hypothetical facts or to factors that are not crucial? Swood100 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The videos are principal evidence in the case in the lower court. The 5th circuit was ruling on an injunction made by the lower court and the crucial facts were the legal reasoning behind the injunction. Appellate courts decide issues of law, not fact, and the credibility of witnesses and evidence presented (including the video) are issues of fact. I'm suggesting that you don't understand the ruling you are reading and the quotation that you want to use does not have the influence you suggest. Put another way, the lower court (which now has to continue with the case) can and will make findings on the video without being bound by what the 5th circuit has written. The only binding parts from the fifth circuit are on the status of the injunction and on how the lower court may proceed in relation to that issue. Changing my view to oppose inclusion. EdChem (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• OpposeI'm with EdChem on this one. It's clear that "the passage does not go to the issue decided by the Court." We need to handle primary sources very carefully. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yet you would include a judgment by Media Matters that CMP is a “misinformer”? Swood100 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • You're comparing apples and oranges. You've been told how we use court cases. That's different from how we use sources such as Media Matters (which is attributed, the article doesn't say they are right). Doug Weller talk 17:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • The rule is that a primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary That would encompass this statement: “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the videos were found to be authentic by an independent video forensics firm, and furthermore Planned Parenthood did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage” but not this one: “the videos were authentic and there were no omissions or additions in the video footage.” The objection is made to the first statement that it may not have had precedential value and that it therefore causes confusion between principal findings (precedent) and other statements of fact (dicta). But this objection is valid for any direct reference to a primary source. The writer said “X” but was it just an aside or was it meant to be taken as a principal conclusion?

Here are the words used by the court: “The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited. ...In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” If these are not straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, then nothing is.

So yes, I have been told the rules with respect to sources, but are they being applied accurately? The NEJM can be cited for the proposition (in an article that defines itself as an editorial, a primary source by definition) that CMP “twist(s) the facts” but the Fifth Circuit can’t be cited for the proposition that the videos were found to be authentic by a video forensics firm? That’s a very strange result. Swood100 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The "rule" is that court records should not be used to make claims involving living people (emphasis in original). An editorial from a highly reputable source like NEJM can be used, with appropriate attribution, in such circumstances. This isn't really ambiguous, and you're arguing at great length directly against one of this site's fundamental policies. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

First, you say that an article about CMP should be treated as about a living person in the same way that an article about a rock and roll band should be treated as about a living person. But people associate a rock and roll band with its members in a way that is not true of the run-of-the-mill small corporation. NEJM referred to it only as a corporate entity. The Fifth Circuit referred to it as "a pro-life organization." Can you refer me to the rules under which an article about a corporation or association will be treated as being about a living person?

Next you say that there is a special case governing an editorial written by a highly reputable source. Can you point me to your justification for this? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources, editorials, opinions and op-eds are examples of primary sources. If you look at the article in question, together with the letters in response to it, it is arguing for a social policy that is controversial among NEJM readers. It is clearly labeled as an editorial. Are you saying that an editorial is not a primary source if the author is highly reputable or are you saying that there is an exception for primary sources from highly reputable sources? What is your support for either of these? But in either case, why wouldn’t the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals count as a highly reputable source? Isn’t it true that that, if anything, the higher the reputation of a primary source the greater the risk of harm through quoting it directly but misleadingly?

I am not arguing against fundamental policy, which allows primary sources to be quoted under limited circumstances. You are arguing that primary sources can never be quoted directly. Fine, then remove the contrary language at WP:PRIMARY and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources. Short of that, I don’t see how the inclusion of the NEJM article can be justified. Swood100 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let’s break it down into two parts:
  • What objection would there be to this: “the Fifth Circuit noted that the videos were found to be authentic by an independent video forensics firm”?
  • What objection would there be to this: “the Fifth Circuit noted that Planned Parenthood did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Which of these is not encompassed by the WP:PRIMARY description of primary sources that may be used on Wikipedia: “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”? Swood100 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Both of these can be verified as accurate quotations but without the specialised knowledge of court judgements and the distinctions between obiter dictum and ratio decidendi, it is not clear to a non-specialist that these are not findings of the court nor are they binding on the lower court. The first statement is also problematic as the "independent' firm was hired and paid for by one party, while the second ignores that PP did complain that the context of the discussion was not what is being claimed and that without knowing the context, the inferences drawn are inaccurate. Further, being unable to identify any particular comment that has been removed in editing (for example) is not the same as saying there has been no removal. This section of the judgement seems biased (as Mastcell notes below) and is not relevant to the 5th circuits actual decision. It is misleading to quote and should be excluded. EdChem (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
        • “Further, being unable to identify any particular comment that has been removed in editing (for example) is not the same as saying there has been no removal.” This assertion boggles the mind.Swood100 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Swood, suppose you had a meeting that went on for (say) half an hour. Suppose further that the meeting was recorded without your knowledge. A video is made public later showing part of the meeting. Is it possible that you could view the footage which is used to draw inferences that you do not believe were the implications at the time but be unable to identify for certain any specific comment that had been edited out? You might be unable to say "at XXX point in the video, 7 seconds has been removed in which I said YYYY" but still be strongly of the view that the footage as shown appears to imply something that you did not mean to or believe you were implying at the time. The current debate in the news involving a student wearing a MAGA cap and a Native American looks different from different perspectives and that's without any suggestion of editing. The PP-related video at issue is highly controversial and hotly contested and stating that PP "did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage" is not a sufficient basis for supporting the assertion that the video is unaltered. The 5th circuit did not hear all the evidence on the video nor were they asked to rule on it – which is a question of fact and thus is not one for an appellate court under most circumstances. In any case, you are trying to read the ruling as a statement of facts without the specialised knowledge required to understand what is and is not definitive (in a legal sense) in the judgement. We quote from judgements with great care, even from SCOTUS and similar final appellate Courts, for exactly these sorts of reasons. If you want to use this quote, find a genuinely-reliable SECONDARY source. EdChem (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
            • EdChem: If you are shown a tape on which you appear to be saying X but you know that under no circumstances would you ever say X then you present testimonial evidence at trial that there must have been an omission or addition concerning your statement of X. In this case there apparently was no such testimonial evidence. Furthermore, the purpose of a forensics examination is to discover whether or not a video tape has been altered. Planned Parenthood no doubt submitted the tapes to its own forensics examiner who was unable to point to any evidence of alteration. Yes, you are right that the failure to present evidence doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist. But if a person bearing the burden of proof fails to present any evidence when there should be some if his version of the facts is true, then the fact finders must conclude that his version of the facts is not true.Swood100 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Swood, you've hit on the key problem with your argument... the 5th circuit are not the fact finders regarding the video, nor did they hear all the testimony and examine all the evidence. The fact finders are the lower court and the case is incomplete so they have not ruled. EdChem (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
                • The question we were addressing is whether being unable to identify any particular comment that has been removed in editing, in circumstances under which evidence of such removal would be expected, indicates that there has been no removal. Swood100 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's pretty simple: we don't cite court opinions in articles with BLP implications, because they are primary sources and can be easily misused or taken out of context. (In contrast, NEJM is a secondary source, and a highly reputable one at that). This distinction between primary and secondary sources is an important one, and if anyone doesn't understand it, then please take some time and review the relevant policies.

  It didn't take me long to find reliable secondary sources covering the judicial decision in question, and they provide interesting context. Per the Washington Post, the initial decision (in favor of PP) dismissed the idea that the videos showed a breach of standards of care, but the 5th Circuit disagreed, arguing that the medical standard of care should be defined by the lawyer and the orthopedic surgeon retained by the state of Texas, rather than by the reproductive-health experts retained by PP. The 5th Circuit decision was written by a judge with an open "hostility" to abortion rights and Roe v. Wade, who included a gratuitous image of a bloody fetus in her judicial opinion. There's nothing about the accuracy of the videos in the secondary sourcing that I've found—instead, the discrepancy seems to revolve around how much deference to accord non-expert opinion about medical standards of care. Of course, others are free to look for sources as well.

  This is why primary sources require interpretive secondary sources; it is too easy to cherry-pick a quote from a primary source to advance an editor's viewpoint. If we describe this court decision, then we need to do so in a way that respects the emphases of reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, in this particular instance the court opinion was being used as a secondary source regarding the findings of the video forensics firm. StAnselm (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The court opinion is exactly that: an opinion. Just like the NEJM editorial was an opinion. It creates a massive bias when one opinion is allowed to stand and another is removed. StAnselm (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re missing the central point, which is that NEJM is a “highly reputable” secondary source but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is “biased” and “hostile.” They make statements with implications that are “inaccurate” because they “ignore” the fact that “the context of the discussion was not what is being claimed.” They are relegated to the worst of the unreliable secondary sources. But none of these judgments is influenced by partisan considerations. Swood100 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Insofar as words continue to have meaning, a court transcript is a primary source, while an analysis in the NEJM is a secondary source. Policy is quite clear on that, so there's not really much use in making up new definitions of the terms. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The NEJM piece is an editorial. WP:PRIMARY lists editorials as an example of a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That part of the transcript consisting of obiter dicta is a secondary source. “But there is a large and constantly increasing mass of so-called authority, avouched as evidence of the unwritten law, which we may designate as secondary authority. This class includes all extra-judicial efforts at legal exposition-such as text-books, encyclopedias, editorial annotations, obiter dicta of the courts, digests, etc.” See the discussion below. Swood100 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

StAnselm, you wrote that "the court opinion was being used as a secondary source regarding the findings of the video forensics firm." This is incorrect. The judgement is a primary source of the opinion of the court that the video is accurate and authentic, etc., based on its opinion of the findings of the video forensics firm, and without having actually heard all the evidence and witnesses. It is very much the opinion of the author of the judgement and it is not legally-binding on the lower court that now needs to advance the case. It is not, as Swood is suggesting, that the court is an unreliable secondary source, it is that it is not a secondary source at all. It is absolutely reliable for the legal question it decided – that the injunction is lifted, that the lower court erred in its reasoning in imposing the injunction, and that the lower court is bound to follow the directions of the 5th circuit in considering the specific question in which it erred in reasoning – but it's comments outside that area vary between persuasive-but-not-binding (reviewing precedent, for example, but even there the concurring judgement notes the split between the circuits which can only be resolved by SCOTUS) and pure obiter dictum comment that will have little effect. On deciding questions of fact that are the purview of the lower court, the opinions of the judges will not have much if any weight. Mastcell is correct, the court judgement is a primary source whereas an analysis published by non-parties to the case are secondary, and when in reliable secondary sources they are due significant weight. If anyone wants to use this quote, what they need is a reliable secondary source... they can then consider whether it is worth including in line with giving due weight. EdChem (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

findlaw.com as a legitimate secondary source

MastCell wrote: (rv per WP:BLP; these are the same blogs and decontextualized primary sources,

First, why do you say that a story about the Center for Medical Progress falls into the category of a biography of a living person?

Second, please point to the specific text from WP:BLP that you claim supports the removal of the findlaw.com material. In particular, please respond to the following from that article: “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.”

MastCell wrote: along with the washington times, which is highly dubious (and incorrect; it claims that PP admitted to performing "partial-birth abortions", which it did not))

The Washington Times article did not say that PP admitted to performing partial-birth abortions. It said that the videos showed PP employees admitting to performing partial-birth abortions. Do you not see the difference or do you deny this or did your statement have some other cause? Swood100 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Swood100 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The FindLaw articles indicates that the website "includes case law, state and federal statutes, a lawyer directory, and legal news and analysis." Findlaw.com is owned by Thomson Reuters which Wikipedia indicates "was ranked as Canada's "leading corporate brand" in the 2010 Interbrand Best Canadian Brands ranking."

It is highly improbable that Findlaw.com would make up case law, give false information about state/federal statutes or would report "fake legal news". If the website was merely used to cite case law or indicate state/federal statutes or report legal news, I don't see what the problem is.Knox490 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that FindLaw serves its intended purpose of providing a directory of court decisions and helping people in need of legal advice. That said, I don't think it's a particularly high-quality secondary source—I'm not aware that it has a strong journalistic record, nor a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which are the key components in policy. In this case, we're talking about a blog hosted by findlaw.com, so that is one step even further away from reliability. This article has substantial implications for living people, and is thus covered under the BLP policy. That policy sets forth stringent requirements for sourcing, and a blog hosted by findlaw.com doesn't really meet those requirements.

As to why BLP applies, there are 2 reasons. First, the CMP is not really an organization; it's basically a grandiose name for two or three people (their IRS 990s indicate that the CMP consists of 3 employees). So just like an article about Wham! or Tears for Fears is a BLP article, this is a BLP article. Secondly, people have quite literally been murdered because, in part, of misinformation put forward by the CMP—misinformation which has been amplified by some editors here. So I'd hope we can dispense with the wikilawyering and raise the bar a bit in terms of sourcing and clarity. I've provided a high-quality secondary source covering the 5th Circuit decision (Washington Post, 1/18/2019); remind me again why you're trying to force lower-quality sources into the article instead?

Beyond that, Swood100, since you followed me here in violation of site policies, I don't feel I owe you a response unless you can, at a minimum, express yourself with greater civility and intellectual honesty. MastCell ^Talk 02:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to assert that you have a reckless attitude toward the facts. I proposed two other explanations: (a) that you don’t see the difference between what the Washington Times said and how you characterized it, and (b) that you deny that the Washington Times article had the import that I attributed to it. On reflection it is true that an honest mistake on your part, not involving a reckless attitude, would be a possibility so I apologize for leaving that out of the list of possibilities (and for being unnecessarily inflammatory). What, in fact, was the explanation?

You characterize findlaw.com as “providing a directory of court decisions and helping people in need of legal advice” but it also has a section dedicated to the needs of legal professionals, which is where this article was found. 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 then be on you to demonstrate otherwise, by pointing to something other than your personal lack of knowledge as to its reputation. 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.

I don’t understand why or how the statements of pro-life murder suspects should govern the reliability of reports published by legal experts whose business it is to report on such matters.

I prefer the findlaw.com article because it was more complete than the Washington Post article, which made no reference to the topic under discussion – court statements as to the reliability of the video tapes. That it is a lower-quality source is for you to demonstrate. It specializes in legal news, which the Washington Post does not, and it was written by an attorney while the Washington Post article was written by a journalist. Swood100 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Swood100 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you've (probably inadvertently) revealed the heart of the problem. It is important to you to make the case that the CMP tapes are reliable, and you judge sources by how effectively they make your case for you. From that perspective, yes, the findlaw.com blog is more useful to you than the Washington Post source. My perspective is that if we describe a court case, then we describe it using the best available secondary sources, and follow their lead in what we emphasize. So I start by looking for high-quality, reputable coverage and go from there.

The Washington Post is a better and more reliable source than a blog hosted by findlaw.com. That is true as a matter of site policy, but also as a matter of simple common sense; the Post article is far more detailed and provides far more relevant context. As for the anti-abortion murders, they speak to the stakes of being scrupulous, using the best-quality sources, and providing appropriate context, not to the reliability of a specific source. That should be sufficiently obvious that I'm disappointed in what can only be feigned incomprehension. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You believe that the “heart of the problem” is that a desire to report what the Fifth Circuit said about the reliability of the video tapes cannot be motivated by a good-faith wish to report both sides. Correct? Is this related to your assertion above that “The 5th Circuit decision was written by a judge with an open "hostility" to abortion rights and Roe v. Wade…”? Is the bias here all on my side and that of the Fifth Circuit and findlaw.com, and not at all on your side?

Your position also seems to be that any notion of a left slant of the Washington Post is utter foolishness. You say that “The Washington Post is a better and more reliable source than a blog hosted by findlaw.com.” And we know this because it has a larger circulation? Because it is better known? What is your justification for diminishing the reliability of the reporting of findlaw.com? Its parent company has a stellar reputation for reliability. How do we know that the Washington Post is more reliable than Thompson Reuters? Is it simply that findlaw.com reported the Fifth Circuit statements without condemning them?

What is your evidence that bias in the treatment of abortion in news articles affects Thompson Reuters reporters but not Washington Post reporters? According to one source in that article, “throughout the media, print and broadcast alike, coverage of abortion tends to be presented--perhaps subconsciously--from the abortion-rights perspective.” Not really a factor that could have any discernable impact on any Washington Post story? And when it comes right down to it, was the reporting of findlaw.com even contradicted by the Washington Post? If the Washington Post does not report aspect X of a news story is that an indication that aspect X is not a legitimate part of the story, or could it instead simply reflect how two different writers addressed their space constraints?

As for my “feigned incomprehension” concerning the anti-abortion murders, your argument begs the question. Your point is that lesser-quality sources provide misinformation that contributes to this kind of crime, but you don’t demonstrate why findlaw.com should be considered a suspect source that provides misinformation.

You also did not respond to my questions related to (a) your characterization of the Washington Time’s reporting, (b) whether there wouldn’t be a presumption that a reporter who is an attorney would have greater insight into a legal case than one who is not, other things being equal, (c) a reference explaining under what circumstances an article about a corporation or association should be treated as a biography of a living person, (d) the rationale for your assertion that an editorial by a highly respected source is not subject to the normal rules governing primary sources, and (e) an explanation as to why the statement “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the videos were found to be authentic by an independent video forensics firm” is not a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Swood100 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPGROUP, The BLP "policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons…” Were you aware of this? Furthermore, the purpose of BLP policy is to protect individuals from potentially libelous or personally harmful comments. Therefore, when considering whether an article about the Center for Medical Progress should be treated as an article about a living person, we would primarily be considering whether, because of the unique circumstances, the individuals involved (employees, stockholders or board members) require or deserve the added protection of BLP. Is that your motivation here? Your concern is that the proposed references to the Fifth Circuit statements concerning the reliability of the videos are not fair to CMP employees, stockholders or board members? Swood100 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Swood, the problem with using this source has been explained, repeatedly, noting that the fifth circuit was deciding about an injunction and had neither jurisdiction nor evidence on which to make a finding of fact about the video... and yet you added this reference to another article after a different editor inaccurately added content. And you are still arguing here. Words fail me... EdChem (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not necessary to cite the Fifth Circuit opinion. What’s the problem with the findlaw.com articleas a valid secondary source supporting this text that you removed in the other article: “A panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the videos were not deceptively edited.” Are you arguing that the findlaw.com article did not report this, or are you arguing that they reported incorrectly? If the latter, what allows you to reach that conclusion? Do you have a reference to a secondary source that contradicts findlaw.com and that supports your position? Swood100 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

And while we’re at it what problem do you find with this article as a secondary source sufficient to support the following: “The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in its ruling 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. The Court also stated that Planned Parenthood did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” Isn't that what the source is reporting? Swood100 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Fifth Circuit did not decide on the authenticity or anything else about the video. It decided on the legality of an injunction. Questions of fact about the video were not put before it to decide, and the judge's opinion about the video have no binding effect. The sort of edit you propose, without any information on the status of the comments, would be roughly akin to writing about the Mueller investigation and stating "President Trump has declared that there was no collusion" without any additional context. I'm sure I could source declarations about homosexuality to judgements by Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and find some source quoting them, but treating those statements as conclusive fact would be just as flawed. Mastcell is right, you are looking for sources to support you adding content you favour rather than following what the best sources write. If there had been a definitive conclusion and binding decision made about the video, you would find plenty of mainstream media sources discussing it. EdChem (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would the inclusion of the findlaw.com article be “pushing an agenda” but the inclusion of a washingtonpost.com article would not be? Why is findlaw.com not one of the “best sources”?

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. You did not answer my question: 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?

Let’s stop the evasiveness. Give me your reasons, if you have any, for rejecting the findlaw.com reporting, as reported, though that reporting may not have been how you would have reported the story. 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)? Furthermore, are you proposing a rule that a single, uncontradicted reputable source is insufficient, but that for a report to be valid there must be numerous concurring sources? Swood100 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, obiter dicta is a secondary source. Consider the description in Wikipedia:Party and person: “Primary source material is original material, without analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others. Secondary source material is based on primary and other secondary source material, and may include synthesis and novel conclusions.” In a court opinion, only the part that is binding precedent is a primary source. “But there is a large and constantly increasing mass of so-called authority, avouched as evidence of the unwritten law, which we may designate as secondary authority. This class includes all extra-judicial efforts at legal exposition-such as text-books, encyclopedias, editorial annotations, obiter dicta of the courts, digests, etc.” Swood100 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So, for example, suppose the court opinion says “Company X, a forensic firm, prepared a report concluding that the decedent had been poisoned.” The court here is not announcing binding precedent that the decedent was poisoned or that Company X prepared a report, but is rather interpreting a primary source (the report prepared by Company X). In this it is a secondary source as to that report in the same way that the New York Times would be a secondary source if it printed the same sentence. The opinion of the court is not original material with respect to the fact that Company X prepared a report concluding that the decedent had been poisoned, and this fact is not any part of the binding precedent that the court is establishing. Swood100 (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Swood100 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So does anybody have an objection to findlaw.com as a secondary source, and if so what is it? Swood100 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC relevant to this article

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy about an issue that has been discussed here and is likely to affect how a court decision is discussed in this article. --JBL (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)