Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

RfC on content concerning an investigation/settlement

Should this article include content from this source and/or this one about DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics? natemup (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant content from the source:

"Two sister companies in Yorba Linda must shut down and cease doing business in California as part of a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney’s office, which had sued them for unlawfully selling stem cells and fetal tissue for profit. Before prosecutors investigated DV Biologics LLC and DaVinci Biosciences LLC, the companies’ shady operations had been uncovered by Irvine-based anti-abortion activists pulling a hidden camera sting on Planned Parenthood."

"The Center for Medical Progress in 2015 unveiled undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials around the country meeting with David Daleiden, founder of CMP, and others from the activist group posing as fetal tissue traders. One such video featured a conversation where the name of an official with Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties came up, as did DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences."

"While announcing his office’s case against the Yorba Linda companies, Rackauckas made it clear there was no evidence at that time of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood."

" “Documents produced to the panel show that, from 2008 through 2015, DaVinci Biosciences obtained its fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC),” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the panel’s chairwoman, stated at the time. “DaVinci has told the panel that PPOSBC ‘donated’ the fetal tissue. But DaVinci has also told the panel that its executives contributed thousands of dollars to PPOSBC starting before the Planned Parenthood affiliate began ‘donating’ fetal tissue to DaVinci. Planned Parenthood has said PPOSBC was its only affiliate that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company.” " natemup (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note. This RfC has been linked to at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Note: As a longtime project member, I have removed the link there as it is not relevant to the scope of the project (it is not tagged). Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Procedural close and trout for canvassing - Notifying related WikiProjects of an RFC is acceptable, but only notifying a single WikiProject covering a single political point of view is prima facie evidence of an intent to canvass for only sympathetic editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Given the nature of the previous talk discussion, I assumed that one viewpoint would already be present, and so it is. Strongly. So, in addition to various more neutral WikiProjects and noticeboards, I notified the Conservatism WikiProject to solicit *the other half* of the spectrum on this topic, so to speak. That was ineffective, and thus the talk discussion and this RfC is ostensibly made up of editors holding to one political viewpoint and perspective on this topic. That seems to defeat the purposes of both Wikipedia and RfCs. And given that the Canvassing explanation page seems to only mention notifying individual editors who would be sympathetic to a certain view, I'm not so sure now that what I did was canvassing at all. Especially since I did not limit my RfC reposting to that one WikiProject or political viewpoint. natemup (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy close per WP:RFCBEFORE: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Consensus is established in the previous section. The user just doesn't like it and is trying to game the system. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Natemup (below) that the ding for gaming the system is not entirely fair, since I did suggest it to him. I also don't see any harm in letting the RfC run -- I think it can be helpful to have a definitive closing statement. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think you gave good advice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    I have no problem with that part of the criticism being directed at me. (I have a personal theory that structured conversation, resulting in an explicit closure, is much more effective at settling issues than open discussion, even when it is totally redundant (as here). But I understand that this view is not universal.) --JBL (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu Someone in the previous section suggested I do an RfC... Once again, you've (wrongly) assumed my motives.

• @NorthBySouthBaranof Is that to say I should have linked to the Liberalism WikiProject as well? I didn't know what I did wasn't allowed; it's my first time doing this. Since y'all have made clear one side, I thought it would be good to get editors who might have a different perspective. I also posted the link in various other, more general areas. natemup (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You can read on WP:CANVASS about appropriate notification approaches. In particular, notifying people because of which side you think they'll be on is definitely inappropriate. (Unlike the commenters above, I'm not super worried about it, but definitely you should avoid it in the future.) --JBL (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• • All I can do is judge based on what I see, which is you running up against a clear consensus, starting an RfC anyway, and someone tried to notify the conservatives but not the liberals. Great process. Clearly fair and balanced. This isn't salvageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude: The LA Times source provides perfectly good coverage but there is no connection to PP at all, so it's heavily WP:SYNTH to use it here. Not clear to me how good the OC Weekly is in general (there are only two passing mentions of it on WP:RSN), but let's say for argument it's fine. That article does discuss both the events that are the subject of the present article and the 2017 conviction, but the concrete connection between them is poor; mostly, it is drawn from a single quote by Marsha Blackburn, who is a hyper-partisan source and shouldn't be quoted in any way that suggests her statements are factually accurate. Ultimately this is weak sourcing for something that is pretty tangential to the topic of the article. Something from it could be included in the main article on CMP, where the synth issue is avoided. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• • From what I understand, the source—as far as Wikipedia is concerned—is not Marsha Blackburn, but OC Weekly. OCW is quoting her as part of their larger story, which is why I added it to this article. And since Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth, it doesn't seem that we can rule out a reliable source (OC Weekly) simply because they're quoting someone that a lot of people—most of whom are across the aisle—don't trust. As I've said throughout this ordeal, the issue can't be whether Blackburn is wrong (since Wikipedia standards ask us to be blind to this), but whether her claim is coming through a reliable source. Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying we can include the content, but only with a disclaimer saying that a lot of people think Blackburn is a habitual liar. natemup (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I keep responding. I imagine that I'm not supposed to comment much on here. Again, it's my first time. natemup (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Close I'd be in favor of closing the RfC; I don't really see the point of it. We can have a normal discussion. If that does not work, then we can have an RfC. Poveglia (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• question What is the suggested edit, as at least one of the sources says that there is no evidence of wrong doing by PP.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• • The suggested content is the fact that the two companies were investigated because of the PP undercover sting, lost their case, and (according to Marsha Blackburn via OC Weekly) admitted to uniquely receiving fetal tissue from PP. Also that PP was not charged with any wrongdoing. natemup (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    • No, that is not the suggested edit, I am asking for the text that is going to be added. For all I know the text could read "And thus it is proved that PP supplied tissue against THE LAW".Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

      • Proposed content: "Two Orange County sister companies, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, were investigated for illegal fetal tissue sales as a result of this 2015 Planned Parenthood undercover sting, and in 2017 lost their case. According to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the two companies admitted to a Congressional panel that they received their fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood after giving them thousands of dollars in donations, before selling the tissue illegally. PP was not charged with any wrongdoing, and has stated that their Orange County/San Bernardino branch is the only one that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company." natemup (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well (for a start) rep Blackburn said "DaVinci has told the panel that PPOSBC" She never said it was PP, as a whole (as your text suggests). Ancillary to this is that PPOSBC never said they gave anything to either company, the source says "a research company, it does not name them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insinuate anything, so I'd be fine with it saying "Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino County" instead of "Planned Parenthood". Also, it was this "Planned Parenthood as a whole" (by which I presume you mean the national office) that said PPOSBC was the only branch that gave fetal tissue directly to a research company; it's apparent they were commenting on the two Orange County research companies in the case. natemup (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insinuate anything Oy vey. Anyhow, it would be wonderful if you would learn from the fact that not a single person has expressed support for your efforts here, and not merely continue forward blindly in the same way. --JBL (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy close per WP:RFCBEFORE: just because Nate isn't happy with consensus, does not mean an immediate Rfc with associated canvassing is needed. KillerChihuahua 16:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It wasn't immediate, and it was at the suggestion of someone in the previous talk discussion. The canvassing was certainly my mistake, though. natemup (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    Canvasing is against policy, and for that reason alone this RFC would be invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    • I read up on the canvassing thing today, and it seems to only mention notifying individual editors. I can understand if the policy also applies to notifying certain Wikiprojects and noticeboards that might be sympathetic to a certain view, but it doesn't seem to mention that on the canvassing explanation page. Besides, I also posted it in several other more neutral areas. natemup (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Need update - controversy plays out in San Francisco courts under judges Christopher Hite and William Orrick

Hi!

It looks like some new information is needed in this article, since the videos are now the subject of a whole mess of testimony-under-oath in the San Francisco criminal trial (under judge Christopher Hite) and civil trial (under judge William Orrick) that are ongoing as of 11/4/2019. 170.54.58.11 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Got sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure! See below. 170.54.58.11 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• CIVIL

https://www.courthousenews.com/anti-abortion-foe-grilled-on-motives-for-secretly-videotaping-doctors/ "A Planned Parenthood lawyer Thursday tried to discredit anti-abortion activist David Daleiden’s motives for secretly videotaping abortion doctors and releasing the videos on the 15th day of a civil fraud and conspiracy trial.

...

Daleiden, Merritt and Center for Medical Progress associates Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez are accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and violation of federal anti-racketeering law.

The trial is expected to continue through at least Nov. 8."

• CRIMINAL

https://www.courthousenews.com/criminal-privacy-hearing-on-undercover-video-by-abortion-foes-begins/ ..."David Daleiden, an anti-abortion activist charged with invasion of privacy for filming attendees at National Abortion Federation conferences in California. Daleiden and co-defendant Sandra Merritt are each charged with 15 counts of felony invasion of privacy, accused of creating the fake company BioMax and posing as phony procurers of fetal tissue."

https://www.courthousenews.com/abortion-foe-defends-secret-taping-as-investigative-work/ ... "Agents with the California Department of Justice raided Daleidens’ home in April 2016, seizing several computers and hundreds of hours of video footage, along with mockups for BioMax business cards and phony identification documents. Daleiden’s attorneys have challenged the probable cause behind that warrant, asserting Daleiden is entitled to protection under California’s Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist.

Hite declined to quash the warrant Tuesday, finding 'there was sufficient probable cause in the warrant that Daleiden was engaged in criminal activity irrespective of his journalistic status and that the items seized were related to the criminal activity.'"

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/staff-cuts-new-fees-for-patients-follow-decision-by-health-clinics-to-pull-out-of-federal-family-funding-program/ ..."Politico Pro: Anti-Abortion Activists Behind Secret Videos Face Trial | Two anti-abortion activists who secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue are set to face trial this week, more than four years after their videos ignited a political firestorm. David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress and colleague Sandra Merritt are facing 14 felony charges of illegally recording Planned Parenthood employees. (Colliver, 9/3)" (https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/09/anti-abortion-activists-behind-secret-videos-face-trial-1697435) https://calmatters.org/politics/2019/11/abortion-law-california-settlement-nifla-becerra-daleiden-sekulow/ https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/shawn-hubler/article73835982.html 170.54.58.11 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

These all seem to be extremely minor events in the middle of ongoing litigation; what exactly do you think should be added to the article, and where? --JBL (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Right now the article doesn't mention the ongoing 2 trials at all... I think we should write something like "In September 2019, [some people] were charged with [some alleged crimes]. In a parallel civil jury trial that began in October 2019, [these people] were tried for civil liability for [some alleged torts] by [the plaintiffs]. Verdicts in the civil case has not yet been determined as of 11/6/2019 (this Wikipedia article)[what do we normally do with unfinished stuff?] and the criminal trial will only commence under [some conditions resulting from the civil verdict]." 170.54.58.11 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No time for anything substantive right now, but broadly that sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. --JBL (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Here, I'll type it up:

In September 2019, a hearing was held in San Francisco to determine whether David Daleiden and his associate Sandra Merritt should go to trial for fifteen criminal counts of felony invasion of privacy. In this hearing, Daleiden's attorneys disputed the warrant by which agents with the California Dept of Justice entered Daleiden's home and seized computers and digital storage devices, along with some phony identification documents in April, 2016. The court, however, denied their claim that Daleiden was protected by California's Shield Law for acting as a citizen journalist, because the Dept of Justice had sufficient probable cause of criminal activity to make the seizures. Following this hearing, Planned Parenthood and others affected by Daleiden's videos initiated a civil jury trial against Daleiden, Merritt and also Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez in state court. They are being accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and also violation of federal anti-racketeering law.

References

170.54.58.11 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP user, your text looks reasonable to me. I have added it to the section "court orders" (unless you think there's somewhere more appropriate). --JBL (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

House Oversight Committee source

Snopes-style official findings: https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:SPS that makes contentious BLP claims about third parties, and would not be usable here on Wikipedia as a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:SPS? Because it couldn't be less relevant here. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So some journalists op ed piece is a primary source, but your members of parliament and the house oversight committee of the united states of America isn't even a reliable secondary source? Ay caramba. This isn't helping my homework project besides telling me that Wikipedia is c%nt%%lled by some very p0litic4lly motivated and b1a5ed p3ople to the point of c0rrupt1on. :/ (Sorry for silly spelling, there is a 'constructive comment' filter saying that my comment 'is potentially unconstructive' because it has naughty words in it. Orwellian AF.) 121.210.33.50 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of the topic of the article, it is for discussing improvements to the article. --JBL (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Content must be written from a neutral point of view

This article still contains biased and colorful language. Many sentences are written as if it has been agreed that the videos were fake. It is quite difficult to maintain a balance because the fights are still ongoing in the courts. There is a tendency to only report the side that you believe/support and then using the language from that side of the dispute. I tried to improve some balance by including court rulings that were in favor of CMP. --Ferdilouw (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus among reliable sources that the videos are misleadingly edited to depict things which did not happen. That you or anyone else disagrees with that consensus is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We have got consensus that many sources regard the videos misleading. The courts are still battling it out - I am sure we have consensus that it is not an established fact in the legal world what to think of those videos. And we have reliable sources to that effect. We ought to include the full story - not a popular one sided view. NorthBySouthBaranof, you did a blanket undo of all my changes - even ones that are basic improvements to WP. Please restore those changes and then let us get consensus. --Ferdilouw (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

None of your edits are improvements, in my opinion. Using unreliable sources and unrelated sources to smear Planned Parenthood isn't acceptable. Nor is removing reliably-sourced statements of falsity. You will need to gain consensus for any changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But the editors here think nothing of smearing Daleiden and the others by any means necessary. Gotcha. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, can you please explain why your opinion state "Dept of Justice" is better in WP than "Department of Justice"? And your opinion about "bad" sources like www.politifact.com is not in line with consensus in WP. I see some editor has already threatened you with AE. In retrospect, I can agree with 1 or 2 of the reverses you made, but in bulk!?! Please restore. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's go through what's objectionable line by line.

Line 6 - you removed the reliably-sourced statement that the grand jury found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. You have no justification for removing this reliably-sourced statement, and the apparent fact that you don't like it is just too bad. Deal with it. Your addition about an apparent court ruling includes a patently-unreliable source (The Federalist) which is not acceptable on Wikipedia and cannot be used.

Line 15/13 - you removed the reliably-sourced statement that a photo of a stillbirth was falsely presented as an abortion. You have no justification for removing this reliably-sourced statement, and the apparent fact that you don't like it is just too bad. Deal with it.

Line 75/73 - you added material sourced to the same unreliable source as above, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Line 87/81 - you added material unsupported by the purported source, which says absolutely nothing about this exposure of their alleged illegal actions. Every part of Wikipedia must have a source; your statement misrepresents and is unsupported by the source.

None of those changes are acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, thanks for the reply.

Line 6 - As I said on some issues I can change - after reading a bit more, this found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood can stay.

My addition about court ruling from TheFederalist.com is not a banned source, and the info is available in multiple other sources. I'll update that from another source.

Line 15/13 - falsely doesn't occur in the source - that was the wiki editors wording trying to load that view more - but it is justifiable from the context of his source.

Line 75/73 - Do you still have a problem with "Dept"?

Added material was sourced from multiple sources. See above.

Line 87/81 - Sorry, I miss you there. Can you be a bit more exact? The ===Political impact=== needs to cover both sides' attempts at having a political impact. The current court case in California is going to influence this part of the impact, and will have more to add to this section. I acknowledge that "but could not negate the effect of this exposure of their alleged illegal actions" is not in the source. Let it go.

This article is really too big and clumsy - needs to be shortened. What do you think? Thanks. --Ferdilouw (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I fixed Dept several hours ago and NBSB did not object to my edit, so there you are. Maybe you should separate your improvements from your edits that use terrible or no sourcing, for the convenience of those who'd like to revert the latter; once you've done that, I suppose you could just not do the second category of edits ;). --JBL (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JBL, thanks for that fix. This paragraph mixes the 2 issues of validity of the video evidence, with charges against the creators. The improvement is to separate the topics into their own paragraph. I agree that "politicians say all kinds of stupid things" :-) but in this case it indicates the effect of the said court case.--Ferdilouw (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ferdilouw: Your OPINION that This article is really too big and clumsy - needs to be shortened. is NOT shared by me. The lead summarizes the article, and any reliably sourced info in Independent Sources that covers the subject can be and should be included. And as far as your comments about Neutral Point of View go, you should read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thanks for the references. If you look at the lead's 3rd paragraph: indicted - dismissed - charged - dismissed - charged - ... etc. Do we need all the oscillations or just the final result? --Ferdilouw (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw s that some of the “videos” that are presented to back up the claim where misleading. The court system is still reviewing these videos. I would improve this article by focusing on the legal process of these videos and the research data rather than the side that is using this to make their own hypothesis. I also read in the “talk” that a reliable source stated the grand jury concluded they found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood which kept getting removed and argued over in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshelby9 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Forensic analysis by Coalfire Systems, Inc.

Hello, I am relatively new to the Wikipedia community, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on proper procedure/protocol.

I would like to propose the addition of this paragraph:

On September 29, 2015, Alliance Defending Freedom published an analysis of raw footage provided by the Center for Medical Progress to cybersecurity and media forensics firm Coalfire Systems, Inc.

Their task differed from that of Fusion GPS, as Fusion's August report relied on four YouTube videos (termed "full footage" or "full conversation" videos by the Center for Medical Progress) while Coalfire reviewed the source material for ten videos in total, including a previously missing 30 minute segment of conversation footage.

Coalfire deemed the videos authentic and free from fabrication or misrepresentative editing.

As a result of this analysis, footage concerning Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was accepted as evidence by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

References

RJByrd (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)RJByrd

RJByrd, the adfmedia.org, adflegal.org, and coalfire.com sources are WP:PRIMARY and not much help here. The windows.net site seems to be some kind of cloud storage, and yet again, is a WP:PRIMARY source. The YouTube video likewise, not published through a verified channel, can't really be used here.

Does National Review not have an article about CoalFire? Without any secondary source covering this, it's WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Elizium23. I have alternate sources for the links you pointed out as primary sources.

Here is an alternate source for link #3:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2015-09-29/pdf/CREC-2015-09-29-house.pdf#page=21

And here are alternate sources for link #7:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20151008/104048/HHRG-114-JU00-20151008-SD025.pdf
(Hosted here: https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=1836)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/planned-parenthood-videos-forensic-analysis

I am curious about one thing. If the Fusion GPS analysis uploaded to the Planned Parenthood website (link #4 that I provided) isn't considered primary, shouldn't the Coalfire analysis on the ADF Legal site (link #3) be included in the article?

RJByrd (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)RJByrd