Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to the consensus that sufficient sourcing does exist for an article on this subject. Other issues would be handled via the editorial process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

[edit]
Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook WP:POVFORK from Planned Parenthood, where there's an ongoing, very lively, debate over how this controversy should be covered, and how much weight various claims/sources should be given. This needs to be kept within the planned parenthood article, where it can be properly contextualized, and where correct weight can be applied. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cwobeel, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious is it not? You have an article on Center for Medical Progress, about which the only notable thing is the PP videos. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cwobeel, I understand the dilemma. User:StAnselm mentions the issue below at 04:17, 10 August 2015, and I responded there at 06:13, 10 August 2015. Take a look and add your view there. Regardless of the outcome on this rather different issue, I don't think it has anything to do with a keep or delete of this proper WP:SPINOFF sub-article, so please strike that delete (because this isn't a POVFORK). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:CFCF, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly? Bound to be contentious though, I figured a discussion can't hurt. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been surprised that there wasn't an article on the subject - it certainly seems independently notable. So the idea of a fork by itself is fine, and the POVishness can be improved by editing. StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
read WP:POVFORK, we already have an article on Planned Parenthood. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the bit that says "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing"? StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The bit about The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. (my highlight) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I would say that this should be the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This was my primary rationale for nominating (although I think there are other good arguments that could be made for deletion too). PP faces one of these controversies every few years, and the charges/allegations that are made by PP opponents often prove to have been misleading in the long term. Mainstream media sources already suggest that the same thing is happening in this case. Spinning off a separate article, where the allegations are discussed in detail, but the longer history of PP and the opposition it has faced is not, gives undue weight to the claims that critics of the organization are making in this controversy. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the extent that this will appear notable in a year's time, it will be entirely through the impact on Planned Parenthood as an organization. That impact should be (and is) covered at the article on the organization, with appropriate weight and context. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. I see no reason why a separate article is necessary or useful. --Ashenai (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article adds nothing over Center for Medical Progress article and simply removes content about links to Operation Rescue that users personally don't like (though it is accepted as due on CMP page). User who created has a history of edit warring on the Theodore Roosevelt page. -- Callinus (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia keeps articles which meet WP:N. This event which this article describes passes WP:GNG because the event was covered multiple times from various perspectives by reliable sources. Passing GNG passes N. This article is a fork of Planned Parenthood, which is a good thing. Content merges happen when good content can be put back into a parent article, but that should not happen in this case. This event has been covered to an extent that merging this to that article would be WP:UNDUE, and the response to good content which is WP:UNDUE is to fork it into its own article. I would like to see someone who wants this deleted to comment on WP:N - does this not meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria? In what way does it not? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eclipsoid, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article adds a lot of notable and current event information which, as past, similar articles have shown us, do end up pertaining to WP as a whole. This article also meets WP:NOTE by a very large margin and I would also like to ask for editors to show how it doesn't. This and other similarly politically motivated articles generate a lot of tension between editors. This should caution us to take the extra steps to NOT make this a Speedy Delete nor just ask to Delete on the sake of future lack of notability. If you go to Planned Parenthood's Talk Page and scan the currently available sources just there, I can easily count over 30 proper sources commenting on this issue with the vast majority of these posting follow up articles as the days go by. This should not be so easily dismissed. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 200.42.237.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What you are actually arguing for here is a merge. The problem--what actually harms Wikipedia in a case like this--is that editors have scattered coverage across no less than four different articles. Editors not finding traction for their edits at one article simply move their preferred version over to the next, or as we see in this case, simply start a fresh article where they can craft their own truth without so much interference from those other pesky editors. It's a textbook POVFORK and in the long run it will actually create more strife among editors rather than mitigate it. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment Eclipsoid but I still do not see an answer to Blue Raberry's valid point. " This event has been covered to an extent that merging this to that article would be WP:UNDUE, and the response to good content which is WP:UNDUE is to fork it into its own article." 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting tagged as a spa probably wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't conspicuously from editor who exclusively edits controversial political subjects as well and happens to have expressed a differing opinion in the AfD. Screw this noise. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:StAnselm is correct. There must not be any POV violation in a main article or a spinout subarticle, so the opposition argument (that's it's a POV FORK) is moot. If POV is violated, then fix it. The two articles deal with the same subject, and those sections are getting way too long, so policy says to create a spinoff sub-article:
The length in both main articles is now a problem, so "it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article...." I think it's time to do it, and this article serves that purpose. The burden of proof that it's a POV fork is on opposers, and if that is a problem, then fix it, don't delete it. We really do need this sub-article, and it's a great added bonus that it solves a problem for two articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The length of either article is not a problem, see WP:SPLIT. In addition, the Center for Medical Progress article's only notability are these videos. We would not have an article on that organization otherwise. Henceforth, it is an obvious POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rockypedia, what evidence do you have for a POV issue? We cover all sides of the issue, and any POV issues can be dealt with in the normal manner. This is actually what policy requires. It's a WP:SPINOFF sub-article. See the block of policy quoted below. This is the ideal solution to problems in both the PP and CMP articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blue Rasberry and BullRangifer.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I agree with BullRangifer. It seems like a proper use of summary style to me. I mean, Planned Parenthood is involved in a lot of controversies. Having a rule that every single Planned Parenthood controversy can only be discussed in the main article would leave us with an unmanageably long article. If some of the controversies have spinoff articles but not this one, it gives this controversy undue weight in the main article. That's why we had summary style, I thought. If people's real objection is that this is a nontroversy rather than a controversy, then the nomination should be about that instead. Summary style is good. AgnosticAphid talk 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons better articulated by User:BullRangifer and User:Agnosticaphid. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an acceptable content fork with enough detail that shoehorning it into the Planned Parenthood article would be WP:UNDUE as the coverage there is already borderline excessive. This topic should still be covered briefly at Planned Parenthood. Care should be taken to ensure that both articles conform with the rules on neutrality and weight. gobonobo + c 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. This isn't a new topic, and it isn't even a new issue within the Planned Parenthood article. It is merely more of the same politically motivated maneuvering which has been part of the PP story for the last couple of decades. Certainly the material presented here is referenced, but that doesn't make it a separate topic. Instead, it is part of the PP story. It should be dealt with at the PP article. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, it would only be a POVFORK if it presented only one side of the story, and it doesn't do that. It's a proper spinoff sub-article, as required by policy (you need to read my comments above). Quoting policy:
  • "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate sub-article and just have a summary in the main article." (emphasis added)
There are examples of prominent sub-articles above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell me why the article under discussion has only 2015 material in it. The selection of just 2015 material was a mistake, a POV mistake. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This particular controversy arose in 2015 and pertains to the CMP videos. The 2010 controversy may well warrant its own article, but that is not what we're talking about here. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Then the material ought to be MERGED into the CMP article. In any case, there should not both be a CMP article and a 2015 undercover video article. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if CMP is only notable for their role in this controversy, then it should not have its own article, per WP:INHERITORG. StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:StAnselm has a point. The solution would be to merge relevant CMP content here and delete the CMP article. This is all they are known for. They are self-admittedly a bogus organization created only for this purpose, so the hollows out any claim to independent notability. But, let's get this article accepted first and then deal with this idea in a later RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. In addition, it gives undue credence to claims that have been debunked by nearly every major media outlet, and no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood has been found. User:naha8 22:33, 9 August 2015 — naha8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked editor)
Actually, as the article indicates, there was wrongdoing found in Florida. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there was or wasn't "wrongdoing" is really not relevant to whether full coverage of this controversy belongs in the main PP article or in its own article. It isn't even really relevant to the question of whether the controversy is notable, which isn't the topic of discussion here. Regardless, have you read Wikipedia:Summary style? I can't see how creating a special rule that says "this is exempt from our summary style rules because it's kinda controversial" is consistent with the purpose of the summary style guideline. And if you read Wikipedia:Content forking carefully, that guideline also doesn't create such a rule, as BullRangifer noted above. Indeed, Wikipedia:Content forking encourages the proper use of Wikipedia:Summary style. AgnosticAphid talk 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Agnosticaphid is correct. Proper NPOV coverage would include any wrongdoing and deal with coverage of all sides of the issue. We don't write hagiographies or sales brochures here. Since that's not an issue here, we just need to decide if we're going to follow our WP:SPINOFF policy or not. Doing so would solve the big problems with overly long coverage in TWO articles. It's not often we can "kill two birds with one stone" here. This is the best solution, and effort should be placed into this article, not into the sections in those articles. When this one is fairly complete, we can reduce the size of those sections and leave a SUMMARY STYLE section, with main links to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantial topic of intense media coverage and an ongoing situation. WP needs a dedicated POR for this event as it's unfolding is much larger than can be infused into the original PPH article. DasReichenz (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider splitting the other undercover videos material here. As the main article documents, such to-dos flare up every two years or so and never go anywhere. There's no reason to have a separate article on this one, but I'm likewise sensitive to the argument that it'd overwhelm the main article, so, split all of it out instead of just 2015. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there anymore than the "Live Action undercover videos" section? That one is very short and thus can remain as is. If it actually needs further development, then we could combine it here and make this all into a larger WP:SPINOFF sub-article (with a different title), but, to avoid complicating things, I think that decision should wait. Let's settle this one first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't see a reason to have a separate article on the "Center for Medical Progress". The two are obviously redundant. I think the POV issues other users identify can be fixed through normal editing - but they also should be fixed through normal editing, and a keep result must not be taken as an endorsement of any presentation of the events that depends on unreliable sources or misrepresents reliable ones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting additional comments after possible canvassing. Nakon 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering that, too. StAnselm (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me three. This seems a rather odd situation. I don't recall it before. So far the !voting seemed to be going normally, but if there has been extensive canvassing, then maybe certain !votes should be stricken or the editors warned, but relisting....? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than warrants its own article, POV issues can be worked through. Juno (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. Notable event, and I like many others looked to Wikipedia for a NPOV description after hearing a reference to it on the news. Page does noeed work, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event, not a content fork. It's more of an article split.Marauder40 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That it is a POV fork is quite obvious from the discussion on the Planned Parenthood talk page, where editors did not reach consensus on the wording of information about this event on that page. That said, this is very new news, and a single news event, and as such WP:NOTNEWS applies. Should this event have a lasting legacy it might warrant an article, but as it is it is just another of many events in the ongoing battle around the abortion issue. The two articles, PP and Center_for_Medical_Progress, which both include information about this event, suffice. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blue Rasberry and BullRangifer put it better than I ever could. Essentially this is an event which passes the GNG independent of Planned Parenthood, comparable the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.LM2000 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIGH (closer: please see bolded step#5 for bangvote-counting-purposes). Recommended steps, in order: #1, per WP:UNDUE, cut down PP#CMP from 20 sentences + 4 subheaders + 1 main-art-link, to 5 sentences + 1 subheader + 1 main-art-link. The summary must say PP charges money for the tissues; briefly explain that PP officials see the charges as nonprof-cost-recovery, and critics see the charges as selling-body-parts; summarize, no quotations. Make sure the summary includes the 99% partisan 53-46 senate vote ("a vote on Aug 3rd along party lines to 100% defund PP -- they are already prohibited from using fed funds on abortions specifically -- was seven Senators short of overcoming a filibuster"), then mention the issue is now part of the POTUS race, again w/ no quotations. Also mention NH and LA and other state-level impacts, one sentence. Step #2, per WP:UNDUE, expand PP#LA from 4 sentences + 1 subheader + 0 main-art-links, to 6 sentences + 1 subheader + 1 main-art-link. The PP summarization currently contains the NPOV-fail summary-sentence "additionally one center was placed on probation[122]" of the 3 long sentences at LA'10, when LA'10 says that center was on probation and then indef-blocked, err, 'shut down temporarily Jan 2014 to present'. NPOV prose: "One PP facility in Alabama was on probation, and since Jan 2014 has been temporarily shut down." Also, again NPOV-fail, the PP article says "some employees and volunteers were fired for not following procedure" when the spinoff says that a manager was fired after the support-of-prostitution 2011 sting,[1] that one TX employee was fired after the AZ/HI/TX sex-selection-abortion 2012 sting (plus T.Franks R-AZ got HR1797 passed in the House using said videos), and that nobody was fired after the first-do-no-harm 2013 sting. So, step #2 is fixing all those problems, plus probably more that are not currently visible in mainspace; POV omission is worse than visible POV-skew, because harder to detect&fix. Step #3, properly organize the CMP subsections, parallel to the way LA is organized: Background, Operations, Activities/2010/2011/2012/2013, SeeAlso/Refs/EL. Specifically, CMP should have Background (about Daleiden/Newman/Rhomberg), Operations (about Operation Rescue tie-in), and Undercover videos controversy Activities/2015 about the tissue-selling 2015 sting. Step#4, properly redirect Biomax Procurement Services to the newly-created Center_for_Medical_Progress#2015 subsection. Step#5, merge-then-redirect 100% of the content, no deletions, of PPUVC into newly-created-subsection CMP'15. Step#6, in the Planned_Parenthood#Center_for_Medical_Progress_undercover_videos subsection, change from "Main article: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy" to the more-NPOV-compliant "Main article: Center_for_Medical_Progress#2015" link (once that #2015 subsection is created and populated with the PPUVC contents). Step#7, concentrate on maintaining NPOV in the spinoff articles about the attack-organizations, and make sure they are articles about attack-organizations, and not attack-articles (hint: don't put CONTROVERSY OMG LOOK LOOK into the article-title). Simultaneously, concentrate on maintaining NPOV in the primary article about the controversial (no citation needed for obvious reasons) federally-funded group, and make sure the summary-prose does not whitewash the legitimate impacts achieved the attack-groups ("one center was placed on probation" is a whitewash per above... "some employees and volunteers were fired for not following procedure" is a whitewash per above... "fetal organs and tissue are never sold" is a whitewash per above). I have attempted to make my suggestions as simple as possible, but no simpler. My thanks to the folks who work hard on these controversial articles, trying to stick to reflecting what the sources actually say, and hewing firmly to the pillars at all times. I will NOT under any conceivable circumstances be responding to this AfD thread again; ping my talkpage if you need something specific from me, please. p.s. To respond in advance to the boilerplate-where-is-your-evidence-this-look-look-omg-controversy-article-does-not-pass-GNG, all I can say is just because PPUVC has enough newspaper stories to nominally satisfy WP:42, does NOT mean we therefore legally must have a dedicated article; please review WP:5, in particular, the non-negotiable pillar about neutrality, and the one about "improving the encyclopedia" qua encyclopedia. And to the people bangvoting pure flat delete, when 100% of wiki-policy clearly and overwhelmingly indicates this is a merge-and-improve or plausibly even a keep-and-improve scenario, check your premises. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article. It seems to me that the debate here should not be about notability; the subject is clearly notable. The point is that when the topic of an article is a sub-topic of a broader topic which has its own article, as is the case here, do we require a subsidiary article? The guidelines that seem most relevant are WP:CFORK and WP:TOOBIG. Provided the subsidiary article is neutrally written, CFORK does not prohibit it, but neither does it require it. On the other hand, WP:TOOBIG says that for articles with <40kb of prose, "Length alone does not justify division." Therefore, I would vote to merge this with the parent article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy&oldid=1138237572"