Template:Did you know nominations/Planned Parenthood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zanhe (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Planned Parenthood[edit]

(
)
Margaret Sanger in 1922
Margaret Sanger in 1922

Improved to Good Article status by Checkingfax (talk), Roscelese (talk), and Professor JR (talk). Nominated by Checkingfax (talk) at 09:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

  • This is not a complete review, but I want to point out the fact in this hook (i.e. that 3.4% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions) was explicitly stated to be a misleading statistic in the source. Even though the hook does clarify it's counting discrete services, I note that the Washington Post article cited states that it (and a 94% statistic claimed by Susan B. Anthony List) are "meaningless and incomplete comparisons to make their argument, and the public should be wary of both figures". Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Ashorocetus. Thank you for your comments. I will be moving that source that you mention as it is not germane to the small tidbit of number crunching in the hook. The other numbers (revenue, number of patients, etc.) are further crunched in the body of the article. The SBA List is referring to revenue whereas in the lead the reference used in the hook is to the total number of discrete-services provided. I just took the 300K+ divided by the 9M+ and multiplied it by 100 to get the simple non-refutable statistic of discrete-services vs abortions. When readers click on the hook they will find out more‍—‌like each patient averages three discrete-services, and that 12% of patients receive abortions. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not disputing the accuracy of the number. I am saying that saying abortion is only 3% of discrete services that Planned Parenthood does is not a statistic relevant to anything. Even if you move the source, its point remains. It would be far more informative to include the 12% statistic in the hook. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 06:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Ashorocetus. Per your comments I have added an ALT-1. Please feel free to craft an ALT-2. For brevity I also removed some cruft. Additionally, per the DYK guidelines I added a cogent image. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, I have the same objection to ALT4; the 3.4% statistic, while technically true, is misleading. I think including it is both uninteresting (because it is making comparisons between services that are not comparable) and it can give readers a false impression of the significance of abortions for Planned Parenthood (I quote from the article: "Given that each patient receives about three services on average, the percent of abortions provided out of the total services provided‍—‌3.4%‍—‌may not clearly represent the importance of abortion to PPFA.") Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See, I'd think that mentioning that a planned parenthood organisation is involved in performing abortions as pretty obvious and pretty non-notable. I would have thought it was more interesting pointing out how many women are treated each year without tacking on the abortion fact, or mention that the founders were arrested about their activities in a clinic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Cas Liber, while I like the idea of ALT5, it's 220 characters (excluding "(pictured)" but including the comma I added), which is too long. I've fixed the bold-link formatting; the apostrophe-s shouldn't be included in the link. There also needs to be better inline source citations in the relevant paragraph; this one looks helpful (though a Wordpress site, it's a New York University-hosted non-profit that works on Sanger's papers). I'm not sure it covers "obscene", though. A possible cut-down version of ALT5 (199 characters):
I rather suspect ALT5a could use a little tweaking still, but it's a start. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Putting the genitive s outside of a bolded wikilink looks terrible. It sends a bad image to our readers; an image of technical incompetence. As wordsmiths and grammarians writing an encyclopedia, our words should sparkle. I look at that genitive s and I wonder "what's wrong with the backend system?"; having a black, unbolded s following a blue bolded phrase is so wrong on so many levels.
There is no MoS guideline dictating putting the genitive s outside the wikilink; that MoS guideline only pertains to the plural s. Please re-read the germane MoS. Putting the plural s outside the wikilink is a bonus offered to us from the backend servers; it is not a style to be applied to cases outside of the plural s. The backend server bonus works for suffixes such as s, ed, ing, ment, and so on, but they forgot to include the genitive s, so the genitive s is allowed to be piped, like all the other possible ways to spell words that differ from the article name.
I was not totally happy with ALT5 but ALT5a seems to be a statement with a question mark? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ashorocetus. OK, I added the Sanger Project ref inline to the arrest section. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, ALT5b comes in at 202 characters, which is over the limit. (I tried using "and", but couldn't and meet the 200 absolute max.) A possibility is to remove the word "soon", though I thought it added interest. I've struck ALT5b and the original ALT5. And you are welcome to shout all you want, but your bolding runs afoul of DYK guidelines, which are what matter here. In the relevant DYK guideline, it's very clear that the bolding does not extend to the possessive. This is how it has been done at DYK for years. If the hook is not changed here, it will be changed once promoted to prep. As you can see in the guideline, even your apostrophe formatting here is incorrect, since it comes after bolded roman text rather than italics. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. Reviewers are allowed to approve hooks over the limit and reject hooks under the limit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, it's a very rare hook that is allowed to ignore WP:DYK's While 200 is an outside limit, and pretty much anyone can object at any time to an over-limit hook, even if another reviewer hasn't done so. Most experienced DYKers do enforce the outside limit, including myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset. We are straying, but we should consider refining the DYK guidelines regarding those apostrophe templates as {{'}} is for an apostrophe following roman text whereas the {{'s}} template is for text following italic text, as the {{'s}} introduces a shave space or such before its use to prevent the apostrophe from touching the italic text that precedes its use. {{'}} and {{'s}} have discreet duties that are mutually exclusive (e.g.- '''Joe'''{{'}}s and '''Joe'''{{'s}} will not produce the same output). For my further education, can you please steer me to the MoS that supports not bolding the entire genitive? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I'm pretty busy right now, so I won't be able to do a review until tomorrow or Tuesday (but I will do one then if nobody else has yet). I find the fact in ALT5-6 more interesting than the statistics, if you guys can get it concise enough (and the article checks out on all the other criteria) I'll be happy to approve it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: 200 characters. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK, I'll do a complete review tomorrow or maybe Tuesday if I'm too busy. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I like ALT6, but I don't see why you need "then they":
ALT8: ... that Planned Parenthood originated 100 years ago in Brooklyn when Margaret Sanger (pictured), her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell passed out birth control and advice, and were soon arrested?
Since now "then they" is not there, I would change "passed out" to "distributed":
ALT9: ... that Planned Parenthood originated 100 years ago in Brooklyn when Margaret Sanger (pictured), her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell distributed birth control and advice, and were soon arrested?
Comment: 192 characters.
 – Corinne (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Full review still needed; have struck all but the active ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is definitely long enough and was promoted to GA recently enough. The article is neutral. No Copyvios, despite high numbers from Earwig, the first result was written after the corresponding section in the article. The second is very similar phrasing, but its mostly listing expenses so I don't think it's an issue (also, I don't think that you copied text out of a three-year-old comment on a pro-life site). None of the others are concerning either. Plenty of inline citations (AGF on offline sources), including the fact in ALT8 and ALT9. Concerning ALT8 and ALT9 hooks, both are short enough, interesting, and formatted correctly. The two issues I have are small: First, I find "roots started" to be a very awkward phrase, the hooks should be made to flow better. Second, I see no QPQ, and User:Checkingfax does have enough DYK credits (5 on his userpage) to no longer be exempt. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 02:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Ashorocetus. Do ALT8 and ALT9 flow better now? The point is that they were not known as PP until well after 100 years ago. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Checkingfax. "Roots are" is still kind of awkward in my opinion. Would "originated" work do you think? (Oh, and I forgot to mention in my review: the image is OK: public domain and looks good at the small size) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the whole point behind not using "formed", "originated", "was founded", or the like is that an actual organization that eventually became Planned Parenthood was founded some years later—1921 according to the lead, yet 1938 according to Early history, and since the clinic opened and closed in 1916, I don't see how said clinic could be "organized into the American Birth Control League" in 1938 (or even 1921). Checkingfax, this dating needs to be fixed in the article. As for the hook, I imagine the reason "roots" was used is that the clinic was a try at making birth control available, and although it didn't work, something else eventually grew out of it. I suppose the metaphor could be extended to another part of growth—"that the seeds of Planned Parenthood" (though it would exceed the 200-character limit without further cutting later in the hook, and "seeds" could have another meaning)—but "originated" simply isn't accurate, and cannot be used. Perhaps you might be happier with the "roots started" phrasing from ALT7, and use it in ALT8 and ALT9 instead of "originated"? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: conceived as written is grammatically correct and conveys the proper progression. Margaret Sanger was consistent in the whole progression from clinic to Planned Parenthood non-profit corporation. Conceived also makes the hook hookier. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a "was" before "conceived" in ALT9a because the sentence was not grammatically correct without it. I hope you don't mind, and hope that "conceived" does meet with approval because I'm a sucker for plays on words. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I carefully studied this and conceived as written was grammatically correct; just as you do not have to say was originated you do not have to say was conceived. The was is already there. Something can just conceive, in this case it was in the past so it conceived. By adding was it implies that Planned Parenthood was a conception rather that the function of Planned Parenthood being the conception. Conceived is a direct synonym for originated with no requirement to add the was which is redundant and changes the meaning of the hook. Conceived is an event; an action. Sanger did not say "let's start Planned Parenthood", she just starting handing out birth control and advice and PP evolved from there, including the name. Our readers will get all the fine points when they click through to the article. This is just a hook to whet their appetite and engage them for a click-through. Some other hooky words would be: sprouted, germinated, seeded, etc. for replacements to originated; birthed is a step beyond those. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Even if it is grammatically correct to use "conceive" that way, I think "was conceived" seems much more natural in this context. It is still under the 200 character limit, so I think that that is preferable. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"Conceive" in the sense of "to cause to begin" is transitive ([1]), whereas "originate" can be either transitive or intransitive in this context (since originate can mean either "to begin" or "to cause to begin"). "Was conceived" is therefore grammatically correct here whereas "conceived" is not. —Nizolan (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Y'all can take it from here. I am not emotionally invested in the fine points. It is just a hook to intrigue folks into reading the article, or to provide them with a nugget of knowledge they did not previously know. Ping me back if my lack of comments are holding anything up going forward. I really appreciate the input from all of you to make this happen. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I inserted a "was" into ALT9a. However, there is still the date issue brought up by BlueMoonset, and the QPQ. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ashorocetus. Sanger and cohorts started distributing birth control and advice in 1916, Sanger stayed with it until her death, and Planned Parenthood is here 100 years later. Sanger was at the helm for the name change. Is the precise timeline a DYK stopper? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Checkingfax. The article seems inconsistent on when the American Birth Control League came into the picture. The lead section says 1921, whereas the Early History section implies 1938. Of course, I don't see anything in the DYK rules explicitly about consistency in the article, but I think that that's an issue that ought to be cleared up before it's featured on the main page. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ashorocetus. 1921 is the correct date. 1938 has been aligned with 1921. Good catch. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
At risk of driving everybody wild, I've tried to create a shorter & catchier alt. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Good to go on ALT9a or ALT10. I'll leave it to the promoter to decide which is better. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Returned from prep for hook and sourcing issues. "Giving out birth control, information and advice" is inaccurate; the article states they were operating a birth control clinic that was giving out materials, not giving out birth control (whatever that means). The arrest part has an inline citation, but the "obscene materials" part is not cited, per DYK rules. Finally, in the first part of the hook, the use of the word "conceived" seems like a sly double entendre, which I'm sure you didn't mean. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Hi, Yoninah. I was unaware that you had pulled this long-discussed hook from the prep area. The #Early history section of the article says they started a birth control clinic. Here is what one of many sources says:

On October 26 an undercover police woman and vice-squad officers raided the clinic, confiscated an assortment of contraceptives from pessaries to condoms, along with 20 “books on young women,” and arrested Sanger, Byrne and Mindell.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, how about
ALTjustkidding: ... that Planned Parenthood was conceived 100 years ago after Margaret Sanger's (pictured), Ethel Byrne's, and Fania Mindell's abortive efforts to distribute birth control, information and advice in Brooklyn?
EEng 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Usually, an organization is not conceived. Usually, "is/was conceived" is used with an idea, a notion, a plan. The idea behind the organization that later became Planned Parenthood was conceived...", or "the idea behind Planned Parenthood was conceived". If this is used, I prefer "originated": "the idea behind Planned Parenthood originated 100 years ago..." Perhaps "Planned Parenthood came into being 100 years ago...".  – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. Anyway, conceived can certainly mean "to form the idea of a thing". EEng 01:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. Conceived was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek subtle double entendre and more topical. Other topical possibilities as pseudo-synonym for the drier term originated include: germinated, sprouted, seeded, seed planted, spawned, birthed, etc. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how "Planned Parenthood came into being 100 years ago" can possibly be supported by the article, since it didn't come into being back then, though the seeds were planted at the time. Actually, looking at it, ALTjustkidding would probably work with the comma omitted after "birth control", since they were giving out information and advice on birth control, but it's probably better to avoid abortive and the possessive (the new version below owes much to ALT9a):
Note that unlike Corinne, I am fine with "conceived", and it has been discussed (and defined) at length before the hook was pulled for a different reason altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Hi, BlueMoonset. From careful reading of the article and the sources my takeaway is that the three: distributed birth control, distributed information, and offered birth control advice. So, IMHO, using your ALT11, it should read " ... distributed birth control and information, and were arrested ... " (or such). Somebody liked the hooky term soon arrested in the hook too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to egg anyone on, but perhaps we should say that the arrest for their abortive prosthelytizing was the conception's seminal event? Martinevans123, Tryptofish, Dr. K -- any thoughts? EEng 05:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Prosthelytizing doesn't really fit in there, but it sounds kind of naughty so why not?
Martinevans123, as usual, your comments are hysterical. EEng 14:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that an article that reached GA status would be so sketchy on details found in sources. IMO the Early History section should have expounded on the types of "materials" being distributed, as reported in the source that Checkingfax cites above. I looked through the article to find some other hook ideas, and was surprised that the article misquoted a few sources. I also noticed that while one fact – that PP is the largest provider of abortions in the US – was lifted from this source, the sentence immediately switches to damage-control with an explanation from PP, rather than mention the source's added fact about it being illegal to use taxpayer funds to fund abortions (PP receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds). The Hyde Amendment isn't mentioned at all. If more of the Seattle Times source were added to the article, I'd suggest:
  • ALT12: ... that the federally-funded Planned Parenthood organization is the largest provider of abortions in the US, even though it is illegal to use taxpayer money to fund abortions?
Comment: the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother
  • Other ideas:
  • ALT13: ... that four out of five clients who use the services of Planned Parenthood are poor?
Comment: poor should be low-income? Is this hook enticing? I am falling back on Casliber's advice not to try to hook with the obvious.
Comment: will this invite click-throughs? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT12 makes it sound like there's a contradiction, which there isn't; none of the govt funds PP receives are used for abortions. ALT14 is also misleading, in that it confuses (in the reader's mind) PP the nonprofit with its parallel political arm. Nonprofits in controversial areas frequently have such parallel arms, which are financially and organizationally separate, the commonality being just the name and the general aims. ALT14 makes it sound like a nonprofit is also making political contributions. (I assume these hooks came from the article, so these things better be clarified there.) EEng 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I've just struck ALT11, but unstruck ALT9a, since it does reflect what's in the article, including the birth control devices/methods of the time, such as condoms. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ashorocetus. Can you please circle around to this? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have spawned a lot of new discussion. Now that more info has been added to the article, I would again approve ALT9a. ALT14 is also short enough, interesting, in the article, and cited. However, one minor issue is that the $6.5 million did not all come from a singular PAC. It is the total contributions of all PP-affiliated groups that are allowed to donate to political campaigns. In response to EEng#s, I don't think its at all misleading to associate PP with its PAC, especially when they associate with each-other. The hook does say that the contributions were from PP itself, so it is not conflating the organizations. ALT13 is in the article and cited, but its kind of unclear (after all, to different people, "poor" can mean very different things) Also, I do not think it is particularly interesting. I'm not a fan of ALT12 because definitely it seems to push the idea that Planned Parenthood is in violation of the law, which would not be a neutral presentation of the facts (it could be argued either way whether planned parenthood is in violation). In summary: GTG on ALT 9a, and ALT14 just needs a minor tweek. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 00:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Approved for ALT9a only, as per above. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Planned_Parenthood&oldid=923239154"