Jump to content

Talk:David Daleiden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

non-NPOV framing of the Planned Parenthood videos.

[edit]

Before introducing non-NPOV framing of the Planned Parenthood videos, check the source: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

You're in violation of 3RR. We'll take it to appropriate place, I guess, since you don't appear to be interested in anything besides pushing one particular point of view. Rockypedia (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it anywhere you want, so long as you're ready for the boomarang. You were warned not even a week ago that articles relating to PP are subject to discretionary sanctions,You were the adverse party in a AN3 complaint barely a week ago, and now here you are in a POV-war, trying to re-insert unsourced partisan cruft into a BLP. Yeah, you just go right ahead and take this to whatever noticeboard you like. Do it. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to adjudicate the PP videos here

[edit]

This edit [1] is highly problematic for at least two reasons: 1. It does not reflect the wording or the meaning of the two Time sources that are offered. 2. It attempts to advance Planned Parenthood's talking points.

Adding the Factcheck source does not resolve this, as it merely increases the politicization of what should be a neutral biographical narrative: Daleiden was involved with the release of some videos; the videos showed PP officials discussing the disposition of fetal specimens. It is NOT helpful to resolve the legalities or include anybody's political spin here, beyond merely explaining why the videos caused a stir. It certainly is not NPOV to impose Planned Parenthood's legal defense within a neutral, high-level statement of the bare events. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment

[edit]

I added some information about the indictment of David Daleiden. The indictment includes an exhibit with a picture of a California driver's license. The photocopy is of poor quality. It appears that the name on the license is either "Robert David Sarkis" or possibly "Robert Daoud Sarkis." Famspear (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life or anti-abortion

[edit]

Zigzig20s changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life," which is what I would normally have agreed, except in this case, both of the two cited sources use "anti-abortion." Can anyone find justification in the MOS for going one way or the other? Comfr (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed that both Live Action (organization) and The Center for Medical Progress also use the term "anti-abortion," making them inconsistent with this article. Comfr (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfr: I'd suggest editing those two pages to "pro-life" as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that since this is a person, we go with self-designation as much as possible. StAnselm (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of letting a person use the label of their choice, however, I would not like to leave an innocent encyclopedia reader confused about what the label really means. I suggest adding something to the effect that "pro-life" means opposing elective abortion. I also suggest changing the "pro-life" link from Anti-abortion movements to the corresponding United States pro-life movement.
I have gone ahead and changed the link. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repped by

[edit]

Daleiden is represented by the Thomas More Society pro bono

Also, the Life Legal Defense Foundation (Napa, CA) put out a press release today saying they represent him

Jared Woodfill is reportedly his lawyer on the criminal charges in Texas

64.134.64.190 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme vs Plan

[edit]

Binksternet recently reverted the change of the word "scheme" to "plan" in the "Pro-life controversy" section. The word "scheme" has negative connotations according to various dictionary sources [1][2] with the Cambridge definition [3] stating as a noun "a scheme is also a secret and dishonest plan" or as a verb a scheme is "to make a plan, esp. a secret and dishonest one". In the effort to be neutral, I think that using the word "scheme" implies a negative connotation, while the word "plan" is more unbiased. In an effort to provide a neutral point of view per the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines [4], I think the word "plan" is more neutral and I propose we revert the change back to the word "plan". Further, writing the word "scheme" because of it's negative cannotations per various dictionaries could perhaps be original research since none of the three citing references uses this word. I also can find no definition which equates "purposely fraudulent" to "scheming action" which was the comment left by Binksternet, which I am assuming was his reasoning for reverting the change . Jdmoore2004 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no comment since April 28th, I am changing to the word "plan" to be in line with the Biographies of Living Persons policy that there should be a neutral point of view [5]Jdmoore2004 (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme
  2. ^ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scheme
  3. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scheme
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

ORIGINAL RESEARCH / SUBJECTIVE OPINION in the "Pro-life controversy" section

[edit]

In the "Pro-life controversy" section, there was a sentence which read: "While it is true that the videos were edited in order to portray Planned Parenthood negatively, the Guardian did not note that the full unedited videos are also readily available, wherein the surrounding conversation can be viewed, and it can be seen that no statements are made which negate or alter the meanings of what was said in the edited versions of the videos." The only reference/source given for this SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of what "can be seen" was a link to a YouTube site of the videos themselves. ("Full footage of the Daleiden conversations with Planned Parenthood, The Center for Medical Progress") This INTERPRETATION is, therefore, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and I have removed it.

(The subjective interpretation given (now removed) was also WRONG (this is my personal opinion which I am NOT putting into the article, because it is only my personal interpretation, but I am putting it here in (parentheses) for anyone who may be interested). I carefully compared the two versions of the interview with Dr. Mary Gatter. The short, edited version purported to show "haggling", and CMP described it as "haggling", but the full-length raw-footage shows that Dr. Gatter immediately accepted the "buyer"'s very first offer, and changed the subject without making any attempt whatsoever to increase the compensation, even though the "buyer" attempted to trick her into trying to increase it, by referring to the first offer as a "start[ing point]" ("I'd like to start with...."). Also, the short, edited version purported to show Dr. Gatter offering to violate the law against changing from one abortion procedure to another procedure in order to get better specimens, but the full-length raw-footage shows that she went out of her way to AVOID violating, or promising to violate, that law, even in the most trivial, superficial way.)

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I am adding EXTERNAL LINKS to the videos and transcripts, and mentioning them in the "Pro-life controversy" section; interested readers can make their own subjective judgements about how faithful the edited versions are to the full-length raw footage. Enjoy. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never proven false

[edit]

An editor has been trying to insert the statement "The videos themselves have never been conclusively proven false." This is unsourced, and would in fact require some definition of "false"; if one were to edit it in a misleading way, is that false? Or need there be some faked content? As something unsourced, it shouldn't be here, but even if it were suorced, we'd have to be specific about what they were saying. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced commentary contrary to facts has been reversed twice by me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now semi-protected. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in "Anti-abortion Activities" section?

[edit]

All three sources relating to the review Mr. Daleiden commissioned of his footage come from biased sources. One is Canada Free Press, which has among other things published climate change denial conspiracy theories. One is the Christian Broadcasting Network, which has a specifically Christian and right-wing agenda. One is the website of Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization which in the past has faced lawsuits for harassment of abortion clinic users. These may be helpful sources, but should they be the only sources there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:4092:4A58:1055:8A03:7188:D2B2 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pro-life/anti-abortion

[edit]

An IP editor @208.76.113.4: has repeatedly tried to replace the spin term "pro-life" with the direct, specific term "anti-abortion", and it's clear that the subject is known for his opposition to abortion and his work on the anti-abortion cause. Making the changes even more problematic is that their edits have repeatedly moved this article into the category Category:American pro-life activists, a category which is meant to be kept empty (which you will see if you click on that link.) I am undoing the edit. These changes should not be reinstated until consensus has been reached via discussion to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist source

[edit]

I removed a section on a lawsuit that was sourced to the website The Federalist. It is clear in this discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that the site is considered of low reliability, and this because of particular issue in Biography of Living Persons-related material, particularly since this content was used to make critical statements of a living person. The material should not be reinstated without a sufficiently reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"illegaly"

[edit]

I re-added air quotes to the word "illegaly" in an effort to keep this page politically neutral, as the question to whether or not David Daleiden's actions were, in fact, illegal is a divisive question, politically speaking. Also, the source cited for this statement merely stated that Daleiden had been accused of illegal action. It didn't say that his actions were, in fact, illegal. The reason for this, again, is to remain politically neutral. --User:87.120.102.4 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A court case found that the actions were illegal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the case has been appealed and is awaiting a final verdict. I surely don't need to remind you that just because a group of people insist it's illegal doesn't mean it is. Oh, and his actions were not unheard of. In fact, several other journalists have done exactly what this guy has done, and they have done so to several other companies. Not only were THEIR actions considered LEGAL, they were widely DEFENDED in the very courts that Daleiden found himself convicted in. Oh, and I saw the comment you put on the revision history. As User 87.120.102.4 pointed out, whether or not his actions were illegal is still widely debated. That IS a fact. Another court could just as easily deem his actions perfectly legal. That is a fact. Whether or not you believe Daleiden's actions to be illegal, for the most part, comes down to what your own personal stance is on the case. That is called PERSONAL BIAS, which is discouraged here on Wikipedia. User 87.120.102.4 could have done a lot worse and said that his actions were perfectly legal, which, of course isn't politically neutral either. So to put air quotes around the word "illegaly" is not "cast[ing] doubt on the facts", it's acknowledging the fact that there IS doubt, and that not everyone shares the same views. That is what politically neutral means. --User:87.120.102.9 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that what we currently have the "illegally" sourced to is an assertion of the plaintiffs and the fact that there was a restraining order put on the defendants. A restraining order is not so much a final declaration as a pause in place until that case is finished. It reflects a measured likelihood of the lawsuit's success, but is not a final judgment. If we don't have a better source, we can for now delete the word entirely. (This should not be confused with any claim that people outside of the process feel that his actions are legal, which is not the measure here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NatGertler, if we re-use a citation from later in the article, like this SF Chronicle piece, would you object to restoring "illegally"? From the piece:

A federal jury in San Francisco awarded Planned Parenthood more than $2.2 million in damages Friday against antiabortion activists who posed as fetal researchers to enter abortion-rights meetings and secretly record participants, rejecting the activists’ claims that they were acting as undercover journalists to expose wrongdoing.

After a monthlong trial, the jurors found that David Daleiden, his employee Sandra Merritt and their collaborators had violated state and federal laws against trespassing, fraud, clandestine recording and racketeering, as well as the nondisclosure agreements the two signed before entering the meetings.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for Goodtablemanners. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little awkward there anyway, because the restraining order did not require that the recordings be illegal. It prevented all recordings containing certain material, even if some of them theoretically might have been made legally. If we have a listing of the court loss elsewhere, I don't think we gain much by having that inclusion there. "Illegal recordings" might be good in a summary of the entire matter, but not in that particular position. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the web, and Oct 2023 said the CIVIL trial verdict appeal was rejected by SCOTUS but that criminal trial was still pending. Any updates on that? I couldn't find any. That would be helpful here. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some online court records about motions, etc., but nothing seems to have garnered secondary coverage. I bet there'll be some reporting when it wraps up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Daleiden&oldid=1241844202"