Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Feminism GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). Women's Health GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 6 February 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Template:Friendly search suggestions

I figure that I should ask before doing this – May I replace the jargon "PPFA" with "Planned Parenthood" throughout the page? The organization is called "Planned Parenthood" familiarly, as a self reference in its logo and elsewhere, and in the title page. Although Planned Parenthood Federation of America may be its corporate name, it's like calling Walmart by its formal 'Walmart Stores' name. And then to add a jargon abbreviation on top of that...

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I object, but it's worth noting that it's not just jargon: the name "Planned Parenthood" is used by many (related, but distinct) organizations (Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts is not the same organization as PPFA, nor as IPPF, nor as PPAF, and they do different things). So possibly more care is required than just a replace-all. --JBL (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about a specific one of those organizations though? If so then their is no harm using "Planned Parenthood", and simply referring to the others by the full names. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that some statements in the article are about PPFA specifically, others are about particular regional PP organizations, and others are about combinations of several of these organizations. Probably in most cases "Planned Parenthood" is clear; but I think if a switch is going to be made it should be done by a human sensitive to the possibility of confusion, not an automated replace-all. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really be having an article that is a mixture of such things though. If someone was to read this article would they be looking for just PPFA or about the regional groups too? Even if they were looking for them both do the reliable resources ever use the two terms interchangeably? Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planned Parenthood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119155715/http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/global-reproductive-health-policy/ to https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/global-reproductive-health-policy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a change

a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions "(of 652,639 total abortions for 2014 according to CDC) ^[1]"

To ensure accuracy as "discrete services" is slightly misleading as they provide 49.64% of abortions in the USA per 2014 and thereby would qualify as a major abortion provider. This is not to take away from any other services they may or may not provide.

135.23.244.37 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find a secondary source that has done the calculation? The CDC report is from 2014 and PPFA's 2014-2015 report has the corresponding numbers. Someone out there has definitely gone over this one. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Limitations section of that CDC report. Such math is impossible, as the CDC "is unable to obtain the total number of abortions performed in the United States". Bradv🍁 04:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real number is closer to 34.9%. (323,999/926,200^[1])*100% = 35% (one-third). This study is much more accurate. @Brad. Can we build a consensus around this? I'm surprised it hasn't been talked about yet since we're already saying PPAF is the largest abortion services provider. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to expand the history section to include more on where the term planned parenthood came from. Hmprescott (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Please advise.[reply]

This should be included in the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/business/planned-parenthood-pregnant-employee-discrimination-women.html

Lpouer4832xs (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be too insignificant at this point or suffering from WP:Recentism. Give it a bit. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just wanted to see if others thought it should be included in the article. Thanks for your feedback. Lpouer4832xs (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! Just piggy backing off of the Number of abortions per year thread. It's important to contextualize PPFA's abortion market share in the US given that it's not a small organization. I know Beyond My Ken feels strongly about this so let's come to a consensus. What percent of abortions are performed by PPFA?

I believe they perform 35% (one-third) of the abortions (323,999/926,200^[2])*100% = 35% (one-third). This study uses slightly different methods to calculate abortion incidence than CDC but it's safe to say between 35-50% of abortions in the U.S. are performed by Planned Parenthood.

I will add in the edits if no one objects but I do want to hear from Beyond My Ken first, since he seems passionate about the epidemiology on this matter. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you "believe" is completely and totally irrelevant, per WP:OR. The only pertinent question is "What do reliable secondary -- not primary --sources say."

BTW, your use of "epidemiology" in this context is a slip on your part indicating your POV about abortions -- which, of course, is the entire point of your edits.

You will not add it to the article unless and until you have a consensus to do so on this talk page. It will be removed otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwright1469 Thank you for that passionate response. I'm using medical and scientific terminology because this is the language I use as a clinician. If the scientific jargon is too much for you, we can use lay terms so it's easier for you.

Beyond that, the following secondary source does the calculation of PPAF's abortion numbers, using PPAF's reported 2014 abortion counts, and a nation-wide study looking at total number of abortions.^[1] Given that the basic math of (323,999/926,200)*100% checks out, the 35% abortion services provision number is reliable.