Talk:Unplanned/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MPAA rating

It seems to me that the collection of quotes there may somewhat be undue. I also noticed "Johnson subsequently wrote an open letter addressed to parents, explaining why the MPAA had assigned the R rating", prompting the question: does she really understand why, or was this her opinion? The goal of the letter was for parents to ignore the rating and encourage kids and teens to watch it... —PaleoNeonate – 00:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

1) I agree, the quotes should be paraphrased/summarized into one or two sentences. 2) Abby's letter is an opinion piece written by her, so it would be better to state: "... conjecturing why the MPAA..." ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review my recent change, —PaleoNeonate – 23:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Film critics?

The National Catholic Reporter/Register, Deseret News, etc. aren't reliable sources for film criticism here. That's not to say they can't be used in the article necessarily, but they're fellow advocates reviewing it because it's an anti-abortion film and shouldn't be placed alongside the likes of mainstream publications. Went ahead and removed them, but someone could restore in a bit about support from other anti-abortion advocacy organizations, I suppose? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Those publications all have regular, long-running film review features from resident critics: see Deseret/Terry, CWR/Olszyk, NCRO/Pacatte. Rose Pacatte is wiki-notable for her film criticism (covered by the New York Times, Reuters, NPR, etc.)
  FYI, the National Catholic Register and the National Catholic Reporter are different publications: the Register is owned by EWTN and has a conservative/centrist editorial line, the Reporter is progressive. gnu57 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • On second thought, would there be any objection to my swapping out Olszyk for Steven D. Greydanus in the NCReg? Greydanus is a much more major critic, writing for a more major outlet. Cheers, gnu57 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • While the "these aren't reliable sources for film criticism" complaint fails, I think their may be a fair question of whether we're leaning into (semi-)positive reviews. Given the metacritic score, and given the Rotten Tomatoes "top critics" reviews are all rotten, it's a question of whether we're hitting fair balance here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok, how about just dropping Olszyk, then? gnu57 14:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
        • That sounds reasonable. Not sure what the best order of things is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Josh Terry only gave a positive review to Zombieland: Double Tap because he's a zombie advocate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Safety issue

The following sentence cannot remain in the article in its current form: "The movie has also been criticized for depicting abortion as very dangerous, when, in fact, abortion is significantly safer than childbirth". While the sentence reflects its cited source accurately, it must--for reasons of NPOV and factual accuracy--be qualified to make clear that the source is only considering the safety of women. (This, of course, begs the question.) My edits to the sentence were reverted. Trying again, I recommend that the sentence be reworded as follows: ""The movie has also been criticized for depicting abortion as very dangerous, when, in fact, abortion is significantly less medically hazardous to women than childbirth is". SunCrow (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Citing Vox that abortion is safer than childbirth might be a WP:MEDRS issue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

NatGertler, we already have MEDRS for that anyway. But we don't need it for this being a criticism of the movie. Guy (help!) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't term it as proposed. We also don't need to attribute the safety statement as a person's opinion. —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Paleo, we do need to attribute it because it is a highly debatable assertion in its current form. Otherwise, it needs to come out altogether, which it probably should because the POV of the source makes it unreliable on this point. SunCrow (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How so? As Guy said above, the critic is about the movie, so on topic, and its medical claim is mainstream (hence WP:YESPOV)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@SunCrow: you stated ...the POV of the source makes it unreliable on this point. - Per WP:RSP: "Vox is considered generally reliable." So if you want to question the reliablity of the source, the proper place to do that is WP:RSN, not here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: I don't disagree with your change. —PaleoNeonate – 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, folks. To review, the sentence currently reads:

"The movie has also been criticized for depicting abortion as very dangerous, when, in fact, abortion is significantly safer than childbirth".

The factual claim in the second part of the sentence necessarily leaves the safety of the fetus out of the equation. I have brought the issue up on the talk page. I have tried a total of four different sets of edits to the sentence to fix the problem. They are:

"The movie has also been criticized for depicting abortion as very dangerous, despite the fact that the mortality rate of women who undergo legal abortions in the United States is lower than the mortality rate of women who give birth in the United States".

"The movie has also been criticized for depicting abortion as very dangerous, when, in fact, abortion is significantly less medically hazardous to women than childbirth is".

"Anna North of Vox criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous and asserted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth".

"Anna North of Vox criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous".

All four of my proposals have been nixed by other editors. Leaving it the way it is is not an option. Either the assertion has to be omitted, it has to be qualified, or it has to be placed in the author's voice instead of the encyclopedia's voice. It's almost impossible to imagine a more unbalanced and debatable assertion. So, what do the rest of you propose? SunCrow (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, not an option for you, perhaps, but the reality-based contingent don't have an issue with it. Guy (help!) 08:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, if you have to resort to childish insults and name-calling to try to win an argument, you probably don't have a strong argument. SunCrow (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethics of suffering and related science may apply but the concept of "safety to the fetus" seems misplaced in the circumstance... —PaleoNeonate – 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, The context here is, of course, the US, where childbirth is actually unusually dangerous, especially among the groups who are most impacted by attempts to shut down Planned Parenthood (low income women and women of colour). The states which are most zealously targeting PP have among the worst maternal and neonatal mortality rates in the developed world, largely due to lack of affordable healthcare. The actions of anti-abortionists actually contribute to the statistic that the anti-abortionists dislike so much. Guy (help!) 09:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I understand, maybe my comment was not specific enough, by ethics of suffering I meant in relation to the fetus (but here again, apart from late term abortions, which are discouraged and rarely practiced, neurology confirmed that at early development stages the nervous system doesn't operate the way we expect, and may not even experience pain yet). So probably not worth mentioning, but this was the only aspect that I could relate to "safety to the fetus" vs "to the woman" (a point that SunCrow appeared concerned about). —PaleoNeonate – 09:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, good luck persuading some of the people active here that the fetus does not feel pain - or that the unjustly convicted black man does. Guy (help!) 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I have placed a strikethrough over the portion of your comment that strongly implied that "some of the people active here" are racists who couldn't care less about black men that are unjustly convicted of crimes. It's completely unacceptable for you to say something like that, and it's kind of sad that nobody else called you on it. You're not going to be able to help build a neutral and fair encyclopedia if you have nothing but contempt and disrespect for anyone that has a different perspective than you do. SunCrow (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, Never ever adjust any of my comments, anywhere, ever again. If you feel they need adjusting, ask an uninvolved admin. You are the very last person who should be adjusting my edits - and I yours. Guy (help!) 23:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the racial comment you made above deserved to be altered. Self-revert it and stop your behavior or I will take you up on your suggestion to get an admin involved. It's unacceptable. SunCrow (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, it's not a racial comment, it's a commentary on the so-called "pro-life" position. Last week, Kay Ivey had a black man executed by lethal injection, despite the strong evidence that (a) he was innocent and (b) lethal injection is a horrible way to die. But she's "pro-life". Right up until the fetus hits the ol' birth canal. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for reminding me that I may be wasting my time. It was in relation to the article, but I could indeed also be naive, I was raised in a radical conservative microsociety from which I very gradually had the opportunity to escape. Education and science were keys; I understand from experience that all was "good faith", yet there are ways to test tenets against reality (in the above case, neurology matters). Since the sentence in question now seems settled (it attributes the review to the author but not the fact about safety per WP:YESPOV), this will be my last comment on it per WP:NOTFORUM... —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sun Crow you are being disruptive. In the U.S. it is a medical fact that abortion is many times less dangerous than childbirth. See our abortion article please and quit asking that editors report misinformation in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer: (a) no, I am not; (b) no, it is not; and (c) no, I have not asked anyone to report misinformation. Nice try. SunCrow (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, yes you are and yes it is. We have multiple reliable independent sources that say so. Guy (help!) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@SunCrow: By continuing to try to push your OPINION into this article, you are being disruptive. Note that in all of the Wikipedia articles covering Abortion, the "safety of the fetus" is not mentioned. Wikipedia policy says that we follow what Reliable Sources say. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317: (a) no, I am not trying to push my OPINION into this article; (b) no, I am not being disruptive--I am attempting to solve a legitimate problem that you do not want to acknowledge; (c) so what; and (d) I have not attempted to mention the safety of the fetus in this article, and the edit history bears that out. SunCrow (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite some less-than-stellar behavior here on the talk page, the disputed sentence is getting close to where it needs to be. It currently reads as follows:

"Anna North of Vox criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous and noted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth".

I contend that the word "noted" is inappropriate. It indicates that the claim being made is factual when it is actually debatable depending on the perspective of the reader. Instead, the word "asserted" would be appropriate. That edit has, unfortunately, been reverted. If we can agree on "asserted", we will have a neutral sentence. Can we agree on that? SunCrow (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow, your issue is with the real world not with Wikipedia. Real world sources say that in the US, abortion is safer than childbirth. The US actually has amongst the worst rates of maternal and neonatal mortality in the developed world. This predominantly affects red states, predominantly affects women of low incomes (i.e. Planned Parenthood's core clientele), and predominantly affects women of color. It's almost as if the "pro-life" policies of the South actually result in more deaths. Guy (help!) 23:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, You are advancing an abortion distortion. It is as true as me saying, "Canada is south of Detroit." It is perhaps 1% truth, but 99% falsehood. Figures don't lie, but liars will figure. The statistic you cite is totally misleading, because the indicated demographics are predominantly concentric and mutually inclusive. Your statements and claim cannot be validated honestly. Furthermore, the facts of the bigger picture are that post-abortion women are at significantly greater risk for stroke, breast cancer, infertility, depression, and a host of other maladies than mothers giving live birth. - JGabbard (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

JGabbard, this is Wikipedia. I am saying what the reliable sources say. Replacing that with weasel words because you've decided it's a "distortion" is WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 00:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Supposing Vox to be an objective 'reliable' source is risible at best. They are further to the left than Fox is to the right. They report an absurd undated 'study' from an unnamed institution and then expect us to believe it. And of course, even reporting from ostensibly 'reliable sources' does not always guarantee truth. All major networks have had their news scandals and other such crises of dishonest reporting (e.g., Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.). Readers must therefore always exercise discernment and critical thinking, regardless of the source. Vox doesn't get a blanket pass. - JGabbard (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

JGabbard, the fact of abortion being safer than childbirth in the US does not depend on Vox. We had this argument over several months at Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

There are numerous academic studies with the same result, and it's not surprising. Even if you could fix the fact that the US, as the only developed country without universal healthcare, has the highest maternal and neonatal death rates in the West, most abortions are medical not surgical, and anything up to one in four pregnancies already ends in spontaneous abortion, so it would be astounding if any other outcome were true.

And no, Vox are not further left than Fox is right. See https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/. Vox is more centrist and substantially more reliable than Fox. Guy (help!) 10:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is most of this necessary? Seems like soapboxing on both sides which has little to do with the main article. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Doctorx0079, it's necessary as long as a couple of editors insist on trying to turn fact into conjecture through handwaving. Guy (help!) 00:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow changed the statement on safety yet again. From the linked article:

In the US, the risk of death from carrying a child to term is approximately 14 times greater than the risk of death from a legal abortion. The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.

References

This is disruptive. It is a documented fact that abortion is safer than childbirth in the US. It remains a fact however fervently you wish it were otherwise. Guy (help!) 07:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT a documented fact. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a documented assertion that depends entirely upon the perspective of the person making the statement. It assumes that the safety of the fetus is not being taken into account, which implies that one has taken a position on the underlying issue of abortion. NPOV requires that the encyclopedia not take a position one way or the other, which is why the sentence is unacceptable. Guy, your conduct on this talk page has been obnoxious and juvenile (including comparing people who disagree with you to racists), so you don't have a leg to stand on calling me or anyone else disruptive. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

See right there above where I cited the sources saying it's a documented fact? That's what we mean by "documented fact" on Wikipedia. Your statement about the "safety" of the fetus (prior to viability, which accounts for the vast majority of all terminations) is a religious Truth™, not a fact. The two words have very different meanings. NPOV does not mean "balancing" scientific fact from published sources with religious dogma. Guy (help!) 08:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT a documented fact. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a documented assertion that depends entirely upon the perspective of the person making the statement. Repeating this cannot help anything: some sources are more reliable than others and some people more qualified than others for statements about a topic, that's why policies include WP:RS, WP:GEVAL, that's also why Guy above cited a few high quality medical sources to remind us of how established the safety data is (see WP:MEDRS). —PaleoNeonate – 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

More smug religion bashing (from Guy), as to be expected on Wikipedia. 2001:BB6:7ABE:1A00:5C3C:C7A8:188:8D67 (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete link to WP:Oklahoma

I have seen nothing in the article that specifically links this subject to Oklahoma; therefore I have removed the link to WP:Oklahoma. Bruin2 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Amazon best-seller

There are a couple of problems with the recent addition stating that the Unplanned DVD was the #1 best-selling DVD on Amazon. The first is that the source we are using, the Daily Signal, is using a tweet that they show as a source... and that tweet shows Unplanned as #1 in the subcategory of "Drama DVDs", not DVDs as a whole. (Just to set an example, at the moment when I type this, the #1 selling Drama DVD is Outlander Season 5... which is only #15 in DVDs as a whole.)

The other is that, even if true, the Amazon best-seller status is not that meaningful, because they update it so frequently. It's not like, say, the New York Times best-seller chart which list the best-selling books for the week; the Amazon charts are updated hourly, which means that a DVD that has a particularly strong level of orders during that hour can hit that #1 spot.

As such, I'm removing the Amazon claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I've moved this info from the "reception" section the the "release" section and reworded. The previous wording implied that this number was special or significant, but this claim was solely attributed to the film's director. The source quotes the director as comparing this to "the average movie", but this is too vague and presumes that "the average movie" receives promotion or ads. The supposed lack of promotion is attributed to the film's official Twitter account, which is an added irony. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI: The Daily Signal is published by The Heritage Foundation, and as such I question whether it would qualify as a Reliable Source. WP:RS It is not listed in WP:RSP. My view is that it is NOT a Reliable Source, nor an Independent Source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, I do not think it is reliable for contentious claims. For the DVD release date it seems sufficient. The quote from the director indicates the success/popularity of the film. I'm just guessing, but I suspect a lot of these sales are bulk buying from churches and similar, similar to how churches had bought out screenings in theaters. This would need a reliable source, of course, but the specific number of presales doesn't seem controversial or unduly self-serving to me. Any context for this number should be contextualized by a better source, though. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yet More Wikipedia Bias

0 pro-choice films listed as propaganda but this film is. Here like anyplace else propaganda is anything someone doesn't like. 2001:BB6:7ABE:1A00:5C3C:C7A8:188:8D67 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What pro-choice films are there? Regardless, the statement that this is propaganda is based on sources, which lay out how it misrepresents the facts to create a misleading portrayal of abortion and Planned Parenthood. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)