Jump to content

Talk:Maafa 21/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Appropriate conduct on this page

It's clear from everyone's conduct in the section "Film reception and sourcing" that no one is making an effort to keep this page civil, but it's also clear that while individuals may want civility enforced, multiple parties have objected to the mildest enforcement measure that I attempted. So how about this, why don't you tell me what enforcements everyone will find acceptable? Possibilities include:

  • Redacting comments, with blocks for those who restore them
  • Temporary bans from this page
  • Full temporary blocking

I'd rather have the support of the editors on this page and their consensus, but if I don't, I will simply do whatever I feel best regardless of your objections because continuing on this way is not acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No objections from me. Redactions shouldn't effect comments that are specifically aimed at content or GF suggestions on resolution. Of course if incivilty is embedded in such, cut away.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Things have actually quieted down a bit since we were last trouted. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Film reception and sourcing" discussion is your idea of "quieted down"? Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I was were referring to my most recent exchange with Roscelese in "Summary of Katz." I hadn't noticed until just now Roscelese's concern over LGR's limited vocabulary and LGR's concern with Roscelese's declining batting average. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see civility enforced any way that seems to fit. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be open to a higher standard of civility if there was also some effort to enforce a minimum standard for content. As people have pointed out many times (I remember MastCell being one, but she wasn't the only one), focusing on editors who lose their temper when dealing with bad-faith editors while letting those bad-faith editors continue their behavior is actively destructive to the part of Wikipedia that most people interact with on a day-to-day basis. I'm not sure what would be effective though, given that the fact that this article is under ArbCom sanction hasn't stopped people from repeatedly making really silly edits like referring to "industrialized abortion" of "the unborn" as genocide. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Civility is not conditional upon how other people edit. It is demanded by the rules of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I would love to see sanctions imposed upon those who are regularly bullying (i.e. violating WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DNB, etc.) other editors. These tactics have been the favored method of intercourse for some editors here for nearly a year. Why wait until more-of-the-same occurs? Enough is enough. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Punaitve sanctions are just not the way we do things. I'm sorry if you have felt bullied in the past, but all parties are on notice, so lets move forward and let bygones be bygones. I'm sure any (hopefully unlikely) incivilty will be dealt with swiftly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to move on, but something like a sincere apology (from them, not you) would be appreciated. Maybe I was taking their harsh criticism and personal attacks too personally, largely because it was essentially two-on-one--and I was determined not to fight back. If no observers thought it was over-the-top enough to come to my defense or to make an issue over it, their silence is probably an indication that I'm just whining. Oh well. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Page bans and topic bans are an effective way to deal with editors who can't seem to follow our policies on civility. Long-term bullying is an endemic problem on Wikipedia and there are many ways to deal with civil (and uncivil) POV pushers who make editing here toxic to collegial collaboration. Insomesia (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Retroactive punishment is for ArbCom. I'd like to prevent further incivility and not assign blame for past actions. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't be "retroactive punishment" (i.e. based upon a past action) as much as it would be "punishment" based upon current, ongoing, long-term behavior--all the more reason for its appropriateness. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel that matter is best decided by community intervention through a noticeboard or an RFC, or through ArbCom. I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to play that role on this page at this time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lede some more

The insistence on caginess - where we never come out and say that Katz's main criticism is for the premise of the film - is bizarre. We can definitely find a word other than "dismisses," but the current phrasing gives the impression that Katz's criticism is for some sub-aspect of the film rather than its central conceit. (I'd also like to retain NYU because, as I said, the uninformed reader might think MSPP is an activist entity.) Here's another suggestion:

It alleges that the eugenics movement that targeted African Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries formed the basis for the abortion-rights movement of the 20th and 21st centuries and, in particular, for the creation of the American Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood) by Margaret Sanger. Historian Esther Katz, director of NYU's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, along with other observers, has stated that this is an incorrect depiction of Sanger's views and works. The film has been enthusiastically received by anti-abortion activists.

Thoughts? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a necessary improvement, but I've no strong objections to the change. However do the "other observers" bit come from the sources? While there is criticism from others besides Katz for the film, do they specifically state that the film is abusing Sanger's words and work?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add the "other observers" bit - my proposal above just implements the changes that are important to me. Michelle Goldberg also points out the inaccuracies, but her commentary was removed at some point (or actually I think what happened is that I removed all the reception, and then Beleg restored some of it but left out some of the pro-choice commentators). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So you are proposing moving one sentence to the end, and changing "the film incorrectly depicts" to "this is an incorrect depiction of"? I think BH had an objection to moving the sentence for some reason, but I'm sure he will comment. As for the 2nd part, there really is no difference. I would like to understand why you think this is an important change, perhaps it would alleviate communication problems in the future.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that the premise of the film and the thing Katz identifies as factually incorrect are the same thing, per sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, but why don't we slip the word "premise" in there and say it outright?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Should be fine, how would you suggest wording it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist: Thanks for implementing the wording above, but could you explain why you believe it is important to put its reception with anti-abortion activists before Katz's comments on its accuracy or lack thereof? I don't object to the placement on principle, but right now it's awkwardly stuck between two sentences about the film's content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of "depiction" does clarify the lede, but the separation of Katz's comment from its subject is still odd. Is your concern, Badmintonhist, that we're minimizing its popularity among activists by making that the last sentence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
What we have now is fine and not particularly "odd." It would be odder, if anything, to place the favorable reception by anti-abortion folks after the Katz denunciation. Let's put this baby to bed. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I think your new edit is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any issue with restoring the wikilinks in the lede section? As this kind of action is, by definition, considered minor and shouldn't require consensus, I ask because they seem to have been intentionally removed, so I wanted to offer discussion before putting them back. Any concerns? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No one expressed any concern, so I went ahead and restored the wikilinks. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Though no feedback had been offered against restoring the wikilinks, they were again removed. No explanation for removing the wikilinks was offered, therefore I will add them back, as the reasoning that was offered for the corresponding edit touched on (I think) an unrelated concern. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet recently restored to the second sentence of the lead the phrase "black genocide" and a link to the so-titled Wiki article which he ceated. The problem here is that the sentence in question is about what "the film . . . argues" NOT about what critics of the film argue. What the film argues is that the "prevalence of abortion among African Americans is rooted in an attempted . . . genocide or maafa of back people." The current phrasing with "black genocide" in place of "genocide" is inappropriate because it is linked to an article which defines black genocide as "a conspiracy theory which holds that African Americans are the victims of genocide instituted by white Americans." Clearly, however, the film itself does NOT argue that high African American abortion rates are rooted in a "conspiracy theory" or "notional genocide" prevalent among Blacks but rather in a real maafa or attempted genocide of African Americans.

Now, were a notable reviewer to say that the film ties into or exploits the notion of a "black genocide", that would be a different story and a link to the Wiki article would be quite appropriate. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to tell the reader about the film objectively, or do you want to use the film's subjective in-universe arguments to put forward a conspiracy theory? We are writing an encyclopedia here, not promoting falsehoods. We can certainly tell the reader what the film asserts, but it must be couched in objective terms.
The basic fact is that the film is titled, Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America. The film says that there is a conspiracy to kill off African Americans—a genocide of blacks. That is black genocide, is it not? Yes, it most certainly is.
Respected sources such as Guttmacher argue that "Antiabortion activists, including some African-American pastors, have been waging a campaign around this fact, falsely asserting that the disparity is the result of aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities." The marketing campaign described by the 2008 Guttmacher article includes billboards targeting urban black neighborhoods, the vilifying of Planned Parenthood, and if it had been written after 2009, it would have mentioned the godawful film Maafa 21. A 2010 article in Religion Dispatches, published by USC, ties together the billboard campaigns, the "distorted... dishonest" film, and the pro-life activists push to make this a "wedge issue" among African Americans. So it is Michelle Goldberg who says that the film is about black genocide, the conspiracy theory: "Overall, though, it's an exceedingly dishonest propaganda exercise, one that aims to convince African Americans that both family planning and evolutionary theory are part of a massive conspiracy against them." (["Anti-Choice Doc Aims to Link Reproductive Rights to 'Black Genocide'"). Journalist Titania Kumeh also connects the dots in her article "Conspiracy Watch: Is Abortion Black Genocide?", published in Mother Jones. Kumeh describes the filmmakers as partnering with black genocide conspiracy theorist Clenard Childress, the director of the blackgenocide.org website. Pam Chamberlain, writing as a senior researcher for Political Research Associates, says in "Dangerous Claims That Abortion Is Genocide" that the film "rekindles the flames of conspiracy thinking about black genocide." That is, Chamberlain says the film is about black genocide, the conspiracy theory. Politics reporter Melanie Jones wrote about the issue in International Business Times in February 2012, describing the film in the context of the black genocide conspiracy theory, along with pro-life "black genocide" billboards, the blackgenocide.org website, and so on. Akiba Solomon wrote a paper for Colorlines in May 2013: "The Missionary Movement to ‘Save’ Black Babies". Solomon presents the film as an exploitation of black nationalist sentiment, presenting a dishonest assault of statistics to carry forward the pro-life race-baiting campaign against Planned Parenthood. Solomon's paper was carried by Political Research Associates as "Crisis Pregnancy Centers Target Black Communities", and by RH Reality Check as "The Missionary Movement to ‘Save’ Black Babies". Race scholar Loretta J. Ross addressed the black genocide connection in "Fighting the Black Anti-Abortion Campaign: Trusting Black Women", published in Winter 2011 On The Issues magazine. Ross says the film purports that the eugenics movement in the US promoted "genocide against African Americans", and that abortion is part of this conspiracy theory, which she says is based on "misused data and facts".
With all this objective commentary telling us that the film is about the conspiracy theory called black genocide, I don't see why we should hide such an obvious and relevant fact from our reader. Please tell me why we should hide it, unless we intend to assume the activist role taken by the film's producers. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What you are presenting here, Bink, is what my now 27 year old son's favorite junior high school teacher would have called "superfluous discourse." Nothing in it answers the fundamental problem with your edit. If you can find a legitimate way to work in a link to the article that, let me see now . . . YOU created, then be my guest. It is NOT legitimate to change the meaning of the sentence you edited by pretending that the film is arguing something that it is clearly NOT arguing. Our article, by the way, already includes plenty of material that impeaches the thrust of the film. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC) The first sentence o
The teacher would point out that you asked for "a notable reviewer to say that the film ties into or exploits the notion" of black genocide, and then the teacher would suggest that I provided the names of Michelle Goldberg, Titania Kumeh, Pam Chamberlain and Loretta J. Ross. Your concerns have been answered. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to use one of those notable reviewers of the film to link the reader to black genocide then, once again, be my guest. However make sure that you also remove it from the sentence in question where it does not belong. If not, then I will do it. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Come, let us reason together.

Binksternet seems to be in a hell of a rush to radically expand this article which had been stable for a year or so following months of often heated debate which he participated in. The individual problems with his new edits are numerous, but can be summarized by the observation that he is trying to make our article a polemic against the film. Thus, his edits have massive POV and weight issues. I would suggest that he slow down, refrain from further one-revert-rule violations, and engage in the Talk page here. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Directly above, you invited my edits, saying "be my guest" to use the new sources. Do you push your invited guests back out the door and make them discuss their proposed visit while they stand on the welcome mat?
Of course, the new sources are highly critical of the film, since it is a travesty of falsehood, dishonesty and smear. Let's be very, very clear here: the film is a hit piece on Planned Parenthood, made by a longtime enemy of Planned Parenthood, and fitting very neatly into the pro-life political plans of Pastor Clenard H. Childress, Jr., who runs blackgenocide.org. It is a fraudulent collection of implications mixed with falsehoods, and facts taken out of context. This is the neutral scholarly position, mind you, not the pro-life activist position. Ross and Katz are scholars, having published in academic journals. A completely neutral article will tell the reader very plainly what the scholarly opinion is. That is what I am working toward.
But that's not your point, is it? This article was made to pump up the film, appearing in initial form as utter promotion, created by an editor known for POV, edit warring, and abusing multiple accounts to fight the pro-life battle in abortion topics. Too many of the editors who come here work to keep as much of the initial promotion as possible. What this article needs is wider exposure, more eyeballs, to counteract the games being played by those who want the film to hit its political mark.
My expansion over the last two days is a badly needed course correction to the false 'balance' that was struck after "heated debate" by participants who were mostly aligned with the film's political stance. I say 'false' because NPOV does not ask that equal amounts of text be devoted to opposing opinions, it asks for the article to be written "proportionately", giving more emphasis to the better qualified sources. It says we must pay attention to the "prominence" of sources, and academics are our most valued sources. The academics say that the film is filled with lies and insinuation. This conclusion is therefore the tone we must take. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If I invited an acquaintance to my home for dinner, and he arrived with his belongings for a very extended stay, then yes, I would probably try to keep him waiting. I invited you to create context for a link to our (yours, really) article on the black genocide meme. That could have been done in a single sentence. You decided to rewrite the article. The initial 2009 form of the article is of little import. By the time discussions were held on it last year it looked nothing like its original promotional form. The article as it now stands (assuming you haven't again jumped the gun to re-add your edits) has plenty of negative criticism of the film, especially for a relatively concise article, including quotes by historian Esther Katz, and activists Loretta Ross, and Marcy Darnovsky. What you are proposing now is over-reaching overkill, much of it, incidentally, through very questionable, partisan sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, I have reverted Binksternet's radical revision of article which is loaded with "new" and highly partisan opinion piece sources, ex. [1] and opinions stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, ex. "It misuses statistics to induce in the viewer fear of birth control and abortion." Badmintonhist (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That "partisan" source in your link, Akiba Solomon's "The Missionary Movement to ‘Save’ Black Babies", was republished a lot: it was carried by Political Research Associates as "Crisis Pregnancy Centers Target Black Communities", by RH Reality Check, by Uprising Radio, by Black Planet, by Huffington Post, by Midwives of Color, and it was quoted extensively in Jezebel.
The film certainly "misuses statistics"—the scholars have made that very plain—and it aims to turn the viewer against Planned Parenthood. Can the sentence you quoted from my version of the article be rewritten? Certainly. However, you did not rewrite it; you removed it along with all the new references and new text.
Please indicate whether you are willing to work the new references into the article, telling the reader a summary of what they contain. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In other words, it was published in all sorts of other highly partisan sources. No, as the great Brother Love would have said "Brother Binksternet is out of control. He needs to be placed back under control." I think it's time for an intervention. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, the article as it stood before your massive new edits was fine. It contained several pointed criticisms of the film by named reviewers; proportionate for a modest article about a not-especially-prominent movie. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, professional journalist Michelle Goldberg's very appropriate observations of the film needed to be added, and they were not in the article. Akiba Solomon's piece from May 2013 Colorlines is relatively new to the discussion, and should be incorporated. Titania Kumeh's piece in Mother Jones in October 2010 was never brought here for discussion, but it should have been. Another new voice was Stephen Kearse who cited historian Alexandra Minna Stern writing in Eugenic Nation to say that the film misrepresents the eugenics movement. Finally, not enough information was brought into the article from Loretta J. Ross and Shaila Dewan who were referenced but not summarized very completely. So I do not accept your stance that the article was "fine" before my recent expansion. Such a position is obstructionist, not collegial. The proportion of criticism was too small, a violation of WP:NPOV because of the very damning things written about it. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Why does this article keep appearing on my watchlist? Look, people, articles are not frozen in time and should not be treated as such, and yet sometimes large-scale changes without discussion can be seen as disruptive, especially when the article was the result of a hard fought consensus. Still, those changes shouldn't be rejected just because they are new or change a lot of the article. It seems while references have been made to the scale of the changes, we're only discussing a very small part of those changes. So if that's the only thing at issue, maybe we don't revert all the changes and just keep out the small disputed part while discussion is ongoing? Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thus far I've only given a brief sampling of my objections to his massive additions. I could go sentence by sentence , but I shouldn't have to. The only editor, thus far, who likes these changes is Bink himself. The writing is terrible, probably because he did it hastily in a fit of pique. It is so bad, so filled with biased sources, so obviously denunciatory and hostile to the film that I don't think the details are worth debating at this point. I suggest that he start from scratch try to re-edit the article piecemeal if he insists on revamping it. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to discuss them, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't go ahead and restore any edits that you won't bring up here. We are all forced to discuss edits, even ones we think are "obviously" poor. It comes with the territory. I think your suggestion of editing the article piecemeal is a good one for any new edits, however. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Piecemeal edits were what I was considering for a little while, but after looking up all the sources and eyeballing the article for where to put the intended text, I concluded it was going to take a major edit: the addition of a new section to discuss the assertions and implications presented in the film versus the rebuttals made in the sources. This material was not going to fit in "Reception". Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The most I would be willing to concede here would be having Bink add (to the present article) a good academic source of criticism besides Katz, and ONE, at most, other source of criticism (Goldberg?) that allows him a link to his Black genocide article. A "Rebuttals" section after the now existing "Reception" section is obviously redundant, gratuitous, and bad form; and so too, is adding numerous pro-abortion-rights web page reviews. Nor I am not interested in balancing redundant anti-film reviews by adding a lot of praise of the film from Christian-right and anti-abortion sources. Enough is enough. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you are not considering "adding a lot of praise of the film from Christian-right and anti-abortion sources" because these do not bother to verify the facts/assertions/insinuations found in the film, and they do not carry the clout of objective viewers such as academics and professional journalists. I still intend to add a section about the supposed facts that are presented in the film versus the real facts as discussed by people who actually looked up this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Those "objective" sources that you mention, other than the NYT and WAPO, are all hardline abortion-rights ones (and neither WAPO or the Times has exactly been known for sympathetic treatment of pro-lifers). Even the Katz blog, which has been in the article since I discovered it a year and a half ago, refers to the other side as "ANTI-CHOICE", not exactly objective, academic language. I wonder if Mother Jones, the magazine, has ever informed its readers that the real Mother Jones was firmly "anti-choice." Badmintonhist (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC) PS: My wife and I are off on a budget cruise to Bermuda for a week starting tomorrow, but I will take a good look at things when I get back. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Your Mother Jones comment is indicative of the emptiness found in the assertions of the film. Mary Harris "Mother" Jones is nowhere depicted as having an opinion about abortion. There is no quote that can be found that shows her taking a strong stance, or any stance at all on that topic. She was primarily a labor rights leader, and an opponent of child labor. She thought that women should strike directly at the evils of industry, the unequal distribution of profits, rather than fool around at the edges of the real economic problem. She was not interested in women trying to get alcohol prohibited, women trying to get suffrage, women trying to fix social ills with charity efforts. Abortion was not on her radar. You will not find abortion in the following biographies or mentions of Mother Jones:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] However, for the unfortunate student who turns to Wikipedia expecting the truth, he or she will find that some IP from Birmingham, Alabama, added false text to the Mother Jones biography in June 2013, asserting without any reference that Jones was strongly opposed to abortion. What a crock. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, you seem to be falling victim to fallacious "Fair and Balanced" thinking, by which a failure to accept the film's false claims is itself evidence of a POV source. Binksternet, a "rebuttal" section is not necessary; discussion about the veracity of the film's claims would seem to belong in the "Synopsis" section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Maafa 21 is not an anti-abortion film. Abortion is only part of the story that it tells. To define it as an anti-abortion film already shows that the article has a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) bias. All the attempts to discredit the film revolve around minor and inessential points such as the idea that Margaret Sanger was not a racist. She was not a racist in the sense that she did not say the white race is superior to the negro race. But she did believe in breeding "a race of thoroughbreds" She believed in the segregation of the unfit. She believed in the War Against the Weak (phrase of Edwin Black). There is not only a vague relation with Nazi ideology but a well-documented case that Hitler's eugenic ideas were rooted in Anglo-American Eugenic practice. To get to what she and her movement actually believed about black people one needs to ask what these people felt about black culture. The answer is that they despised it as inferior. They despised the African culture of life. They despised the very core of African American culture, and if you are to maintain that this does not constitute racism, you are talking about a distinction without a difference. Okay Sanger was not a "racist" but she was all of what I have said. Her movement deceitfully injected the culture of death into Black America. This is not to call her deceitful, but her ideas were arrogant, and the historical unfolding of those ideas was deceitful. The article refuses to acknwoledge the documentation of the film which is impressive. To say it is misleading needs to be established. I have not seen any substantial criticisms of what the film pretends. It concerns Black Genocide, not a conspiracy theory. More than 16 million black unborn have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. This genocide hides in the open. Oh yes all those mothers chose to abort, except perhaps some who were forced to, or who were deceived about abortion). But there are historical forces that chose for abortion. It is incorrect history to say that our abortion practice arose from the will of the people, the will of women. Sanger was a woman, but she did not represent the will of the people. Her movement is called the Eugenics movement, Eugenics was the principle motivation of what was to be called Planned Parenthood. Her movement was motivated by elitist arrogance. (This does not mean that family planning is the same as elitist arrogance, and it does not mean that reproductive freedom, the misused term, is a useless expression) The film tells that story in a devastating and convincing fashion. Please let my comment stand this time, Bink. These are fundamental issues.Cklc (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Argumentative style

Closing discussion initiated in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As the template messages I've just added indicate, this article needs some work. Though I've smoothed out the lead a bit there is still a lot of very argumentative writing in the body, some of it juvenile sounding ("they show how Sanger wasn't a racist"). I've removed what was the second sentence in the second lead paragraph:It misuses statistics to induce in the viewer a fear of birth control and abortion, for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see that idea in the one source for it that is still available online and, more importantly, it isn't the kind of statement that Wikipedia should be making in its own voice.One person's misuse of statistics is another person's brilliant use of statistics. Motsebboh (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems like something to correct through phrasing, not removal. The use of statistics may be great at serving the political end the filmmakers are trying to serve, but we should be able to convey that the numbers aren't the way they are for the reasons the filmmakers claim, because that's not in question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I would agree that Wikipedia should note that critics contest the films use of statistics if we have a source that does that. I didn't quite see that in the Margaret Sanger's Papers source but maybe its in there indirectly. Motsebboh (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It's in the Metropulse source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't bring Metropulse article up, so can you tell me who said what about the statistics in that article? Motsebboh (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just give you the link rather than quoting its lengthy explanation: http://web.archive.org/web/20110611210626/http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/jun/02/anti-abortionists-accuse-knoxville-planned-parenth/?printer=1/ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I find it ironic that the article was tagged with a POV template and a "debate style" template when there is a complete lack of scholarship voicing support for the film. All of the scholars and topic experts have said the film is a travesty of falsehood and misdirection. What we have here is not a debate but a solid consensus of scholarly opinion, the consensus strongly against the numerous misrepresentations found in the film. If we tell the reader about the falshoods, relaying accurately the findings of scholars, then the article is not biased and doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Apparently, the only problem with the article is that certain editors here are unhappy with the scholarly consensus and would like to hide the negative assessment from our readers. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelse Thanks for bringing up the Metropulse article. I've just read it and I can't see anything in it that would justify "It misusses statistics to induce in the viewer a fear of birth control and abortion" in Wikipedia's voice. Even those criticizing the film don't say this directly. It's as if an editor decided to cross the t's and dot the i's for the critics of the film. Not encyclopedic. Motsebboh (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet Not much meat in what you've said above; mainly gristle. The idea that some editors are trying to denude the article of criticism of the subject is absurd. It's largely about how this criticism is worded. If you really think wording that takes the form of "They said HOW Sanger wasn't really a racist and HOW Sanger actually worked with black leaders and HOW Sanger really didn't agree with the Nazis . . " is better than what replaced it, you probably shouldn't be working on politically charged articles. Motsebboh (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese I should have noticed this before, but regarding your point above that " . . we should be able to convey that the numbers [of abortions among African Americans] aren't the way they are for the reasons the filmmakers claim" . . we already do. The last paragraph of the lead says " . . instead of being a plot by Planned Parenthood the high rate of abortion among African Americans comes from a correspondingly high rate of unplanned pregnancies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Is your contention that if something is in the lede, it would be redundant to also mention it in the body? This does not reflect WP's lede guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
No, that is not my point. On the contrary, something mentioned in the lead should be mentioned in somewhat greater detail in the body. However, before my recent changes we had [A] the It misuses statistics . . statement in Wikipedia's voice in the lead [B] the . . instead of being a plot by Planned Parenthood . . statement, also in the the lead, and [C] the paragraph in the poorly written "Rebuttals" section of the article explaining the high rate of African American abortion with greater verbiage. The latter two are still there. I suggest that in the lead we instead have something like " Critics have charged that it misuses statistics on African American abortion rates to induce a fear of . . . (Planned Parenthod or abortion or birth control and abortion) among African Americans." In the body we then have the explanation for the higher African American abortion rates. Incidentally, there really shouldn't be both a Reception and a Rebuttals section of the article. The Rebuttals section is really a Criticism section which should be avoided. Motsebboh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Loretta J. Ross

Closing discussion initiated in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regarding this edit [10] by Roscelese. I don't see where Ross is described as a founder of "several human rights and reproductive rights (or reproductive justice) organizations" in the source On the Issues. Even if she were this could be considered puffery from a strongly biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the description was meant to be from the source, I thought we were describing Ross for context. You evidently thought so too, since the source also doesn't say that she founded several abortion rights organizations - nor would I expect it to, since as far as I know that's not true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Until just yesterday I simply took what I found about Ross in the Maafa21 article and assumed that it was sourced since I assumed that All the factual information in an article other than blue sky is supposed to be sourced. I am unaware of the notion that if we describe someone "for context" it doesn't have to be sourced. Motsebboh (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maafa 21. 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:

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) 04:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not neutral

Article isn't NPOV. It is hostile to the documentary. It focuses on calling Black Genocide a "conspiracy theory" rather than pointing out irrefutable facts that are part of the historical record. The film rightly points out how charges of "feeble-mindedness" were racialized, how there were forced sterilizations, and let's not forget that US history is filled with numerous episodes of racial violence directed at non-white groups, from American Indians, to Chicanos, to Blacks, to Puerto Ricans, many of which were done in official state capacity as well as with tacit approval from the state by other actors. You can't just wave off racial violence and oppression as a conspiracy theory, the whole USA was founded on and built upon those very principles. If you are going to devote so much time to talking about where the documentary arguably got it wrong, why are the parts were it unarguably got it right not mentioned in the article? Seems like a slanted hit piece. Furthermore, forced sterilization is not a pro-choice issue, anything forced is anti-choice by its very definition, since choice means having more than one option. I think its also a sick sense of irony that the Black Panthers are being called conspiracy theorists when in fact there was a government conspiracy which targeted the Black Panthers to violate their civil rights and even assassinate members. Again, proven fact. Also, Sanger spoke at a KKK rally. The KKK were terrorists, plain and simple. I think that should be mentioned in the article. Let the readers conclude if someone who spoke at a KKK rally is a racist. Also, the Panthers were not sepratists, they were intercommunalists and internationalist socialists. Taking that out24.238.89.22 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory, and you must not engage in original research to try to "prove" that it's actually correct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
(Although I do think it's pretty funny that you're trying to argue that black women are part of an anti-black conspiracy in the same post where you're noting that Sanger went to a KKK meeting to try to convince them to have fewer children.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That is not a conspiracy theory. Sanger DID speak at a KKK rally, she said so herself in her autobiography. Why are you suppressing that information? It is highly relevant to charges of her racism, as well as her views that the population should forcibly segregate 'undesirables' into camps. I think the reader should have access to that information and draw their own conclusions if a person who spoke a Klan rally, called for forced sterilizations and sending people to camps is a racist. Also, the charges of Black genocide should be weighed against the proven history of forced sterilization campaigns in the USA against Puerto Ricans and American Indians. Do you find it funny that women were forcibly sterilized? Who said that Black women were part of a conspiracy? My issue is not with voluntary abortion, my issue is with forced sterilization, which Sanger advocated. If you are pro-choice then you should be against forced sterilization. And the Black Panther Party were EXPLICITLY anti-Black nationalist and separatist. YOU are the one putting in original research here. There are numerous examples where they stated this. I recommend that you watch the documentary "La Operacion" to see the testimonies of the Puerto Rican women who were forcibly sterilized. A simple Google search will turn it up. I also recommend that instead of hand waving the sources as original research (which btw, is in books and on .edu websites) that you actually take the time to read and examine them.24.238.89.22 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for posting your original thoughts. Have you considered starting a blog? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here are my sources:These are the sources for what is mentioned.

Margaret Sanger wrote about speaking at a KKK rally. Mind you, the KKK were active terrorists in the 1920s.

(Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366) https://archive.org/stream/margaretsangerau1938sang/margaretsangerau1938sang_djvu.txt

and her views about forcible sterilization, and forced serration and relocation, and anti-immigrant views are described in her speech here:

Margaret Sanger, "My Way to Peace," 17 Jan. 1931..

Typed draft article. Source: Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress. , Library of Congress Microfilm 130:198 .

Summary of talk delivered by Mrs. Sanger before the New History Society, Park Lane Hotel, Sunday evening January 17, 1931. For other drafts see Margaret Sanger Microfilm S71:348 and LCM 65:358A, 130:390. Shortened published versions can be found as "A Plan for Peace," Birth Control Review , Apr. 1932, 107-08 (Margaret Sanger Microfilm S71:532) and "Margaret Sanger's Plan for Peace," New Historian No. 5, Feb 1932, 5-6 (LCM 65:3698.)

https://archive.org/stream/margaretsangerau1938sang/margaretsangerau1938sang_djvu.txt 

   "[The Black Panther Party for Self Defense] emphasize more of a class analysis of society. Its emphasis on Marxist–Leninist doctrine and its repeated espousal of Maoist statements signaled the group's transition from a revolutionary nationalist to a revolutionary internationalist movement. Every Party member had to study Mao Tse-tung's "Little Red Book" to advance his or her knowledge of peoples' struggle and the revolutionary process."

Austin, Curtis 2006; Bloom & Martin 2013; March 2010; Joseph 2006

from Seize the Time: The Story of the Black Panther Party and Huey P. Newton by Bobby Seale (1968): Bobby Seale wrote: 

  "Cultural nationalists and Black Panthers are in conflict in many areas. Basically, cultural nationalism sees the white man as the oppressor and makes no distinction between racist whites and non-racist whites, as the Panthers do. The cultural nationalists say that a black man cannot be an enemy of the black people, while the Panthers believe that black capitalists are exploiters and oppressors. Although the Black Panther Party believes in black nationalism and black culture, it does not believe that either can lead to black liberation or the overthrow of the capitalist system (footnote, p. 23)."

Bobby Seale wrote: 

  "We, the Black Panther Party, see ourselves as a nation within a nation, but not for any racist reasons. We see it as a necessity for us to progress as human beings and live on the face of this earth along with other people. We do not fight racism with racism. We fight racism with solidarity. We do not fight exploitative capitalism with black capitalism. We fight capitalism with basic socialism. And we do not fight imperialism with more imperialism. We fight imperialism with proletarian internationalism (p. 71)."

From This Side of Glory: The Autobiography of David Hilliard and the Story of the Black Panther Party (1993): David Hilliard wrote: 

  "First, the place [Oakland] is a raw settlement, a boomtown, violent and full of adventure. Vigilantes play as distinguished and important a role in the area’s life as, say, the Irish politicians do in Boston. Plus, the area has a rich union tradition. The area’s local hero is not a college football coach but Harry Bridges, head of the radical longshoreman’s union. When I’m growing up, Communist Party members openly recruit at the docks and in the union halls, and there’s no stigma attached to their ideas or practice. The political environment encourages the idea of internationalism; solidarity is the watchword, and we are surrounded by examples of people collectively asserting their power.

  [...]

  But there is one significant difference between us and our Oakland forbears. In creating and developing the [Black Panther] Party we refused to glorify our rootlessness. Instead we shaped and focused the anger and energy of our members, creating a revolutionary organization of workers and the poor that combined the internationalism of the radical trade union movement with the communalism of my sister Rose Lee’s Big Meeting and, for a while, captured the imagination of an entire generation – black, white, and everything between (pp. 68-69). "

Finally, Chicago Panther Chairman Fred Hampton lead for the push of a Rainbow Coalition, which included the Young Patriots (white Appalachian migrants in Chicago), Native American Revolutionary Party, Young Lords Party (predominantly Puerto Rican), Brown Berets (predominantly Chicano) and the "red Guard" which was compromised of Asian-Americans.

Amy Sonnie and James Tracy, Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times (Melville House Publishing, 2011)

Jakobi Williams, From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2013.)

So it is pretty slanderous to mislabel the Panther Party as separatists. I consider that to not be NPOV, and the whole sentence is using weasel words and phrases.

Next on forced sterilization campaigns in Puerto Rico, i cite wikipedia's own article and use their sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Puerto_Rico 

   "Physicians and hospitals alike also implemented hospital policy to encourage sterilization, with some hospitals refusing to admit healthy pregnant women for delivery unless they consented to be sterilized."

Briggs, Laura (2002). Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-22255-7.

and

Ramirez de Arellano, Annette B.; Seipp, Conrad (1983). Colonialism, Catholicism, and Contraception: A History of Birth Control in Puerto Rico. The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-1544-1.

Next, 

   "This has been best documented at Presbyterian Hospital, where the unofficial policy for a time was to refuse admittance for delivery to women who already had three living children unless she consented to sterilization."

Same two sources.

Next, 

   "here is additional evidence that true informed consent was not obtained from patients before they underwent sterilization, if consent was solicited at all."

From Annette Ramirez source listed above.

So it is a well established historical fact that in the USA, forced sterilizations happened. The only remaining question is to what scale did this occur.

As the wikipedia article goes on to state: 

   "Some scholars, such as Bonnie Mass [98] and Iris Lopez,[102] have argued that the history and popularity of mass sterilization in Puerto Rico represents a government-led eugenics initiative for population control.,[98][102][104][105] They cite the private and government funding of sterilization, coercive practices, and the eugenics ideology of Puerto Rican and American governments and physicians as evidence of a mass sterilization campaign."

Mass, Bonnie (January 1, 1977). "Puerto Rico: a Case Study of Population Control". Latin American Perspectives. 4 (4): 66–79. doi:10.1177/0094582x7700400405.

Lopez, Iris (1993). "Agency And Constraint: Sterilization And Reproductive Freedom Among Puerto Rican Women In New York City". Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development. 22 (3).

Annette Ramirez again as above and

Gutierrez, Elena R.; Fuentes, Liza (2009–2010). "Population Control by Sterilization: The Cases of Puerto Rican and Mexican-Origin Women in the United States". Latino(a) Research Review. 7 (3).

Furthermore, here is more citations:

The number of women sterilized in the same age group rose to 35.3% in 1968 according to a study by the Puerto Rican demographer Dr. Jose Vasquez Calzada.

Vasquez Calzada, Jose Luis. "La esterilizacion femenina en Puerto Rico." Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Universidad de Puerto Rico) 17, no. 3 (September 1973):281-308.

The fact is that it was not voluntary, in the context of being informed and being provided other options of non-permanent birth control. The targeted women were often unaware of the irreversibility of sterilization and pressure was put on them to accept the operation in exchange for longer hospital stays after childbirth.

Source: (Hartmann 1995 p.248) Hartmann, Betsy

1995 Reproductive Rights and Wrongs. Boston: South End Press

I can provide many more sources if these aren't enough. None of it "original research". Just plain history. The fact that Sanger spoke at a KKK rally, was in favor of forced sterilizations and segregation/relocation is relevant. The fact that there were forced sterilization on racial/ethnic basis before under the U.S. society and system is also relevant, and makes charges of black genocide have irrefutable historical parallels and precedent and therefor increase the plausibility and likelihood of this charge as being in keeping with what we know about White/Anglo attitudes towards other groups.

Have you thought about publishing history and not revisionist propaganda to suppress actually occurring historical atrocities to properly understand the context of these charges? It just so happens I am a PhD. who has been paid to write encyclopedia articles and has been published in encyclopedias. I know what it and what isn't "original research" and what is part of the historical record.24.238.89.22 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Literally none of this supports your claim that black women are part of an anti-black conspiracy. If you're a highfalutin' real-life author, then you should publish your research with a reliable publisher and maybe another editor will cite it one day. As it is, real-life publishing credentials do not translate to familiarity with Wikipedia's evidence standards, and I suggest you find a mentor to help you out or get started in a less contentious topic area. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Show me where I claimed Black women were part of an anti-Black conspiracy. I did no such thing. That is a strawman. You are confusing the portions of the film which are anti-abortion and against Planned Parenthood, with that portion of the film (pretty much the first third to first half of it) which correctly documents the racism of the American Eugenics movement and its ties to the Nazis and the KKK and the numerous policies of forced sterilization enacted at the state level. Which of these sources don't meet your standards and I will go back and find you other ones, no problem? But it is perplexing to me how an encyclopedia article should not use Sanger's own words and account of her speech to the KKK in weighing the charges that she was racist, but uses secondary sources instead. It is also interesting that I am referencing what is actually in the film and that is somehow not valued as much as a secondary source from those who write about the film. Which publishers that I used in citations are not reliable? Stanford University? Sanger herself? University of Vermont? The Denver Post? The Associated Press? Colorlines (which is cited elsewhere in the article)? The Guardian? Mother Jones? Or the number of other sources I directly lifted from other Wikipedia pages? Because you are being wholesale dismissive and incredibly vague. I am willing to work with you here, but you seem uninterested in working with me.
I am going to formally request another party come and review this, because I took a very careful approach to use sources used and accepted in other Wikipedia articles as citations. I think your charges against these sources are therefor unjust and most likely heavily biased. Notice that I have not deleted other portions of the article that are critical, I have only added more information to the article, much of which is about what the film itself says and shows and also documents.
For the last time, and to be perfectly clear, my interest in this article is not to force an anti-abortion agenda, but rather highlight the historical events surrounding forced sterilizations and white supremacy in U.S. policies. Again, if you is pro-choice, then you would do as Sanger advocated and leave the only choice to millions to be forced sterilization or being segregated into a work camp for one's entire lifetime. Amazing that the article tried to call the Black Panthers separatists (which they were not, as I showed before) but protects an actual separatist in the form of segregation.24.238.89.22 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This article presents the film to the reader in a manner in keeping with the best quality sources we have. These sources correctly call out the negative aspects of the film. We are not being "hostile" to the film, nor is the article a violation of WP:NPOV.
The black genocide conspiracy aspect is a very important element of the film. Its purpose was to politicize the US black community against birth control and abortion, even though the black community had been largely in favor of both, except for some extremists. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maafa_21/Archive_3&oldid=1136976125"