Talk:Maafa 21

CorenSearchBot

Please disregard the CorenSearchBot. The text it found is on the DVD sale site, which is where I got it from. RenewAmerica also has published the text. Don't delete this article! NYyankees51 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede Section

The lede as currently written violates a neutral point of view by giving undue weight to the political controversy surrounding the film. The lede should summarize the salient points of the controversy, not merely reiterate the most strident criticisms leveled by opponents of the film (without proper attribution, I might add).

I think the lede for the highly controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good template to follow, and that's what I've tried to do here. From the second paragraph of the Fahrenheit 9/11 article:

In the film, Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did not provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resulting casualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including some disputes over its accuracy. Moore has responded by documenting his sources.

No inflammatory POV language (i.e. "propaganda" and "shockumentary"), no lengthy reiteration of various arguments on both sides. Just a simple statement of the facts leaving the particulars to the appropriate section of the article.

I would propose a similar approach for this article; something along these lines, perhaps:

Written and directed by pro-life activist Mark Crutcher, the film has received a positive reception from opponents of abortion. Pro-choice advocates have been sharply critical of the film, and have accused Crutcher of drawing inaccurate conclusions about the life and work of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

This seems like a reasonable summary. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. This way the lede is not weighed down with biased criticism.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Dick argues WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a failing tactic. His suggested lead section summary misses the observations that the film is "an exceedingly dishonest propaganda exercise" regarding why there are so many black abortions: the film says blacks are being targeted by racist genocide when they are simply having too many unwanted pregnancies. Some 69% of black pregnancies are unplanned vs 40% of white ones, per Guttmacher; also, 15% of blacks are having unprotected sex with no aim to get pregnant while only 9% of whites are. The words "distortion" and "deception" have been leveled at the film by Michelle Goldberg, who says Crutcher makes the film a "racial wedge issue".

It is not simply that Crutcher makes a wrong conclusion. Crutcher charges Planned Parenthood with racist genocide at without evidence. He ties Hitler to abortion proponents even though Hitler banned abortion because he wanted more white German babies. He distorts the fact that Sanger was never a racist, never wanted to rid the world of black babies, such that he shows Sanger as racist and genocidal. Crutcher flips Sanger upside down to get to his wrong conclusion.

Academics such as Esther Katz put the film down as false. Scholarly opinion is what Wikipedia holds as the highest standard. Katz says Crutcher is "unknown in academic circles." The academic opinion should set the tone. Because there are no academics who praise the film, the tone of the article should reflect that the film is not viewed as well-made or accurate. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The lead should summarize the body, not conform to our views of the film either way. If you two fans of the film can find reliable sources that praise it, by all means add them. The one source cited in the article that praises it is not much in the way of reliable, coming as it does from the fringe John Birch Society, so perhaps you could replace it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the strong assertions of this documentary, shockumentary is appropriate. I'm sorry, but this is self evident if Hitler is used; this permits me the luxury of not watching it. {{POV-statement}} could be used, I'm unsure what Fahrenheit 9/11 presented that would be considered Shocking. - RoyBoy 01:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda films category

I think the article should be categorized as a propaganda film: Category:American propaganda films.

Certainly Michelle Goldberg calls the film propaganda in her article "Anti-Choice Doc Aims to Link Reproductive Rights to ‘Black Genocide’"; she says the film is propaganda, and also "an exceedingly dishonest propaganda exercise". She's a respected journalist and author, though not a university scholar. Her article in Religious Dispatches was commented on, lending it greater weight than if it fell with a thud. The following blogs commented on Goldberg's article: BaptistPlanet, Not My Tribe, Unintended Consequences, ConWebWatch and Genocide for Jesus.

The editorial staff of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University wrote in 2010 ("Smear-n-Fear") that the film was propaganda. The chief editor is Project Director Esther Katz, PhD, who is working on the fourth of four volumes published on Sanger's life. This source provides a scholarly assertion that the film is propaganda. Wikipedia's best sources are scholarly, allowing us to state facts in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing them as opinion.

The Liberator Magazine takes a circumspect view of the film, praising parts of it but describing its anti-abortion agenda as propaganda, without using the word propaganda. In this film review, the magazine says Maafa 21 uses emotional manipulation to further a political aim.

Is this film designed to raise awareness or is it simply just another attempt to exploit black people for political gain? It turns out that it may be a little bit of both. After watching the film and reading about some of the tactics used by the creators of this film (Life Dynamics Inc.), one gets the impression that the point isn’t so much about saving black people, but furthering a political agenda and, insofar that black people can be useful in furthering that agenda, they will be catered to.

Adding these sources up, I feel that the label 'propaganda' is fairly applied to the film. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All the sources you list are blogs, not RSs. The only one that might fly is the Sanger project, but that's an editorial - an opinion. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor blogs by non-notable writers should not be taken as reliable soures—I agree as far as that. However, blogs in larger circulation publications such as newspapers and magazines are today's opinion-editorials. If the publisher or writer is well respected then the opinion stands as reliable. Certainly the Sanger Papers Project blog is the voice of the editorial staff; all scholars. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Classifying the film as propaganda is not supported by article content.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Explain. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with using Category:Propaganda films here. Because categories are presented devoid of context, they should be used in clear-cut cases. Here, some sources have clearly described the film as propaganda, but that's best handled with a nuanced, sourced, attributed discussion in the article body rather than with a context-free category. That's just my 2 cents; I think categories are usually more trouble than they're worth in these sorts of cases, and the info in question is better conveyed in the article text. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed completely. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The New American

I think that when we quote The New American, it's appropriate to let the reader know that it's published under the umbrella of the John Birch Society. This info was removed here, with the edit summary "not published by JBS--but a subsidiary; in any event unnecessary--reader can follow the link for more info."

First of all, the New American is published by a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society. That means, in effect, it is controlled entirely by the JBS. More to the point, this is the sort of information that should be conveyed to the reader in the interest of honesty. When we quote a journal published by an extremist partisan group, then we have a responsibility to the reader to at least allude to that fact. They shouldn't have to click on a link (which, incidentally, is a redirect) in order to figure that out - it feels a bit deceptive. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We should name the John Birch Society along with its house organ. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the JBS. The New American is a fairly obscure publication so we can't expect readers to know the association.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disadvantaged

Howdy, I'm running through the NPOV backlog and found this. Completely random, but I'm asking for editors here to redirect some energy to Disadvantaged, as there is a slight tie in here... but mainly it shames me Wikipedia can't get it right. PS: Disadvantaged has slightly more traffic. :"D - RoyBoy 04:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Criticism is always a matter of opinion and should not be presented as a matter of fact, even less those claims absolutely unsourced like the first paragraph. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Or to put your comment another way, "Yeah, well, that's just, like your opinion, man." Except Wikipedia doesn't work that way. WP:NPOV does not, contrary to claims made by aspiring POV-pushers, require that fringe conspiracy theories be treated as valid and that mainstream, factual views be attributed as "what some people believe". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The film is an exposition of fringe views. There is no possible way that it can be presented without a full explanation of the real facts. The only opinion observed here is that of those who think the film accurate. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

At any rate the criticism and claims about the film should be presented not as "factual views" but attributed to the authors as their opinion, to present them as "factual views" would be a WP:OR assumption made by you. I insist also that the first paragraph of the section criticism is absolutely lacking any source. Finally, I have to wonder if Roscelese could keep her comments on the topic instead of referring to users as POV-pushers and that sort of disqualifying comments? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is already attributed to its authors, some of whom are scholars. A scholarly view is usually presented as fact if it is not countered by other scholars. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sentence about ignorance

ClaudioSantos removed the following text in this edit:

"Pro-life activists praise the film as a tool in their campaign against abortion rights, choosing to believe its claims although they are unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research that supposedly went into making the film."

This bit is sourced to the excellent article in MetroPulse by Frank N. Carlson, "Anti-abortionists Accuse Knoxville Planned Parenthood of 'Black Genocide'".

I believe that the sentence should remain, as it is an accurate description of the ignorance encountered by Carlson; people who don't really know why they are protesting Planned Parenthood except that the film said it was bad. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos removed it because it was allegedly a criticism sentence in the support section, but that's wrong: it's explicitly about its positive reception from anti-abortion activists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence and the source firstly mention that prolife activist suport the movie but immediately claims that they support the film not based on factual knwoledge but on ignorance. That is a critic on the supporters of the film nothing else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a critique of the context of the film, and so it should stay in this article. This film is used as a weapon of sociopolitical change, and the problems of its usage are wound together with the problems of its misuse of facts and misrepresentation of history. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Then move it to the section criticism to increase its already undue weight. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue criticism?

ClaudioSantos added an "undue weight" template to the criticism section but he did not add a talk page discussion about the supposed undue weight. I think the criticism section accurately shows the criticism of the film. What could possibly be "undue" about that? The template should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed both edits of CS, as both were unexplained. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I forget to explain the UNDUE template, but it was inserted because the section of criticism is clearly too long. The second edit actually was tagged and explained ("It is hilarious to put a piece of criticism in the section about support"), perhaps NightOfTheBigWind was unable to read that explanation but it was there. At any rate it is still hilarious and ridiculous and POV to keep a piece of criticism in the suppoort section and to keep a very long section of criticism. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Too long? That's nuts. The criticism section is precisely long enough to describe the published criticisms of the film. Of course it is long; the criticisms are massive because the film is atrociously bad. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Was your opinion about the film the criteria to pick up the content of that section and its weight? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you projecting? I took my opinion of the film from the large amount of published criticism, categorically trashing its supposed scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Except MSPP on the NYU, the sources are blogs, including a feminist blog-magazine, thus far from being scholar or unbiased or reliable sources. Anyone can also pick up a lot of blogs and prolife magazines supporting the film, so the section of support should be enlarged or this criticism section should be shortened. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased POV edit

This edit: [1] is clearly a POV pushing. It is attempting to present a matter of opinion as it was a matter of fact. If the criticism is based on mainstream scholary opinion then it is still an opinion, be it the ruler opinion but it is not a fact. Actually the version which was undone did not reduce any criticism but solely put it as a matter of opinion as it is and as it should be presented. --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't all editors be insisting that the quotes make the arguments, as opposed to the narrative? Given the charged nature of the topic of abortion, which is the root of this article, isn't it best to minimize opinion that is not cited? Shouldn't that goal be universal throughout all Wikipedia articles?

Roscelese claims that "reducing weight of mainstream scholarly opinion in preference to fringe views is the opposite of maintaining NPOV". But, isn't this line of reasoning what is truly the opposite of maintaining NPOV? Is not the bias of Roscelese being clearly demonstrated in the use of the terms "mainstream scholarly" (for the one side) and "fringe" (for the other). Perhaps Roscelese's perspective on these two sides is based upon where he/she sits. Or, perhaps Roscelese is merely demonstrating that Wikipedia is not truly meant to be a NPOV source after all...

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"That's just, like, your opinion, man." No, WP's neutrality policy does not entail treating all views as equally true; we are not bound to treat the shape of the Earth or the existence of the Holocaust as opinions simply because a fringe minority disagree. Removing the fact that the films' claims are objectively not true gives the impression that criticism of those claims stems from simple partisanship or desire to hide the truth, rather than from the fact that experts recognize the film as propagandic falsehood. A refusal to recognize the existence of reliable sources or experts on any subject is indicative of a serious problem with multiple fundamental Wikipedia policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing is though that my original edit did not affect the criticism itself, merely the tone of the article, bringing it into an NPOV. The shape of the earth is indeed an objective, observable and provable fact. However, the motivations of historical individuals and institutions are always up to interpretation. Certainly, those who agree with the message of Maafa 21 (which I personally have never viewed) could produce an overwhelming deluge of supportive reviews. (The topic is abortion, after all, therefore the opinions are endless.) Those reviews could never change the fact that their position still is and always will be opinion, not proven fact, certainly not truth.

Roscelese's insistence that the critical view must be fact is quite disconcerting. How do we resolve a situation where one editor insists upon pushing an opinion within an article while another editor wants the article to be neutral, while allowing the criticism to speak for itself?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you do not recognize that scholars of a topic have an "opinion" that is worth more than the opinion of the man in the street, you have a serious problem with the basis on which Wikipedia runs. These scholars are not offering their personal views on whether abortion is right or wrong; they are pointing out, on the basis of their study of historical documents and events, that the film's claims about these documents and events are based on statements taken out of context, the suppression of material that doesn't support the film's conspiracy claims, and flat-out lies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it self-evident that any time an editor feels it necessary to insert opinion into an article, he/she is demonstrating that the cited evidence is weak? Adding your own opinion must be the ultimate insult to those you are quoting. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not insert opinions into Wikipedia; we report on opinions held by others. Since reliable scholarly sources, as opposed to activists with strong personal feelings, agree that the film's claims are false, this is what we report. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the opinions of regular people who watch the film and the conclusions made by scholars who are topic experts. Proper balance is being served by giving much more credence to the views of scholars Marcy Darnovsky, Esther Katz, Loretta J. Ross and the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is argumentum ad verecundiam nothing else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the scholars have authority over the film, or over pro-life propaganda in general. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But it seems they have a sort of authority over some wikipedians as they insist in presenting these scholars' opinions as facts. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The "opinions" of the scholarly community are generally regarded as fact, yes. Argument from authority is fallacious when there is a diversity of scholarly opinion or when the people are not actually experts in the field in question, which is not true of the scholars or situation here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am not asking that any of the critical quotes be removed from the Criticism section, only that its opening paragraph maintain a neutral tone so that the critics may speak for themselves. Official Wikipedia policy is that editors maintain an Impartial tone. For the article to declare that the opinions of one group are "fact" and of another group are "false", which are undeniably loaded terms, is a violation of this policy. I have added a POV template to the Reception section. As all Wikipedia editors ought not to be, I am not interested in agreement--only clarity, intellectual honesty and a NPOV. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The weight of opinions of the man on the street who has viewed the propaganda film of anti-abortion activists is nil compared to the view of topic experts and scholars. You cannot equate such disparate stances without completely unbalancing the article. The weight of scholarship is the defining theme here. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A "neutral" tone is not one that gives credence to fringe theories or that disregards reliable sources for the sake of "balance." If I hadn't spent so long editing in political topic areas, I would think that your assertion that we cannot recognize the existence of facts, only equally valuable opinions, was a parody. I have removed your POV tag, as a refusal to accept WP:RS as policy is not a position that allows for any discussion or compromise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the dispute still exists, please do not remove the tag, as the tag clearly states. Also, since we seem to be at an impasse, are you willing to go through Dispute resolution? It should be a good learning experience for all of us. I am willing to accept the results of the dispute resolution process. How about you?

I have opened a DRN, located HERE.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed but not really surprised that, on taking the issue to DRN and finding that your position was not supported, you decided to double down on it and frivolously tag the whole article as well as the section. Are you expecting that you'll file a separate DRN for this tag which will suddenly support you? "Some editors here might feel too strongly about abortion" is also rather rich coming from a single-purpose account who until recently had a lengthy anti-abortion screed as his user page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless I do endorse ... Beleg Strongbow. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate both the criticism from Roscelese and the endorsement from ClaudioSantos, nevertheless I am not interested in agreement--only clarity, intellectual honesty and a NPOV.

Regrettably, when you reveal to others your personal points of view (outside of an actual article, of course), regardless of how respectfully and candidly you express yourself, editors who disagree with you tend to punish you for it by beating you about the head and shoulders with your own words, instead of rewarding you for being open and honest. That's why I have removed those personal essays from my user page (though obviously they're still in my history), because I grew weary of those who can't simply disagree but insist upon being disagreeable. Que sera... Enough of my whining! :)

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, please put the POV tags back. The article is still under dispute. I have no problem undoing your edit, but it would be nice if you would do it for us. Thanks. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags are not meant to be used as badges of shame - the tag will not stay up for just as long as you keep claiming there are NPOV problems with the article. You were asked to show that there were NPOV problems by finding other sources, and you have failed to find those sources because what you have provided was either inadmissible as a source or did not support your claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "No." Just so we can get on the same page, what again are my claims? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You stated that you added the tag because you felt the article was biased against the film instead of stating the facts, but it is clear that the "bias" against the film is a reflection of what is found in reliable sources, which point out that the film's claims are false and that its support comes from people who generally don't know any better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks. I'm glad I asked, because I thought you might again be accusing me of claiming that the film is accurate, which I am not. I really do wish, though, that you would be open to accepting that the sources I found do sufficiently demonstrate that the film is relevant, insomuch that they reflect an existing perspective within African American culture. Though not my original point, that is now all I'm trying to say. (My original point, when all this discussion started, was something like This is an interesting article. Seems like it could be a bit more NPOV, though. Here, let me help. KABLAMO!) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The POV tags are meritless. The film is accurately portrayed by scholars to be false and misleading, and it is also accurately portrayed as being praised by anti-abortion activists and uneducated viewers. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Frank Carlson, Metropulse

Let's take a closer look at this reference. There's a lot of material here we should be using about the plot of the film and its lack of basis in reality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet looked at the reference to Frank Carlson, but I had a general comment about its current usage.

Pro-life activists praise the film as a tool in their campaign against abortion rights, choosing to believe its claims although they are unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research that supposedly went into making the film.

In pointing out that supporters of the film are "unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research," while probably accurate, aren't we being inherently redundant and unfairly critical? What I mean is that the very nature of creating and promoting a documentary, regardless of its subject matter, is to push a perspective upon a largely ignorant audience with the hope of playing upon their ignorance to garnish support. Whether its Focus on the Family or Michael Moore, producers of documentaries are trying to win people over to their point of view, while providing either only the information that will support their case or information in a way that will support their case. They are counting on their audience to be ignorant and hoping that they will be easily swayed. It seems unfair to act as though pro-life activists are somehow unique in their level of gullibility.

Also, since I am currently on the topic of fairness (and always on the topic of NPOV), I don't think pro-life activists would agree that they have a "campaign against abortion rights" as the current wording claims. Changing "abortion rights" either to "legalized abortion" (sufficient) or "abortion on demand" (preferred) would be better.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Legalized abortion" is neutral; "abortion on demand" is a propaganda phrase which we won't use. As for the issue of support for the film from people who don't know any better - this is what's in the source and we won't censor it just because it hurts your feelings. If there is comparable material in a reliable source on a Michael Moore film, I won't stop you adding it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Based upon the testimonies of two small-town, small-church pro-life activists, as recorded within an article that is openly hostile to their cause and sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, we are making the claim that all pro-life activists who have seen Maafa 21 are "choosing to believe its claims although they are unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research"? Where's the credible polling data that specifically asks the question, "Would you be willing to believe these claims without personal knowledge of the history or facts involved?" This accusation is implausible and disingenuous. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an unverified claim--the one saying supporters of the film are "unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research"--made solely to discredit the suporters and enforce the claimed falsehood diagnosed by some scholars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it in other words, "it's totally true, how dare you say that a conspiracy theory that supports my anti-abortion beliefs might be wrong." Get real - we are not going to pretend that these activists know as much about history as scholars in the subject, and if the source points out repeatedly that they don't know what they're talking about, we're not going to censor that based on your demonstrably flawed comprehension of NPOV. The polling data issue is also a red herring - claims that the film has persuaded people to oppose abortion rights are also largely anecdotal (cf. Dewan) but y'all are pushing very hard to add those. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What anyone pretends to know about people's knwoledge and skills, is irrelevant at all. Any claim about it must be verifiable and reliable. If anyone is self-diagnosig an irremediable ignorance leading and unvoidable submission to authorities or if he/she is self-diagnosing a very huge egotism, at any rate it is also irrelevant and not an excuse to publish unverifiable generalizing -for not to say absolutist- claims. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so the people interviewed by Carlson are actually very knowledgeable about history, and they just chose to tell him that they didn't know much because they thought it would be funny to have the paper print the wrong thing. Yes, this is much more plausible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To stay consistent then, the article should read "Frank Carlson found two pro-life activists from a little Baptist church just outside of Knoxville, TN, who were willing to acknowledge their acceptance of the overall message of Maafa 21 while demonstrating that they were overwhelmed by the specific details."

Personally, I don't find this low-level of detail to be relevant, but assuming Carlson's credibility, it is exponentially more accurate than the current statement. Wait a second, I thought man-on-the-street opinions were completely unacceptable? Now you're insisting that we use these two men-on-the-street as the basis for making a sweeping judgment of all pro-life activists... Sounds fair.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Even removing the meta commentary on the piece, this is not an accurate representation of the source. I'm also surprised to hear you claiming that reception/support of the film isn't relevant now - wasn't it you who tag-bombed the article because it didn't have enough information about people who liked and believed the film? Funny how your tune changes when the sources point out that the film's fans don't know anything about the background. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add and for accuracy, when I was talking about ignorance and contempt on people's knowledge and the respective submission to authorities, certainly I was not referring to any of those here mentioned interviewees although I could be misunderstood, but attempting to discredit every supporter of a film due two or three interviews made by some Carlson, it is a much more plausible obtuseness. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to try suggesting wording that accommodates your view without introducing inaccuracy or original research? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the manifold difference between the man-on-the-street, whom I have never once endorsed, and the commentators referenced in my "Reception section" below is abundantly obvious--or at least should be. You sure do like picking on Straw Men. Shock everyone some time and first accurately represent and then honestly address the points that have actually been made. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had made any points in this thread I would have responded to them. Instead, you start by saying you have not read the source but you make observations about it. To me that is empty blather, not worthy of response. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I've explained why a number of the references you cite are either totally unsuitable or misrepresented in your comments. We're going around in circles - I have to ask you again, would you please propose text that uses reliable sources and doesn't misrepresent them in the name of your agenda? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For me it seems pretty clear that someone here has an agenda but it is not Beleg, namely eugeNAZIsts, euthaNAZIsts, even abortionists of the lacking human species, i.e. medical-doctors. But at any rate, I must insist: based upon two intervieews it can not be assumed as a matter of fact, those strong biased affirmations such as "supporters are unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research"; this is an unverifiable claim, an opinion which also seems an attempt to discredit any supporter of the film in order to discredit valid concerns in it. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception section - Beleg's proposed updates

The following is my working DRAFT of the updates that I am proposing for the "Reception" section of the Article. What you currently see here is what I am currently suggesting. All of it is open for discussion in the next section of this Talk page.

• User:Beleg Strongbow/Maafa 21

Please offer your feedback in the discussion section below, and I will make the updates here with which I agree. Any discussion comments left in this section will be moved to the discussion section below.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception section - discussion

I would like to move all of the discussion of the Reception section here. Any objections? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Past discussion regarding my suggested updates to the "Reception" section have been moved here. Please place all future corresponding comments here as well. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this is irrelevant or unusable as a source, but none of the reliable sources are disagreeing with any of the scholarly statements already presented: that the films' claims are rubbish. Can you explain what, from this material, you would like to change or include? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to include all of it as is (with whatever alterations are necessary). With the single exception of the bit about MovieGuide, it's all my own wording based upon my observation about what those sources had to say about Maafa 21. Of particular significance is that these sources, while not attempting to confirm what the film is saying, do add weight to the film's significance as a legitimate perspective, as opposed to insisting that it is mere nuttiness. Lynette Holloway, not a pro-life activist, gives credence not only to the film but also to its message--that there is a viable, though not proven, argument out there that institutionalized abortion is thought to be part of a conspiracy to eliminate African Americans. The Root is neither a Christian website, nor a religious website per se, and is certainly not a pro-life website, yet it obviously had no problem posting Holloway's three articles on the subject matter contained within Maafa 21. Also, Shaila Dewan from The New York Times, also not a pro-life activist, acknowledged that there are "enough threads of truth [weaved] through the" theories promoted within Maafa 21 to make the documentary "persuasive to some viewers." If she felt that it was nothing more than a fringe hack-job she wouldn't have used such mild language. Also, Living in Black is not a Christian pro-life website, but it gave strong approval of the film and its message. Those are your other sources supporting the film. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2012

Your assertion that Holloway agrees with the film's claims is completely unsupported. In none of the articles does she express any support whatsoever for the film's claims, and in fact she points out that several of them are not true. She may be a reliable source to talk about the film's use by activists, but she does not provide support for its false, propagandic claims. The NYT article explains very clearly that the film's premise is false, and cherry-picking the only quote in the lot that's anywhere close to not being critical is obviously underhanded. Living in Black is a distributor of the film and cannot possibly provide an unbiased review of it. This is really elementary stuff. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, please realize that I am not foolishly trying to prove the claims of Maafa 21. I have not even seen the film, though now I am very interested in finding out what all the fuss is about. Have you seen it? I am not trying to prove that it is accurate or to assert that it is true. Thinking back on my initial edit, which was completely harmless, all of the resulting dialogue is just silly. I hope that helps...

None of the sources that I offered were attempting to prove the validity of the film's claims. They offer general support ranging from mild to extreme. Yes, some of the extreme support is coming from sources that are openly conservative and Christian, but some of it comes from those who are predominately Afrocentric and not conservative.

Several quotes from Holloway's articles clearly state that the concerns argued throughout Maafa 21 have existed long before the film came out, that it was simply reflecting a public opinion within the African American community. I agree that Dewan clearly disagrees with the film's ultimate conclusion, but she did allow that it is persuasive. It makes good sense to acknowledge her overall disagreement, but clearly her level of disagreement does not ascend to accusing it of being just a fringe propaganda piece. If she had thought as much she could have said it.

Living in Black is dedicated to promoting Afrocentric culture. They gave the film an overwhelming supportive review and distribute it because they agree with it. I am willing to accept that they are being sincere and unwilling to accept that they are intentionally misleading their readers about supporting a highly controversial documentary just to boost sales? That would be a very rash judgment, unless you have evidence that this is a common tactic of theirs.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that the film is popular among African-Americans who aren't anti-abortion activists, but you're not proving that with your sources. Holloway's article specifically states that it's a profile of black anti-abortion leaders! With regard to Dewan, it would help if you could specify what, from it, you would like to put in the article. We could simply add it as a secondary cite to the bit about anti-abortion activists liking it, because it just doesn't support any claims of wider appreciation; any reference to the "threads of truth" would without a doubt need to be contextualized with the material from the article that points out that the film's actual argument is dismissed by serious researchers. Living in Black: I don't care what arguments you use to justify it - an entity associated with the film, that benefits financially from sales of the film, is not a reliable source for its reception. This is very basic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for a hasty statement that I made last week (12:24, 10 August 2012), which I have struck through. Rereading Dewan's article in The New York Times, I now don't know how I could have ever suspected that she was at all openly disagreeing with Maafa 21. If anything, the article supports the film's existence as an alternate point of view from what can generally be found within mainstream media and culture, particularly in the following ways:

• By featuring it in a mainstream publication, the film is elevated to a status of relevancy.
• Every criticism is countered with support.
• Without criticism or complaint, the final paragraphs describe the film's effectiveness to change minds.
• If either Dewan or The New York Times were convinced that the film was simply a fringe, hack-job propaganda piece, they certainly could have (and probably would have) said so--as everyone knows, NYT is no friend to the political Right. But they didn't.

On another note, I have just added references to a particularly strong review of Maafa 21. The review comes from an unapologetically liberal, Afrocentric global and online publication called The Liberator Magazine. The article offers both (1) very strong support of the overall arguments and conclusion of the film, even going further in its explanation and the history of the film's theories and (2) harsh criticism of the producers methods and allegedly hidden agenda--to oppose abortion in general.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone's time by repeatedly misrepresenting sources that we can all access. Dewan explicitly points out that Sanger did not believe that family planning should be coercive and did not believe it should be based on race. These are the claims of the film. It gives us quotes for one position and quotes for the other position, but only one position gets quotes from non-activists and it isn't the film's position. I ask again: what would you like to put in the article from this piece? I can see that we might cite it for a claim that the film has convinced some people to become anti-abortion-rights, but you seem to want to cite it for a claim that the film's message is true, and that is just not supported. We will also not use meta-reasoning ("the NYT talked about it so it's legit"; "they would have condemned it more harshly if it weren't true!") to pretend that the NYT endorsed the film.

Likewise, The Liberator's review is much more mixed than you claim. If we decide it's a reliable source, we can state that they believe the film's claims (like that the ABCL targeted blacks) to be true, but we obviously can't state that they actually are true. And naturally, if we included this review, we would also have to include its (much longer than the acceptance of the film's claims) section about the political goals of the film's creators - the review goes into detail about how the film is an effort by white people to manipulate black people for an existing political goal (+failure to address oppression of blacks, oppressions of other groups). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's go ahead and add my sources as shown above with edits to make them sufficiently NPOV. Please show me the additional quotes you want me to add from the articles. In general, I have tried to capture the sentiments you are expressing. I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent anything, so if you think that I have, by all means, please offer the specific corrections that you feel are necessary. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Beleg, I think you are not wasting my time so I have to be excluded from that absolutist expression "...everyone's time...". Said that, here is an essay from Guttmacher Institute, not directly addressing the film but showing that those who condemned some contraception means as a genocidal tool were not "paranoids lunatics", but these are reasonable concerns which arose from a "real history of reproductive abuse". It also shows that concerns about racism around birth control and family planning are also not unjustified neither merely false propaganda but reasonable concerns coming also from the black comunity and activists. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a lot of updates to my suggested additions to the Reception section, particularly retouching the wording of much of the content and reformatting the references. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while, and I apologize for taking so long, but I have combined the current Reception section with my suggested updates. Above is my "final" recommendation for a "new" reception section. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that we can conclude from reading the New York Times source that young people are particularly taken by the film. The only hint of such a vector is the phrase, "persuasive to some viewers, at least at a recent screening at Morris Brown College..." To expand that into "also noting that the film has been particularly influential with younger African Americans" is gross overstatement and falsification. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

On my part, I will not entertain the waste of the encyclopedia's time that is any version dismissing the assessments of historical scholars as activism. The claim that Katz, for instance, is an activist, is simply not verifiable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback! :)

Roscelese, I have not dismissed the opinions of those who oppose the film, only clarified their predisposed positions--clearly none of these sources, including the new ones proposed by me, are unbiased. We shouldn't be highlighting the biases of the film's supporters while ignoring the biases of the opposition. I agree with your comment about Katz, which is why I chose the word "advocate" (not "activist"). Surely you wouldn't begrudge acknowledging that the editor and director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project is also a pro-choice advocate... Maybe the problem is that it should be so obvious that saying so is simply redundant?

Binksternet, if we can't use Dewan's article to conclude that the film has had a significant influence among college-aged African American viewers, then we shouldn't use The Liberator Magazine's article to conclude that some African Americans have criticised the intentions and motivations of the film's producers. I am content to use both. Take another look at Dewan's full article: the leading image is of "Allison Jones, student government president at Morris Brown College, at a screening of the anti-abortion film 'Maafa 21'"; and the final two paragraphs say the following:

Still, enough threads of truth weave through the theory to make “Maafa 21,” the documentary whose name is a Swahili word used to refer to the slavery era, persuasive to some viewers, at least at a recent screening at Morris Brown College, a historically black institution in Atlanta.

“Before we saw the movie, I was pro-choice,” said Markita Eddy, a sophomore. But were she to get pregnant now, Ms. Eddy said, “it showed me that maybe I should want to keep my child no matter what my position was, just because of the conspiracy.”

The article is sandwiched by the conclusion that the film is effective among younger African American viewers. Other sources that I have offered either implicitly or explicitly agree that the film has effectively influenced African Americans, more-so than the general public. I am certainly open to rewording the first paragraph to make this point in a fashion that is more accurate. Any suggestions other than removing the point altogether?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I call that "making shit up", not summarizing. All we can conclude about young African Americans' response to the movie is that two college-going women said that they were influenced, that "some viewers" were influenced. The point should be removed.

Pigeonholing Katz to reduce respect for her historian's neutrality is wrong. There is no evidence for calling her an advocate of one side of the abortion debate vs the other. She is an advocate for historical truth; that is all we care about. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, my original wording in the opening paragraph may have been problematic, but did you see my rewording? It now states "the documentary has also been noted to be particularly influential among younger African Americans." I think this statement is consistent with Dawson's article and with the other Afrocentric sources I cited. Can it be improved further? If so, please help. We can take it out, but then, using the same reasoning, the following statement would also need to be removed: "while at times questioning the intentions and motivations of its producers."

I am happy to remove the note that Katz is a pro-choice advocate, because at best it's redundant and is more likely to be an understatement. To treat her opinions as neutral would simply be naive.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source that says so, we don't assume, especially about a BLP. (The Sanger Papers Project is an archival project at NYU, not a political organization, so it's not as though this is even an especially logical assumption.) This is really, really basic, and you should be ashamed of continuing to waste the community's time in this way. If you want anyone to take your contributions seriously, I recommend following Wikipedia policy instead of subordinating it to your goal of promoting an anti-abortion agenda through a widely read website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, I had already removed the label of "pro-choice advocate" before you made this comment. I most certainly am not ashamed of my extensive, ongoing efforts to work with you and Binksternet and to allow the two of you to affect much of what I have proposed, despite the harsh tone and rude rhetoric that you both keep insisting upon using. A bit more congeniality would be appreciated; it certainly couldn't hurt. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I should say: you can not ask pears to an elm. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish to rescind my previous comments about Esther Katz. It was unfair of me to insist that she must be treated as a pro-choice advocate who is also a scholar instead of as a scholar who happens to be pro-choice. I did some personal research of Dr. Katz, and while she openly admits to being a feminist and to being pro-choice, I agree that she is sufficiently careful at curbing her personal opinions when working with the Sanger Papers or when responding to those who have used/misused the Sanger Papers. That being said, Dr. Katz is still human: while her perspective is undeniably important and obviously needs to be included, she is not the absolute authority on these extremely complex topics. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary suggested that you were planning to add this material to the article, but multiple people have explained at length why it is quite unsuitable. If you attempt to add it, you will be reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, you and Binksternet have consistently expressed your respective disapproval of different aspects of my suggested updates. All of the subsequent discussion has been for the purpose of reworking/rewording these updates prior to posting them to the actual Article. I have taken much of your criticism very seriously and have made many updates based upon your comments. Likewise, I take your threat of a Revert War very seriously. Please feel free to make more suggestions prior to the official posting so that we can avoid unnecessary reverts of the Article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you've made very few changes despite our repeatedly pointing out that many of your sources are bad, that you're misrepresenting some of the good ones, and that you continue to suppress the fact that the film's claims are not true, instead framing it as a matter of opinion among activists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your claims and personal attacks. The new sources that I have offered to the article are appropriate for the Reception Section; your hostility toward them and toward my use of them (and toward me personally) only further reveals your personal point of view. Wherever I have misrepresented any source, it has been unintentional, and I have always been (and continue to be) willing to make corrections. The accuracy of the documentary's claims is open for debate; the point of the Reception Section is to document how the film has been received not to prove whether or not it is accurate.

Useful suggestions for more changes will be gladly welcomed. I will be posting these updates soon.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You will not be posting any updates that are formed from synthesis of sources. Your "new" sources don't mention the film, they are not about the film and they cannot be used. You have synthesized some sort of position that demeans the neutral scholarship of Katz, but that will not stand. Your repeated efforts to undermine Wikipedia policy are not working. You should stand down. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I'm very glad you brought up the topic of Katz, because it is a key example of how I have strived to hear others' viewpoints and to correct myself when necessary. Just above (posted 17:46, 3 October 2012), you will see that (over a week ago) I rescinded my previous questioning of Katz's neutrality.

I'm sorry if you still have concerns over my citation of Darnovsky's source (i.e. Pérezan from Radical Doula and Feministing), but I have, at length, explained why that citation is appropriate. I am still open to further discussion on that topic.

Again, please offer constructive suggestions for making changes to my proposed updates (above), as I will be posting them to the article soon.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot offer constructive suggestions in order to prop up your wish for original research, synthesis and undue weight. Do not attempt to put any sources into the article which predate the film. Do not attempt to put any sources into the article which do not mention the film. Is that clear? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not looking for agreement, just clarity, so dissenting comments can still be constructive. Here's how you could help me more though: please identify exactly what you feel is "original research," "synthesis," or "undue weight" (for example, you could quote the offending statements); explain why you feel that way; suggest how I could possibly fix the problem, preferably without telling me just to get rid of it--if possible. Thanks! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the comments we made earlier, so why don't you take a look back and deal with those first? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Which ones are left unanswered in your estimation? Maybe you could copy-and-paste them so that I know exactly what you mean. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Amongst our weaponry the issues: the issue of your pretending that the film's factual inaccuracy is a partisan battle in contrast to the views of multiple reliable sources, the issue of your treating promotional material from a distributor of the film as a "review," the issue of your misrepresenting and originally analyzing good sources like the NYT in order to insert your own positive view of the film, the issue of your using unreliable fringe sources simply because they (already) agree with the film's false claims, and the issue of your bringing in unrelated material because you think it supports your fringe position. Again, these are longstanding issues with your editing and with all proposed versions you have presented. Any version that is not seriously reworked to address these issues will be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to all of these accusations, but here are brief responses again.

• You're right that response to the documentary is not purely partisan: the Afrocentric response shows that support is also coming from a group that is typically pro-choice. The partisan response is the opposition: all the opponents of the film used in this Article are pro-choice. We've already been round-and-round on this one.
• I have disclosed in my proposed commentary that Living in Black Radio is acting as a distributor, but they also indeed give a legitimate, unique, brief Afrocentric review, because they are a discriminating distributor, based upon their approval of the film. The only real reason that I am insistent upon using them is not the nature of their review but that they are an Afrocentric voice. I would be just as insistent if they were opposed to the film.
• Please offer a rewording of my NYT commentary. I may even thank you.
• Which sources are unreliable or fringe, such that their opinion of the documentary should be left out of a section that documents response? If you think a source is fringe, then call them out on it.
• Which material is unrelated? Are you talking about disclosing that Pérezan/Pérez is Darnovsky's fringe source? We've also been round-and-round on that one, and I've done a lot to try to compromise.

All that said, I continue to ask for useful and precise suggestions for rewording. But, please, please, please leave off the personal attacks, such as rhetoric like "pretending" and "your fringe position." Even if they were accurate, which they're not, they don't help the discussion.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewording is not necessary or even useful. No need to expend any effort here. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If "getting rid of it" is the only option that can be considered in line with Wikipedia guidelines, then "getting rid of it" is the only answer. Stop playing around, man. The article is fine as it is; don't try to inject your POV. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Beleg Strongbow stated here that he was aware that he did not have consensus to incorporate his preferred version of the article, but that he was going to put it in "anyway". About three hours later, he posted his version, was reverted 90 minutes later by Roscelese, then he quickly reverted again. This is clearly disruptive editing following a declaration to engage in disruptive editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Title section

I appreciate Binksternet's latest updates to the Title section. Below are some updates of my own that I would like to suggest, primarily for the purpose of grammatical correctness. I have used ... to note deletions and {...} for additions. (Let me know if there is a better way for showing mark-ups.) Please feel free to disagree or to offer your suggestions. Thanks!

Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is a 2009 pro-life documentary film which draws a connection between the targeting of African Americans by the eugenics movement in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the {disproportionate aborting of African Americans modern-day prevalence of abortion among African Americans {in the 20th and 21st centuries}. The film argues that abortion {has been} is an {ongoing} attempted genocide or maafa of black people, and has been so since {the abolition of slavery in} the 19th century.

The film has been praised by pro-life activists {and groups within the African American community. It has been} and condemned by historical scholars, pro-choice activists, and other writers, particularly in light of its unfavorable depiction of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, to whom it attributes racist and genocidal positions. {Its proponents} Pro-life activists have said that the film is an exposé of the racism of abortion in modern times, and that {particularly of} Planned Parenthood is especially racist. Critics have called it a shockumentary and propaganda, for {accusing the film of} distorting the role of Planned Parenthood in the eugenics movement, for deliberately misinterpreting Sanger's position about black women, and for blaming institutional racism rather than social conditions for the prevalence of abortion among black populations.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Going through bit by bit...

We will not replace "prevalence of abortion among African Americans" with "aborting of African Americans," don't be ridiculous. No objection, however, to including "disproportionate or replacing "modern" with centuries.

Not sure about removing "attempted," and I don't think the abolition of slavery is relevant enough for the lead.

I don't see that the film has been praised by elements of the African-American community that are not social conservative pro-life activists. Certainly you have not proven this with sources. At best, we would be able to say "by pro-life activists, including African-American ones" but that's questionable phrasing, especially considering that multiple independent sources suggest that the film, created and promoted by white activists, is meant to draw blacks to the Republican Party. Ditto for replacing "Pro-life activists" with "Its proponents" as we haven't seen that it has other proponents.

We will also not water down historical fact simply because you personally disagree with it, and thus we will not frame the film's distortions and fabrications of the historical record simply as accusations leveled against it by activists.

I would suggest other changes, too: let's foreground the film's actual argument by writing "...film which argues that the modern-day prevalence of abortion among African Americans is an attempted genocide or maafa of black people," and also find a way to avoid begging the question that the eugenics movement was primarily about race. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you are being ridiculous Beleg despite of Roscelese refers to you in that rude manner ... not unusual from her.

I find a ridiculous job to exhaustively determine who are all the people promoting and suppoorting the film in order to verify that there is not any other sort of supporters than "pro-life activist" as Roscelese suggests, so I do endorse Beleg's proposal in this point.

I also endorse all the other changes despite the Roscelese concerns, due it has not sense to say that a film says something that it indeed does not say, for example: the film does not consider abortion programs among African Americans to be an "attempted" genocide but it consider abortion programs among African Americnas to be a genocide, precisely in the same way that someone who defends abortion does not consider abortion to be an "alleged" rigth but a rigth. And the paragraph is not a debate about the truthfulness of those positions but the paragraph is an exposure on what do the film authors believe and claim in the film. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for this "update" from Beleg Strongbow. It is a whitewash. We should not add "21st century" to describe when eugenics may have been targeting blacks! "Attempted genocide" is the accurate term, since African Americans have increased in number every single year—there is no basis for argument that there is any kind of real genocide occuring. ("There has been continuous growth in the overall population of Blacks in the United States since 1790." African Americans made up 13.6% of the US population in mid-2009. By 2050 blacks are expected to "constitute 15 percent of the nation's total population.") The proponents of the film are anti-abortion activists only. The lead section should say that Planned Parenthood is accused of being especially racist. The proposed substitution of "accusing the film of distorting the facts" rather than the scholarly "for distorting the facts" cannot stand. The film really does distort the facts, according to every scholar who has commented on it. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I must insist that the sentence is not dealing with the basis of the film claim but it is merely showing what the claim is. Nevertheless, you are misunderstanding what a genocide means if you think that a genocide is only genocide when it implies a complete anihilation of a group. Genocide is precisely defined as the attempt to eliminate an ethnical, racial or national group, be it by destroying a part of it (see for example Art.2 CPPCG 1948). So it is even a redundancy to say an "attempt of genocide". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Binksternet. I did not mean to change the overall meaning of anything the Title section had previously said. I only meant to make grammatical corrections, add links and promote NPOV. Also, please see my suggestions (above) for improving NPOV within the Reception section: I have added references to several important reviews of the film, particularly those from The Root, The New York Times, and The Liberator Magazine. Articles from The Root and NYT do not attempt to validate the claims within Maafa 21, but they do validate the film's relevance within African American culture. The Liberator, while harshly criticizing the film's alleged hidden agenda, does actually aggressively support and offer its own arguments for validating the film's claims. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The film does not hide its agenda. It is up front that a genocide is being perpetrated on African Americans by Planned Parenthood. There is no "alleged hidden agenda".

Your wish for NPOV is worthy but your textual changes take away from that goal. I cannot support your proposal. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you whether or not a hidden agenda exists, as I have never seen the film. The referenced commentator from The Liberator Magazine has alleged that the anti-abortion agenda is hidden, which is the primary basis for his criticism of the film. Through this source and others, I have shown that non-activists, particularly from the African American community, support the existence, if not the conclusion or the motivation, of the film. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's funny to be debating the merits of an article written by someone who uses the pen name of "Black Yoda"—we should severely limit our use of this Liberator source because of the anonymity of the author. Anyway, Mister Yoda says that the "hidden racial agenda" is hidden in the U.S., not hidden in the film. Your impression doesn't match what Black Yoda wrote. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It was good enough for The Liberator to represent itself through this writer. Here's what I meant by his criticism of the film:

I must admit that I’m bothered whenever anyone tries to emotionally manipulate me into serving an ulterior motive even if that motive is relevant and important to me. I got the sense that the African Holocaust was just a convenient device to help build support for their true mission— an end to abortion. I would have preferred a much more direct and honest approach.

That statement was aimed at the film. He had plenty of other criticism for the country.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Guttmacher Institute article by Dorothy Roberts

Let's identify a good place for adding commentary on Dorothy Roberts' article published within Family Planning Perspectives by the Guttmacher Institute. Below is my suggested commentary. Feel free to comment. Thanks for the (as always) passionate discussion. :) This commentary doesn't belong in the Article but can stay here in the Talk page.

---

As confirmed by the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit organization closely linked to Planned Parenthood and dedicated to promoting reproductive health including the use of abortion, the accusations made within Maafa 21 have existed as a pervasive fear within the African American community for decades, particularly arising "during Margaret Sanger's crusade for birth control." In their periodical Family Planning Perspectives (Volume 32, Number 2, March/April 2000), the Guttmacher Institute published the article "Forum: Black Women and the Pill", by Dorothy Roberts, which specifically addresses the question "Is the pill a way for black women to gain bodily autonomy, or a tool used by white society to limit black fertility?" Roberts' article addresses the longstanding accusation that all forms of industrialized birth control were part of a national agenda to limit growth within the black population.

Roberts commented on excerpts from a 1969 essay from Onyx Magazine, entitled "The Pill: Genocide or Liberation?", by Toni Cade. While commending Cade's rejection of the idea that birth control was harming the black community, Roberts insisted that "the black man who condemned the pill as a genocidal tool was not a paranoid lunatic...his concerns about birth control as a form of genocide arose from a real history of reproductive abuse." According to Roberts, the history of birth control includes "deliberate campaigns to limit black fertility." Racial injustices during the '60s and '70s included forced sterilizations of "thousands of poor black women." These procedures, all directly tied to the Eugenics Movement, coincided with welfare programs, standard medical procedures (primarily on blacks), and public policy, as reported within the American Journal of Public Health.

Roberts directly implicated Margaret Sanger in the Eugenics Movement's racist agenda, stating that Planned Parenthood's founder began to focus on "programs to regulate the poor, immigrants and blacks, based on theories of genetic inferiority and social degeneracy." While some prominent African Americans, such as "nationalist leader Marcus Garvey, opposed birth control as a form of 'race suicide,'" the agenda of those who supported its use, such as W.E.B. DuBois, was to topple the "oppressive social structure" that eugenicists like Sanger, according to Roberts from the Guttmacher Institue, sought to preserve.

---

I'm having trouble correctly adding a reference section for this section. Any suggestions? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the Dorothy Roberts article from 2000 can be used as it predates the film. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Her article confirms that Maafa 21 is not inventing conspiracy theories, which is very useful to this topic. Any WP policies that would be violated by using it? I'm being serious when I ask this question, because if there are, then I will agree with you. I have to ask because I am not aware of any and am far less experienced than yourself. Thanks!

Also, when I tried adding a reference section, it produced references for my "Reception section" above. Do you know how I can avoid this mistake? I figured it out...I think.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy guideline: you would want to read all the way through WP:SYNTH where it deprecates any attempt to draw a novel conclusion from two different sources neither of which reference each other.

Regarding reference formatting on talk pages, you're guess is as good as mine. The wiki markup background software changes from time to time. I have given up on expecting article space style referencing on talk pages, so I usually try to present an explicit list of references at the bottom of any quoted section. In this case I say don't bother; the material violates the SYNTH guideline and is not worth further scrutiny. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback! Maybe there's another policy that you had in mind? I read through WP:SYNTH and think it is great, but I am not creating a synthetic conclusion (C) that does not directly agree with either source A (Maafa 21) or source B (Dorothy Roberts). I am showing how source B helps to legitimize source A, because they agree. They are both saying that the African American community has a longstanding fear that the fundamental motivation for the birth control movement is racist genocide, and they are both saying that Margaret Sanger was aligned with racist eugenics. I have provided multiple quotations from Roberts to demonstrate this agreement. Please help me to see how I created a synthesis. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are making a synthetic connection between social commentary from 2000 and a film from 2008 to result in an argument to support the film's ideas. We cannot have that. Only commentary directly connecting the film to social problems can be used. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had an article on conspiracy theories about Margaret Sanger and race, such a piece would belong, as would mention of the film. (And the film would link back to this new article.) However, this article will not be a coatrack to promote conspiracy theories about Margaret Sanger and race. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this source demonstrates that scholars opinions on Maafa21 contents about Sanger, racism nad eugenics are opinions not facts and should not be published as factas. It does not matter at all if someone attempts to disqualifies them as "conspiracy theories" due the source actually does not. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that, contrary to Beleg's claims, it does not support the assertion that Sanger advocated birth control to limit blacks, no, it cannot be used to legitimize these claims made by the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, What policy would the use of this article be violating? If we cannot come up with one, (and it is not violating WP:SYNTH) then we should use it, as it is certainly relevant to the topic, because it validates the legitimacy of the film's claims. I never said that it proves the claims to be true, but what it does prove is that these conspiracy theories have existed for decades and were not invented by the makers of the film as anti-abortion propaganda.

If no policy is being violated, the next question then becomes, Where do we put it? It obviously would not belong in the Reception section. We probably would need a new section like a History section that describes the history of the theories and arguments discussed in the documentary. (Even if, in the end, we decide not to put it in our article, its effect on our article should be significant, particularly on the tone.)

By the way, have any of you watched the film yet? (The trailer doesn't count.) I finally watched it and can understand why it has been effective and why it would be very difficult to research all the material presented, as they throw a lot of information at the viewer.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But the SYNTH policy would be violated. You should not try to discuss where to put this material when it cannot go in the article at all. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH policy prohibits using separate sources that are saying different things to be blended together to say something else altogether. I am not using the Guttmacher article to create a synthetic conclusion. I am using it to show how Maafa 21 is reiterating longstanding concerns within the African American community: "the accusations made within Maafa 21 have existed as a pervasive fear within the African American community for decades" (above).

Just saying "SYNTH policy would be violated" isn't sufficient. Since you're making the claim, you are obligated to show how. I don't see how it's violating WP:SYNTH in any regard, but clearly, if we had a history section, as I suggested above, it couldn't possibly be violating that policy.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not convincing anyone here. If you want more drama validation that your idea involves synthesis of two unconnected sources to make a novel third conclusion, please take your concern to a higher level such as WP:DRN. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free, Binksternet. You're the one with the dispute.

As I have said before, I will be more than happy to accept the result of a Dispute Resolution--sadly, we never came to a clear resolution last time. Also, as I indicated in a couple comments above, even if we choose not to use my commentary on the Guttmacher article, the mere existence of the article and the acknowledgement of it here within the Talk page will effect change in the tone of our Maafa 21 article, because it proves (1) that the documentary is not fringe (unless the Guttmacher Institute is also fringe) and (2) that those who oppose the film, while employing select facts, are still expressing opinion, just as those who support it. Though, according to the perspective shared by Dorothy Roberts from the Guttmacher Institute (albeit nearly a decade before the documentary was made), those who support it have the stronger case.

By the way, have you watched the whole film yet? I'm just curious. I'm not saying that I would necessarily recommend watching it, but I think it may be helpful to have actually viewed it.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do agree Beleg, if there was not a WP:SYNTH but still a concern due the use of a source which is not dealing directly with the film, at any rate this source deals with the topic of the film and it shows that the film should not be represented as fringe and those claims, be it coming from scholars or not, should not be presented as undeniable facts but as opinions, so the tone of the article should be coherent with that. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Beleg and Claudio, you continue to state that the new source supports the film's claims and that statement continues to be false. There is nothing more to say to you. We cannot progress in the discussion if you will not move past this false premise, and certainly if you attempt to add it to the article it will be reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, you had made an excellent point above that I had initially missed but then noticed later: "If we had an article on conspiracy theories about Margaret Sanger and race, such a piece would belong, as would mention of the film. (And the film would link back to this new article.)" Would it make sense that we at least mention the Guttmacher article as peripheral support to the idea that these accusations/theories have existed for decades and are not new with the documentary? The article could then be referenced to support this statement.

I regret that we can't agree that the Guttmacher article does support the claims made in Maafa 21, but maybe this is a good compromise. I certainly don't want to get into an editing war, though I am willing to go through Dispute Resolution as suggested above. What do you think? (I can't help but feel that our disagreement must be "a failure to communicate," because I'm sure you must see the connections I am seeing, but I'm just not expressing them successfully. Oh well.)

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Roberts article predates Maafa 21 and is thus an inferior source for the idea that the conspiracy theory the film promotes has been around for a while, but IIRC, some sources that are about the film also make that point. Why don't you check out the (reliable) sources already brought up? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another notional article that would benefit from the writings of Dorothy Roberts is the one which could be titled Black genocide or Genocide of African Americans. There are modern adherents of the ideas behind this topic, including Herman Cain. Many of the sources used for this film article mention the supposed genocide. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

These are, again, good points, from both Roscelese and Binksternet. I don't agree that because the article predates the film it "is thus an inferior source for the idea that the conspiracy theory the film promotes has been around for a while." Just the opposite, because as a predating source, it perfectly demonstrates that the theories likewise predate the film. What I do agree with is focusing on sources, like The Liberator Magazine, that both describe the longstanding existence of the film's arguments and give a commentary on Maafa 21 at the same time. I also admire the idea that an article(s) could be created that intentionally focuses on the topics within the films Maafa 21 (which I have now seen) and Gates of Hell (which I haven't seen). Thanks for the helpful feedback! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See also turned into soapbox

List entries in the "See also" section should have only one wikilink per line. The only "See also" entries should be Wikipedia articles, not outside references. Article references should discuss the film, not the general topic covered by the film. Please see WP:ALSO for further guidance. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful guidance. I wish I could say that it was friendly as well. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to be friendly, I am trying to be firm. This article will otherwise go off the rails with tangential and irrelevant additions. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This article was off the rails when I found it. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Malarkey. The article as you found it included an accurate summary of the sharply critical reception the film has garnered in scholarly communities. It did not whitewash the bad reviews and it did not promote the topic of the film. The article was fine as these things go, well within the median for controversial abortion topics on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcy Darnovsky & Miriam Pérezan/Pérez

A failed verification tag has been added by user Roscelese to a comment within the Reception section.

The comment being cited specifically says "Darnovsky quotes legal scholar Dorothy Roberts who said that the black pro-life movement is 'blaming black women for their reproductive decisions and then the solution is to restrict and regulate black women's decisions about their bodies.'" The tagged citation directs readers to the Roberts article quoted by Darnovsky. How is this a violation of citation policy?

If the Roberts article "fails verification," then Darnovsky's quote would have to be removed as well. Right?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't the Roberts work Darnovsky quotes, which is why you shouldn't have added it and why you should have reverted yourself after you violated 1RR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will look again, and if you are correct, I will be happy to remove the citation and to apologize for my mistake. Please hold. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still looking, but an interesting detail of this debate over the Roberts article citation is that Darnovsky doesn't seem to have cited her alleged Roberts quote, or am I missing it? Roscelese, do you know where the quote came from? If not, why are we using it in this article? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping the gun by putting an incorrect citation with Darnovsky's alleged quotation of Roberts. I have removed the incorrect citation and the FV tag, and I have added a CQ tag to be removed when the Roberts quote by Darnovsky is either cited or removed (if citation is not found). Fair enough? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think the cite is, the one following the quote, the one that was there before you tagged the quote and the one that is still there? The cite specifically supports the quote, so your template "Cite quote" is wrong. Please remove it. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That citation inherently covers Darnovsky, but it doesn't necessarily cover Roberts, whom Darnovsky is allegedly quoting. The problem is that Darnovsky, in her article, claims to be quoting Roberts but left out any corresponding citation, which I would consider essential. I am using the CQ tag to request citation that verifies that Roberts actually said the words that Darnovsky has associated with her. (I don't have a problem with the quote; I just want the citation.) Unless we can confirm the ultimate source, then the alleged quotation from Roberts should be removed as being unverifiable.

Because Darnovsky didn't cite it, we need to. Make sense?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We trust Darnovsky to get it right. That's the "reliable" part of "reliable source". There is no published challenge regarding whether Roberts said those words so we accept them as stated. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, and I appreciate the explanation. I'll remove the tag. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite all the rancor we just came through over the Dorothy Roberts quote by Marcy Darnovsky, I have continued to try to find where it came from. Though not formally cited, Darnovsky did in fact link to her source for the quote: it came from a website called RadicalDoula.com, which encourages the idea of midwives providing abortion services and boasts pushing social limits. This site was reposting an article named "Past and Present Collide as the Black Anti-Abortion Movement Grows" by Miriam Zoila Pérezan, an editor at Feministing and the founder of Radical Doula, posted at Colorlines.com. The re-post at Radical Doula is entitled "Behind the Billboards". In her article, Pérezan cites the quote as coming from Roberts' 1998 book Killing the Black Body.

I hope you followed all of that, as I realize it was complex. I have two observations to point out. First, based upon Roscelese's criteria for using material, this quote is outdated and has nothing to do with Maafa 21 and therefore shouldn't be used--not my criteria, hers. Second, given the nature of Feministing and Radical Doula, two clearly "radical", "feminist", activist sources, it seems clear that Pérezan should be considered extreme (though not necessarily unreliable): all I am saying is that it appears reasonable to identify Darnovsky as a radical feminist and a pro-choice activist insomuch that she is willing to draw her quotes from radical, feminist, activist websites. Any objections? If so, why? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk)

Darnovsky tied together the Roberts quote and film, so we are free to use the quote. If a writer said that a particular Lincoln quote was applicable then we could use that, too. The time frame of the quote is not our worry. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You will get nowhere with calling Darnovsky a radical pro-choicer. Her role in critiquing the film is as an expert in psychology and the politics of biology. Her criticism is not to be reduced in strength by challenges to her authority. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "radical feminist" is a legitimate term, and it is the one I used (not "radical pro-choicer"). Based upon her associations and her article that is being cited for our article, this label appropriately fits Darnovsky, particularly insomuch that Wikipedia says that radical feminism "aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society." In her cited work, Darnovsky has pulled a quote from Roberts from a source that makes the following claims about itself:

Here are a few reasons why I identify as radical doula...I'm a doula who is queer, and identifies as gender non-conforming or genderqueer. The birth world is dominated by women, many of whom don't share my beliefs about gender construction and who use essentializing language when talking about birth and gender. I try to push those boundaries, and also think about how queer parents are affected by these issues in different ways...I want to highlight the work of those who are trying to broaden access to alternative birth beyond those with privilege.

A profile of Pérez can be found at Colorlines.com that identifies her (with a very nice photograph, by the way) as a "reproductive justice activist."

And about Feministing, of which Pérez is an editor:

Feministing is an online community for feminists and their allies. The community aspect of Feministing...exist [sic] to better connect feminists online and off, and to encourage activism.

It's not my intent to criticize anything that Pérez is saying or trying to accomplish or to criticize Darnovsky's chosen association with Pérez, but I do think it is important to identify the agenda of Pérez so that we can more clearly understand what kinds of associations Darnovsky is comfortable making, which inherently provides clues to her own motivations. I wonder why it is that you find that these associations reduce the strength of her opinions in the areas of abortion and of racial discrimination. I didn't make that argument--you did.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't cite Perezan in the article at all and indeed no one has suggested doing so, so her "agenda" is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pérezan's agenda becomes relevant because she is Darnovsky's source. The only relevance that I am suggesting is in demonstrating that Darnovsky associates herself with radical feminism and pro-choice activists. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Stop trying to weaken Darnovsky's scholarship by synthesis and insinuation. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How is disclosing Darnovsky's sources either creating a synthetic conclusion or weakening her voice? You still haven't answered that question. Even if it did weaken her, how would that be a problem? The strength of the article, not of a favored position, is the goal. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Esther Katz references

Reviewing the references to Esther Katz, I have found two problems:

1. In the first sentence of the Esther Katz paragraph, while the quote is fine, the article which calls Maafa 21 "propaganda" is not actually attributed to Katz. Proposed resolution: identify the source of the quote as "Margaret Sanger Papers Project," not "Esther Katz."
2. Frank Carlson's "Sidebar" article does not support the statements it is being used to reference. The second reference, his "Anti-abortionists" article, does. Proposed resolution: remove first reference but keep the second one.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new subsections

A few months ago the Reception section's subsections, being "Support" and "Criticism," were removed. I would like to suggest new subsections, based upon the four major, relevant categories of response to the documentary.

1. Afrocentric
2. Scholarly
3. Pro-choice
4. Pro-life

Are there any other suggestions for subcategories? Within the Scholarly response, I am suggesting using Esther Katz's comments found within Frank Carlson's "Anti-abortionists" article; more from Katz could be used there than what currently exists in our Article. I will update my "proposed updates" accordingly to demonstrate these suggestions.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to add subsections, the current setup is easy enough to read as it is. What "pro-choice" sources do you think there are? I see none. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what purpose this would serve; indeed, I believe it's generally considered better to integrate criticism/reception sections as much as possible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Now, the reception-paragraph begins with:

Reviewers of the film have generally criticized its false attribution of racist views to family planning activists, as well as the other false claims it makes to tie genocide to family planning and the fact that it blames the high abortion rate among black women on a conspiracy rather than on unequal socioeconomic conditions.

Pro-life activists praise the film as a tool in their campaign against legalized abortion, choosing to believe its claims although they are unfamiliar with the history of family planning or with the research that supposedly went into making the film.

It comes closely to WP:WEASEL here. It states as a fact that the movie contains false attributions, without giving a source. Meanwhile, the pro-life-activists choose to believe the movie, as well as the research that supposedly went into making.

In short, these paragraphs portray pro-life-activists as stubborn airheads who got the facts wrong.

This might be the case, but I do believe we need to get some neutrality here. After all, the source does not use the wordings "choose to believe" or "supposed" research". It looks like POV to me. And as far as I read the article, there was only one clear example of a pro-life-activist (Paul Simoneau) who "doesn’t know much about what research went into producing Maafa 21; nevertheless, he says he largely believes its contents." "Largely believing its contents" is slightly different than "choosing to believe its claims" as the WP-article says. And I couldn't find similar wordings for other pro-life-activists who were quoted in the article.

So could we get some references at the claims, and/or some rewording? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll address these separately:

1. Wikipedia policy does not compel us to pretend that claims that the earth is flat are valid, even in an article about a film promoting a flat-earth theory. Likewise, we will not entertain the idea that these activists might somehow know more than scholars of the subject.
2. I'm happy to rephrase the "choose to believe" part, but I think it must be in some way that recognizes that the activists themselves state that they don't know much about the history. To me, it seems like simply saying "...campaign against legalized abortion, believing its claims although they are unfamiliar..." sounds like the author knows the activists don't know much, without fully conveying that the activists themselves admit that they don't know anything.
3. Morris is also identified in the source as an activist who is "[willing] to push an incendiary theory without verifying the scholarship or sources behind it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But I must guess solely a God or a negligent one could claim certainty about the knowledge of every viewer of the film just based on an interview of two or three of them. At any rate, it is far from being a verifiable but certainly it is very near to an extremely biased claim that only some sort of fanatic believers would keep in wikipedia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, thank you for the thoughtful and well-stated concerns about the current condition of this Article. I see them as being relevant and valid. You are actually restating existing concerns that are currently being worked-out.

Please see the section above, entitled "Reception section - Beleg's proposed updates", which is my personal attempt at rectifying the existing inadequacies of the article's "Reception section". Though it does not directly address your immediate concerns, I do believe it resolves them by simply removing the statements in question.

Any assistance that you could offer in improving my suggested updates would be greatly appreciated. Such assistance would best be placed in the designated discussion section, entitled "Reception section - discussion".

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To respond to Roscelese first: it is not about "pretending that the filmmakers' claims are valid" it is about Neutral Point of View, which is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part: "Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Replace for THIS article the words "Saddam's crimes" into "the movies inaccurate claims", and you can start editing. To give a good example: see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed how it should work, IMHO. And by the way, does every five-year-old American know the national abortion- and welfare-figures?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Expelled article has the benefit of juxtaposing the film's false claims with criticism of those claims, and it would indeed be preferable to avoid a criticism ghetto. What do you think of integrating the scholars' rebuttal into the synopsis of the film? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On its face, I like Roscelese's suggestion, but I am apprehensive about what it would ultimately look like. Roscelese (or Jeff), would you please provide an example?

I would feel a lot more comfortable with "the scholars' rebuttal" if we could find quotes of Esther Katz from someone besides Frank Carlson to include with Carlson's quotes, as he demonstrates in his articles an open hostility toward the pro-life movement. (Frankly, I don't trust Frank. Yes, pun intended.) The article at MSPP, which is not directly attributed to Katz, truly offers only Arthur Broadhurst's opinions, who is also openly hostile to the pro-life movement and to the political Right.

That being said, obviously we all must be concerned about the definition of "scholar". Katz, while openly declaring herself to be a pro-choice feminist, is clearly a reputable scholar and expert specifically on the topics of Margaret Sanger and of the Birth Control Movement: her perspective must be defined as being scholarly. But, Broadhurst, Goldberg, McKend, Ross, and Darnovsky are all feminists and pro-choice activists or advocates with no direct "expertise" on the topics addressed within Maafa 21. Using quotes/paraphrases from these sources is fine, even important, but their respective contexts must not be lost by a blind and blinding use of the terms "scholar" and "expert". For example, Darnovsky's expertises are either irrelevant to this discussion or actually create a conflict of interest, and her trusted sources are brazen radical feminists, pro-choice activists--a detail that cannot be ignored if our article is to have any integrity.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I said this above and it still applies: "You will get nowhere with calling Darnovsky a radical pro-choicer. Her role in critiquing the film is as an expert in psychology and the politics of biology. Her criticism is not to be reduced in strength by challenges to her authority." Dr. Darnovsky is widely cited in US media as an expert in the social aspects of human reproduction and biotechnology. Her expertise fits this topic very well. Nor will you get anywhere trying to shoot down Loretta J. Ross, the co-founder of the Foundation for African American Women, the co-founder of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, and the founder of the Center for Human Rights Education. She has been commended by the Georgia State Legislature. She has written scholarly articles for the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved (a guest editorial, yet), the NWSA Journal and she conducts interviews for Smith College, published in Meridians. She served as the national Program Research Director of the National Anti-Klan Network (later the Center for Democratic Renewal) from 1991 to 1995. She wrote Black Abortion: Breaking the Silence. Her article "African-American women and abortion: 1800-1970" in Theorizing black feminisms was cited by 23 other writers and her article "African-American women and abortion: A neglected history" was cited by 11 writers. Her expertise on the topic is unquestioned. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And, as I said before, I am not calling Darnovsky a "radical pro-choicer." I am revealing that she has associated herself with a source that brazenly identifies itself with "radical feminism" and "pro-choice activism."

All the information you provided is very useful but does nothing, that I can see, to refute my statements above. I am not attempting to weaken their voices but instead to clarify their predetermined positions. Ross's perspective is undeniably very important, as she has a very impressive resume, which undeniably identifies her as a pro-choice activist. Darnovsky's expertise is also very impressive but is not particularly relevant to the historical conspiracy theories addressed in Maafa 21, except that it points out a potential conflict of interest.

Whether or not these associations and biases weaken their voices should be left up to the reader. I'm wanting to make sure the reader realizes their existence. I'm not willing to ignore the elephant in the corner.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

All I see is that you wish to name these people as being prejudiced rather than objective. Not gonna fly. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this "Darnovsky knows someone who knows someone who writes a pro-choice blog" is actually ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if the association was two degrees away, as you suggest, it very well may be ridiculous. Instead, she is directly quoting Miriam Perez/Perezan from RadicalDoula.com and Feministing.com, using her as a trusted source. I'm not the one acting as though this decision has ruined Darnovsky's reputation but rather saying that, if it's good enough for her, we should make that known.

Do the two of you really believe that the facts that Ross is a decided pro-choice activist and that Darnovsky is a biotechnologist (a.k.a. eugenicist) would not naturally place them at odds with a documentary that accuses the abortion industry and the eugenics movement of racial genocide? Really? I tend to think it would.

Roscelese above accused me of "using unreliable fringe sources simply because they (already) agree with the film's false claims," but that's exactly what's going on here, just in the reverse. You are insisting upon using sources that already disagreed with the film's disputed claims. I would never ask that these sources be removed, because I agree that they are relevant and important: I only point out that they must be kept within their proper contexts within the larger topic of eugenics/abortion. In such a discussion, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. These two sources have been good enough to reveal their biases: let's not impose a cover-up for them.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time and mine trying to demonstrate that the Darnovsky source is biased through guilt by association. If you can't find anything about Darnovsky (besides your own ludicrous claim that all biotechnologists are eugenicists and that being a eugenicist would affect one's position in this debate) then let us return from this silly path. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Marcy Darnovsky wrote the book on activism--literally. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. Darnovsky's scholarly writings about cultural politics including activism establish her more firmly as an expert. These writings do not prove your point about bias. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've trimmed promotional language from the reception section. We are not here to sell this film, especially not with sources that poor, and Beleg, you should really be ashamed of the naked marketing you're doing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Overly detailed and POVish "Reception" section

For a film that didn't get much notice in reliable news media organs, we've given it a rather detailed "analysis" in our article here. The "Reception" section should be substantially pared down per WP:DUE. Also, the section is rather heavily weighted against the film, and both praise and criticism are generally coming from quite POVish sources. Why would we use a John Birch Society publication as a "reliable source"? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor Binksternet has commented on another page that the film's "negative criticism is shatteringly bad" by which I assume he means that its critics have assessed the film as being "shatteringly bad," not that their criticism itself is "shatteringly bad." All of this, however, is pretty much par for the course. "Pro-life" polemics are almost always judged to be shatteringly bad by "pro-choice" advocates, just as "pro-choice" polemics are almost always judged to be shatteringly bad by "pro-life" advocates. All of the negative criticism of the movie, as one might expect, comes from sources who are militantly pro-choice, a fact which, in and of itself, should cause editors to treat it with a grain of salt: certainly not to dismiss it entirely, but also not to make it the dominant feature of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just took a look at editorBeleg Strongbow's draft of three months ago, and I do mean "just took a look." It's way too long and detailed, and full of obscure reviewers on both sides. We are not talking about the reception for an especially famous and ballyhooed piece of filmmaking. We should include two or three representative reactions on both sides and close up shop. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your denigration of the scholarly Margaret Sanger Papers Project is almost not worthy of response. They are not "militantly pro-choice" by any stretch of the imagination. The Project makes comments from a scholarly viewpoint. In the same vein, Eva McKend is a journalist and an acknowledged feminist but by no means a pro-choice militant. Her take on abortion is that it is a community issue larger than just the pro/anti polarity.[2] McKend's contribution is that of a neutral journalist observer. With these undeserving character assassinations as part of your salvo I don't think you can be considered a neutral observer. Your assessment of "POVish" is full of your own bias. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, I'm sympathetic to your pointing out that we have very little adequately sourced reception for the film at all, but that's not an argument for the edits that you made, since instead of removing poor sources, you removed some of the better sources and pretended that the film's verifiably false (and called out by historians as false) historical claims were simply a difference of opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to mince words, as it now stands the article is a piece of crap. We have a relatively minor, undoubtedly propagandistic film here AS ARE ALL FILMS DESIGNED TO MOTIVATE THE TROOPS ON BOTH SIDES of the abortion issue. AS propaganda it is seems to be rather good, as witnessed by our little hornets nest here. As history it is probably no worse (meaning that it's pretty damned bad) than most "historical" propaganda efforts on both sides of the abortion war. Notice that the major news sources mentioning the film don't talk about its "scholarship" because they know that's not the point. Serious historians don't generally get involved reviewing films such as Maafa 21, but, then, they don't generally get involved in reviewing films by Oliver Stone or Michael Moore either. What we've done here, however, is not only to load up our "Reception" section with the natural political enemies (anyone who thinks that Eva McKend, Marcy Darnovsky or Michelle Goldberg are neutral journalistic observers shouldn't be editing this article) of the film but also, in several cases, overstating their criticisms to further denigrate the film. More about those overstatements later. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouting and histrionics do not improve your argument. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project people are scholars reacting to an egregious misinterpretation of Sanger's life and career. McKend and company are outraged because the film so severely twists the truth. This is not a case of comparing Maafa 21 to some ro-choice flick; none of our sources gives such a comparison. As Roscelese noted, this is also not a case of he said, she said, in which the two parties are equivalent. No, no, no... this is the case in which the film is completely wrong and critics rightly point this out. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An "egregious misinterpretation"? Hmmh, sounds rather subjective to me. Where are the outright lies? The deliberate falsehoods? What facts, exactly, are wrong? Don't see much of that in the article, despite all the criticism. What I do see, however, is a lot of more-royalist-than-the-king Wiki editing here. Our editors overstating what sources friendly to their cause have actually said. For instance Carlson, the Metro-Pulse author, interviews a couple of Knoxville area pro-lifers who plead ignorance about the film's research, and this is parlayed into our article as something like "Tennessee pro-lifers support the film though they know little of the early birth-control movement or the research supposedly going into the film." Katz, in the same Metro-Pulse article, is quoted as saying that quotes are sometimes fabricated, but the only example given is from a speech by a pro-lifer, not the film itself; that also finds its way into our article. Of course we have the usual (Roscelese is quite prone to this, and not just here) statements in Wiki's voice that a statement is "false" because a source we agree with has said that it is false. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Our highest quality sources are from the scholars at the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, and they make it clear that the film misinterprets history and portrays falsehoods. Notice that no scholars have stood up in support of the film. This one-sided situation is reflected in the article which, as you have noted, is more critical than supportive of the film. In other words, Wikipedia reflects the imbalance of the true external situation wherein the most thoughtful and neutral observers decry the film as fabrication and falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And again, you are speaking in generalities not specifics. But since we haven't been presented any outright falsehoods in the film by either the sources or by you let's go to the specific points about our editing of the sources that I made in my previous comment. Where is the source saying that Tennessee supporters of the film don't know what they are talking about? Or is that statement somehow deduced from the fact that a couple of interviewees pleaded ignorance? Where is the misattribution of a quote in the film rather than by someone talking about the film? Where are the outright falsehoods rather than the perceived "misinterpretations"? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Brief: it's easy to find other falsehoods in the film if we do our own research, but WP policy doesn't allow that, so we're stuck with what reliable sources have commented upon - not that it's not enough. The source specifically and repeatedly states that the activists don't know about the alleged research but believe it or promote it anyway, and as in any other news story, they're interviewed as exemplars of a larger group. The same article also lists a number of other falsehoods in the film (eg. Sanger's not-actually-real support for the KKK or the Nazis). I would recommend returning to the sources before pretending they do not contain the information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, yes, I agree that my Reception rewrite is "way too long and detailed." Essentially, it contains everything available online on the subject. Whatever useful information from it can be used here is up for grabs. The greatest benefit it offers, in my opinion, is that it identies the Afrocentric response to the film. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Look Beleg, I didn't mean to be as dismissive as I sounded. I appreciate the fact that you obviously did a lot of work getting reactions to the film, but what we already have here is too long. As for Roscelese's point it is utterly absurd to make interviews with a few (actually just two I think) pro-life folks in Knoxville the basis to claim a general ignorance on the part of Tennessee pro-lifers. If a reporter interviewed a few pro-choice activists in Albany about some video paean to Margaret Sanger and found that they had little real knowledge of Sanger or the "supposed" research that went into it, would it really be accurate or fair to say "New York pro-choicers love the film but don't know much about Sanger's life or the research that went into this video"? This kind of an edit only makes sense to a a POV warrior. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) PS: For Beleg Strongbow: Looking over your material on reactions to Maafa 21, we should replace the response by the John Birch Society's The New American with the response from an organization such as Catholic.net. One doesn't hear much about the John Birch Society anymore and you may have not have researched it, or be old enough to remember as I am, but during the early 1960s the John Birch Society became synonymous with "right-wing fringe." It was disavowed, for example, by William F. Buckley's National Review. Its founder Robert Welch, among other things, described Dwight Eisenhower as "a dedicated member of the Communist conspiracy" In short an endorsement by the John Birch Society is really more of a dig at Maafa 21 than a compliment, which probably explains why your fellow editors haven't removed it. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BH, the claim about TN pro-lifers, based upon Frank Carlson's alleged interview of two men-on-the-street, is actually much tamer than it used to be: it used to simply say "Pro-life activists", making a universal indictment, whereas now it asserts the unique ignorance of pro-lifers merely from TN. (Maybe it's something in their water.) ;) You are probably the 10th (or more) editor to try to remove it, as it simply doesn't belong in a credible article. But, it's also mostly harmless, being so obviously POVish.

With regard to my use of Rebecca Terrell from The New American, I tried to stay impartial in my inclusions and use all reactions to the film, regardless of their (real or imagined) level of credibility. My effort was mainly two-fold: (1) to show that the film's influence was more wide-spread and diverse than people might otherwise realize (as our Wiki article currently stands) and (2) to draw out the Afrocentric response, which must be considered the most relevant, given the topic. I understand and respect the position that Esther Katz's perspective is the most relevant, but she is simply one person, the MSPP just one isolated group, whereas the African-American community offers a national perspective from the group most intimately affected by the film's claims.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The blanket statement in our article about "pro-lifers in Tennessee" (why not "pro-lifers worldwide") based on the Metro-Pulse article which interviews a couple of folks in the Knoxville area, is absolutely asinine and should not pass any formal challenge (which I suspect it will ultimately come down to). I would say that it's WP:SYNTHESIS but it's actually worse than that, maybe "synthesis on steroids." Don't be overly deferential to Katz and her website. I notice that this website routinely uses the description "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion," a sure sign that, despite our colleague Binksternet's contention, it is indeed militantly pro-choice. Curiously, Margaret Sanger herself claimed that abortion should be legal only in extreme circumstances, and made a point of arguing for contraception rather than abortion.Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Nothing wrong with including the Birch/New American reaction to the film in a comprehensive listing for organizational purposes, but to then select it as one of a limited number of reactions to the film in the actual article is inadvisable. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Following on from Badmintonhist's observation that we're really stretching even to include the reception that made it into the article, I removed the section, but this was reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge, or lack thereof of film research

For some reason, Roscelese seems insistent on saying that a group of TN prol-life activists don't know what research was used for making this film. However the source attributes this to a single person. Suggestions for fixing this mischaracterization of the source is welcome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm pretty sure it was TWO!! But, hey, two pro-lifers in or around Knoxville pretty much means all of them in the state doesn't it? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "He says he doesn’t know much about what research went into producing Maafa 21; nevertheless, he says he largely believes its contents" etc.; I would advise users not to remove material simply because they do not like it. Alternately, we could go ahead with my earlier edit and simply remove the "reception," but stripping away all sourced material that makes the film look bad is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'd advise you not to restore a statement attributed to a person, not a group as three other editors disagree with your interpretation. In fact, the first sentance should be attributed to Simoneau.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We might consider scrapping the whole reaction of Knoxville area pro-life activists (to which a reader might say "so what?") in favor of a source giving a broader description of pro-life reaction to the film (such as I think is found in Shaila Dewan's New York Times's article). We should definitely scrap the reaction from the John Birch Society publication which for the knowledgeable reader is probably more of a swipe at the film than a kudo. We should also pare down the number of negative critics of a film, which, whatever its flaws as history are, seems to have been fairly successful as propaganda (which pretty much ALL films are on either side of the abortion debate are). None of the sources we use here could accurately be called "neutral" on the abortion issue, but I would get rid of the more blatantly partisan such as polemicist Michelle Goldberg (who recently called Ann Romney "insufferable") and Eva McKend (writing for a publication which attacks anything that is "pro-life"). The indirect quote from Dorothy Roberts (another highly partisan and rather radical figure) should also be removed, in part because it is not a reaction to the film at all but from a book written over a decade ago.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed "Reception" again since no one really seems to favor including it. We could probably talk about its influence (eg. from Dewan) in the "Release and screenings" section! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of consensus is baffling. Who besides yourself is advocating removing this section? And I see you slipped in a POV edit at the same time using a misleading summary. Please don't do that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Badmintonhist has also repeatedly commented that he sees the sources as low quality, and my explanation of why I retained the expert sources was in an earlier edit summary - the one you reverted without subsequently deigning to respond to my comment on the talk page. –Roscelese ([[User

talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Uhmmm . . . though it's nice to see you suddenly and strangely anxious to accommodate my wishes on an article, Roscelese, I never actually suggested that we scrap the entire Reception section. That being said, the article, as my most recent edit left it, is probably an improvement on what it was when I found it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the screening in Houck's district is not really pertinent, but the rest of your edit (besides again violating this article's 1RR - you will be reported next time) is counterproductive, as it removes sourced information for no apparent reason other than that it makes a film you like look bad. There is no "difference of opinion" here: a historical scholar who is the editor of the papers of the film's subject is simply not comparable to a car marketer turned activist, and your edit summary that we should defer to our sources is exactly what you aren't doing in removing information about the truth value of the film's claims which is in those sources. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a childish policy violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's say that I agree that SOMEONE is definitely being childish. As for the substance here, car dealers with relatively limited knowledge of Margaret Sanger's life and works are just as entitled to their subjective OPINIONS about the lady as are academic historians. Academic historians, by the way, commonly disagree among themselves over the motives of the historical figures they study. There is no one standard accepted version of Linclon's motives, or Jefferson's motives, or FDR's motives, or Benazhir Bhutto's for various actions that they took in the political sphere. Sanger was a woman of her time, and it was a time when MOST folks were quite racist by today's standards. She expressed a belief in the general intellectual superiority lighter skinned people, associated with eugenicists, and once attended a Klan rally for who knows what reason. Does that mean that she was a virulent race-hater who wanted to exterminate African Americans? Not as far as I'm concerned, but she did enough to invite that opinion on the part of some. And that's the point, it's a matter of opinion, just as it is a matter of opinion whether Lincoln was the nation's savior or a brute who countenanced the horrid deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, whether Jefferson was the chief architect of our liberties or a hypocritical voluptuary, whether FDR brought our nation out of a depression by his policies or extended it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This might be relevant if we were talking about "opinions," but we are not. Crutcher's film makes historical claims which, according to scholars of the subject, are not true. This isn't on the level of "was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus justified," but rather on the level of "was the Emancipation Proclamation secretly written in French and then translated into English by a cabal." You demonstrate your own lack of fitness to make historical judgments by parroting demonstrably untrue claims such as Sanger's fictitious attendance for "who knows what reason" at a KKK rally (we know why: she talked to any audience, including a KKK women's group, who expressed interest in learning about birth control, but pointed out in her autobiography how weird and offputting this particular experience was; the most nefarious motive any reliable source attributes to her is seeking the support of anti-Catholic groups to oppose Catholic political campaigns against birth control), but luckily for you, as a Wikipedia user you are not called upon to make those judgments anyway; instead, we defer to reliable sources such as Esther Katz, an expert on Sanger's life, writings, and opinions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Autobiographies, as you should know, are notoriously self-serving. But none of what you have just said really effects the issue. Nobody here is saying that the Crutcher view of Margaret Sanger should prevail in our article.Due weight should be accorded to the most reliable sources sources on Sanger. But on inherently subjective matters, such as Sanger's level of racism, and the level of racist and eugenic intention in her work, we attribute opinions to their source in-line. From what I have seen of your editing, Roscelese, you are extremely eager for Wikipedia to declare your own views on contentious issues to be absolute fact. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanger's lack of racism is demonstrably proven in scholarly works about Sanger. It is a fact that she worked with women of all races to help them thrive in society by offering to them the benefit of birth control which had been only available to the wealthy. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that she worked with Blacks says almost nothing about her racial views. Lots of very racist folks have worked with Blacks all of their lives. Even her staunchest scholarly defenders admit she had a degree of prejudice relating to racial and ethnic types. No, the issue here is whether we make declarative statements in Wiki's voice that Crutcher is wrong and that Sanger was free of any racist intent or we let reliable sources speak for themselves. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, we don't need to be doing our own analysis here. The scholarship, as shown in our sources, is clear: the conspiracy theory is false, based on a variety of smear tactics ranging from deliberate misinterpretation/decontextualizing of quotes to outright fabrication. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanger & racism

Where does the source claim that the documentary "fabricates" that Sanger is racist?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does anyone's edit say that a claim about Sanger having racist beliefs was "fabricated"? WP:COMPETENCE –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be you [3]. At least we've established who is incompetent.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said: Where does anyone's edit say that a claim about Sanger having racist beliefs was "fabricated"? The quotes were fabricated. WP:COMPETENCE. Reading comprehension is one of those things that is helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thing we follow WP:NOR and uses sources and not WP:Chutzpah. Stop embarrassing yourself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Roscelese and Little green rosetta should take a break from the article to think about what gift they want to give to the other for Valentine's Day. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If Sanger was utterly free of racism as Binksternet asserts, why does Wikipedia make this reliably sourced statement about her (see Sanger's Wiki bio)? "Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal to work within interracial projects."

Is there really any point in attempting to establish whether or not Sanger was truly racist? We seem to be arguing an irrelevancy, i.e. whether or not the claims in Maafa 21 are accurate. This article is not meant to support or to refute the film's claims but simply to state what those claims are without bias. As Badmintonhist, among others, has correctly pointed out, the topic is inherently polemic and no one can be truly unbiased, but the goal of all this discussion should be to work towards an unbiased article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue as I see it is that the film purports Sanger to have racist views. A source states, inter alia, that quotes attributed to Sanger were taken out of context. This "quotes were fabricated" business introduced by Roscelese years ago is simply not in the source and does not belong unless it can be attributed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As the biased tone has (finally) been removed, let's move on, though not without vigilance to keep it removed. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to insist that Sanger was a racist. Whether or not she truly was a racist is not the point of this article. Clearly, the film declares Sanger to have been a racist and offers evidence to support this assertion. This evidence is naturally questionable--and should be questioned but not by WP editors in the body of this article. Any statements that declare that Sanger was a racist and any statements that declare she was not a racist will continue to be removed from this article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So you prefer that the film is able to make its argument without rebuttal? That our readers will be prevented from knowing what is the mainstream scholarly thought on the matter? Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the film, not Sanger. However it might be relevant to include that Sanger's racial views (if they can be established) compared to norms of her day and how a modern interpretation of racism might be misconstrued. The argument the film makes against Sanger is not so much racism, but support for eugenics. Does supporting eugenics make one racist?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MSPP and Frank Carlson articles

The article posted at MSPP and the articles written by Frank Carlson offer no substantive information about the film. They clearly express their disapproval but make no arguments as to what is precisely wrong with the film's content--i.e. they declare conclusions without offering any rationale. These articles are not useful as citations for the actual content or the premise of the film. They may have been useful in the removed Reception section but not as the article currently stands.

With regards to the argument that either WP:RS or WP:FRINGE would require their inclusion, first, Frank Carlson is just another writer with an opinion and is clearly hostile toward pro-life activists: he's not a "reliable source". As far as the use of MSPP's blog, WP:FRINGE states "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." The blog does not offer any substantial arguments against the alleged "marginal idea." Such arguments would offer exact contextual quotations from the film and then offer verifiable facts to refute the claims being made in those quotes. No such arguments are offered in the MSPP article (or in Frank Carlson's)--just conclusions.

The articles from the NYT and The Root do not impose opinion from the writers themselves but provide a kind of dialogue from those who support and those who oppose the film. They give an overview of the film's content, provide reactions, and demonstrate the film's effects on viewers. They adequately fulfill the needs of our article without provocation.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

My funny valentine, sweet comic valentine, you make me smile with my heart Lorenz Hart

But there will no valentines from this quarter today for my colleagues Roscelese and Binksternet. Fie on them! Rather than wisely accepting the advice offered by fellow editors here and at the Reliable Source Noticeboard (although I believe it should have been the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard) they have persisted in their battleground editing. Roscelese's latest Binksternet-abetted foray is the following monstrosity:

In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said. [sources]

There are multiple crippling problems with this edit. Most obvious is the uncollegial thumbing-of-the-nose with the use of a bifurcated sentence, the first half of which (an independent clause) continues to state in Wikipedia's voice that the film is "wrong." While our colleague Roscelese may have felt genuinely clever in creating this edit, it still doesn't "work." It is actually worse than before. Since the first half is essentially a separate statement, and attribution to Esther Katz is given only to the second statement in the sentence, there is no source at all for it, except Roscelese presuming to speak for Wikipedia. The second half of the sentence, by itself, also has debilitating issues. Nowhere does Katz say that "the film is not based on any research," (which would be a ridiculous thing to say in any case since it was obviously not created extemporaneously) rather she says " I don't know what research he (Crutcher) might have done," which, of course, is very, very different. In addition linking Katz to the assertion that the film relies on the "attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said" is also quite dubious. The source for this is Carlson's Metro-Pulse article and it is not clear from the wording there whether Carlson is speaking for himself or for Katz. Moreover, the one example of a misquote that Carlson presents comes not from the movie at all, but from a speech given by a pro-life advocate. Hope all of this helps and Happy Valentines Day to everyone else. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the film wrong, it is tiresome, rarely seen and ineffective in its intended purpose. This whole talk page kerfuffle has generated more text about the film than has been written in all the world's publications combined. It is unworthy of all of our valuable time to continue to give a shit about this egregious propaganda film. Please enjoy a heart-shaped salt caramel and give the topic a rest. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are done, feel free to step off your soapbox and edit something else.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to Binksternet: As soon as you and Roscelese give the topic a rest. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently two editors have objected to my collapsing this section. I will let it stand on two conditions: 1) that the offensive section title is not restored and 2) that everyone continue to play nice or else you will get thoroughly trouted and, if you persist, a time out. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! Badmintonhist (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've again restored information about the film's false historical claims. By now it is very clear that both consensus and policy support the inclusion, in some form, of the scholarly evaluation of this film's fringe claims. Further discrepancies between the actual and ideal, such as in phrasing, should be worked out on a phrase level, rather than by continuing to tendentiously remove well-sourced material that makes a film you like look bad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And you've been reverted again because none of the sources listed makes any claims that the film makes false historical claims. Stop being disruptive.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even putting aside the fact that if you were willing or able to read the sources you would know that that was blatantly and shamefully false - WP:FRINGE, "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately," exists for a reason. You do know better than this, right? So why are you wasting everyone else's time? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AGF. Of course I've read the sources. Now I'll ask again, where in any of the sources listed are claims made that the film makes false historical claims and the film makes up quotes and attributes them to Sanger. Your citing FRINGE is just a red herring.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, and you've demonstrated a flagrant lack of regard for sources, policy, and consensus. FRINGE is still relevant, but since you appear to have problems with literacy specifically as well as competence generally, I direct you to, among other places, one of the MetroPulse articles: "Katz says Maafa 21 and the black genocide movement are flat wrong in their depiction of [Sanger's] views and work." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, everyone. I stumbled upon this conversation quite by accident; however, I would suggest that everyone continues to cool things down. The discussion above has become a bit too heated for reasonable conversation about content and editing issues to occur. Please remember to abide by the relevant policies. Thank you, dci | TALK 04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Strong addressed that quote above already. I ask you for a third time, where does the film invent quotes and attribute them to Sanger?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He did, and as usual, he was completely incorrect. We don't need a blow-by-blow or an MST3K from Katz or the other MSPP scholars; they know about the subject and Crutcher does not. Now, as for the quotes, I'm willing to accept in the name of compromise that it might be used in the broader conspiracy theory material and not only in the film (Katz also comments on the quote in another source where it's mentioned as being in the film sponsor's leaflets or something), but that, as I said, requires rephrasing and not removal of the historical information. We might rephrase the sentence to include "the film is and the black genocide conspiracy theory it promotes are..." or something, but we're fundamentally not going to censor material that our sources relate to the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ros, it's time for you to move on and push your ideologically self-serving arguments at other, fresher topics where your insulting, brow-beating style might work. We've got you pretty well figured here. Though you habitually complain about the supposed incompetence and low literacy level of fellow editors, the editor most clearly shown to have such handicaps here is YOU. As I pointed out above, nowhere Does Katz or any other source say that "the film is not based on any research." That is pure Roscelese. Rather, Katz says that she DOESN"T KNOW WHAT RESEARCH CRUTCHER MIGHT HAVE DONE FOR THE FILM. Roscelese never attended college versus I don't know what college(s) Roscelese may have attended. See the difference?? Your fellow editor Little green rosetta is also quite correct in objecting to article content flatly stating that the film invents quotes, as the only example of an invented quote is NOT IN THE FILM. SERIOUS CHARGES REQUIRE STRONG EVIDENCE.

Now, believe or not, Ros, I'm going to try to help your cause a bit with the substance of the article. The most egregious example of deception in the film (and deception about Sanger's work in the general popular culture) is the infamous quote "We do not want want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population . . . " Certainly, Sanger meant that she didn't want FALSE word to go out rather than that she didn't want TRUE word to go out. If you can find a source reviewing the film that makes this specific point or other specific points about the misconstruction of Sanger's language in the film, that would be the best road to impeaching the film's veracity. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm eager to work out phrase-level stuff. But we cannot work on the phrase level when users insist on blanking the entire thing and removing all of the sources simply because they do not depict the film in a positive light. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want your content blanked, don't add content that you know others object to in the first place. It's really that simple. Perhaps you should make your suggestions here instead of trying to bully them into the article. So far that approach hasn't worked out to well for you, has it?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, for quite a long while it was working just fine. Then you and Badmintonhist had to come along and ruin all the fun. ;) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you are among the users who wish to make changes to that text, it would be more efficient for you to suggest the changes you wish to see made, rather than having me and the others guess half a dozen times trying to see what's in your head. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Risking the high probability that I will again be accused of liking the film, allow me to offer this word of caution: as we pursue disputing the film's use of that quote (or any quote that may have been used in an erroneous or misleading manner), let's strive to keep its use in context. The film doesn't simply make a drive-by claim but instead offers (likely flawed) reasoning for their interpretation of Sanger's words. If a critical source simply states that the use of a quote is wrong without providing reasoning for why it is wrong (e.g., disputing the film's method of reasoning as opposed to simply declaring the film's conclusion to be fallacious), then it is not fulfilling either the letter or the spirit of WP:FRINGE. As BH so aptly (as usual) stated above, "Serious charges require strong evidence." -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no, the fact that real scholars haven't devoted an entire book or journal article to dissecting something by a non-scholar isn't evidence that their comments on the history need to be removed - it weakens the film's credentials. The sources we have already do provide specific examples of parts of the conspiracy theory which are out of context, misattributed, etc., but WP:FRINGE does not ask us for an MST3K of the whole film, only that reliable sources demonstrate its relationship (or lack thereof) to real scholarship in a serious and substantial manner, which is adequately covered by multiple sources in which scholars of the subject point out individual issues as well as the film's lack of credibility as a whole. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How well you argue! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue, but you can see my arguments below. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your [Beleg Strongbow's] point, though it would be okay to say that critics (citing the ones who do either in-text or in footnotes) say that quotes are misconstrued, and detailing a specific example or two if something along the lines of what you suggest above is found in a reliable source. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanger's work/quotes taken out of context

Lets tackle one issue at a time. I think everyone here can agree that the sources we have say that the film has taken Sanger's work out of context. How might the text for this read?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the question is how much we want to talk about specifics (whether in the lede or elsewhere). For instance, the film mentions the visit to a KKK rally, without saying that it was to talk about birth control for white people or that Sanger found the experience weird and disturbing and didn't repeat it. Or are you referring in a broader sense to Sanger's work in the context of US and int'l society at the time? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We must consider weight. This is an article about the film, not Sanger.. We shouldn't blow up one section and drown the rest. The film portrays Sanger as a euegenicst (which is true) and that by modern standards she held racist views. The sources state she was actually a "race liberal" and that the film portrayed her quotes out of context.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree in theory but am not sure what you're advocating in practice. The article is about the film, but the film is about Sanger and PP, and it is difficult to talk about the film without talking about its content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well?

I'd love to hear the (ostensible) reason for Rosetta's latest tendentious revert. We have text:

1. that is supported by consensus at RSN (a line fully attributed to Katz)
2. of which a version existed in the stable article before pro-film users began the latest series of edits, whose removal is not supported by consensus
3. that is supported by WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and other Wikipedia policies

What's the reasoning this time? Is there a secret captcha code which only pro-film users know about? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In the lead, you replace the documentary link with your POV. And the "completely wrong and without evidence" bit is also POV and inaccurate as BH has demonstrated above. As far as the claims of tendentious editing, are you familiar with the phrase "when you point your finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at you"? Your boorish and often juvenile communication patterns make editing with you tremendously difficult. If I thought it might do any good and not a waste of time, I would start an RFC/U. But since I'm not inclined to do that, I'd be happy to participate in a DRN for this article, which is probably the more pressing matter.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, "I dislike the user making the edit" is rarely considered an acceptable revert rationale, and "completely wrong and without evidence" is a pretty tame paraphrase of "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that." I dismiss your claim about the documentary; if that were the issue, you could have simply restored that text, rather than tendentiously reverting consensus-based edits. Feel free to open a DRN if you like, but in the meantime, please stop edit-warring away from consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't make me get the trout, people. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of current consensus flies in the face of reason. The recent discussion at RSN confirms this btw. I really prefer not to wear trout, so ill try and leave it at that. However I stand by both points about the lead and the "completely wrong" bit. The film is a documentary, regardless of its merit. The flat out wrong part is wildly POV and inaccurate and the "without evidence" part even more so, besides bring factually incorrect according the source cited.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The flat out wrong part is a quote from the source, an expert scholar, and my edit actually moderated its tone. If you would prefer to hew closer to Katz's wording, we certainly could call the film's claims "stupid," but I don't think that's something you want. Again, however, these are quibbles over phrase-level, wording stuff, and do not change the fundamental and obvious consensus to include the scholarly perspective on the history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Added sentence to lead that lacks references but perhaps we can work with it if Rosie doesn't insist on unencyclopedic, slam-dunk wording. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your wording is a step backwards. We're trying to avoid reception-style discussion, and rather to discuss a) the film's influence in the anti-abortion movement and b) its factual basis or lack thereof. Framing both as "some people like it and some do not" does a disservice to both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make a bold statement here and offer my reasoning below: Ester Katz's opinion on the film itself is irrelevent.

The most logical reason why Esther Katz would not know how Mark Crutcher had access to Margaret Sanger documents for his research is that Katz didn't actually watch Maafa 21, which is almost certainly the case. Why would she have wasted her time watching a film made by an "unknown" like Crutcher? The film offers Sophia Smith College (not NYU) as one of its key sources of information, which is likely from where the quotes and scans come and by which Crutcher's team did its research on Sanger. While Katz is arguably the premiere authority on the life and works of Margaret Sanger, she is not an authority on Maafa 21, because she never watched it. Insomuch that she has concluded that the film is fallacious, she has done so based upon assumptions (1) on what the content of the film actually is and (2) that people who are telling her about the film are correctly representing its content.

A good question though is why Frank Carlson doesn't seem to think this detail (i.e. whether or not Katz actually watched Maafa 21) was relevant enough to acknowledge it in his piece. Surely he asked her...right? It also begs the question "Have any of the film's published critics actually watched it?"

Concerning Katz's explanation of Sanger's quote about the "more rebellious members" of "the Negro population" concluding that the Negro Project was meant "to exterminate" them, Katz isn't actually incriminating Crutcher or his film. Katz's explanation is essentially the same as the one offered in the film, except that the film then insists that Sanger's plan to create, as Katz put it, "coalitions with the black community leadership" was precisely meant to leverage that leadership in deceiving more effectively the African American communities into thinking that they were "here to help."

The film is not making the indefensible claim that Sanger was clearly admitting to be plotting against Negroes but is instead making a bold interpretation that Sanger's words and actions were part of a secret (though not isolated) plot against African Americans. I personally don't expect anyone to buy into this interpretation, but I do expect people of integrity to represent it just as accurately as they expect the film to represent Sanger and its other targets.

One of the most interesting of Carlson's selected quotes of Katz is where Katz said,

If you want to have an argument about whether Sanger was or was not responsible for her decisions about eugenics, even what eugenics turned into, that's a reasonable debate. That's an honest debate...But debating whether she wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it?

First, Katz honestly admits that a discussion on Sanger's role as a eugenicist is a reasonable and honest debate, which is exactly what Maafa 21 is doing. Second, she correctly insists that it's stupid to accuse Sanger of wanting to erase blacks from the face of the earth, and of course, the film isn't making that claim. Katz's belief that the film makes such a ridiculous claim is further evidence (1) that she didn't actually watch it and (2) that those telling her about the film have misrepresented it. The film accuses Sanger of using abortion as a means of population control, not global extermination.

Katz didn't watch Maafa 21, and her objections are not with the film but with an erroneous impression she has been given of the film by others.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TLDR: "I'm going to speculate about one of our sources using a hypothesis that relies on ignoring a number of our sources, and then extrapolate based on that speculation without any evidence that it is correct." Nope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How fitting. "As a label, WP:TLDR is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't know if Katz watched the film or not. What we do know is that she doesn't know where they (Maafa 21) got their research materials from. Just because they didn't get their research from Katz, does not mean the film was based on no research as Roscelese's edits imply.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear that she didn't watch it. She demonstrates nothing but ignorance about the film itself. To assume that she did watch it is also to assume that she is either lazy or not too bright or both, otherwise she would have known (1) exactly where the research came from and (2) that the film does not claim that Sanger wanted "to erase blacks from the face of the earth." I'm not willing to make those assumptions about Dr. Katz, though apparently at least one of us is. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Careful, BLP applies to talk pages as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the caution, truly, but it must apply both ways. I have produced sufficient evidence (WP:BLP) to show that Katz did not watch Maafa 21 and that she was commenting not on the actual content of the film but instead on what she had been told about the film, likely by Frank Carlson himself or by others who are openly hostile to the pro-life movement. Those who are assuming that she did watch the film are making an assumption about Katz that they need to verify in conformance to WP:BLP.

The burden of proof must fall upon those who insist that she has viewed the film and that she is a valid source on the topic of the film's content. If she indeed has not viewed Maafa 21, then she is still an expert on the life and works of Sanger but not on Maafa 21 and should not be cited as such. Moving forward, until such evidence has been produced, it is my intent to remove content from the article that assumes Katz has viewed the film.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this logic here. I'm not familiar with the sources or the issues here, so I can't comment or take sides on either one, so I'm only commenting on policy issues here. I don't know how you can demonstrate that someone has or has not watched a film, and you certainly don't do so above. If someone is an expert on the topic that a film is examining and has commented on the film, this is exactly the kind of source we want for a WP article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I will try again...

Katz never says she watched it, and the interviewer (i.e. Frank Carlson) also never says that she watched it. Katz seems to be responding to Carlson's questions, not offering her perspective on a film she has viewed. There is nothing in her responses that demonstrates she actually watched the film; instead her respones suggest that she did not (e.g., no knowledge of the film's producer or of the research he did, though both are cited in the film, and gross misrepresentation of the accusations made by the film).

Whether or not Katz actually watched Maafa 21 is very important as we consider using her as a source for discussing the film's legitimacy. If she didn't, then all she is doing is demonstrating her knowledge of Sanger and offering responses to others' perspectives of the film, which is irrelevant. It would be like me giving to Tony La Russa my own perspective of a baseball game I had watched and then asking him to comment on that game: while La Russa's general perspective about Baseball as a sport would be completely relevant, his comments about that particular game would be relevant only to the degree that the details he received were accurate.

My quote from Katz above shows that her fight is against a straw man, not against an accurate representation of Maafa 21. The film accuses Sanger of trying to control population growth among African Americans through the use of abortion, but Katz is arguing against an accusation that Sanger was trying to kill all blacks everywhere (i.e. "to erase blacks from the face of the earth"). The film doesn't even imply global extermination, so Katz is demonstrating either her own bias or the bias of those describing the film to her by putting up this straw man argument. This argument and her lack of familiarity with elementary logistical details of the film show that she didn't actually watch Maafa 21 but instead has been pulled into the conversation by those who wish to discredit it.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a critic says outright that they watched a film strikes me as entirely immaterial. You can never truly prove that they did or didn't watch it, and what would be the point anyway? If a critic gets matters of fact or interpretation wrong, they can be rebutted by other reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While it is possible that Katz didn't see the film, she could be responding to questions to its veracity posed by the author of the article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As the attributions to Katz currently stand, I am satisfied with the realization that they are relatively innocuous and with the assumption that, had Katz seen the film, they would accurately represent her perspective. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Documenatry & without evidence

I could be wrong, but I believe current consensus is not in favor of Roscelese's recent edits. As I've pointed out above, the film is a documentary despite whatever our opinions are, and the "without evidence" is a gross mischaracterization of the source.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage with this comment, since you obviously aren't looking at edits before you revert them on the basis of who made them, but I invite you to provide your own paraphrase of "there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," rather than reverting tendentiously until someone succeeds in reading your mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning for failing to AGF. With that out of the way, your last edit is definitely an improvement to the article in a NPOV manner and has fidelity to the sources.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it still does not reflect the consensus to include the scholarly perspective on the film via Esther Katz's comments. Once you cease your tendentious edit-warring, then the article will closer reflect the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does reflect the sources. NPOV is a policy, of which your many recent attempted edits were anything but. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying this either. So I'll leave it to our colleagues to determine who is being tendentious.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you're going to continue reverting in the spurious name of NPOV long after it's been determined and redetermined that consensus is that policy allows or requires the material. We have a name for that. Thanks for letting us all know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We can either wiki lawyer, go to DRN or if you think your claims of disruptive editing hold water, ANI. I'd prefer to follow what the sources say and policy.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you are the user that has a problem with the current consensus, I would recommend that you take the issue wherever you think it should be taken. I'm content with consensus as it stands - to include the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I puzzled at your interpretation of how the current consensus favors your edit. That is certainly disputed here, as well as at RSN.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguments about consensus are arguments about process, not about issues. Consensus is attained not by referring to lack thereof but by making arguments about the issues rather than about the process. This thread should be hatted as unworthy of talk page guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to remove the "neutrality disputed" template?

As the article stands on February 22 at 12:34 EST, I am prepared to remove the "neutrality disputed" tag. What say yea all? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Obvious neutrality issues remain as long as we're pretending that there's simply a "difference of opinion" or "criticism," but that discussion is still in course of working out text, so I won't restore the tag at the moment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Katz

I'm not averse to including a more in-depth discussion of Katz's commentary on the film, but such a discussion must necessarily reflect the weight of the discussion in the sources. We must not cherry-pick the quotations where Katz seems to be conceding that the film is right, when the vast majority of her comments are unambiguously negative; that's simply misrepresenting the source because you haven't been able to get it thrown out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

NOBODY here has been trying to "get (Katz) thrown out," so knock off the false and disingenuous allegations. I am restoring the the consensus version of the article. I would suggest that you politely suggest specific edits here first for discussion before assuming that any lengthy edits you make to the article will stand. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, who in particular is trying to get the Katz reference "thrown out"? Where has anyone even suggested this? After two RSN and one NPOV noticeboard incidents, its clear all the editors who have opinined have no objection to using Katz.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We must take care that as we use any quotes from Katz that we make sure she is actually talking about the film and not instead responding to Frank Carlson's (and MetroPulse's) hostile opinion against pro-lifers. The straw man argument that Sanger wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is not attributal to the documentary. Katz doesn't say that it is, but Carlson masterfully inserted it into his article in a way that makes it seem as though it was something said in the film.

I suggest we keep the summary of Katz's reaction just the way it is. Any quotes from her against Maafa 21 must be clearly aimed at the film, not at notions that are not actually in the film.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such as the Katz quote which Roscelese once again tried to insert: "I mean there's no way that she [Sanger] ever said such a thing," which implies that the film misquoted Sanger as saying that she wanted to "erase blacks from the face of the earth" when the film doesn't say that Sanger said this. We can certainly quote Katz in our article, but why use a quote that misleads readers about the content of the film? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The source specifically points out the film as what she is responding to in that comment. Unless we have a really good reason to believe that that's not the case - and Beleg, repeating that she must not have seen it won't make it true - we do rely on reliable sources, that's what we do here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

However, no one has actually addressed the issue here: the fact that the summary of Katz in the article, even with Badmintonhist's edits, is not remotely reflective of what she actually says. I appreciate the attempts to reflect more accurately in the wording her rejection of the conspiracy theory promoted in the film, but as long as most of the paragraph on her response is "well, they had some good points," we are misrepresenting her and the source her comments appear in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the source doesn't specifically point to the film as what Katz is responding to in her "there's no way she ever said such a thing" comment. The article is about the film, undoubtedly Carlson asked Katz questions about the film, and a reader would surely get that impression that Katz was referring to the film in this quote, but the source does not "specifically point to the film as what she is responding to in that comment." However, even if we knew Katz was responding to what she thought the film said about Sanger (it doesn't), why we would we choose a quote that we even suspected was imparting a false impression to our readers? Choosing quotes involves editorial judgment, and in the case at hand it would be a very poor one. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The film claims that Sanger aimed to eradicate the black community. (Substantiated in other sources, eg. Holloway.) This is exactly the claim that Katz discusses in the "any such thing" quote, and the article's author states that she is discussing the film's false claims. What exactly is the problem that you are having here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it one more time. When Katz says "there's no way she [Sanger] said any such thing" ("erase blacks from the face of the earth") a competent reader would conclude that the film explicitly CLAIMED that Sanger SAID this. We are not talking here about whether the film claims that Sanger was trying to "erase blacks from the face of the earth" BUT RATHER WHETHER THE FILM CLAIMS THAT SANGER ACTUALLY SAID THAT SHE WANTED TO "ERASE BLACKS FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH," See the difference? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Katz is using simple exaggeration for dramatic effect. If you understand the topic (as she does), it is clear that she knows very well that the film says Sanger said the population of blacks should be reduced in America, and that "there is no way she [Sanger] said any such thing." The bit about "the face of the earth" is hyperbole, but it does not remove the essence of Katz's statement refuting the film's depiction of Sanger. Binksternet (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have certainly considered this logical argument, that Katz is intentionally using hyperbole to make her point, but if that is the case, all the more reason why her overall sentiment should be used (as the article appeared here) without actually quoting her. A direct quote would naturally confuse the matter by giving the appearance that she was being literal.

The problem, though, with the assumption that Katz is using hyperbole is that it is an assumption. A far better use of Katz's quotes is to use the ones that are clearly directed at the film, not the ones that are directed at abstract ideas.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here, Badmintonhist. Are you misinterpreting the source as Katz assuming that there's some sort of direct falsified quotation in the film? Clearly Katz is stating - as I said - that the film claims that Sanger's goals were such and such (again, substantiated in other sources as a claim of the film), but this is not supported in any of her copious writings, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, Binksternet, on first reading I believed that, unlike Roscelese, you at least understood the point I was making. On closer reading of your above comment I'm not sure you do. Does Katz really "know very well that the film SAYS Sanger SAID the population of blacks should be reduced in America"? If so then she "knows" something that "ain't so." What Katz REALLY knows is that the film SAYS Sanger BELIEVED the population of blacks should be reduced in America. There can be no plausible cryptic conspiracy theory about Sanger's words and actions, you see, if reducing the black population were an explicitly stated goal.

But enough of this inside baseball. The practical problem of including the quote which Roscelese so fervently wants to inlude should be clear enough. It would, at the very least, tend to mislead readers about the specific content of the film. Nowhere does the film EXPLICITLY state that Sanger EXPLICITLY stated that she wanted kill off the black population. Including that particular Katz quote would lead readers to think that the film does say this when it doesn't. Moreover, we have already unambiguously stated in our article, in two places, that Katz strongly rejects the film's depiction of Sanger. We have even included Roscelese's other pet quote, the "flat wrong" one, properly showing it as Metro-Pulse writer Frank Carlson's construction of Katz's comments. Hope this resolves the issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The film misrepresents a Sanger quote: "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..." The film puts this quote forward as proof that Sanger wanted to reduce the population of African Americans. In reality, Sanger was saying "we do not want [false] word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"; she was saying that such false word should be prevented, that the notion should be debunked if it arose, by having prominent black leaders. Katz knows this, and refuted it with exaggeration for flair's sake. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

More broadly, the film does not limit itself to claiming that Sanger passively believed that the world would be better with fewer black people - it claims that her goal was to eradicate black people. And this isn't supported by any evidence in Sanger's large body of writings. Does this make sense to you now? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are we, once again, attributing to Katz ideas and quotes taken from MSPP (calling the film "propaganda") that are not explicitly attibuted to Katz? I think that the wording and citation was less confusing and more accurate last week than it is now. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, Beleg, for all intents and purposes, the MSPP blog is Esther Katz. She is listed as its editor and would be responsible for anything in it. Now I think that I was the one who most recently placed that "propaganda" quote into the article, and I attributed it to the MSPP blog, but I have no real problem with LGR (if I may use initials to designate a fellow editor) attributing it to Katz. As I said, for all intents and purposes they are the same.

As for the "we do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" quote (which I pointed out earlier on this Talk page was undoubtedly deceptively used in the film) it should be taken on straightforwardly if we want it discussed in our article. Find a source who brings it up in the context of the film. However, Maafa 21 pointing out that Sanger said this in a letter is not the same as Maafa 21 directly telling the listener that Sanger explicitly stated that she wanted to exterminate the black population. Actually, if Carlson had done a better job in his reporting, he would have connected Katz's statement to the quote, if that, indeed, is what she was referring to. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be a little more wary about automatically attributing anything on the blog to Katz, since there are a number of other people involved (I doubt there are substantial differences of opinion between them on basic historical facts, we'd just want to be careful). If, however, you want to say that the film doesn't claim Sanger wanted to eradicate black people, the MSPP blog isn't the source you've got to take it up with - what's your problem with Holloway? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Film reception and sourcing

Roscelese has repeatedly removed reaction about the film and called the sources unreliable. How is that so? They are certainly reliable for respect to their opinion as long as attribution is given (it is) and their opinion is relevant (it is as well). One should not be surprised that an organization called MovieGuide discusses movies after all.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the section is titled "Reception" not "Criticism," though substantial negative criticism of the film is included in the section and article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you're not so keen on removing poorly sourced reception once there's more poorly sourced reception on your "side." Got it. I, however, would be quite cool with removing the section or trimming it a great deal, but regardless of what we decide to do with the section as a whole, it is undoubtedly the case that we cannot retain such obvious marketing language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My "side" here is to produce a decent article, which I think we have now, as opposed to the genuinely lousy article I saw here a few weeks ago. Given the work you did on the latter, I'm not especially anxious to help make you "cool" with the improved version. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

For a second time, I ask our colleague what she means by poorly sourced? Do you challenge the veracriy of the sources? If so which ones?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

MovieGuide and Catholic.net are at best reliable only for their own opinions, not for actual facts. (The worthiness of their opinions to be included I'll get to in a minute.) Catholic'net's declaration that the film has appeared in many media and been highly effective is ostensibly a factual claim that requires a source which is reliable for facts; the effectiveness of the film needs to be substantiated using real sources like Dewan. (I'm not sure the fact of its appearance in multiple media is relevant, as this is true of almost anything - it's simply included in order to promote the film.) Moving on to the merits of inclusion at all - MovieGuide and Catholic.net are websites that exist to promote a particular political agenda; the fact that they like a film that shares their agenda tells us nothing. (We could probably say the same about some of the contra sources, but the language itself used in those is nowhere near equivalent to the marketing language Beleg recently inserted - "broad exposure to a diverse collection of individuals, groups, and organizations"? "revealing the documentary's effectiveness in swaying opinion and generating emotion"? We don't work for these websites or the film producers - or at least I hope none of us do. This is why I advocate removing the lot - they at best tell us nothing, and, in the hands of agenda-driven editors, only make the article worse.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has claimed that we shouldn't attribute Catholic.Net or MovieGuide's opinion. We do this all the time for columnists that push a particular agenda, though I dispute your claim that either of these orgs are pushing a political agenda. The fact that they are commenting on this film, and have commented on films in the past makes their inclusion perfectly reasonable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see even the attempt at an appeal to WP:RS or any other policy in that comment. I too have a blog where I talk about films, but it doesn't mean my analysis should be included in any given article, either. However, you're again trying to distract attention from the fact that you're refusing to address the issue...CatholicNet is being impermissibly cited for facts, and the language in both the CatholicNet and MovieGuide bits is overly promotional, in violation of our content policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to agree that Catholic.net and MovieGuide.org are RS with respect to their opinion, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. No where do I see that any "fact" established by these two sites are being stated using Wikipedia's voice. You certainly can create a blog where you espouse your views about this and other films, but the difference is that at the moment you don't have the gravitas of these organizations. No one would seriously challenge that those organizations have a significant target audience. Frank Rich is not a RS for factual information, yet he is a RS for his widely distributed opinion. This is why his opinion is germane. Suffice it to say, Catholic.net and MovieGuide.org probably aren't as disseminated as Mr. Rich, but they aren't a nebulous crackpot like Mr. X. And I ask you yet again to AGF. Accusations about causing distractions are anything but AGF. It should be possible for everyone to comment on this article without taking jabs in every comment.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that what is present on their sites as their opinion is in fact their opinion, but that's meaningless (again, my personal blog also accurately reflects my opinion, but that says nothing about whether it should be included in Wikipedia). Putting aside the bit where Catholic.net is cited for the film's supposed wide exposure and ability to sway people, which is an ostensibly factual claim even if attributed, WP:RS also deals with whether content belongs on Wikipedia at all. MovieGuide and Catholic.net simply are not high-profile enough for Wikipedia to care about their opinion (and the idea that they're on par with the NYT's film critic simply because both have opinions is ludicrous). Are you having trouble understanding this, which I've now repeated several times? Should I use smaller words? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just realized what our colleague is referring to now. Finding, I dunno, maybe seven or eight different negative critics of the film in the Reception section when I first came to this article, I suggested that a couple of the more obviously partisan ones, such as Michelle Goldberg, be dropped from the article. Roscelese, for who knows what reason, decided to use this as an excuse to scrap the whole reception section, and instead basically dismiss the film in Wikipedia's voice at the beginning of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We already pointed out that the film's claims were not historically accurate - recent attempts by you and others to pretend that they are, or that they are subjective, are an innovation that has resoundingly failed to gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the active editors on this article don't recognize a consensus of one. Again, at least minimal competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)