Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

PP locations

There are not Planned Parenthoods in every state, as stated in the Services and Facilities section. For instance, there are no Planned Parenthoods in North Dakota. I am not sure how to check what other (if any) states do not have Planned Parenthoods, and am I unsure how to rephrase the statement or I would have fixed it myself. I just wanted to report the inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newlyunlabeled (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be one in Fargo, according to Google Maps; did it close? (The statement is sourced to a book from 2005, so it could well be out of date, but we'd need a more recent source that contradicts it, or evidence that at least one state has no PP clinics, in order to remove the statement.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I work for a PP and we were told we're not in every state, so I did a quick search on PPFA website and it said 0 results for North Dakota. Maybe it did close? I'm uncertain. The way the search works on the PPFA website is through either entering a zip or a drop down menu listing all 50 states + DC so it's a bit of a cumbersome way to search.Newlyunlabeled (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned\\\\\ comment added by Newlyunlabeled (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the same search and the ND one didn't turn up. I looked for a news story about it closing and got nothing. Anyone feel like calling the phone number listed on Google Maps? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So upon further investigation, the clinic in Fargo might be the same technically speaking as the clinic in Moorhead. In that region, they often refer to the area as Fargo/Moorhead. They are right across state lines from each other. Of course they do list different addresses. I will call and see what I can find out. Newlyunlabeled (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So maybe the technically correct phrase would be "in or near every state"?Mattnad (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I called the number listed for Fargo and they confirmed that there are no clinics in North Dakota but they have some sort of administrative or shipping facility on the Fargo side of Fargo/Moorhead Newlyunlabeled (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then let's remove that statement, or rephrase to "most states" or something. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "throughout the country"? Some people have to drive further than others, which is unfortunate, but it's a big country. PhGustaf (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-profit

It should be made clear in the article that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.88.54 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in the categories, but you're right that it could also be mentioned in the text. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Better source

"Planned Parenthood conducted a frame-by-frame analysis of the recordings, and said they found instances of 'editing that dramatically alter[ed] the meaning of the recorded conversations.'" Can we find a better source for this? Huffington Post is not exactly an RS on issues such as this. NYyankees51 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the basis for assuming the Huffington Post is not a reliable source? They are a mainstream news organization that has won numerous awards according to the wikipedia article.Mattnad (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wikipedia article should be improved, then. They are not mainstream and lean far to the left, as recognized by mainstream sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on either Live Action OR Huffington Post (depending on the journalist) without corroborating sources. Start with Media Matters here and check their links. Flatterworld (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the information is spread around this article, Live Action, and Lila Rose. imo the Lila Rose article should be merged into the Live Action article, as that's all she's notable for. But as it is, I added a 'See also' link to this article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I personally wouldn't equate an award-winning, widely quoted news site that was just sold to AOL for $315M, with millions of daily readers etc.... with LiveAction - a tiny group group singularly dedicated to doing undercover stings against abortion providers. When asked why he thinks it's not a reliable source NYYankees offers his personal opinion that the Huffington Post is too far left from the "mainstream". If political leaning were an issue, we'd be allowed to disqualify many sources, including Fox News - but we don't.Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of depending on the journalist did you not understand? There are good HuffPo stories, and there are HuffPo stories which are just a rework of something someone else did - and not always accurately. The best thing is to find the original piece. (btw - I wouldn't use a selling price as an endorsement of reliability, nor would I use popularity or 'widely quoted'. I do NOT agree they're far left. I do find them mainstream, although I'd tempted to say 'fluffstream'. Which these days seems to be a synonym. We can do better.) The point is, these 'videos' have been set-ups and fakes. The worst I think was when the over-the-top 'pimp' and 'prostitute' were shown, but it turned out they went to the clinic dressed in ordinary clothes with the girl claiming to be a victim in fear for her life and the guy claiming to be a law student trying to help her against her pimp. If that's not willful and with-malice-aforethought fraudulent 'news', I don't know what is. Who else would have been able to get out of that? Flatterworld (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on... what? Even MediaMatters hasn't made a claim as wild as the last few sentences of your post. Perhaps you're confusing this with the ACORN sting, which has been discredited in a way similar to your description. This sting, however, was done by a different organization. The premise (posing as a sex trafficker to expose an allegedly corrupt organization) was similar, but the methods were not. This page is not the place to discuss the ethics of undercover journalism techniques that have been used by countless media companies over the years.

What constitutes a reliable source really depends on the context. In some cases, PP's own website could be considered a reliable source. In other cases, it would not be. I personally have no issue with the Huffington Post article used as a source. It is obviously biased towards the subject of this article and in general is quite a bit left of centre. However, it does provide documentation for the statement in the article (that PP claimed to do an analysis and found evidence of deceptive editing). Strangely enough, neither party has publicly released actual examples of doctoring. I wonder why? 198.169.14.73 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"We have released unedited videos" isn't a statement about the organization itself in the spirit of WP:SPS (which is what you're invoking, no?), though; it implies "this is what Planned Parenthood did," which is a statement about a third party and disallowed under that guideline. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's widespread knowledge that at Wikipedia, "reliable sources" are those that come from left wing outlets, regardless of accuracy, and any non-left wing sources and outlets are basically automatically considered unreliable sources, regardless of accuracy. You can move throughout this website and on any topic involving anything political, the pattern is the same. Anything that debunks, questions or criticizes what the left believes, or a liberal political figure's policies, will not be included in any article on the grounds of not being a "reliable source," despite how accurate it is, and anything promoting left wing views will be included regardless of the source. Independent reporting and sting operations are fine when they come from left wing outlets like MSNBC, but if the sting is not from a left wing outlet, it's considered slander, blah, blah, blah. "Media Matters" and "Huff Post" are considered reliable sources, because they say precisely want left wingers want to read. Thus, Huff Post also wins awards from left wing organizations, much like only leftists winning Nobel prizes. The fix is in and has been for a long, long time. Even to the point that in this backroom comment forum, comments like this are pulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.247.187 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics in the United States

I've removed a link to the above article from the "see also" section because, although there is a connection, it's rather tenuous. Nothing more, nowadays, than a political talking point. --TS 01:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. We get people in here trying to push the connection every couple of months, but this isn't Conservapedia and there's no actual reason to include it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See also section . Inclution of Eugenics in the United States

See historic section at Planned Parenthood. PP history is an undeniable and relevant part of the eugenics movement at the United States, as well as the International Planned Parenthood Federation.[1] Planned Parenthood is mentioned by the sources dealing with eugenics movement [2][3][4][5] Birth control is recognized by the sources as being strong related to eugenic movement and goals.[6][7][8][9] Planned Parenthood was founded by the eugenics moevement at U.S., Maragaret Sanger -an eugenic movement leader [10]- is one of the well known founders of Planned Parenthood. --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think you should probably filter some of those sources through Wikipedia's guidelines on appropriate sourcing, since some of them seem to fail by a large margin. More to the point, I don't think that Category:Eugenics is appropriate here. The relevant policy is WP:CAT, which clearly states: Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial... I think it's pretty clear that the nature and relevance of the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the early 20th-century eugenics movement is controversial. We can certainly explore it (with appropriate sources) in the article, but categorization seems inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize; I must have been thinking of an earlier dispute, but on looking again I see that the issue here is about a "See also" link to Eugenics in the United States rather than Category:Eugenics. My apologies for that oversight on my part. To address the actual issue, I think many of the same principles apply. This is (at best) a complex, controversial, and nuanced issue. I think it could potentially be discussed in the article (again, and again, with appropriate sourcing), but simply sticking a "See also" link strips the issue of its context and seems more intended to make a political point than to inform a neutral reader. I still oppose the "See also" link, as do at least two other editors who have commented here, so I'd appreciate it if ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) would actually stop and discuss the disputed content rather than repeatedly reinserting it (see WP:BRD). MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of the see also link to eugenics as well. Without context, all it serves to do is try to maintain a link between the two in some tenuous attempt at POV. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Until now, I am the only one providing references to the question. Your point of view about the connection is not an appropiate answer. The see-also link is neither stating nor claiming nothing controversial, complex or nuanced. It simply addresses to a related issue, useful for any one interested in the parental hood and birth control history. For example, Peter C. Engelman at A History of the Birth Control Movement in America explicity remarks that connection between birth control and eugenics. An interwiki link to the eugenics history in U.S. is the minimum that should be included. Trying to imply a strong or a tenous connection, from an interwiki is just overdone and excessive. What seems POV it the attempt to delete a relevant link claiming a WP:OR "tenuous connection". If that connections is so "tenous" should the reader decide. At any rate the sources state a relevant and historic connection. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources truly state a relevant and historic connection, then we should consider whether it should be described in the article body, with appropriate citations and a balanced exploration of the issue. If our goal is to actually inform the reader, then don't you think that's a preferable approach? MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and meanwhile it is appropiate to include the interwiki link. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, because "See also" links aren't a good way to handle complex, controversial, or nuanced topics. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Connecting Planned Parenthood with Eugenics is tenuous as best, and POV at worst. This has been discussed before. Sanger, the founder, had some philosophies which some have attached to Eugenics (although it was consistent with the white establishment view at the time). I've used the analogy before, but just because the U.S. was founded some men who at the time were slaver owners does not mean we attached a whole range of slavery-oriented categories (see [11]). Instead, it's addressed in the article where it's relevant. So in the article, the issue of slavery is brought up in the context of major historical event - the civil war. There is no parallel for Planned Parenthood in the past. It's only today that opponents of Planned Parenthood today bring up Sanger's philosophies and try to connect her views with the organization.Mattnad (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I support inclusion, the founders of PP were strong eugenicists. At the very least it should be in the see also. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, and others must provide reliable sources instead of their opinions. I have provided sources that demonstrate there is a connection: sources dealing with the history of birth control deals also with eugenics, and sources dealing with eugenics history deals with PP. Mastercell, who says it is controversial? you?. Mattnad, who says it is tenous related? you? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside for a moment the fact that some of your sources are just terrible, "A book about eugenics mentions Planned Parenthood" tells us absolutely nothing about how the topics are related, and "A book about eugenics doesn't mention Planned Parenthood at all, but it mentions birth control, and PP provides birth control" is a piece of synthesis. Both are really tenuous bases on which to argue for the inclusion of this POV-motivated "see also." The burden of inclusion is on you: make an effort to read the sources you've cited, and make an argument. Specifically, please explain why you want it to be a contextless "see also" that leads readers to believe that PP has anything to do with eugenics nowadays, instead of linking it in-text in the early history section. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics was the original reason d'eta for PP, I support inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources do in fact suggest that eugenics was the "original reason d'eta" [sic] for Planned Parenthood, then surely you should supply those sources and we should use them to write a neutral, well-sourced addition to the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See Roscelese: to be honest and in good faith, your arguments were nothing else than chatter. I can not summarize all what those sources (for example A History of the Birth Control Movement in America Escrito by Peter C. Engelman) have written about the historic connections between birth control and eugenics, due it is covered in a lot of paragraphs and chapters and deals with more than one argument. Tthese sources mention common origins, common leaders and supporters, common financial supporters, common grounds, similarities, but also they mention differences of course. But at any rate the sources mention a connection which is analyzed in a lot of chaptters and paragraphs. Indeed there is also another book (Margaret Sanger's eugenic legacy: the control of female fertility, by Angela Franks) entirely dedicated to analyze the connections between eugenics, birth control and Margaret Sanger (founder of the PP and a very prominent activist of Birth Control and also of eugenics). Therefore there is not a lack of sources that testify that there is a connection which deserved to be analyzed by reliable sources. They also mention some of the claims of the birth control supporters, trying to differentiate the birth control from the eugenics, but that is one part of the picture. Then, despite of your comment, actually I have argued here and used references. For a change, you are another of those failing to provide a source to support your claims. If nowdays PP and birth control has nothing to do with egenics is a questionable issue that you also failed to reference, but that birth control and PP were historically intertwined is something referenced. More over I can provide at least one reliable source cliaming that there is nowdays a connection between Planned Parenthood now and eugenics Frank, Angela. Margaret Sanger's eugenic legacy: the control of female fertility. P.60 and ss. But at any rate it is proverbial, as an interwiki link is not stating nothing, but it seems pretty clear that excluding this link sounds like an overreaction to shield PP and birth control of any evil connection, even its own origins and history. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Angela Franks is an anti-abortion activist who heads a group called Planned Parenthood Hurts Girls, so she's not exactly a reliable source for these sorts of claims. As for the rest, if you're not going to take the time out of your day to actually read and discuss the sources you're linking, why should the rest of us waste our time engaging with you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned briefly and roughly what the sources claim (These sources mention common origins, common leaders and supporters, common financial supporters, common grounds, similarities, but also they mention differences of course [12][13]). Have you verified?. Do not waste my time further if you are not going to verify but solely publish your chatter. For the rest, that you disgraee with the point of view of an author, is not a criteria of reliability. The cited work of Angela Frank is a book published by a reliable eidtorial and is considered an scholar work cited by other scholar works. For example her work is cited here by Claire Peta Blencowe at the peer reviewed journal Theory Culture Society or cited in a scholar essay by Cullen at the Public Historian Vol 29. No.3 p 163-175. So for scholar authors her work is reliable and deserves to be cited as a reliable reference. But who says her work is not a reliable source? You Roscelese. Stop wasting our time with your particular POV WP:OR. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That Angela Frank operates an anti-Planned Parenthood organization is very much relevant. There are obvious questions of neutrality. Additionally, the paper that allegedly cites Ann Frank as a source is behind a paywall and doesn't mention it in the abstract. If you can find reliable non-fringe sources stating the link, then I have no issue with it being included in prose, not a tacked on see also section. Also need page numbers for the books in the above comment that mention it.Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

At least do a minimum search at google academics to verify that Frank is cited where I said. Remarking a work as fringe based on your own opinion is just WP:OR and referring to my afirmation as "alleged" borders on bad faith. An scholar work is an scholar and reliable source for WP whatever be the editorial point of view of the author. For a change the article is full of references to the PP web site and to newspaper articles. Double standars? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research applies to what is included in articles, not the reliability of sources. Also, in certain cases the subject's of articles are considered reliable enough sources about themselves, and newspaper articles are generally reliable as well, so no double standard exists. A google scholar search for Angela Frank didn't turn anything up for me, so could you provide the links instead? I called it alleged, because I have not seen the link that states so yet. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• ClaudioSantos, you seem to have been so busy complaining about me personally that you forgot to answer my question above, so I'll ask it again: Please explain why you want it to be a contextless "see also" that leads readers to believe that PP has anything to do with eugenics nowadays, instead of linking it in-text in the early history section. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon: [14]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ros, the article includes a History section, so what they used to do (and apparently still do) is very much relevant. If you want, we can do a see also in the history section. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

NYYankees51, if you want to make a credible point that PP is still engaging in race-based eugenics, don't link to liveaction.org. That is not a reliable source by several measures.Mattnad (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we add Live Action in the article. The point remains that eugenics is relevant as part of PP's history. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Article structure doesn't work like that. If you can't work it into the text without violating UNDUE, perhaps you'll have to be content with it already being linked and discussed extensively in Margaret Sanger. (If you do plan on working it into the text, I would advise beginning with real sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Claiming UNDUE for a single interwiki link is an UNDUE excessive overreaction -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are saying that Margaret Sanger didn't have some pro-eugenics views, which weren't uncommon or controversial at the time she held them. The question is whether or not Planned Parenthood was influenced by those viewpoints or not. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the references offered by claudiosantos, the best he has found (from a RS that doesn't have a current ax to grind with PP) is that Planned Parenthood offered birth control at a time when eugenics proponents also recommended birth control as a means to an end. But that's not the same as PP promoted or practiced Eugenics. Similar logic - U.S. was founded by slave owners, ergo U.S. was created to promote slavery. Now lets put a "See also Slavery" in articles related to the United States. I'm sure we can find someone who will write that the US was, and is still a slave nation [15] and we can use that to support whatever edits we want.Mattnad (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No Mattnad, the sources are not solely claiming a coincidence in time, not even that PP and Birth Control was defended by people related to eugenics, but that birth control was also defended and founded on eugenics grounds [16][17][18] certainly some defended it as a coercitive measure others do not [19]. It was not a coincidence that some of the first birth control organizations were founded on eugenics grounds like the "Society for Birth Control and Progress of Race". The historic relation stated by the sources goes beyond the simplicity that Mattnad claims. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A good online RS for some of this can be found at Margaret Sanger Papers Project with direct quotes like

The Negro Project, instigated in 1939 by Margaret Sanger, was one of the first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA), the product of a merger between the American Birth Control League and Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and one of the more controversial campaigns of the birth control movement. ... the Negro Project was, from the start, largely indifferent to the needs of the black community and constructed in terms and with perceptions that today smack of racism.

This organization is the same organization that just changed its name in 1942 to be Planned Parenthood. I tried to get things about this before but the two primary complaining people now and a now banned user prevented any mention of BCFA or the Negro Project from making it into the article. Standard whitewashing of history. Feel free to try to come up with something. This link and other links from the NYU defintitly hold up to RS standards.Marauder40 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice cherry-picking there. Try this quote from the end.

The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. In fact, the Negro Project did not differ very much from the earlier birth control campaigns in the rural South designed to test simpler methods on poor, uneducated and mostly white agricultural communities.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, first off if you read the entire article you will see sections where they say that ALL the early birth control campaigns had similar racist motives. So calling the Negro Project similar to other methods doesn't undo the paragraph earlier in the same article. The fact is that Margaret Sanger felt that people should "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring" and these organizations were founded to aid in that. Hiding those facts is whitewashing the history of this organization. It doesn't matter whether they do this now or not, if you are going to have a history section those things need to be included. The Negro project was "first major undertakings of the new Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA)" and yet it isn't even mentioned in the article that talks about its founding. Any mention of the BCFA which is the immediate predecessor of Planned Parenthood is removed from the article, whether the Negro Project is mentioned or not.Marauder40 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This section seems to be packed with a lot of unconvincing claims that give the appearance of WP:FRINGE. Can anyone take a stab at very concisely and precisely stating the claim being put forth here regarding an alleged "connection" between PP and eugenics? That would at least help people understand what is being argued. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do any of the users insisting we include this actually have any intention of addressing my question? "Please explain why you want it to be a contextless 'see also' that leads readers to believe that PP has anything to do with eugenics nowadays, instead of linking it in-text in the early history section." This is the third time I've asked. If your goal is really to provide more information about PP's early history, you should have no problem linking it in the text of the early history section. If your goal is to push a POV by suggesting that PP is involved in eugenics, get out and stop wasting our time and your own. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally am waiting for Claudios to respond since they were the one that re-opened the bag of worms, maybe now that there are more people monitoring this and one of which not being BW things may work out better. I however see his point. PP WAS part of Eugenics in its early history, as such should be linked to other articles on the same topics. The same things are done when other organizations have a "tainted" past why shouldn't this one. Even the Margaret Sanger project addresses portions of the "tainted" past yet WP in relationship to PP and ABCL doesn't.Marauder40 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Marauder. Roscelese you are assuming that a simply link implies that PP is involved in eugenics. Thus you are attempting to prevent that other readers could assume or just inquire into that connection. Therefore you are the one attempting to lead the user to your POV, instead of let them read and investigate. I have answered your question before you asked, since the first moment: PP history and eugenics history are related and intertwined enough to at least be linked in the see-also for any one interested, as Eugenics in the United States deals also about birth control and Margaret Sanger's history. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A "see also" does imply a link between Planned Parenthood and eugenics. To argue otherwise is sort of insulting to our intelligences. Moreover, it is clearly your intent to imply such a link, based on your comments here, but you seem unwilling to actually put in the effort to find reliable, scholarly sources that meet this site's criteria. That's a bit frustrating, and it leads one to wonder whether your motivation is to improve the quality and informativeness of the article or simply to make a political point. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, you must be joking. I have provided about 5 references, ALL of them scholar works. Actually I have referenced even some particular claims providing links to the exact pages of those scholar works. Even another user (Marauder40) also published a quote taken from an scholarship work supporting the connection. For a change, actually you have not provided any reference. Let frustrate yourself about yourself but stop arguing false statements about my doings. Indeed there is a conenection between PP and eugenics, as there is an historical link between PP, birth control and eugenics, and it is well referenced. And this is the article about Planned Parenthood, including its history and historical contexts and grounds. Or am I wrong and this is a sort of an advertisement on what some current supporters of Planned Parenthood and Birth control want to believe or to publish about PP, even by whitewashing its history? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have not supplied any references is that I'm not seeking to add any content at present. If you don't understand this distinction, please re-read the relevant policy. When I intend to add material, I try to bring appropriate sources with me. I'm not sure whether you're continuing to argue for a "see also"; if so, I don't think you've addressed the fundamental objection, which is that it's an inappropriately context-free way of handling a complex subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But OK. Here's a source which illustrates the nuances of the issue. In The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg writes that Sanger used "dubious language that reeks of racism to modern ears," and that those words continue to provide "rich fodder to the contemporary antiabortion movement eager to tar family planning as a tool of genocide." Not that I think that's what's going on here, but surely the modern context in which this connection is cited is relevant to a full understanding of the topic.

And since you approvingly cite Marauder40's use of the NYU Sanger Papers Project, it's perhaps worth quoting directly from that project:

While the Margaret Sanger Project respects the right of any person to voice opinions on reproductive choice, we believe it is wrong and purposely misleading to misquote Sanger’s statements and writings or misrepresent her intent by taking short passages out of the context of its source and out of historical context. A number of groups opposed to reproductive choice have posted quotations attributed to Sanger which are then copied and passed on by others and used in letters to the editor, editorials, web blogs, even published books and now Congressional hearings. ([20])

I would rather we don't add Wikipedia to the end of that list. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the consensus is to leave the article as is with regards to the eugenics link. Unless RELIABLE sources are provided, I don't think this will change. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon: Four users have explicity supported the see'also link inclution, so your assumptions of a consensus to exclude the link is obviously false. The same about your other statement because, we have provided also reliable sources that support a connection between birth control, PP and eugenics. Your comment is bordering the disruption but I have to assume good faith.

MastCell, your quote at most goes on Sanger being missquoted, but does not state that there were not any historical connection between eugenics, birth control and planned parenthood. For the rest, here we are not trying to deal with a complex subject using a see-also. Here there were provided reliable sources that justify a see-also link as being related subjects, with historical connections. Indeed connections that are analyzed by the sources, be it to point not only identities but also differences, and also to point out misquotations. PP history and eugenics history are related and intertwined enough, up to at least be linked in the see-also for any one interested in investigate deeper into the topic. The own Eugenics in the United States deals explicity also about birth control and Margaret Sanger's history. Obviously they are related subjects. Your demand for a current strong conection between eugenics and PP, or a connection in your terms, is not an appropiate demand not even supported by the respective WP policy:

“ Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. _{Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section} ”

A see'also link is allowed even if it was a "peripherally related subject", and it is not. :-- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your thinly veiled accusations that I am being disruptive are getting old. Regardless, I recommend that we get an outside opinion because it is clear that those involved in this discussion aren't likely to come to an agreement. If someone could put up a WP:RFC or analyze the sources that Claudio wants to be used on WP:RSN, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

So ClaudioSantos would this mean you plan to add a "See also: Terrorism" to the Catholicism article since some anti-abortion acts violence and bombings were committed by Catholics? There's a peripheral link, as you have pointed out. Likewise, you should add a "See also: Genocide" in all articles related to united states history since some people have written that the US territory included efforts to wipe out Native Tribes. I for one think we should have reliable sources that focus on Planned Parenthood rather than Sanger if you want to make this point. But you have not. You seem to be be more interested in making this much bigger than any reputable source would suggest.22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Should we go to Catholic Church and add "See also: Collaboration with the Nazis"? Or "See also: Antisemitism"? After all, a number of reliable sources (much stronger than those Claudio cites) draw these connections. Presumably, though, these topics are best dealt with in a proportionate and nuanced fashion, rather than with "see alsos". MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposal was enough clear, concrete and precise. If you have any complaint about WP logics is not me the one who process it. But certainly I have not pointed out a peripheral connection but a clear and referenced historical connection between PP, birth control and eugenics. They are related subjects. Against your claims demmanding to establish a "non tenuous" connection -meant in your particular terms- in order to simply add a see-also link, I explicity said that: according to WP policies, a peripheral connection is enough reason to include a see-also link. But I also explicity added it is not a peripheral connection. Prima facie, you are misreadig and misquoting me. It seems you are just rethorically discussing with yourself. Good luck in that. At any rate, I do not believe there exists innocents at all. So, perhaps I only have to point out the fact that in your hiphotetical excercise, you did not prefer to mention the most extense and promminent collaboration, involvement and such connections between genocides and medical doctors, even by doctors who consider themeselves to be catholics. That would be at least a more grounded and productive rethorical excercise, or perhaps not even a rethoric but a true question. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All the sources that've been provided have deficiencies that have been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, being cherry picked quotes, or in other ways unreliable. Mastcell's extrapolation of the logic you are using was valid in my opinion, that he didn't use every possible example is irrelevant. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems you were unable to understand my non-rethoric answer. Then I have to summarize my point for you: you are claiming absolutely falsehoods. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PD> My dialectics indicates that accounting the claims plus demanding to simply delete a simple see-also link, it smells like a whim to whitewash PP. But certainly, for example the Eugenics Society suported and remarked that the IPPF objectives were even explicity referring to eugenics and common to the statements of that eugenic organization [21] -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I will wait for the outcome of the RFC. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis on eugenics

I removed a few paragraphs that repeated the information that one of Sanger's early concerns was to improve the human race via eugenics; a not-so-unusual stance at the time. One paragraph including a wikilink to eugenics is enough to tell the reader about the connection. Here's what I removed:

Historian Linda Gordon said the birth control movement and the population control movement became inseparable in people's minds during the early years of the birth control movement and were often confused. "The birth control movement was concerned with individual choice and reproductive self determination," she said. "Population control referred to a large-scale social policy of limiting births throughout a whole society or in certain groups for the purpose of changing economic, ecological and/or political conditions. Population control ideas were dominated by eugenics and marred by racism and nativism in the United States. Unfortunately, eugenic ideas and population control were often confused with birth control, especially by poor, lower class women."(Gordon, Radic Am. 1974;8(4):61-98.)

Referring to Maragret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood a nationally known birth control advocate, historian Carole Ruth McCann has stated that "Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control as a tool of racial health. Both advocates of birth control and eugenicists were seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. However, as she also pointed out, eugenecists and birth control advocates put emphasis uppon different methods."(Carole Ruth McCann. Birth control politics in the United States, 1916-1945. Cornell University Press. pp. 100.)

Sociologist Mary Beth Slusar said, "Sanger used the following frames to justify the legalization of birth control: eugenic, alleviation of social problems, democratic, feminist, maternalist, and enhancement of marriage and parenthood." While current advocates of Planned Parenthood also recognize that Sanger favored eugenics measures like sterilization of disable people, restrictions to the immigration of deseased and "feebleminded" and such, although Planned Parenthood advocates currently find those views "objectionable and outmoded".(Fact Sheet, Planned Parenthood Inc., October 2004)

Four paragraphs was far too much. One paragraph is enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Binksternet on this. I think 4 paragraphs on this is undue weight. The addition should be reduced to a single paragraph, although the last paragraph above seems to provide the current PP viewpoint on the history related to Eugenics to balance the original statements. Other stuff can be left for Eugenics articles or Sanger's article.Marauder40 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on this section. It perhaps now seems too weight because the other paragraphs are solely an account of events and dates, while these 4 paragraphs goes a little bit deeper on the historical analysis. Perhaps instead of reducing the 4 paragraphs, you could work on expanding a little bit the other paragraphs.

At any rate it should be noticed that the 4 paragraphs do not deal solely with eugenics but also with birth control and population control, and those are not 1 issue but 3 issues. The only way to reduce 3 issues to 1 paragraph is just listing them separated with commas. But, I think it deserves at least a minimmum mention on what have been the relation of these 3 issues with Planned Parenthood foundation. Don't you think so?

Otherwise, why not to simply add a see-also link to each one of this different subjects (eugenics, birth control, population control)? Of course it is also a rethorical question, given the overreaction for the inclution of one single link to one of those issues (see above section) -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Four paragraphs each mentioning eugenics will continue to be too much emphasis no matter how much other material is added in a futile attempt to balance it. Eugenics should be mentioned exactly one time in this article, in prose, not a "See also" link. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the undue weight concern. Given the fairly widespread concerns over this material, it should be worked out on the talk page, not in the article via "under construction" template. This is an encyclopedia article about Planned Parenthood. Whatever the personal pet subjects of individual editors, readers expect to see material about Planned Parenthood, not a potpourri of thoughts on early 20th-century feminism and eugenics with selected quotes about Margaret Sanger thrown in as a coatrack to hold things together.

I think we need to refocus. If we describe the history of Planned Parenthood, then we need to start by finding the best available sources about Planned Parenthood. Instead, it looks like editors are Google-mining excerpts using search terms that fit their agenda, and then sort of gluing them together.

We could start by outlining what should be covered. A useful encyclopedic paragraph (keeping in mind that this is Planned Parenthood article, and that Sanger has her own separate article) might convey the fact that Sanger espoused some, but not all, viewpoints associated with early-20th-century American eugenics; that the modern organization disavows those beliefs while also arguing that they're used as a rhetorical cudgel by anti-abortion activists; and that insofar as the topic is raised in modern contexts, it's generally in the form of anti-abortion groups seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood. All of those are easily sourced and actually relevant to a reader hoping to learn about this particular subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, I think you hit the nail on the head about Google-mining to support an agenda. The paragraphs in question were not about Planned Parenthood, but about Sanger or the early birth control movement. Both of these topics are of course connected to PP, but including these 3 paragraphs clearly places undue weight on information that is not directly about the actual subject of the article. I support the removal of the paragraphs. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell you first came to delete all the paragraphs while there was this ongoing discussion. Only after you delet all my work, all the paragraphs, then you came here to "discuss". You are editing warring MastCell, and it was exactly the same you did with the see-aslo link. You did not even kept the one paragraph suggested by Binksternet, but you deleted all of them. Your actions are clearly disruptive and warring. All the paragraphs are well referenced on reliable sources (scholar works from historians), and even in the own PP documents. You always came suggesting to look for relaible sources, but actually you have not provided any source, instead of that you deleted well referenced paragraphs. That is the only thing you have done: delete. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet: Well, I was working on how to mention solely one time eugenics as it was your concern. But it seems MastCell and others wants nothing to be mentioned at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case, and I think I explained this above several times. I'm not averse to a discussion of eugenics, but I do have substantial concerns about the way your edits tackled that discussion (as articulated above). It seems to me that those concerns are shared by several other editors, and so it might be more productive to address them directly rather than attacking me.

If your concern is lost work, then please know that your edits remain in the page history and are recoverable from there. I apologize for upsetting you - that was absolutely not my intent - but part of working on a project like Wikipedia is that sometimes your contributions end up revised or deleted. It happens to all of us. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell, until now, you have done nothing but delete. You have contributed with nothing, you have not provided one single source dealing with the content being discussed, you solely deleted well referenced contents. That is the case. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just reverted MastCell's changes to the version that Binksternet created. It is a good in-between version that addresses both "sides" of the "argument". ClaudioSanton I highly suggest working in your own user space on a suggestion and when done link to it here for discussion. "Under Construction" rarely works on high traffic articles.Marauder40 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your reversion there -- that paragraph sets out the argument pretty well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: The background section is something that looks like it belongs in the Birth Control Article - it's scope is much broader and more detailed than I as an editor would expect in the PP article. It reads like part of a thesis statement about the history of Birth Control. Wouldn't whatever background information we want to add be appropriate in the history section? And it could be trimmed some more to facts closely linked to Planned Parenthood. In a nutshell, it's way to broad for the article and stands out like a sore thumb. It's also practically a cut and paste copyvio.Mattnad (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was part of the history section until Jesanj moved it to a Background section. I disagree with it being in a Background section since "Background" implies it happened before BCFA (the same exact organization as PP) existed. This isn't before PP it is part of PP. Also the majority of the current 1st paragraph talks about PP before it was renamed to PP, should that be in "Background" to?Marauder40 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The text currently in the article is certainly an improvement on the massive synthy coatrack that was there a few hours back, but you know what it's lacking? Anything about Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger has her own article. Let's put information in the Planned Parenthood article from sources that actually say things about Planned Parenthood. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I was about to say the same thing: the paragraph lacks any mention of Planned Parenthood. If the connection is so tortured that we need to lay out six degrees of original synthesis separation for the reader, then that's an indication that it needs to be rewritten and/or rethought. Is it crazy of me to expect that someone reading an article about Planned Parenthood might expect to see material clearly related to Planned Parenthood? Either this material is not clearly related, or we are doing a poor job of making its relation clear in the text. I also think we're substituting individual editors' priorities for good encyclopedic writing, but that's a subsidiary concern at present.

    As far as suitable sources: Planned Parenthood "eugenics" factsheet (note the number of misleading or outright fabricated quotes in circulation?). The Means of Reproduction by Michelle Goldberg notes that Sanger used "dubious language that reeks of racism to modern ears," and that those words continue to provide "rich fodder to the contemporary antiabortion movement eager to tar family planning as a tool of genocide." The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University describes the modern context in which eugenics is typically raised: [22]). MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of it is absurd given that there is a humongous discussion going on in the RFC thread over the exact same issues. This reeks of an attempt to get around the increasing consensus that no link to eugenics should be mentioned. As such, I've removed it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Again, tenuous links are continuously trying to be made despite many editors saying such a link should not be included. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The RFC only addresses adding a stand-alone link. It does not address expanding the History section to include early history of BCFA/PP. To not include any of this in the History is ignoring history, even the Margaret Sanger project doesn't ignore it, why should WP?Marauder40 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the RFC comments, many mention that ANY link to eugenics and Planned Parenthood is tenuous. That's the main argument against the inclusion of a See also link to Eugenics in the United States. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't a binary choice between "ignoring history" and including a boatload of original synthesis. I think we can potentially cover the topic of eugenics neutrally and proportionately, but that effort has to start with a search for good sources (where "good" means good, not "Google hits for the phrases I want to put in the article"). As Falcon8765 notes, uninvested editors are having a hard time seeing any connection in the RfC. That means that we need to focus our effort on finding good sources, not on trying to shoehorn the current tenuous link into the article. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of it is absurd given that there is a humongous discussion going on in the RFC thread over the exact same issues. This reeks of an attempt to get around the increasing consensus that no link to eugenics should be mentioned. As such, I've removed it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Again, tenuous links are continuously trying to be made despite many editors saying such a link should not be included. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No Falcon, some users disagree to include the see-also link but beacuse they suggested to deal with the thing in the article. This is not the same discussion. It is undue lack of weight, to mention absolutely nothing about it.

MastCell, you who cried for scholar relaible sources now are suggesting to deal with the thing with a text from the own Planned Parenthood Inc. Actually p`recisely I have added that source from PP, to contrast the scholar quotes, you deleted everything and now you are just attempting to keep only the text from PP, that is obviously a blatant POV.

Roscelece and MastCell. The paragraph explicity refers to family planning, and if you would had read the source you would find that some sentences further it speaks explicity about Planned Parenthood. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Falcon, that is because the people making the comments do not know the history. Even members of Planned Parenthood themselves admit to the history and call it "objectionable and outmoded". The history exists it should be there in a NPOV manner. Ignoring the history and constantly removing it is a POV pure and simple. Until something about this is addressed in the article it will keep coming up. Instead of working together to get something that reflects the real history and can stand up to people constantly trying to add more details that may or may not be NPOV, people keep taking the "see no evil" approach.Marauder40 (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"The subject does not seem to be linked to eugenics in any important way"; "the quotes above provide only a very indirect link"; "There's no connection except through pointy cherrypicking or logic-chopping."; "There is no objective connection between Planned Parenthood and eugenics."; "the connection to the article is tenuous at best" -- All from different uninvolved editors. Saying they all don't know the history is a bit presumptuous. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the quotes you provide are specifically addressing the article or quotes in the article as it is right now, not with additional material. If they had additional knowledge on this topic they probably would have said so. Please read the following article directly from Planned Parenthood link Of course it will be flavored to show PP in the best light possible, but it does show that they are aware of the past. Even the Margerat Sanger project which depending on the author of the article tries to make her sound like a Saint still addresses these issues both in relation to her and to BCFA, yet it isn't in this article. As I said before, until this stuff is addressed it will keep popping up. The best solution is to say something in a NPOV manner, come to consensus on it, then it can stand up to vandalism, POV attacks etc. Ignoring it just leaves it open.Marauder40 (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely with Marauder here. It's a disservice to the reader to ignore PP's history, and it's just going to keep coming up like this (as it has in five of the seven talk archives) until we address it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I also agree. And Falcon, what a comment from you who always cries for alleged "cherry picking". MastCell and Roscelese who did oppose to include the see-also, they also asked why not to deal with the content directly in the historic section. Or they are now being incoherent or they were just claiming any excuse to keep the article as it was in order to withe wash the PP from even it own recognized past and historical grounds. Why so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as has been discussed in the RFC in length, Sanger has links. Not Planned Parenthood. Adding a background section talking about eugenics just adds the same undue weight that the see also section would. You continuously accuse editors who disagree with you of wanting to white wash the article, comment on content, not other editors as you have been continuously doing. I'm not the only one who thinks that the sources used so far are cherry picked, which means still no reliable sources have given the link. This is just an extension of the same arguments laid forth in the RFC, and as such I don't feel the need to rehash them all over again. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I trust in the readers to verify the source, as it deals explicity with family planning and Planned Parenthood -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@ClaudioSantos, your continual insistance that anyone who disagrees with you is on a white-washing campaign and other attacks on editors must stop immediately. The accusation is groundless and does nothing to resolve the dispute. If you have an argument related to the content of this article and wikipedia guidelines/policy then lets hear it, but your incivility is unwelcome and unwarranted. The paragraph(s) in question are not appropriate for inclusion in this article as per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and WP:SYNTH. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Metal.lunchbox: If you have an argument related to the content of this article and wikipedia guidelines/policy then lets hear it but your double standars are incivil, unwelcome and unwarranted. Each user who have agreed here with the inclution of the one (1) paragraph (4 users) have been accused to have an alleged agenda. You have never said nothing. And clearly you are an involved user against our possition. One parahgraph can not be undue weight, but obviously not to mention it absolutely is an undue lack of weight and POV pushing. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The 4 users that supported the inclusion of the see also link support it worked into prose? Shocking. You accuse others of white washing articles and point of view pushing, and when someone calls you out for it you tell them to only comment on content? Really? I think I'm done arguing with you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

4 users (5 with me) have supported the inclusion of this content in prose. Some were concerned about the length (4 paragraphs) but supported to include one single paragraph, and I agreed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Double standard"? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about ClaudioSantos. I have not accused anyone of having an agenda. One paragraph can absolutely be UNDUE, but the more important point is that you are apparently trying to present an argument that Planned Parenthood is historically directly related to Eugenics in the United States, which is a case of "original syn". I think you might find it helpful to read WP:Consensus. I respect that you feel strongly about this but wikipedia is not the place to push a political view over consensus. This would be a good oportunity to drop the issue and move on, or write something which sticks to wikipedia guidelines. You are misrepresenting the comments of others. 3 editors including yourself have voice support of this material. 2 others have suggested that some mention of the link in the body of the article might be okay but have not endorse the language that you are using. The suggestion that some mention of this supposed link might be appropriate in the article doesn't give you free license. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The double standars consist in came here to warning me for I suggested that it seems white washing being the motivation to delete a well referenced paragraph, while you never said nothing to those users who explicity said that we have an agenda against PP, against abortion, etc. The double standars are also quite evidente just in your very last comment suggesting explicity that I am trying to push my own political views over consensus here. And I am not missrepresenting the comments: here in this discuss (1)Marauder40, (2)Binksternet, (3)NYyankees51, and (4)me explicity agreed to keep one paragraph. Another(5) different user moved the paragraph to another section in the article than the history section, but he evidentely also kept it. The paragraph language was almost literally taken form the source, to avoid complaints on missrepresentation. And finally you seems to be lost while you are missrepresenting the discussion here: we are not discussing the inclution of a link. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not lost. Regardless of the number of users who you think support you, this wikipedia article is still subject to the same policies and guidelines as it ever was. Perhaps most importantly you appear to be ignoring the clear consensus that this content is inappropriate for inclusion for the many valid reasons cited above. see WP:HEAR. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that a good way to address this issue is to have a paragraph that "convey[s] the fact that Sanger espoused some, but not all, viewpoints associated with early-20th-century American eugenics; that the modern organization disavows those beliefs while also arguing that they're used as a rhetorical cudgel by anti-abortion activists; and that insofar as the topic is raised in modern contexts, it's generally in the form of anti-abortion groups seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood." This is directly on-point, names and defines the connection, and answers it with context. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that in that case, it should be its own section? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference to modern usage pulls the paragraph out of the history section. Perhaps the paragraph could be a new level-three header under the level-two header, "Controversy and criticism". Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If we can get reliable sources and stick to NPOV then the above suggestion by Binksternet sounds pretty good. I'd like to what such a paragraph would look like. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not oppose Binkerneet's suggestion as it is currently worded. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the last part "while also arguing that they're used as a rhetorical cudgel by anti-abortion activists; and that insofar as the topic is raised in modern contexts, it's generally in the form of anti-abortion groups seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood; and that insofar as the topic is raised in modern contexts, it's generally in the form of anti-abortion groups seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood." The thing is deal in scholar literature and not only a cudgel of anti-abortion groups. That is obviosly what PP says, but can not be missrepresented as a fact nor use the paragraph as a tribune for PP claims against anti-abortion groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioSantos (talk • contribs)

Historian Donald T. Critchlow stated that family planning policy emerged "due to the efforts of Margaret Sanger, feminists, and the civil rights movement, the eugenics motive to limit 'deviant' populations, and the population control movement, which aims to solve social and economic problems through fertility control". Historian Carole Ruth McCann has stated that "Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control as a tool of racial health. Both advocates of birth control and eugenicists were seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. However, as she also pointed out, eugenecists and birth control advocates put emphasis uppon different methods." While current advocates of Planned Parenthood also recognize that Sanger favored some eugenics measures like sterilization of disable people, restrictions to the immigration of deseased and "feebleminded", although Planned Parenthood advocates currently claim to find those views "objectionable and outmoded" and not shared.

Notice how you're not citing anything Critchlow or McCann say about Planned Parenthood? Find somewhere else to put this material if you can't actually cite a connection to Planned Parenthood - not your own personal synthesis of "they talk about family planning, and PP provides family planning," or "they talk about Sanger, and Sanger founded PP" - and in the meantime, ditch the idiotic "they claaaaaiiiim they don't want to kill everyone" language. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil shall we? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No way. I shall consider to abort me from this, as I was diagnosed too "idiot" by Mrs. Sanger. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the two citations do not seem to make a connection to Planned Parenthood and that the sentence about planned parenthood is unessessarily wish-washy about whether or not they actually disavow eugenics. This doesn't seem to help the reader understand the subject better. I'd recommend looking for sources which talk about Planned Parenthood directly. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a reworking of any of ClaudioSantos's previous paragraphs which do not have appropriate sources and do not address the question of Sanger's liberal position on eugenics and do not address the modern usage of the eugenics hot button by anti-abortion activists to tar PP. The new paragraph will be from other sources, probably composed by editors who are not so personally invested in one side of the topic's debate. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to understand your desires.

The last consensus was summarized here: I agree with MastCell that a good way to address this issue is to have a paragraph that "convey[s] the fact that Sanger espoused some, but not all, viewpoints associated with early-20th-century American eugenics; that the modern organization disavows those beliefs ... This is directly on-point, names and defines the connection, and answers it with context. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a text that "convey[s] the fact that Sanger espoused some, but not all, viewpoints associated with early-20th-century American eugenics; that the modern organization disavows those beliefs". And now you disagree again ... while Mrs. Sanger diagnosed me idiot. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet> I used the following sources: Two scholar works from two historians and the Factsheet edited by Planned Parenthood almost literally cited. What is exactly your complaint with the sources?. And notice that there is not consensus on present the thing as it was mainly used by anti-abortions groups, as that is PP claim -actually taken from the mentioned Factsheet by PP that I quoted- but not a fact about the thing that actually is dealt by the scholar literature and not solely by anti-abortion groups as a cluge. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For example verify, the own Factsheet from PP:

...she [Sanger] agreed with

the "progressives" of her day who favored · incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions · the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S. ... Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds

these views objectionable and outmoded. ...

— http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/OppositionClaimsAboutMargaretSanger.pdf

--ClaudioSantos¿? 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sub-section to the controversies section which I believe meets the consensus formed in this discussion. It is properly sourced, NPOV, and summarizes the issue in a way the reader might find useful. It likely could stand to be improved. I was bold. If you have a strong reasonable objection, revert and we'll discuss, as per WP:BRD. I would prefer that we simply keep it and try to improve it but I'll take what I can get. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Metal.lunchbox. In my opinion, your text is well sourced and puts the eugenics info in the appropriate context. --Dawn Bard (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, an acceptable compromise. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I threw a bit of copyediting effort at the new section but I believe it gets nearer the mark than previous versions. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

However, this edit by ClaudioSantos shows his inability to learn from this discussion. Claudio added something about Sanger's beliefs which have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood; an addition that looks to be purely attack material designed to show Sanger in a negative light. The text has no bearing on PP and should be removed. How long before ClaudioSantos is blocked for non-neutral editing? Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That addition was pretty blatantly biased, so I have reverted it. Not sure where we should take such ongoing problems. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet what I have added was taken literally from the own Planned Parenthood Factsheet. Nevertheless I have also to notice some points: Carole Ruth McCann is missquoted as she does not say nothing about "Sanger association with eugenics supporters..." but she uses the expression "Sanger's eugenics". So the current paragraph is WP:OR trying to indicate that the relation is a merely association with eugenics suporters. I also have to mention that Ellen Chesler is not a reliable source and does not fit in the standars agreed by consensus. Ellene Chesle is directly associated with PP, as she serves on the board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and her cited work is not an scholar work as was also demanded by the consensus. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It was also consented as proposed by MastCell, that the proposed text was going to be edited here and discussed before published in the article and you are just editing directly into the article. And Falcon this is the second time you reverted me in 24 hours and this is a 1RR article. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, please everyone be mindful of the special restrictions on this article. ClaudioSantos rightly points out the single revert rule. I actually think that the PP source can be integrated but I'd like to see wording which more closely preserves the message of the source. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Metal.lunch I suggest to discuss first the paragraph here as it was demmanded to me and to the other people who agreed with my position. I do not want to remmeber my comments about doubles standars. It was also the proposal from MastCell to resolve the dispute and was the consented procedure. I have also noticed that one source is not reliable under the standars agreed here. And i also noticed that Ruth McCann is being missrepresented (so do not comply with WP:VER. Sanger openly not only supported euhegenics supporters and organizations, she also supoorted some eufgenics measures publicy. So the pareagrap[h is biased and misleads. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the sentence by ClaudioSantos after rewriting it to as I suggested above. I'm not entirely convinced that the sentence adds anything to the paragraph but ClaudioSantos thinks that that source needs to be mentioned so I thought it seemed fair to reword it and give it a chance. As for misrepresenting the source, could you recommend some alternative wording which you think is a better representation of the source? I'm not opposed to changes. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me read the source and think a bit. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my perception that there may be a problem with a language barrier here. Analysis and discussion of the interplay of numerous WP policies at once tends to require a fairly sophisticated understanding of English. This is not meant as a personal attack, but I fail to see how a 14,000 word talk-page discussion can end with one of the participants still failing to understand the basic premise of WP:SYN/NOR. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@ClaudioSantos, I am sympathetic to your claim that I have misrepresented the McCann source. I have changed the citation, using a more directly relevant source, a journal article which was cited on the page I was originally referencing. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I made several copy-edits and stylistic changes as well as a couple fairly significant changes in the way the content is presented. I believe none of this will be disputed, but wanted to mention it here. The end of the paragraph now reads as follows (with the substantive changes in boldface type):

"Sanger's connection with supporters of eugenics is often used by opponents of Planned Parenthood in an attempt to discredit the organization by associating it, and birth control, with the more negative modern view of eugenics.[79][80] Planned Parenthood has responded to this directly in a leaflet acknowledging that Sanger agreed with some of her contemporaries who advocated the voluntary hospitalization or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions, as well as limiting the immigration of the diseased; the leaflet also states that Planned Parenthood "finds these views objectionable and outmoded" but urges that it was compelled to discuss the topic because "anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger . . . because she is an easier target" than Planned Parenthood.[81]"

I thought it was important to include the stated rationale for publishing the leaflet in the first place, because without such context, we'd see some NPOV problems. Even though it's already mentioned that opponents use this topic to attack PP, leaving out the explanation from the end seems sort of like including a man's published statement insisting he doesn't beat his wife, without including the criticism that prompted the defensive statement in the first place.

Anyone object? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like an acceptable improvement to me. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Factchecker atyourservice, I object. You can find the reasons above. It seems you did not read good enough as you are gicen even more undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to Planned Parenthood POV and moreover you are presenting it as facts. Other objections (missrepresentation of a source (WP:VER), to present a false synthesis (WP:SYN) clearly biased pro PP (WP:NPOV), and the use of a biased non reliable source (WP:REL) against the consensus WP:CON) are not responded yet. And the consented procedure WP:CON to resolve the dispute is not being respected. I suggest to read again. And I suggest to everyone here involved to make further proposals here instead of editig directly the article, as it was the consented procedure to resolve the dispute. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that the source is biased because they are associated with planned parenthood is absurd in the face of you insistence that we include the source written by planned parenthood. Do you have any evidence to suggest that one of the sources does not pass WP:RS? This is what happens when you insist on the inclusion of a false narrative, you get a section which disproves it in neutral language. What misrepresentation are you talking about. You broght this up before and I addressed it directly. are you challenging a different part of the paragraph? I'm just going to say that the burden of proof is on you now, if you want to claim WP:SYNTH. And I'll simply say that that isn't what WP:UNDUE is about. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To include one citation of PP is not the same than building all the paragraph with that source. That is UNDUE weight. But the source that I am talking, as Ia explicity said above is Ellen Chesler' who is not a reliable source and does not fit in the standars agreed by consensus. Ellene Chesle is directly associated with PP, as she serves on the board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and her cited work is not an scholar work as was also demanded by the consensus. And first thing to do: the consented procedure to resolve the dispute was to propose HERE the changes not into the article. That was the very first demand that wwas claimed to revert the changes that I and others have done. Let start with that. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can no longer assume that you are editing in good faith. despite the enormous amount of patience that we have shown in working with you on this, you are completely uncooperative. You talk about consensus but you are either unable to understand the consensus of you willfully ignore it.

There was not consensus that any edit be made on the talk page first there was a consensus that we should abide by WP:BRD guidelines that say once you make a bold edit and it gets reverted we should discuss it here before moving on. That is what we did, we came to a consensus and I made an edit accordingly. I am sorry that you did not understand that, but your insistence that I violated some unspoken oath is yet another sign that you are gaming the system. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I read bad: "...Given the fairly widespread concerns over this material, it should be worked out on the talk page, not in the article via "under construction" template. ..." -- MastCell Talk 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC) -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC) PD: and certainly today you have made more than allowed bad faith assumption against me and about my motivations, etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

read WP:AGF its not an unlimited license to do whatever you please. I'm only required to assume good faith until you demonstrate clearly that you are not acting in good faith. I have thus far assumed your good faith. I can see where this is heading and I'm not going to get in a one-on-one fight with you, because that would be a waste of everyone's time. The above quote is concerning content that was removed and discussed and never heard from again. I'm not opposed to working it out on the talk page, but I understood there was a consensus in support of my new text so I boldly added it because it would be much easier to discuss that way, in context. Also, it would not be realistic to demand that every source be from a scholarly journal in this article. I never agreed to that. I'll stick with the normal WP guidelines for that and I challenge any consensus that says otherwise. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought exactly the same (I was allowed to work in the article) because when MastCell came with that comment after he deleted entirely that content, he did that while there was a consensus with other 3 editors to keep at least one of those paragraphs and to work in the thing. But MastCell deleted everything in the article and then came here and said, no, no no, work here not directly at the article. Meanwhile right now you can not assume a consensus due, except for me, here solely remains those users who aligned since the very first moment at one side of the dispute. And it was not me but precisely those users who aligned at that side, who demanded to me to provide solely scholar sources as an standar for reliability, and even demmanded to exclude an scholar historical work from Angela Frank cited in scholar journals, but that they remarked as alleged unreliable because the author have pronounced against abortion and against Planned Parenthood. Not to mention how they rejected even each scholar work who dealt with Maragret Sanger connections with eugenics, because the source does not mention directly Planned Parenthood, or because the source indeed mention Planned Parenthood but not in the same sentence quoted dealing with Margaret Sanger but two or three sentences later. Those were the standars they demmanded to me, why not to you?. I should AGF assume you do not want to fight with me, so take your time to read this very large section and the two sections above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying, maybe we should just say there was a misunderstanding and move on. You've removed the Ellen Chesler citation that you mention above. Is there anything else you cannot accept? I'd like to settle this. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Metal.lunchbox:

1. I have to add a WP:OR tag to this "Sanger's connection with supporters of eugenics is often used by opponents of Planned Parenthood in an attempt to discredit the organization by associating it, and birth control, with the more negative modern view of eugenics." because it is not at the sources referenced. Using an article from a newspaper where an opponent criticizes Planned Parenthood, to deduce that claim, it is an original research, a synthesis made by the user based on a primary source. I already have tagged this phrase with a verification failed because the other source (Valenza, Charles) also does not state that.

". . . keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class . . . apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. (Jan. 17, 1932 [LCM 130:198].)"

— Margaret Sanger quoted at "The Sanger-Hitler Equation", Margaret Sanger Papers Project Newsletter, #32, Winter 2002/3. New York University Department of History

2. I also did not found at this cited source ("The Sanger-Hitler Equation", Margaret Sanger Papers Project Newsletter, #32, Winter 2002/3. New York University Department of History) that "Sanger teamed with eugenics organizations although she argued against many of their positions". Neither that she "teamed" nor that "she argued against many of their positions". Moreover I also find this phrase is missrepresenting the source as the source far from simply saying that Sanger "teamed" with eugenics orgs., the source explicity says: "Sanger incorporated the rethoric language of eugenics to promote her positions." and the source continues stating that "Sanger did seek to discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, 'unfit' or 'feebleminded,' those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.". Sanger's words are even directly cited in this source and left not doubt about this. Which is moreover also stated by other reliable sources like historian Carole Ruth McCann. Birth control politics in the United States, who also explicity says: "Sanger appropiated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control as a tool of racial health." and "while Sanger never abandoned psychoanalytic sexual theory, she relied more heavely on the language of eugenics to legitimate contraception.". Something similar is also stated by historian Linda Gordon.

I am still reading the sources, so those are my partial concerns by now. '-- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read the sources better. To address your concern number two. It's not a quote, it doesn't have to use those words. Read the article. I'm not misrepresenting it. It shows very clearly that Sanger associated with eugenicists to promote the birth-control movement, the American Eugenics society is specifically mentioned. The same article further goes on to describe some of here statements against some eugenics positions such as euthanasia for the "unfit". You're grasping at straws. It is true that I did not put every detail about Sanger in the article. Its just a summary of the controversy and there's plenty more info at the Sanger article if people want it.

As for WP:OR I recommend you read the sources you criticize and WP:SYNNOT. The two sources clearly support the statement. If you don't like the sources then you should try to find better ones. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Valenza source reads as follows

From Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?: —

In recent years, some revisionist biographers have portrayed Sanger as a eugenicist and a racist. This picture has been given wide publicity by critics of reproductive rights, who believe that by discrediting Sanger personally, they can discredit her work and the entire movement she founded. To further confuse matters, misinformation regarding Sanger survives from one account to the next, since secondary sources are often accepted as documented fact.

There could be some quibbling about how to word the claim in the WP article, but it's painfully obvious that the source does basically say what you say it doesn't say. I strongly question whether an editor such as yourself who demonstrates both limited English ability and limited understanding of policy should go about aggressively removing sourced material based on "verification failure" without consulting with other editors who have devoted more effort to studying policy and are better versed in English (note, this is English Wikipedia) – to see if you are perhaps badly mistaken.

I don't have the time to go over your voluminous edits (and comments) with a fine-toothed comb, but I'd be shocked to discover that the above represents the only major mistake you've made. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker you should address your question to the user Roscelece, who explicity rejected a sentence from areliable source because it referred to "family planning" and "Margaret Sanger" but not directly to Planned Parenthood, exactly as the quotation you published also does not. Your commenst about my understandihng of english will be considered uncivil personal attacks. For the rest, I have NOT removed any material from anyone, and I am here discussind my concerns. You are arguig false accusations against me. Stop doing so. I will wait until the editor (Metal.lunchbox) of that paragraph answer all my concerns. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not responsible for policy disputes you have with other editors. My comments about your English ability are neither uncivil nor personal attacks: they appear (to me, at least)to directly affect your ability to follow Talk page discussion. Rather than complaining about alleged "false accusations" in response to my comments which were geared towards your questionable tagging of material that is clearly supported by the cited source, I suggest you respond to the substance of the criticism itself (or rather, simply be more careful in the future when inspecting sources).Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See also the following introductory paragraphs from the NYU source that you apparently want to use for stand-alone factual references on Sanger's eugenicist views:

From "The Sanger-Hitler Equation" #32, Winter 2002/3

Search for Margaret Sanger's name on the Internet and you will quickly be bombarded by claims that she supported Hitler and the Nazi's human elimination programs, or at the very least inspired the Nazi architects of race improvement. "Hitler and Sanger Join Hands" blares one anti-Sanger diatribe; "Margaret Sanger, Sterilization and the Swastika" is the title of another; "Let us look forward to the day when Planned Parenthood clinics are made into holocaust museums," concludes another attack on Sanger's writings. One web site features photos of Sanger and Hitler united under a Swastika. Another inserts the phrase "concentration camps" into a 1932 Sanger speech to demonstrate her real motives, a novel form of textual annotation that is then passed on like a virus to other sites who point to the phrase as documented evidence of Sanger's final solution.

Though this disinformation campaign, designed to arouse anger and anti-choice activism, resides largely on the Internet, in colorful, sensationalized pages, even the more respectable print outlets have picked up many of the most extreme Nazi-related allegations about Sanger as voiced by anti-abortion activists at newsworthy events or on Op-Ed pages. They then print them without comment, in effect publishing them as fact. The Associated Press, for example, reported on an anti-abortion march in Birmingham on October 14 of this year, quoting a participant who described Sanger "as racist as she could be," and linked her to Hitler's race policies. A Canadian paper, the Calgary Sun, ran a Sept. 1 opinion piece that claimed Sanger "backed the Nazi race purification program until it became unfashionable." And even though mainstream publications are not actually calling Sanger a Nazi, they are, increasingly, referring to her (as the New York Times did in a September 19 article on the opening of the Museum of Sex in New York City) as a "eugenicist" before associating her with birth control.

Every year there are dozens more characterizations of Sanger as a pro-Nazi, genocidal racist appearing in newspapers, right-wing biographies and purported histories of planned parenthood, and especially on the Internet. Sanger is by no means alone among controversial social reformers and liberators painted as grotesques by extremist opponents of their beliefs and accomplishments; Martin Luther King, Jr., and Eleanor Roosevelt can ably compete with her for this posthumous fame. But the attacks against Sanger resonate in a way that attacks on others do not, largely because of the emotions generated by the abortion debate.

See how the source itself directly and emphatically supports the position that these connections are being sensationalized by critics who wish to (at least somewhat) dishonestly discredit proponents of legal abortion? Aren't you the least bit troubled at the prospect of cherry-picking such an article for quotes to help advance the very same smear campaign that the text appears to expose and condemn?

I've undone your two most recent edits, which I acknowledge violates the 1RR restriction here, but your aggressive and disruptive editing is the real problem here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read well. First: My last edition was reverting my own penultimate edition, therefore I did not reverted nor edited absolutely nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioSantos (talk • contribs)

This is very frustrating and only somewhat comical. My very short sentence above did not accuse you of any violations but rather noted that *I* violated 1RR. This further proves my point that a language barrier is playing a significant role in producing misunderstanding and disruptive editing on your part. I'm not really sure how to respond to this other than to encourage you to be more careful and consult with other editors who may be able to help you understand the comments of other users, as well as WP policy guidelines, better. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You who argues about my reading comprehension of english. You firstly should read well.

1. My last edition was reverting my own penultimate edition, therefore I did not reverted nor edited absolutely nothing. I have already reverted myself, you lost your time reverting me, got it? .

2. You said "the source itself directly and emphatically supports the position that these connections are being sensationalized by critics who wish to (at least somewhat) dishonestly discredit proponents of legal abortion But the phrase in the article, which is referenced using this source, it claims: "Sanger teamed with eugenics organizations although she argued against many of their positions". That is another thing completely different than you are saying, and that claim is not in the source. Is the phrase of the article, not your claim, which I have tagged.

Again: you must read better than you are doing now. Take your time, no rush. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's now taking massive effort to translate what you're saying into a coherent English statement. The best I can tell is that you are trying to say that your "failed verification" tag was attached to the "teamed with eugenics organizations" statement. This is not the case. The tag I removed was on the "opponents seek to discredit" statement, which did not fail verification. Alternatively, if you are saying the "Sanger teamed with eugenics" sentence in the NYU article doesn't support the WP-article conclusion that opponents attempt to sensationalize the connection in order to discredit the pro-abortion movement, please note I never said that it did. Rather, the first three paragraphs of the NYU article in their entirety say essentially that.

If I've somehow misinterpreted your very broken English, that's not my fault.

This is absurd. You should be blocked from editing this article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

From POV of someone who has mostly kept out of this, when I read the RFC comments in the preceding section, and this latest and bountiful debate, two things pop out:

• Most, if not all, uninvolved editors who commented on the RFC thought connecting Eugenics with this Planned Parenthood article was out of line.
• The discussion in the next section is all about Sanger and her beliefs and really belongs in the talk page of her article.

We have seen these attemps to tar Planned Parenhood with the Sanger/Eugenics/Racists brush. It's even been noted in the mainstream press that this is a recent tactic of anti-abortion foes. As such, it's so obviously coat-racking and violating NPOV that we should punt this another forum as ClaudioSantos does not appreciate the results of the RFC or the views many editors who have taken a position opposite him on this matter.Mattnad (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, again I appreciate that you are passionate about this subject but you are fillibustering. Your demand that I answer All of your concerns is a clear indication. I think any reasonable observer could see that I have made a great effort to answer your concerns, the problem is that you will not be satisfied. Others as well as myself have responded to your criticism of the sources. As for the other argument you repeat about not being allowed to include sources that do not name Planned Parenthood. That is a different context. The text now in the article clearly establishes what the connection is to Planned Parenthood. Your text did not. It is really that simple. The Valenza article you criticize is cited over and over again in discussion of attacks on Planned Parenthood. Also in case you for some reason don't believe that critics of planned parenthood like to use Margaret Sanger to discredit PP, take a look at this. Its verifiable. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, before we forget this extremely long discussion ever took place. I will restore the Ellen Chesler citation. The book is widely cited and was a finalist for PEN's 1993 Martha Albrand prize for the year's best first work of nonfiction. Ellen Chesler is a very authoritative author on topics related to reproductive rights as demonstrated by her bio. She is shows up in plenty of mainstream news outlets as well. She is affiliated with Planned Parenthood but since its a non-profit I don't see a strong enough conflict of interest to throw out what may be the single most reliable source on Sanger. I reread WP:RS which confirms that the source should generally be considered reliable. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. If the behavior exhibited here continues, posting on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct may be helpful. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)