24.238.89.22

September 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

These are the sources for what is mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobby Seale wrote:

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

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

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

   [...]

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

So it is pretty slanderous to mislabel the Panther Party as separatists.

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

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

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

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

and

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

Next,

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

Same two sources.

Next,

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

From Annette Ramirez source listed above.

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

As the wikipedia article goes on to state:

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

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

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

Annette Ramirez again as above and

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

Furthermore, here is more citations:

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

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

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

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

1995 Reproductive Rights and Wrongs. Boston: South End Press

I can provide many more sources if these aren't enough. None of it "original research". Just plain history. The fact that Sanger spoke at a KKK rally, was in favor of forced sterilizations and segregation/relocation is relevant. The fact that there were forced sterilization on racial/ethnic basis before under the U.S. society and system is also relevant, and makes charges of black genocide have irrefutable historical parallels and precedent and therefor increase the plausibility and likelihood of this charge as being in keeping with what we know about White/Anglo attitudes towards other groups.24.238.89.22 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to Maafa 21

Please be aware that many of your recent edits to Maafa 21 have strayed well into WP:COATRACK territory. Whilst your neutral edits to this article are to be welcomed, please remove all the extraneous content you have added to the lede. Quotes supporting some argument or point you may wish to make are not appropriate in that introductory section. A single sentence might be, and you could, potentially, expand it later on, or in the article on the person. Please remember, this page is about the documentary and, as an encyclopaedic article, should remain that way without going off into detailed tangential matters and supportive quotations. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC).    

Please let me know which parts you speak of. I wish to point out, that I added mostly information presented in the film itself, which I think creates a much more detailed and rounded out article. If you would like I can send you a time queue in the youtube video of this documentary for each part I am referencing.24.238.89.22 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think they blocked edits from my phone. I don't want to get blocked, I want to contribute. Please work with me here, and based on the talk page, I think I know who is trying to block me, and considering I am using sources that are in other wikipedia articles, I don't think it would make sense to block me. I would like to ask for a review, and I don't want to get into an edit war. I am more than willing to work to a reasonable consensus. Please, I am trying to be as cooperative as possible.24.238.89.22 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. You are not blocked from editing in any way at the moment so avoid feeling paranoid if others disagree with your edits - just avoid getting into edit wars with them, no matter how strongly you feel. (Note that IP editors can be prevented from editing semi-protected articles unless they create an account. I would strongly advise you to do this, but I see no protection on this page right now) You've no need to send my any documentation - I personally have no interest or involvement in this particular article. My aim is to ensure that pages are encyclopaedic. If there are two sides to any story, then I want to see both sides presented, providing its not WP:OPINION or original research, but cited to well-founded, reliable and well-respected sources, and doesn't falsely interpret them.

Thank you for moving content out of the lead. But why did you fill the synopsis section with these quotes? In what sense does it in any way relate to a synopsis? The sentence you then left behind is wholly misleading, and is not supported in any way by the citations. You are in danger of WP:SYNTHESIS here. You added "However, the film correctly cites Sanger's own autobiography were she writes about her speaking at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey in 1926[14] and highlighted her views in favor of forced sterilization and segration of "millions".[15]" This seems to me to be intentional bias

• The references do not prove that the film correctly cites Sanger
• One reference does appear to tell her bemused account of being invited to speak at a women's branch meeting of the KKK, held in total silence, not a "rally"
• The quoted word "millions" from another reference seems intentionally misquoted out of context, nor ays that it was in the context of a draft of a lecture about world peace.

Now, as I say, I have absolutely no interest in participating in the arguments going on around this topic - and I have intentionally tried to avoid determining if you are arguing for one particular point or another - but I am alarmed that you have added content in a way that seems to present a bias in one direction. That is the area where blocks can get applied, so please keep discussions on the Talk page and recognise the need for consensus. Making edits gradually, giving other editors the chance to present alternative wording or refutation is the way to proceed. That avoids someone like me blundering along, thinking you're not acting in good faith, and rolling back the entirety of your edits because of some bad judgement of content or placement you've made which are too hard to disentangle from any of the good, well-referenced stuff. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of the material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---