Talk:Maafa 21/Archive 2

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

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

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


 * Your denigration of the scholarly Margaret Sanger Papers Project is almost not worthy of response. They are not "militantly pro-choice" by any stretch of the imagination. The Project makes comments from a scholarly viewpoint. In the same vein, Eva McKend is a journalist and an acknowledged feminist but by no means a pro-choice militant. Her take on abortion is that it is a community issue larger than just the pro/anti polarity. McKend's contribution is that of a neutral journalist observer. With these undeserving character assassinations as part of your salvo I don't think you can be considered a neutral observer. Your assessment of "POVish" is full of your own bias. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Badmintonhist, I'm sympathetic to your pointing out that we have very little adequately sourced reception for the film at all, but that's not an argument for the edits that you made, since instead of removing poor sources, you removed some of the better sources and pretended that the film's verifiably false (and called out by historians as false) historical claims were simply a difference of opinion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to mince words, as it now stands the article is a piece of crap. We have a relatively minor, undoubtedly propagandistic film here AS ARE ALL FILMS DESIGNED TO MOTIVATE THE TROOPS ON BOTH SIDES of the abortion issue. AS propaganda it is seems to be rather good, as witnessed by our little hornets nest here. As history it is probably no worse (meaning that it's pretty damned bad) than most "historical" propaganda efforts on both sides of the abortion war. Notice that the major news sources mentioning the film don't talk about its "scholarship" because they know that's not the point. Serious historians don't generally get involved reviewing films such as Maafa 21, but, then, they don't generally get involved in reviewing films by Oliver Stone or Michael Moore either. What we've done here, however, is not only to load up our "Reception" section with the natural political enemies (anyone who thinks that Eva McKend, Marcy Darnovsky or Michelle Goldberg are neutral journalistic observers shouldn't be editing this article) of the film but also, in several cases, overstating their criticisms to further denigrate the film. More about those overstatements later. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouting and histrionics do not improve your argument. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project people are scholars reacting to an egregious misinterpretation of Sanger's life and career. McKend and company are outraged because the film so severely twists the truth. This is not a case of comparing Maafa 21 to some ro-choice flick; none of our sources gives such a comparison. As Roscelese noted, this is also not a case of he said, she said, in which the two parties are equivalent. No, no, no... this is the case in which the film is completely wrong and critics rightly point this out. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * And again, you are speaking in generalities not specifics. But since we haven't been presented any outright falsehoods in the film by either the sources or by you let's go to the specific points about our editing of the sources that I made in my previous comment. Where is the source saying that Tennessee supporters of the film don't know what they are talking about? Or is that statement somehow deduced from the fact that a couple of interviewees pleaded ignorance? Where is the misattribution of a quote in the film rather than by someone talking about the film? Where are the outright falsehoods rather than the perceived "misinterpretations"? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Brief: it's easy to find other falsehoods in the film if we do our own research, but WP policy doesn't allow that, so we're stuck with what reliable sources have commented upon - not that it's not enough. The source specifically and repeatedly states that the activists don't know about the alleged research but believe it or promote it anyway, and as in any other news story, they're interviewed as exemplars of a larger group. The same article also lists a number of other falsehoods in the film (eg. Sanger's not-actually-real support for the KKK or the Nazis). I would recommend returning to the sources before pretending they do not contain the information. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * The blanket statement in our article about "pro-lifers in Tennessee" (why not "pro-lifers worldwide") based on the Metro-Pulse article which interviews a couple of folks in the Knoxville area, is absolutely asinine and should not pass any formal challenge (which I suspect it will ultimately come down to). I would say that it's WP:SYNTHESIS but it's actually worse than that, maybe "synthesis on steroids." Don't be overly deferential to Katz and her website. I notice that this website routinely uses the description "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life" or "anti-abortion," a sure sign that, despite our colleague Binksternet's contention, it is indeed militantly pro-choice. Curiously, Margaret Sanger herself claimed that abortion should be legal only in extreme circumstances, and made a point of arguing for contraception rather than abortion.Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Nothing wrong with including the Birch/New American reaction to the film in a comprehensive listing for organizational purposes, but to then select it as one of a limited number of reactions to the film in the actual article is inadvisable. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * "He says he doesn’t know much about what research went into producing Maafa 21; nevertheless, he says he largely believes its contents" etc.; I would advise users not to remove material simply because they do not like it. Alternately, we could go ahead with my earlier edit and simply remove the "reception," but stripping away all sourced material that makes the film look bad is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'd advise you not to restore a statement attributed to a person, not a group as three other editors disagree with your interpretation. In fact, the  first sentance should be attributed to Simoneau.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We might consider scrapping the whole reaction of Knoxville area pro-life activists (to which a reader might say "so what?") in favor of a source giving a broader description of pro-life reaction to the film (such as I think is found in Shaila Dewan's New York Times's article). We should definitely scrap the reaction from the John Birch Society publication which for the knowledgeable reader is probably more of a swipe at the film than a kudo. We should also pare down the number of negative critics of a film, which, whatever its flaws as history are, seems to have been fairly successful as propaganda (which pretty much ALL films are on either side of the abortion debate are). None of the sources we use here could accurately be called "neutral" on the abortion issue, but I would get rid of the more blatantly partisan such as polemicist Michelle Goldberg (who recently called Ann Romney "insufferable") and Eva McKend (writing for a publication which attacks anything that is "pro-life"). The indirect quote from Dorothy Roberts (another highly partisan and rather radical figure) should also be removed, in part because it is not a reaction to the film at all but from a book written over a decade ago.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed "Reception" again since no one really seems to favor including it. We could probably talk about its influence (eg. from Dewan) in the "Release and screenings" section! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of consensus is baffling. Who besides yourself is advocating removing this section?  And I see you slipped in a POV edit at the same time using a misleading summary.  Please don't do that.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, Badmintonhist has also repeatedly commented that he sees the sources as low quality, and my explanation of why I retained the expert sources was in an earlier edit summary - the one you reverted without subsequently deigning to respond to my comment on the talk page. –Roscelese ([[User

talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; contribs) 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhmmm . . . though it's nice to see you suddenly and strangely anxious to accommodate my wishes on an article, Roscelese, I never actually suggested that we scrap the entire Reception section. That being said, the article, as my most recent edit left it, is probably an improvement on what it was when I found it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the screening in Houck's district is not really pertinent, but the rest of your edit (besides again violating this article's 1RR - you will be reported next time) is counterproductive, as it removes sourced information for no apparent reason other than that it makes a film you like look bad. There is no "difference of opinion" here: a historical scholar who is the editor of the papers of the film's subject is simply not comparable to a car marketer turned activist, and your edit summary that we should defer to our sources is exactly what you aren't doing in removing information about the truth value of the film's claims which is in those sources. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a childish policy violation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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

Autobiographies, as you should know, are notoriously self-serving. But none of what you have just said really effects the issue. Nobody here is saying that the Crutcher view of Margaret Sanger should prevail in our article.Due weight should be accorded to the most reliable sources sources on Sanger. But on inherently subjective matters, such as Sanger's level of racism, and the level of racist and eugenic intention in her work, we attribute opinions to their source in-line. From what I have seen of your editing, Roscelese, you are extremely eager for Wikipedia to declare your own views on contentious issues to be absolute fact. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sanger's lack of racism is demonstrably proven in scholarly works about Sanger. It is a fact that she worked with women of all races to help them thrive in society by offering to them the benefit of birth control which had been only available to the wealthy. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that she worked with Blacks says almost nothing about her racial views. Lots of very racist folks have worked with Blacks all of their lives. Even her staunchest scholarly defenders admit she had a degree of prejudice relating to racial and ethnic types. No, the issue here is whether we make declarative statements in Wiki's voice that Crutcher is wrong and that Sanger was free of any racist intent or we let reliable sources speak for themselves. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, we don't need to be doing our own analysis here. The scholarship, as shown in our sources, is clear: the conspiracy theory is false, based on a variety of smear tactics ranging from deliberate misinterpretation/decontextualizing of quotes to outright fabrication. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanger & racism
Where does the source claim that the documentary "fabricates" that Sanger is racist? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does anyone's edit say that a claim about Sanger having racist beliefs was "fabricated"? WP:COMPETENCE –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be you . At least we've established who is incompetent.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said: Where does anyone's edit say that a claim about Sanger having racist beliefs was "fabricated"? The quotes were fabricated. WP:COMPETENCE. Reading comprehension is one of those things that is helpful. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing we follow WP:NOR and uses sources and not WP:Chutzpah. Stop embarrassing yourself.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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

Is there really any point in attempting to establish whether or not Sanger was truly racist? We seem to be arguing an irrelevancy, i.e. whether or not the claims in Maafa 21 are accurate. This article is not meant to support or to refute the film's claims but simply to state what those claims are without bias. As Badmintonhist, among others, has correctly pointed out, the topic is inherently polemic and no one can be truly unbiased, but the goal of all this discussion should be to work towards an unbiased article. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue as I see it is that the film purports Sanger to have racist views. A source states, inter alia, that quotes attributed to Sanger were taken out of context.  This "quotes were fabricated" business introduced by Roscelese years ago is simply not in the source and does not belong unless it can be attributed.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As the biased tone has (finally) been removed, let's move on, though not without vigilance to keep it removed. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Valentine's Day

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

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


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

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


 * Not only is the film wrong, it is tiresome, rarely seen and ineffective in its intended purpose. This whole talk page kerfuffle has generated more text about the film than has been written in all the world's publications combined. It is unworthy of all of our valuable time to continue to give a shit about this egregious propaganda film. Please enjoy a heart-shaped salt caramel and give the topic a rest. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are done, feel free to step off your soapbox and edit something else.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Binksternet: As soon as you and Roscelese give the topic a rest. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * I've again restored information about the film's false historical claims. By now it is very clear that both consensus and policy support the inclusion, in some form, of the scholarly evaluation of this film's fringe claims. Further discrepancies between the actual and ideal, such as in phrasing, should be worked out on a phrase level, rather than by continuing to tendentiously remove well-sourced material that makes a film you like look bad. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And you've been reverted again because none of the sources listed makes any claims that the film makes false historical claims. Stop being disruptive.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even putting aside the fact that if you were willing or able to read the sources you would know that that was blatantly and shamefully false - WP:FRINGE, "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately," exists for a reason. You do know better than this, right? So why are you wasting everyone else's time? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF. Of course I've read the sources.  Now I'll ask again, where in any of the sources listed are claims made that the film makes false historical claims and the film makes up quotes and attributes them to Sanger.  Your citing FRINGE is just a red herring.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact, and you've demonstrated a flagrant lack of regard for sources, policy, and consensus. FRINGE is still relevant, but since you appear to have problems with literacy specifically as well as competence generally, I direct you to, among other places, one of the MetroPulse articles: "Katz says Maafa 21 and the black genocide movement are flat wrong in their depiction of [Sanger's] views and work." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, everyone. I stumbled upon this conversation quite by accident; however, I would suggest that everyone continues to cool things down.  The discussion above has become a bit too heated for reasonable conversation about content and editing issues to occur.  Please remember to abide by the relevant policies.  Thank you, dci  &#124;  TALK   04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Strong addressed that quote above already. I ask you for a third time, where does the film invent quotes and attribute them to Sanger?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He did, and as usual, he was completely incorrect. We don't need a blow-by-blow or an MST3K from Katz or the other MSPP scholars; they know about the subject and Crutcher does not. Now, as for the quotes, I'm willing to accept in the name of compromise that it might be used in the broader conspiracy theory material and not only in the film (Katz also comments on the quote in another source where it's mentioned as being in the film sponsor's leaflets or something), but that, as I said, requires rephrasing and not removal of the historical information. We might rephrase the sentence to include "the film is and the black genocide conspiracy theory it promotes are..." or something, but we're fundamentally not going to censor material that our sources relate to the film. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Now, believe or not, Ros, I'm going to try to help your cause a bit with the substance of the article. The most egregious example of deception in the film (and deception about Sanger's work in the general popular culture) is the infamous quote "We do not want want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population . . . " Certainly, Sanger meant that she didn't want FALSE word to go out rather than that she didn't want TRUE word to go out. If you can find a source reviewing the film that makes this specific point or other specific points about the misconstruction of Sanger's language in the film, that would be the best road to impeaching the film's veracity. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I'm eager to work out phrase-level stuff. But we cannot work on the phrase level when users insist on blanking the entire thing and removing all of the sources simply because they do not depict the film in a positive light. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't want your content blanked, don't add content that you know others object to in the first place. It's really that simple.  Perhaps you should make your suggestions here instead of trying to bully them into the article.  So far that approach hasn't worked out to well for you, has it?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, for quite a long while it was working just fine. Then you and Badmintonhist had to come along and ruin all the fun. ;) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Risking the high probability that I will again be accused of liking the film, allow me to offer this word of caution: as we pursue disputing the film's use of that quote (or any quote that may have been used in an erroneous or misleading manner), let's strive to keep its use in context. The film doesn't simply make a drive-by claim but instead offers (likely flawed) reasoning for their interpretation of Sanger's words.  If a critical source simply states that the use of a quote is wrong without providing reasoning for why it is wrong (e.g., disputing the film's method of reasoning as opposed to simply declaring the film's conclusion to be fallacious), then it is not fulfilling either the letter or the spirit of WP:FRINGE.  As BH so aptly (as usual) stated above, "Serious charges require strong evidence."  -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no, the fact that real scholars haven't devoted an entire book or journal article to dissecting something by a non-scholar isn't evidence that their comments on the history need to be removed - it weakens the film's credentials. The sources we have already do provide specific examples of parts of the conspiracy theory which are out of context, misattributed, etc., but WP:FRINGE does not ask us for an MST3K of the whole film, only that reliable sources demonstrate its relationship (or lack thereof) to real scholarship in a serious and substantial manner, which is adequately covered by multiple sources in which scholars of the subject point out individual issues as well as the film's lack of credibility as a whole. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How well you argue! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue, but you can see my arguments below. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


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

Sanger's work/quotes taken out of context
Lets tackle one issue at a time. I think everyone here can agree that the sources we have say that the film has taken Sanger's work out of context. How might the text for this read? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think part of the question is how much we want to talk about specifics (whether in the lede or elsewhere). For instance, the film mentions the visit to a KKK rally, without saying that it was to talk about birth control for white people or that Sanger found the experience weird and disturbing and didn't repeat it. Or are you referring in a broader sense to Sanger's work in the context of US and int'l society at the time? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We must consider weight. This is an article about the film, not Sanger..  We shouldn't blow up one section and drown the rest.  The film portrays Sanger as a euegenicst (which is true) and that by modern standards she held racist views. The sources state she was actually a "race liberal" and that the film portrayed her quotes out of context.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree in theory but am not sure what you're advocating in practice. The article is about the film, but the film is about Sanger and PP, and it is difficult to talk about the film without talking about its content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well?
I'd love to hear the (ostensible) reason for Rosetta's latest tendentious revert. We have text:
 * that is supported by consensus at RSN (a line fully attributed to Katz)
 * of which a version existed in the stable article before pro-film users began the latest series of edits, whose removal is not supported by consensus
 * that is supported by WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and other Wikipedia policies

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

In the lead, you replace the documentary link with your POV. And the "completely wrong and without evidence" bit is also POV and inaccurate as BH has demonstrated above. As far as the claims of tendentious editing, are you familiar with the phrase "when you point your finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at you"? Your boorish and often juvenile communication patterns make editing with you tremendously difficult. If I thought it might do any good and not a waste of time, I would start an RFC/U. But since I'm not inclined to do that, I'd be happy to participate in a DRN for this article, which is probably the more pressing matter. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, "I dislike the user making the edit" is rarely considered an acceptable revert rationale, and "completely wrong and without evidence" is a pretty tame paraphrase of "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that." I dismiss your claim about the documentary; if that were the issue, you could have simply restored that text, rather than tendentiously reverting consensus-based edits. Feel free to open a DRN if you like, but in the meantime, please stop edit-warring away from consensus. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)




 * I'm sorry, but your interpretation of current consensus flies in the face of reason. The recent discussion at RSN confirms this btw.  I really prefer not to wear trout, so ill try and leave it at that.  However I stand by both points about the lead and the "completely wrong" bit.  The film is a documentary, regardless of its merit.  The flat out wrong part is wildly POV and inaccurate  and the "without evidence" part even more so, besides bring factually incorrect according the source cited.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The flat out wrong part is a quote from the source, an expert scholar, and my edit actually moderated its tone. If you would prefer to hew closer to Katz's wording, we certainly could call the film's claims "stupid," but I don't think that's something you want. Again, however, these are quibbles over phrase-level, wording stuff, and do not change the fundamental and obvious consensus to include the scholarly perspective on the history. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Added sentence to lead that lacks references but perhaps we can work with it if Rosie doesn't insist on unencyclopedic, slam-dunk wording. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your wording is a step backwards. We're trying to avoid reception-style discussion, and rather to discuss a) the film's influence in the anti-abortion movement and b) its factual basis or lack thereof. Framing both as "some people like it and some do not" does a disservice to both. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * TLDR: "I'm going to speculate about one of our sources using a hypothesis that relies on ignoring a number of our sources, and then extrapolate based on that speculation without any evidence that it is correct." Nope. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How fitting. "As a label, WP:TLDR is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Whether or not a critic says outright that they watched a film strikes me as entirely immaterial. You can never truly prove that they did or didn't watch it, and what would be the point anyway?  If a critic gets matters of fact or interpretation wrong, they can be rebutted by other reliable sources.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. While it is possible that Katz didn't see the film, she could be responding to questions to its veracity posed by the author of the article.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As the attributions to Katz currently stand, I am satisfied with the realization that they are relatively innocuous and with the assumption that, had Katz seen the film, they would accurately represent her perspective. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Documenatry & without evidence
I could be wrong, but I believe current consensus is not in favor of Roscelese's recent edits. As I've pointed out above, the film is a documentary despite whatever our opinions are, and the "without evidence" is a gross mischaracterization of the source. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage with this comment, since you obviously aren't looking at edits before you revert them on the basis of who made them, but I invite you to provide your own paraphrase of "there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," rather than reverting tendentiously until someone succeeds in reading your mind. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning for failing to AGF. With that out of the way, your last edit is definitely an improvement to the article in a NPOV manner and has fidelity to the sources.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it still does not reflect the consensus to include the scholarly perspective on the film via Esther Katz's comments. Once you cease your tendentious edit-warring, then the article will closer reflect the sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does reflect the sources. NPOV is a policy, of which your many recent attempted edits were anything but. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying this either. So I'll leave it to our colleagues to determine who is being tendentious.  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're going to continue reverting in the spurious name of NPOV long after it's been determined and redetermined that consensus is that policy allows or requires the material. We have a name for that. Thanks for letting us all know. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can either wiki lawyer, go to DRN or if you think your claims of disruptive editing hold water, ANI. I'd prefer to follow what the sources say and policy.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you are the user that has a problem with the current consensus, I would recommend that you take the issue wherever you think it should be taken. I'm content with consensus as it stands - to include the material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Time to remove the "neutrality disputed" template?
As the article stands on February 22 at 12:34 EST, I am prepared to remove the "neutrality disputed" tag. What say yea all? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious neutrality issues remain as long as we're pretending that there's simply a "difference of opinion" or "criticism," but that discussion is still in course of working out text, so I won't restore the tag at the moment. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Now, the reception-paragraph begins with:


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

To respond to Roscelese first: it is not about "pretending that the filmmakers' claims are valid" it is about Neutral Point of View, which is a wikipedia official content policy, to quote the best part: "Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The source specifically points out the film as what she is responding to in that comment. Unless we have a really good reason to believe that that's not the case - and Beleg, repeating that she must not have seen it won't make it true - we do rely on reliable sources, that's what we do here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However, no one has actually addressed the issue here: the fact that the summary of Katz in the article, even with Badmintonhist's edits, is not remotely reflective of what she actually says. I appreciate the attempts to reflect more accurately in the wording her rejection of the conspiracy theory promoted in the film, but as long as most of the paragraph on her response is "well, they had some good points," we are misrepresenting her and the source her comments appear in. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the source doesn't specifically point to the film as what Katz is responding to in her "there's no way she ever said such a thing" comment. The article is about the film, undoubtedly Carlson asked Katz questions about the film, and a reader would surely get that impression that Katz was referring to the film in this quote, but the source does not "specifically point to the film as what she is responding to in that comment." However, even if we knew Katz was responding to what she thought the film said about Sanger (it doesn't), why we would we choose a quote that we even suspected was imparting a false impression to our readers? Choosing quotes involves editorial judgment, and in the case at hand it would be a very poor one. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The film claims that Sanger aimed to eradicate the black community. (Substantiated in other sources, eg. Holloway.) This is exactly the claim that Katz discusses in the "any such thing" quote, and the article's author states that she is discussing the film's false claims. What exactly is the problem that you are having here? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Jeez, Binksternet, on first reading I believed that, unlike Roscelese, you at least understood the point I was making. On closer reading of your above comment I'm not sure you do. Does Katz really "know very well that the film SAYS Sanger SAID the population of blacks should be reduced in America"? If so then she "knows" something that "ain't so." What Katz REALLY knows is that the film SAYS Sanger BELIEVED the population of blacks should be reduced in America. There can be no plausible cryptic conspiracy theory about Sanger's words and actions, you see, if reducing the black population were an explicitly stated goal.
 * But enough of this inside baseball. The practical problem of including the quote which Roscelese so fervently wants to inlude should be clear enough. It would, at the very least, tend to mislead readers about the specific content of the film. Nowhere does the film EXPLICITLY state that Sanger EXPLICITLY stated that she wanted kill off the black population. Including that particular Katz quote would lead readers to think that the film does say this when it doesn't. Moreover, we have already unambiguously stated in our article, in two places, that Katz strongly rejects the film's depiction of Sanger. We have even included Roscelese's other pet quote, the "flat wrong" one, properly showing it as Metro-Pulse writer Frank Carlson's construction of Katz's comments. Hope this resolves the issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The film misrepresents a Sanger quote: "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..." The film puts this quote forward as proof that Sanger wanted to reduce the population of African Americans. In reality, Sanger was saying "we do not want [false] word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"; she was saying that such false word should be prevented, that the notion should be debunked if it arose, by having prominent black leaders. Katz knows this, and refuted it with exaggeration for flair's sake. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More broadly, the film does not limit itself to claiming that Sanger passively believed that the world would be better with fewer black people - it claims that her goal was to eradicate black people. And this isn't supported by any evidence in Sanger's large body of writings. Does this make sense to you now? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Look, if an editor wants to incorporate a reaction to the film's use of the quotation in question, use a reliable source which includes the quotation and makes it clear that whoever is responding is, in fact, responding to the film's use of that quotation. The Carlson article doesn't do this. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At present the quotation isn't discussed, so this is all hypothetical, right? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess you could call it hypothetical. I suggested this to you before, Roscelese, but you didn't seem interested. I think that the article is fine now as it stands, but if there is one specific piece of negative criticism that could be added it would be someone weighing in on Maafa 21's use of the "we don't want word to get out . . . " quotation from Sanger's letter to Clarence Gamble. Of course, it would have to be presented as an opinion attributed to the source, not some condemnatory pronouncement in Wikipedia's voice. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd definitely want to confirm that the particular quotation appeared in the film if we were to include that detail.~(I've Googled but it's hard to tell - a lot of pieces talk about the film and talk about the quotation but aren't clear on whether the one appears in the other. Per the Carlson source, it's one of the "more commonly used" quotes in the conspiracy theory, but it could be either in the film or only in "the scholarship," it's not clear.) I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that Katz's "never said any such thing" was about that quotation specifically. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have made clear above, "it is my intent to remove content from the article that assumes Katz has viewed the film" or, as in the case of my most recent edits, content that attributes her statements to the film that were not actually aimed at the film. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewing Roscelese's latest changes that were just reverted, I only find two minor issues. Catholic.net is more than just an anti-abortion site.  Adding the Sanger quote might be a little too much, but I'm ok with her changes otherwise.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Catholic.net has a message right on the linked page that states its mission is to build a "culture of life."...which Sanger quote are you referring to, LGR? Beleg, no one agrees with you that we must act as though Katz hasn't seen the film, cut it out. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "about us" link shows that Catholic.net is first and foremost a religious organization. While they are certainly not in favor of abortion, that is not their primary focus and makes the inclusion of the phrase less than neutral.  I was referring to the Katz quote, my apology.  And I agree with you that Beleg should drop this angle about Katz not watching the film.  It appears to be irrelevant.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I was just going based on what was on the page. We should have some explanation of what the site is, since we give everyone else's affiliations, but we can state that its advocacy, while including anti-abortion advocacy, is broader. Re the Katz quote, I'd probably be fine with a paraphrase but removing it entirely means we're not properly representing Kazt's response to the film. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there seemed to be agreement about Catholic.net, I made an edit there that does disclose their purpose and extends their quote while removing the corresponding narrative. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely blame myself, but you're both still missing the issue that I've been trying to identify, which is attributing statements to the film that are not actually about the film. The Katz quote that I removed is not about the film, which is why I removed it: it's about a patently absurb accusation against Sanger that has no identified origin.  Has anyone actually accused Sanger of wanting "to erase blacks from the face of the earth"?  Of course not and neither does Maafa 21, so please stop trying to pin this statement to the film.  Thank you.


 * I'm not actually asserting that Katz didn't see the film. In fact, I'm willing to concede that she possibly did.  What I am asserting is that we can't tell from Carlson's interview whether or not she viewed it because none of her statements are clearly aimed at the film: they are instead scholarly statements about Sanger and the birth control movement.  Such statements, in general, are not relevant to this article.


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already addressed this argument and found it unconvincing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Badmintonhist did agree with me at one point, but maybe no one is agreeing with this logic anymore. I'll leave it alone for now unless someone else wants to continue the discussion.  Moving forward, I would like to propose a compromise that includes Katz's quote but both expands its scope and shortens its content to my satisfaction and hopefully to everyone else's as well.  How about the following?
 * ''While conceding that debating over Sanger's involvement in eugenics is both "reasonable" and "honest," Katz asserts that any suggestion that Sanger "wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid."
 * Rosetta, I would also like to appeal to you to express whether or not you think it reasonable to restore the other Katz quote to say the following expanded version.
 * Katz also concedes that "Sanger made mistakes" and "was very naïve" in her campaign to legalize contraception, particularly her vilifying "of immigrants" and her advocating "for the sterilization of the mentally challenged," which Maafa 21 insists were code words for the black race.
 * Roscelese, please comment as well on both of my suggestions. Are you still willing to consider restoring the second Katz quote, as you noted when you changed it to its current form?
 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with your proposals. As I've said, the gist of Katz's commentary is not that the film is basically right but with a few issues, so quit trying to pretend that's what she or the secondary source said. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, are we still discussing this? Katz represented the film as terribly flawed and false. Katz concedes nothing about the film's misrepresentation of Sanger. What she does is tell the reader what the context was of the Sanger quotes that were abused by the film. She does not say that the film got certain things right. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, she commented on quotes not specifically attributed to the film. The source was not clear on where these quotes were used.  That being said, I don't think Beleg's suggested edit is an improvement.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rosetta, you've just nailed the point that I've been trying to make. Here's the entire Katz quote from Frank Carlson's article.
 * If you want to have an argument about whether Sanger was or was not responsible for her decisions about eugenics, even what eugenics turned into, that's a reasonable debate. That's an honest debate...But debating whether she wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it?
 * Katz is not condoning the film but she is clearly condoning the discussion about Sanger's involvement in eugenics. Why would we want to use only half the quote and only the half that isn't about the film?
 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Roscelese said above, Re the Katz quote, I'd probably be fine with a paraphrase, and elsewhere, if we want to include more from Katz in general, we might consider restoring "immigrants" etc. Where do we now stand?


 * My two suggestions above implement both of her concessions: they (1) paraphrase Katz and (2) restore Sanger's view of immigrants. Is there a real problem after all?  The main objection offered is that they somehow imply that Katz thought "that the film is basically right."  What part of my suggestions make that case?  Are you referring to my use of Katz's words "reasonable" and "honest"?  As I have shown just above, those are indeed Katz's words.  What am I missing?  Please be specific.


 * If there really is a legitimate problem with my suggestions, then please offer an alternative, otherwise I don't see why they shouldn't be implemeted as is.


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing Katz's criticism of the film and replacing it with what's supposedly a concession to the film's claims is a misrepresentation of both Katz and the secondary source. Can you explain what you think "paraphrase" means? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I asked just above, please be specific. What part of Katz's statement do you want preserved that I have removed?  What have I added that misrepresents what Katz said, and how does it misrepresent Katz?  Are you denying that Katz is condoning discussions about Sanger's involvement in eugenics?  I think the portions of Katz's quote that I used nicely summarize the quote as a whole: the rest is just more of the same.  Please offer your alternative paraphrase, since you suggested it.  Otherwise, what I have proposed works just fine. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not agree to any quote-unquote "paraphrase" that consists of removing unfavorable material, such as the total lack of evidence for the film's claims. I'm glad now that I asked you to provide your definition of "paraphrase," since it's clearly not the one in common usage. A paraphrase is "a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words," not an abridgement. A sample paraphrase of the quote would be "...that Sanger did not want to wipe out black people, and that claims that she did are ridiculous and completely lacking in historical evidence." If we wish to include comments about Sanger's involvement in eugenics vis-a-vis the mentally ill, we can't lead with them as though they're the focus of the commentary, we cannot remove the gist of Katz's commentary in order to "make room" for them, and we should balance them by adding more specific critical material that preserves the balance of the source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, your last edit summary suggests that you may be growing either impatient with me or tired of this discussion. I hope that neither is the case.  I'm definitely trying to work with you, and I feel that you are doing the same.  Please bear with me as we work through our concerns.  Possibly the misunderstanding with my suggestion is that you think I am wanting to replace the entire Esther Katz paragraph with just those two sentences.  This is not the case, and I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused.  The following is how I would like the paragraph to read as a whole, also including your suggestion just above.
 * Esther Katz, editor and director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project (MSPP) at New York University, said that quotes and actions attributed to Sanger are taken out of context in order to claim that she had a racist agenda. While conceding that debating over Sanger's involvement in eugenics is both "reasonable" and "honest," Katz asserts that Sanger did not want to wipe out black people, and that claims that she did are ridiculous and completely lacking in historical evidence.  Katz also concedes that "Sanger made mistakes" and "was very naïve" in her campaign to legalize contraception, particularly in her vilifying "of immigrants" and her advocating "for the sterilization of the mentally challenged," which Maafa 21 insists were code words for the black race.   The online blog for the MSPP, which Katz edits, describes the film as "propaganda." 
 * Is that better? If not, please be clear about what the problems are and make suggestions for improving it.
 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you have Katz "conceding". Katz concedes nothing to the film. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, it's too wordy, Beleg. If you want to use material from Katz about Sanger's attitudes and proposals toward immigrants and the mentally challenged, add it to Sanger's Wikipedia biography. I think what we have now on Katz's reaction to the film is pretty well (and concisely) stated and accurate. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. This article is about a film. The films premise is based upon Sanger/PP involvement in the eugenics movement. Since this is a central tenet to the film, we allow Katz to speak on this theory. If not for the source connecting the dots, we would have a synthesis problem. But we don't have that problem. As with Roscelese, I too grow weary with this particular issue. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that there's no clear evidence that Katz is reacting to the film itself in Carlson's article, to which both Badmintonhist and Rosetta have already agreed. I didn't realize that you both had changed your positions on that point.  Are you now saying that, where Katz encourages discussing Sanger's role in eugenics (which is the premise of Maafa 21), she is not talking about the film but that, where she calls people stupid who claim Sanger sought global annihilation of blacks (which is not a claim made in Maafa 21), Katz is talking about the film?


 * Are you also against pointing out how Katz's opinion on Sanger's views on immigrants and "the mentally challenged" ties into the film's content, as discussed by Mark Crutcher in those two interviews that I cited?


 * Yes, it's a tiring discussion, but I think there's more work to be done here. If you don't like my suggested updates, which also include Roscelese's feedback, would you please offer suggestions for improving them?


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another try, implementing both Roscelese's and Binksternet's feedback and trying to reduce wordiness, as suggested by Badmintonhist:
 * Esther Katz, editor and director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project (MSPP) at New York University, said that quotes and actions attributed to Sanger are taken out of context in order to claim that she had a racist agenda. While encouraging the debate over Sanger's involvement in eugenics, Katz insists that any claim that Sanger desired the gobal extermination of black peoples is wholly without historical evidence.  However, Katz does concede that "Sanger made mistakes" and "was very naïve" in her campaign to legalize contraception, particularly in her views of "immigrants" and "the mentally challenged," which Maafa 21 insists were code words for the black race.   The online blog for the MSPP, which Katz edits, describes the film as "propaganda." 
 * Please make suggestions for improvement, as applicable.
 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again you have ignored what I think is a valid complaint about the word "concede". The way I see it, Katz does not concede anything to the film. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look again. You will see that I did remove the "conceding" that had been added by me in my suggested change above.  The "concede" that I left alone existed (now still exists) in the previous (now current) version.  As you will see that I am correct, please consider self-reverting.  If you are still dissatisfied with the use of the word "concede," make a suggestsion here for changing it to something that you prefer. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The now-current version with "concede" is also wrong. Katz says that filmmaker Mark Crutcher never asked to look at Sanger's papers and is "unknown" among Sanger scholars. She says that Crutcher is not qualified to make a film on the topic of Sanger. Katz does not concede anything to the film. For instance, somebody's wording in the article here says "Katz concedes that 'Sanger made mistakes' and 'was very naïve' in her campaign for birth control." The source says that "Katz acknowledges that Sanger made mistakes in her effort to legalize birth control" but the film does not portray Sanger as making mistakes. The film does not say that Sanger was naïve. In fact, the film says that Sanger was purposeful in her drive to reduce the population of blacks. Thus we have a situation where Katz is explaining how Sanger was different than depicted in the film. Katz concedes nothing to Crutcher or the film. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "concede" isn't the word we should be using, your interpretation of the source via a vis Katza/Crutcher is quite off the mark. Katz has never stated that Cutcher is unqualified, but she is unaware of the origins of his research.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The tone that Katz takes is a dismissive one. She thinks very little of Crutcher. She is saying that in her position if she does not know about a Sanger researcher then he is not legitimate. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So now you know what Katz thinks of Cutcher, without her or a source stating so? And you are able to enlighten the rest of us?  Remarkable!   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I know is gleaned from reading the same sources we have all been discussing. Complex subjects such as this require some degree of reading comprehension. I am relaying to the talk page readers what my comprehension is of the source material. Much as some people would like the issue to be black or white, easily parsed, it is more nuanced than that. Katz says the misquoting of Sanger is "a deliberate refusal to address the complexity of our past and its figures." Best... Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you think you know vs what you say here are consistently contrary to what the sources state. Just because some, nay, many have misquoted Sanger does not mean that Cutcher did so, nor can you use synth to state so in the article, nor should it remain unchallenged here.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rosetta, we've been working a lot with "Anti-Abortionists Accuse..." - have you possibly forgotten that we have another Metropulse source, "Meet Mark Crutcher"? This is the source of Katz's comment that Crutcher is "unknown in academic circles" (article author's words) and that she doesn't know what research or qualifications he could have, as every other major scholar that touches on these topics is in touch with the archives or with Sanger biographers. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roscelese that we must take into account both of Carlson's articles. Katz makes it quite clear that she is unaware of the credentials of Crutcher and of his sources of information.  (By the way, the film cites the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College.)  Katz also makes it clear that she considers the notion that Sanger desired the global annihilation of blacks to be rediculous and wholly without historical evidence.  And, Katz makes it clear that Sanger has often been misquoted and misrepresented by those who oppose Sanger's agenda and the mission of Planned Parenthood.  Beyond these three general concepts, Katz does not make it clear that she has any specific complaints about Maafa 21.


 * I also agree with Binksternet that Katz's attitude is one of dismissiveness, making it all the more likely (as opposed to clear) that she would consider watching and researching the film to be a complete waste of her time.


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another update, which includes replacing the word "concedes" with "acknowledges."


 * Esther Katz, editor and director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project (MSPP) at New York University, said that quotes and actions attributed to Sanger are often taken out of context in order to claim that she had a racist agenda. While encouraging the debate over Sanger's involvement in eugenics, Katz insists that any claim that Sanger desired the gobal extermination of black peoples is wholly without historical evidence.  Katz also acknowledges that "Sanger made mistakes" and "was very naïve" in her campaign to legalize birth control, particularly in her views of "immigrants" and "the mentally challenged," which Maafa 21 insists were code words for the black race.   The online blog for the MSPP, which Katz edits, describes the film as "propaganda." 


 * Well? Complaints are welcome, but clear and specific suggestions for improvement are better.


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is this nonsense about Katz "encouraging the debate over Sanger's involvement in eugenics", as if Maafa 21 is in any way a debate? That wording is going to be very short-lived. Your "Katz insists" makes her sound strident, coming from a weak position. Instead, Katz maintains, or asserts, or just says that "the gobal [sic] extermination of black peoples is wholly without historical evidence." I think it was much better to have the straight Katz quote. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to have an argument about whether Sanger was or was not responsible for her decisions about eugenics, even what eugenics turned into, that's a reasonable debate. That's an honest debate. Those are Katz's words, as quoted by Carlson. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We must not imply that Katz thinks Maafa 21 is part of the 'debate' about Sanger or eugenics. If we bring up the word "debate" in this article it gives a false sense that Katz has a respectful attitude toward the film. Instead, the film lies completely outside of scholarly interaction. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We should just use the quote as Bink suggests, however the quote does use the word debate and obviously Katz feels a debate is occuring. Whether or not it is is with scholars appears to be irrelevant.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in my suggested paraphrase that erroneously implies that Katz is approving of the film. I believe that a paraphrase is better because it better captures Katz's view of Sanger without the misleading hyperbole she used (e.g., "erase blacks from the face of the earth").  Using a direct quote will likely, as Badmintonhist put it at the top of this section, mislead readers about the content of the film. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the reason you're suggesting what you're suggesting is because you're still insisting Katz hasn't seen the film and it doesn't make the claims it makes, we can stop here, because this is a waste of time. We have independent sources about the film's claims. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, it is always best to stay true to the source and not paraphrase. I don't think we are in the area of copyvio, so I don't see what the big deal is about using the quote.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am content to yield to consensus as long as consensus is using the entire quote: If you want to have an argument about whether Sanger was or was not responsible for her decisions about eugenics, even what eugenics turned into, that's a reasonable debate. That's an honest debate...But debating whether she wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Beleg in favoring the fuller quote he presents just above. I would scrap that part of the current version which reads "Katz acknowledges that 'Sanger made mistakes' and 'was very naive' in her campaign for birth control" because it doesn't really say anything specific about either the movie or about Sanger. Made what mistakes? Was naive in what way? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Badmintonhist, I made the uncontested updates that you recommended, but I am wondering why we shouldn't also say the following, since it is accurate and shows the connection between what Katz is saying about Sanger and what the film is accusing of Sanger: Katz also acknowledged that "Sanger made mistakes" and "was very naïve" in her campaign to legalize contraception, particularly her "vilifying of immigrants" and her advocating "for the sterilization of the mentally challenged," which Maafa 21 insists were code words for the black race.  -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your changes were not positive. You removed the bit about Katz saying Sanger did not want to wipe out blacks. Then you inserted a quote which implies that Katz considers the film to be part of an "honest debate" about Sanger and eugenics, which is absolutely not her position. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I made the edits agreed upon by Badmintonhist and supported by Rosetta and myself. Roscelese seemed to be in favor as well.  (I'm not sure.)  No one objected.  In support of  discussion and consensus, disagreement should have been expressed prior to the edit being made (Plenty of time was given.), instead of waiting and then reverting the edit.  Your accusation that I "removed the bit about Katz saying Sanger did not want to wipe out blacks" is obviously fallacious.  The consensus-approved edit included adding the following: But debating whether she wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she's ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it?  Consensus also disagreed, here and here, with your rejection of including Katz's words reasonable debate and honest debate.  Please do not go against consensus. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your appeal to "consensus" is without merit. There was discussion here but it did not get to where you were given a green light to remove the bit about Sanger not wanting to "wipe out the black race." Do you see a discussion of that phrase here, and the removal of it being agreed upon? Right! Neither do I. Yet you removed it anyway.
 * Then there's the quote about "honest debate", which you added. Three people in this discussion thread have opposed such wording. Above, you can see that you proposed to use the word "honest" but Roscelese said "No", then I said "Wow" (meaning no way) and LGR said "I don't think Beleg's suggested edit is an improvement." Everything you have tried to do with Katz has misinterpreted her position on the film. She is adamantly against it as an example of falsehood and twisted scholarship. There cannot be any use of quotes or paraphrases suggesting otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those quotes you're using are nearly a month behind in the discussion and are being taken way out of context, addressing a very different update suggestion. Please check out the diffs (authored within this past week) that I offered in my last Talk page edit.  My latest edit of the Article was the one agreed upon (here and here) a couple days before the edit was made.  No disagreement was offered by anyone, including yourself, until after I made the edit. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "very different" update suggestion eliminated the quote about "wipe out the black race" without plainly stating as much. Had I realized you were intent on taking out that quote I would have spoken up. Seeing your edit in diff form was when the alarm went off in my head.
 * Moving forward, Badmintonhist's [change subsequent to mine is a fairly good one. It does not try to weaken Katz or misinterpret her. I can live with it. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Badmintonhist, I see your recent Article edit and appreciate your effort to contribute towards finding a compromise, but we already had concensus. We just need to enforce it and not to allow a single dissenter to claim ownership.  Please discuss your new ideas here before making changes. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Film reception and sourcing
Roscelese has repeatedly removed reaction about the film and called the sources unreliable. How is that so? They are certainly reliable for respect to their opinion as long as attribution is given (it is) and their opinion is relevant (it is as well). One should not be surprised that an organization called MovieGuide discusses movies after all. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the section is titled "Reception" not "Criticism," though substantial negative criticism of the film is included in the section and article. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're not so keen on removing poorly sourced reception once there's more poorly sourced reception on your "side." Got it. I, however, would be quite cool with removing the section or trimming it a great deal, but regardless of what we decide to do with the section as a whole, it is undoubtedly the case that we cannot retain such obvious marketing language. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My "side" here is to produce a decent article, which I think we have now, as opposed to the genuinely lousy article I saw here a few weeks ago. Given the work you did on the latter, I'm not especially anxious to help make you "cool" with the improved version. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For a second time, I ask our colleague what she means by poorly sourced? Do you challenge the veracriy of the sources?  If so which ones?   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MovieGuide and Catholic.net are at best reliable only for their own opinions, not for actual facts. (The worthiness of their opinions to be included I'll get to in a minute.) Catholic'net's declaration that the film has appeared in many media and been highly effective is ostensibly a factual claim that requires a source which is reliable for facts; the effectiveness of the film needs to be substantiated using real sources like Dewan. (I'm not sure the fact of its appearance in multiple media is relevant, as this is true of almost anything - it's simply included in order to promote the film.) Moving on to the merits of inclusion at all - MovieGuide and Catholic.net are websites that exist to promote a particular political agenda; the fact that they like a film that shares their agenda tells us nothing. (We could probably say the same about some of the contra sources, but the language itself used in those is nowhere near equivalent to the marketing language Beleg recently inserted - "broad exposure to a diverse collection of individuals, groups, and organizations"? "revealing the documentary's effectiveness in swaying opinion and generating emotion"? We don't work for these websites or the film producers - or at least I hope none of us do. This is why I advocate removing the lot - they at best tell us nothing, and, in the hands of agenda-driven editors, only make the article worse.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that we shouldn't attribute Catholic.Net or MovieGuide's opinion. We do this all the time for columnists that push a particular agenda, though I dispute your claim that either of these orgs are pushing a political agenda.  The fact that they are commenting on this film, and have commented on films in the past makes their inclusion perfectly reasonable.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see even the attempt at an appeal to WP:RS or any other policy in that comment. I too have a blog where I talk about films, but it doesn't mean my analysis should be included in any given article, either. However, you're again trying to distract attention from the fact that you're refusing to address the issue...CatholicNet is being impermissibly cited for facts, and the language in both the CatholicNet and MovieGuide bits is overly promotional, in violation of our content policies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to agree that Catholic.net and MovieGuide.org are RS with respect to their opinion, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. No where do I see that any "fact" established by these two sites are being stated using Wikipedia's voice.  You certainly can create a blog where you espouse your views about this and other films, but the difference is that at the moment you don't have the gravitas of these organizations.  No one would seriously challenge that those organizations have a significant target audience.  Frank Rich is not a RS for factual information, yet he is a RS for his widely distributed opinion.  This is why his opinion is germane.  Suffice it to say, Catholic.net and MovieGuide.org probably aren't as disseminated as Mr. Rich, but they aren't a nebulous crackpot like Mr. X.  And I ask you yet again to AGF.  Accusations about causing distractions are anything but AGF.  It should be possible for everyone to comment on this article without taking jabs in every comment.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that what is present on their sites as their opinion is in fact their opinion, but that's meaningless (again, my personal blog also accurately reflects my opinion, but that says nothing about whether it should be included in Wikipedia). Putting aside the bit where Catholic.net is cited for the film's supposed wide exposure and ability to sway people, which is an ostensibly factual claim even if attributed, WP:RS also deals with whether content belongs on Wikipedia at all. MovieGuide and Catholic.net simply are not high-profile enough for Wikipedia to care about their opinion (and the idea that they're on par with the NYT's film critic simply because both have opinions is ludicrous). Are you having trouble understanding this, which I've now repeated several times? Should I use smaller words? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MovieGuide has been published for over 25 years. Perhaps their taste in media differs than yours, but they are are a reliable source for their limited scope.  Of course don't take my word for it, feel free to run it by RSN/NPOV.  Your batting average at these venus is oh-for-February, so don't get your hopes up.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol yes, I was completely unsuccessful when I asked RSN if a professor who specializes in a subject was a more reliable source on that subject than an activist car salesman, that didn't work at all. Nor does an unreliable source magically become reliable by virtue of its being (self-)published for a certain number of years. But returning to the point, I'm not even presently trying to remove MovieGuide and Catholic.net totally, despite the fact that they're very poor sources (and that they're already encompassed in our better-cited statements about anti-abortion activists liking the film), unless we remove other "reception" paragraphs which are really blowing up the article to a degree that reliable sources do not justify. I'm proposing presently the compromise by which we remove the excessive promotional language, which would be inappropriate from much better sources than these, and the supposed factual claims, which WP:V prohibits. My proposed language trimmed the commentary from these promotional sources to two lines from its then-current eight lines. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we using Wikipeidas voice to make a statement of fact, or are we attributing the statements of opinion to these sources?  little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A statement that the film has been discussed in many media, or that it has been very effective in creating anti-abortion sentiment, is ostensibly a statement of objective fact subject to WP:V regardless of whether it's true. It's not like "this film was enjoyable" or "this film was too long" or "the actors were very talented", which are all subjective opinions. I've been using "ostensibly factual" and so on for these claims, but there is actually a word for them, I've just been consistently blanking. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the "offers evidene" phrase the part that troubles you? I don't agree that phrase is making a statement of fact, because wikipedia isn't making a statement about the quality of the "evidence" nor drawing a conclusion. However I can see why you feel it might be construed that way, because "evidence" is a loaded word. I wouldn't oppose "theorize" or something similar where it is clear that Catholic.net is making claims and not assigning approval/disapproval from Wikipedia. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on that - the wording you point out is probably what tripped my "we can't say that" alarm, but now that I'm aware of it I'm not sure if changing the wording would be sufficient. It's still a claim about the film's reception rather than a piece of film reception (this is why I shifted the focus of the catholic.net reference to the site's own view of the film, not to its supposedly factual claims about its reception), and claims like "the film has been popular" or "the film has been widely successful in converting people" aren't in the same camp as "the film is good." (Also, still trying to remember the wording - "constative"? I don't know if "constative" excludes opinions, it's been too long since I read Austin.) Somewhat relatedly, albeit in a different paragraph, I parse the sentence including "falsely" as "Katz is saying they're falsely claiming," not "Wikipedia is saying." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just realized what our colleague is referring to now. Finding, I dunno, maybe seven or eight different negative critics of the film in the Reception section when I first came to this article, I suggested that a couple of the more obviously partisan ones, such as Michelle Goldberg, be dropped from the article. Roscelese, for who knows what reason, decided to use this as an excuse to scrap the whole reception section, and instead basically dismiss the film in Wikipedia's voice at the beginning of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We already pointed out that the film's claims were not historically accurate - recent attempts by you and others to pretend that they are, or that they are subjective, are an innovation that has resoundingly failed to gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The rest of the active editors on this article don't recognize a consensus of one. Again, at least minimal competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cute. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)