Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 5 August 2011

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Imposed by community discussion here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planned Parenthood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Kathy Gill (February 2011). "House Defunds Planned Parenthood : Culture Wars 2011". Newsvine.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planned Parenthood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Planned Parenthood. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Planned Parenthood at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Better source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PP locations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-profit

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

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

Eugenics in the United States

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

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

See also section . Inclution of Eugenics in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood eugenics link

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Religion and philosophy Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is disagreement on Talk:Planned Parenthood amongst several editors including myself over whether or not a See also section containing a link to Eugenics in the United States should be included in Planned Parenthood. As we don't seem to be working towards an agreement, I think some outside opinions would be valuable. Falcon8765 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I have never edited this page before, and I've read the talk section above. Oh for goodness sake! Birth control is not eugenics. The claims above, of sourcing for eugenic motivations of early activists (as opposed to humanitarian motivations), are blatant cherry-picking. No, the link should not be in the See also section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. No one argued that the see-also link should be included, stating that birth control is eugenics. But that there is an historical connection betwwen birth control, eugenics and PP. Sources shows that birth control has been used on eugenics grounds. First birth control organizations were founded mainly by the eugenics moevement and also on eugenics grounds. There is an historical connection. the see-also link helps anyone interested in go deeper and investigate into a related subject. These are related subject and has not to be exactly the same thing which is an absurd demmand. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, even if the the origins of the Birth Control Movement had links to the Eugenics a 100 years ago, that does not provide grounds for inclusion as a see also link in an article about Planned Parenthood. See Also suggests a more immediate and important companion article. You also ignored several past discussions that concluded Sanger's philosophies are best discussed in her article since Planned Parenthood is not the individual.Mattnad (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• exclude I try to imagine whether encyclopedia brittanica would include a link like this. The answer is probably not. this effort, if not misguided, would be better in the birth control article. Also there seems to be a lot of involved editors commenting. Wouldn't it be better if they stepped back for a second?173.220.126.202 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. (I haven't been involved in editing the article.) The link to Eugenics in the United States should not be included here; the connection to the article is tenuous at best. There there has been a stable version of the "See Also" section without mention of eugenics for a long time, and its recent addition has been reverted by at least 4 different users, so it doesn't look like the edit has consensus. I strongly agree with the others who have called this cherry-picking. --Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude link to Eugenics - There is no objective connection between Planned Parenthood and eugenics. There may be some indirect connection, in the sense the critics of P.P. accuse it of supporting or encouraging eugenics. However, opponents of abortion make that association for virtually every entity that provides abortions or birth control. Should every article in WP about abortion or birth control in the US contain a link to Eugenics in the United States? No. A link to Eugenics in the United States in this article could probably be included if either (a) P.P. itself discussed eugenics in its official literature; or (b) unbiased independent sources made a direct, strong association between P.P and eugenics. But I dont see either of those litmus tests being met in the sources. Noleander (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Here some sources demanded:

Fourth International Conference on Planned Parenthood ... Much time was given by the Governing

Body of the Federation to a draft, previously circulated, of its Constitution and important decisions were taken ... The following version, which is still subject to minor alteration, was agreed on the last day of the conference by Mrs. Sanger and Lady Rama Rau, whb had earlier been unanimously elected president and chairman respectively of the Federation: Federation's Aims... 3. To stimulate appropriate scientific research in the following subjects: The biological, demographic, social, economic and eugenic implications of human fertility and its control.

Methods of contraception.

— The Eugenics Review. 55(3)

As a reputable science, eugenics provided the birth control movement with an authoritative language through which to legitimate ... Sanger appropiated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control as a tool of racial health. Both advocates of birth control amd eugenicists were "seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." However, as she also pointed out, eugenecists and birth control advocates put "emphasis uppon different methods." ... The second half of the chapter asseses the benefit and costs of eugenical alliance to the birth control movement...

— Carole Ruth McCann. Birth control politics in the United States, 1916-1945. Cornell University Press. p. 100.

In a variety of ways eugenics gave scientific credence to the movement's insistence that contraception should be included within the terrain of public health. Eugenics supplied the tools by which the movement could potentially overcome public resistance to birth control. It provided the ideological ground upon which to contest the principle that the rate of reproduction was "Gos's will." ... However, eugenic carried greater legitimacy than psychoanalysis, ... and while Sanger never abandoned psychoanalytic sexual theory, she relied more heavely on the language of eugenics to legitimate contraception.

— Carole Ruth McCann. Birth control politics in the United States, 1916-1945. Cornell University Press. pp. 122–123.

The politics of population: birth control and the eugenics movement. Abstract: The birth control movement and the population control movement became inseparable in people's minds during the early years of the birth control movement, led by Margaret Sanger in 1915. Emma Goldman and Margaret Sanger defied obscenity laws by disseminating information on contraception. The birth control movement was concerned with individual choice and reproductive self determination. Population control referred to a large-scale social policy of limiting births throughout a whole society or in certain groups for the purpose of changing economic, ecological and/or political conditions. Population control ideas were dominated by eugenics and marred by racism and nativism in the United States. Unfortunately, eugenic ideas and population control were often confused with birth control, especially by poor, lower class women.

— Gordon, Radic Am. 1974;8(4):61-98.

My analysis finds that Sanger used the following frames to justify the legalization of birth control: eugenic, alleviation of social problems, democratic, feminist, maternalist, and enhancement of marriage and parenthood.

— Controlling human weeds and liberating womankind: Margaret Sanger's use of frames in the rhetoric of the American birth control movement. MB Slusar - 2000 - Ohio state University.

Thanks for providing these sources. The latter three do not mention Planned Parenthood at all (although they do discuss Margaret Sanger, the founder, but Sanger's article already includes a section on eugenics). The first source one does mention P.P., but it is about the International Planned Parenthood Federation, not the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to take a look on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was obviously part of the birth control movement, actually predecesor organizations of PP were called "...Birth Control...". Are you pretending, against each reliable source, to disengage PP history from Sanger, which it is not even done by the PP self? Are you pretending that the history of PP started when it was founded with that name (PP) and has nothing to do with the birth control and we must exclude its grounds and the history which led to its foundation? It also sounds a little bit absurd to disengage the International Planned Parenthood Federation from the Planned Parenthood, the mentioned aims adopted by the IPPF were decided for and binding to all the national PPs, being Sanger the president of both. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment from an uninvolved editor: No, get rid of it. There's no connection except through pointy cherrypicking or logic-chopping. bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment. The insertion is obviously inappropriate and politically motivated. Xanthoxyl 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguing the alleged motivations of an editor is not an appropiate reason and against WP:GOODFAITH policy. And solely claiming "obviously" is also inappropiate as RfC is not a voting per WP:RFC.

• Keep. By the logic in this discussion we should get rid of all references to American slavery. Whites don't own blacks now so it's not relevant. The link should stay. You can't whitewash your own history, no matter how much you want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the logic would be that we should add See also links to Slavery in every article about the founding fathers. Falcon8765 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude link Three of the quotes above deal with Sanger, rather than Planned Parenthood specifically. The remaining one doesn't show that PP actively engaged in eugenics. Including the link would be WP:Undue weight.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again: I suggest to take a look on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was obviously part of the birth control movement, actually predecesor organizations of PP were called "...Birth Control...". Are you pretending that the history of PP started when it was founded with that name (PP) and has nothing to do with the birth control and we must exclude its grounds and the history which led to its foundation? Are you pretending, against each reliable source, to disengage PP history from Sanger, which it is not even done by the PP self? It also sounds a little bit absurd to disengage the International Planned Parenthood Federation from the Planned Parenthood, the mentioned aims adopted by the IPPF were decided for and binding to all the national PPs there, being Sanger the president of both. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

About alleged WP:UNDUE (for a single link!!!):

"However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a matter of non-sense to pretend disengage Planned Parenthood history from Margaret Sanger (its founder), or pretend to disengage birth control movement history from Planned Parenthood history, or to disengage Planned Parenthood history from Iinternational Planned Parenthood Federation history and aims. Not even the PP self disengage itself from Sanger or from IPPF, as you claimed above in an attempt to disquilify some sources and quotes. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This overview of the US birth control movement reflects on the emergence of family planning policy due to the efforts of Margaret Sanger, feminists, and the civil rights movement, the eugenics motive to limit "deviant" populations, and the population control movement, which aims to solve social and economic problems through fertility control. Population control moved through three stages: from the cause of "voluntary motherhood" to advance suffrage and women's political and social status, to the concept of "birth control" promoted by socialist feminists to help empower women and the working class, to, from 1920 on, a liberal movement for civil rights and population control. Physicians such as Dr. Robert Latou Dickinson legitimized the movement in the formation of the Committee on Maternal Health in 1925, but the movement remained divided until 1939, when Sanger's group merged with the American Birth Control League, the predecessor of the present Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A key legal decision in 1939 in the United States v. One Package amended the Comstock Act and allowed for the distribution of birth control devices by mail to physicians. Sanger, after a brief retirement, formed the International Planned Parenthood Federation and supported research into the pill. Eugenicists through the Committee on Maternal Health supported Christopher Tietze and others developing the pill. Final constitutional access to contraception based on the right to privacy was granted in Griswold v. Connecticut. The ruling in Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972 extended this right to unmarried persons. The right to privacy was further extended in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 on legal abortion. The argument for improving the quality of the population remained from the formation of the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 through the 1960s. Under the leadership of Rockefeller, population control was defined as justified on a scientific and humanitarian basis. US government support for national and international family planning proceeded slowly through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Congress during 1967-70 enacted strong legislation in support of national and international family planning. The Bucharest conference in 1974 highlighted the inadequacies of international population control that deemphasized economic development. Polarization and divisiveness on population policy persists.

— Critchlow DT. J Policy Hist. 1995;7(1):1-21. Birth control, population control, and family planning: an overview.

So you are now trying to say that the birth control movement and eugenics are the same thing? They aren't. Falcon8765 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The quote itself separates the two. Yet more cherry picking. Falcon8765 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon, again stop putting words in my mouth and stop awarding to me false statements that clearly I heve not claimed at all. This is the third time I have to tell you to stop doing so. It is disruptive now. I am not arguing that eugenics are the same than birth control or the same than planned parenthood, but they are historically connected, they are related subjects. I have repeated it a lot of times and you have replied the same non-sense. Stop wasting our time and editing disruptively. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just calling it as I see it. It seems every opinion I have is disruptive. You said "non-sense to pretend disengage Planned Parenthood history from Margaret Sanger (its founder), or pretend to disengage birth control movement history from Planned Parenthood history, or to disengage Planned Parenthood history from Iinternational Planned Parenthood Federation history and aims", and then quote an abstract from a journalistic paper that only states the origins of Planned Parenthood has roots in the birth control movement. So, I don't think it's to much of a stretch to infer that you are either trying to imply the birth control movement is related enough to eugenics that we can use the above as a source for putting the see also link into the article, or you are misunderstanding the abstract. If that is disruptive, accuse away. Falcon8765 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not repeat to you the same thing again and agains and again. I suggest you to read and to think it over, again and again and again and all the times you need or want. If at the end you feel you did not get it yet, then we already read your point, so don't you worry. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, could you consider cutting back on the bold? It appears you're shouting. Jesanj (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep See all quoted and non-quoted sources. The link is useful for any one interested in investigate deeper into the topic. Planned Parenthood, birth control and eugenics are related subjects due referenced historical connections. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep keep link after establishing reason for link in the History section.Marauder40 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude, obviously. A context-free "See also" link gives the impression that PP is currently involved in eugenics, and the fact that this is what the people advocating it prefer, when I've suggested numerous times that they link it in-text in the history section, speaks volumes about their real motivation for wanting to include it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO you are able to add a brief annotation to contextualize the link. But given your arguments and that you whimsically want to solely delete the link, then it speaks loud about the real motivation to white wash the planned parenthood and birth control of its own history and historical grounds. Other users have noticed it as an obvious thing, given the overreaction for a single link. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusations about individual editor's motivations, and be civil. We're here to discuss this article not have a fight. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude - as per the comments above. The subject does not seem to be linked to eugenics in any important way and without context it reads like an unwarranted accusation. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude - the quotes above provide only a very indirect link, including it would mean putting an undue weight to it. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Reasonably related See also link per sources provided. – Lionel 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude What's next? Editing the article on art school to include See also:Adolf Hitler? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude. Why are we even having this discussion? This kind of thing is exactly why we have NPOV and UNDUE and other policies. It's so mindbogglingly obvious that we should not have this link that I think either some do not fully understand how Misplaced Pages works or are pushing an agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude - I'm an involved editor, but since other have commented, I guess it's Ok. Violates all sorts of POV and UNDUE guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude. This is a smear tactic against Planned Parenthood, not relevant or even tangential to that organization. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Include It is a relevant and notable part of Planned Parenthood's history. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis on eugenics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment