Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 8 August 2012

Film Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Conservatism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

CorenSearchBot

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

Lede Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda films category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New American

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

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

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

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

Disadvantaged

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sentence about ignorance

ClaudioSantos removed the following text in this edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biased POV edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have opened a DRN, located HERE.

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

Frank Carlson, Metropulse

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

• Start-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles