Hi Rohan. You are right, Wikipedia is a place for facts, not to burnish someone's reputation, and yes, Fred Jaffe was my father. So let's stick to facts. The phrase you inserted. " The report was prepared in behalf of Planned Parenthood's Population Education Staff Committee as a basis for discussion of and action on the U.S. population problem by the Planned Parenthood national organization" does not appear in the memo we are discussing. Furthermore, if you read the memo, you would see that my father was listing all those methods to show that they were illegal, immoral, ineffective or just plain dumb. Do you really think that he and/or Planned Parenthood would "encourage increased homosexuality" as a means of population control? In the spirit of "nothing but the facts" I will accept your removal of the word "erroneously". The memo is there for all to read and come to their own conclusions. Dave Jaffe <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DaveJaffe|DaveJaffe]] ([[User talk:DaveJaffe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DaveJaffe|contribs]]) 04:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hi Rohan. You are right, Wikipedia is a place for facts, not to burnish someone's reputation, and yes, Fred Jaffe was my father. So let's stick to facts. The phrase you inserted. " The report was prepared in behalf of Planned Parenthood's Population Education Staff Committee as a basis for discussion of and action on the U.S. population problem by the Planned Parenthood national organization" does not appear in the memo we are discussing. Furthermore, if you read the memo, you would see that my father was listing all those methods to show that they were illegal, immoral, ineffective or just plain dumb. Do you really think that he and/or Planned Parenthood would "encourage increased homosexuality" as a means of population control? In the spirit of "nothing but the facts" I will accept your removal of the word "erroneously". The memo is there for all to read and come to their own conclusions. Dave Jaffe <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DaveJaffe|DaveJaffe]] ([[User talk:DaveJaffe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DaveJaffe|contribs]]) 04:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''
You finally arrive! Several things here.''' First of all, you're right, that snipped I was posting was not actually from Jaffe's memo. It is from the "U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature." This article also cites the table (and Jaffe's memo). I think the confusion stems from the note from the Rockefeller archivist who lists the Elliot, Landman, Lincoln Tsouroka piece. It is the Elliot piece that specifically says "The report was prepared in behalf of Planned Parenthood's Population Education Staff Committee as a basis for discussion of and action on the U.S. population problem by the Planned Parenthood national organization." The archivist conflates the two memos, and it appears that the jaffememo.com site followed suit on that point. I will follow up with that site so the author of it can fix that.
However, your characterization that your father is merely "listing those methods" to show that they were "illegal, immoral, ineffective, or just plain dumb" is nonetheless completely false, and, having read the full memorandum myself, and now scanning it again, that much is obvious. There is no hint at all that he found them 'dumb.' Instead, he says quite the opposite, that 'more study' is needed. For example, when considering 'free social services' such as 'Maternal and Child Medical Care' and 'Compulsory Public education Through High School' (page 3), he does not reject it out of hand. Instead he says, these ideas, rather than being 'pro-natalist', "In fact, areas and nations providing more free social services appear, on superficial analysis, to have lower fertility..." and he NEVER repudiates that idea. Instead, he urges more study: "the influence or lack of influence of these services on fertility should be established."
Further down on page 3, he again states, "A definitive empirical study is needed of the fertility outcome of family allowance programs". Several sentences later, "A definitive empirical study is also needed of the specific variant in this area -- [namely FDC mothers]." No mention that any of these ideas are "illegal, immoral, ineffective, or just plain dumb." They just need further study... which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
If you want, I can update the entry to show all of the things that your father wanted further study for. ;)
Can you give me even one quote from the full memorandum to justify your characterization?
It's important, because you say you want people to make up their own minds, but actually you are slanting it heavily by insinuating that your dad listed those ideas only to repudiate them, which is a complete lie. Unless you have other documents to show otherwise.
But a strong counter argument still exists for the opposite, and I can see why the "this report was prepared" by thing got conflated. Your dad was vice-president of Planned Parenthood-World Population. Robin Elliot is listed as a "Program Planning Analyst of Planned Parenthood-World Population." Your dad's table was repeated in a document clearly listed as providing ideas for action BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and the guy writing the document WORKED FOR YOUR DAD and produced the document in his official capacity, in your DAD's DEPARTMENT.
Now, ironically, where your dad did not actually describe any ideas as 'dumb', to be fair, the Elliot piece does. But it is frankly undeniable that Planned Parenthood, under the direction of your father, was considering a wide range of population control measures. If this entry does not reflect that truth, then it is only propaganda. [[Special:Contributions/96.61.7.169|96.61.7.169]] ([[User talk:96.61.7.169|talk]]) 13:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was accepted on 12 August 2013 by reviewer DGG (talk·contribs).
DaveJaffe. While it is understandable why you would not want certain information posted about F. Jaffe, the information that is being entered is incontrovertible. The actual memorandum says what it says. It is also incontrovertible that Jaffe and Berelson worked together on the 1972 Rockefeller Commission Report, which, again, undeniably called for at least some of the proposals listed in the full memorandum. -- Rohan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.7.169 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Jaffe. You appear to be engaging in an edit war, and have a clear conflict of interest against having information unflattering about your father/grandfather be posted, but Wikipedia is supposed to be about providing information, not burnishing reputations. Please provide an explanation for your reverts or else I will be forced to push this up the wiki chain. Rohan - 96.61.7.169 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, perhaps you are unaware of the protocol for dealing with edits you don't approve of. Simply reverting them is not part of the protocol. This is Wiki's standard warning:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hi Rohan. You are right, Wikipedia is a place for facts, not to burnish someone's reputation, and yes, Fred Jaffe was my father. So let's stick to facts. The phrase you inserted. " The report was prepared in behalf of Planned Parenthood's Population Education Staff Committee as a basis for discussion of and action on the U.S. population problem by the Planned Parenthood national organization" does not appear in the memo we are discussing. Furthermore, if you read the memo, you would see that my father was listing all those methods to show that they were illegal, immoral, ineffective or just plain dumb. Do you really think that he and/or Planned Parenthood would "encourage increased homosexuality" as a means of population control? In the spirit of "nothing but the facts" I will accept your removal of the word "erroneously". The memo is there for all to read and come to their own conclusions. Dave Jaffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJaffe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You finally arrive! Several things here. First of all, you're right, that snipped I was posting was not actually from Jaffe's memo. It is from the "U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature." This article also cites the table (and Jaffe's memo). I think the confusion stems from the note from the Rockefeller archivist who lists the Elliot, Landman, Lincoln Tsouroka piece. It is the Elliot piece that specifically says "The report was prepared in behalf of Planned Parenthood's Population Education Staff Committee as a basis for discussion of and action on the U.S. population problem by the Planned Parenthood national organization." The archivist conflates the two memos, and it appears that the jaffememo.com site followed suit on that point. I will follow up with that site so the author of it can fix that.[reply]
However, your characterization that your father is merely "listing those methods" to show that they were "illegal, immoral, ineffective, or just plain dumb" is nonetheless completely false, and, having read the full memorandum myself, and now scanning it again, that much is obvious. There is no hint at all that he found them 'dumb.' Instead, he says quite the opposite, that 'more study' is needed. For example, when considering 'free social services' such as 'Maternal and Child Medical Care' and 'Compulsory Public education Through High School' (page 3), he does not reject it out of hand. Instead he says, these ideas, rather than being 'pro-natalist', "In fact, areas and nations providing more free social services appear, on superficial analysis, to have lower fertility..." and he NEVER repudiates that idea. Instead, he urges more study: "the influence or lack of influence of these services on fertility should be established."
Further down on page 3, he again states, "A definitive empirical study is needed of the fertility outcome of family allowance programs". Several sentences later, "A definitive empirical study is also needed of the specific variant in this area -- [namely FDC mothers]." No mention that any of these ideas are "illegal, immoral, ineffective, or just plain dumb." They just need further study... which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
If you want, I can update the entry to show all of the things that your father wanted further study for. ;)
Can you give me even one quote from the full memorandum to justify your characterization?
It's important, because you say you want people to make up their own minds, but actually you are slanting it heavily by insinuating that your dad listed those ideas only to repudiate them, which is a complete lie. Unless you have other documents to show otherwise.
But a strong counter argument still exists for the opposite, and I can see why the "this report was prepared" by thing got conflated. Your dad was vice-president of Planned Parenthood-World Population. Robin Elliot is listed as a "Program Planning Analyst of Planned Parenthood-World Population." Your dad's table was repeated in a document clearly listed as providing ideas for action BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and the guy writing the document WORKED FOR YOUR DAD and produced the document in his official capacity, in your DAD's DEPARTMENT.
Now, ironically, where your dad did not actually describe any ideas as 'dumb', to be fair, the Elliot piece does. But it is frankly undeniable that Planned Parenthood, under the direction of your father, was considering a wide range of population control measures. If this entry does not reflect that truth, then it is only propaganda. 96.61.7.169 (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
