This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frederick S. Jaffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I am inquiring why my recent edit to the page concerning the Jaffe memo was reverted by Doniago, apparently for not being a "reliable source." But all I did was quote from the memo itself, to list the points given in the controversial appendix table. How could the memo itself not be a reliable source for an article discussing it??
I welcome discussion on this matter.
~MR — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosbyRedux1865 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
96.61.7.169 ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Rohan, my father was actually making a case *against* a government population control policy, in favor of letting families voluntary choose their family size: "The hypothesis ... is that the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far toward achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S. population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms." He then raises a series of questions that would need to be asked of any policy proposals regarding the effectiveness or fairness of these proposals *if* voluntary family planning was deemed insufficient to reduce fertility to replacement levels. The table is to illustrate the question of who the proposal would affect.
His questions at the end (Do we need one - and if so, how soon? Is the anticipated gain worth the likely cost?) indicate he clearly indicated that he felt that voluntary family planning was sufficient and that any other policies were untenable.
Now, you may differ in your interpretation, and you may disagree with his viewpoint, but, as you pointed out, Wikipedia is for facts, not interpretation. My purpose in adding this paragraph to the bio was to provide a link to the original memo and let people decide for themselves. Feel free to post your interpretation elsewhere on the Internet, not here. Dave DaveJaffe ( talk) 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Look Rohan if you want to rehash the family planning/population policy debates of 40+ years ago create your own page or use the existing Wikipedia page: /info/en/?search=Human_population_planning. This section of Frederick Jaffe's bio treats one memo and really just one table within that memo. All we know about the table is this: "The attached table attempts a rough sorting of the principal measures discussed, according to whether their impact would be universal or selective." Period. Full stop. It doesn't endorse or denounce any of them. That is a fact. Everything else you write about it is your interpretation or speculation. Again, do you really think he endorsed encouraging increased homosexuality?
As for repeatedly reverting edits we are both guilty of that. I'm not concerned about a fair review of this. Your use of the word "defender" is highly subjective. Your link to a page entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page" is certainly not the objective source that Wikipedia requires (and note the "single page" - you are talking about the table). And why do you remain anonymous? DaveJaffe ( talk) 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous you can't "defend" a table any more than you can defend a table of baseball batting averages. I have created a PDF of the memo per your suggestion so there is no longer any need for your links. I have asked Donner60 how to engage someone to help us settle this. DaveJaffe ( talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you are completely misrepresenting both the memorandum and the controversy. It makes sense that you would do that because of your admitted conflict of interest, but it doesn't make it right. When you say "it is just a table" what you are really saying is, "In my opinion, it is just a table." Your idea of 'letting people make up their own minds' without linking to people who have a critical viewpoint essentially turns this entry into a propaganda piece, ensuring that only one side of the debate is heard, and implying that only one side of the debate has a legitimate point. Again, understandable that the son of a vice-president of Planned Parenthood would want to do that, but not by any stretch of the imagination 'objective.' I look forward to kicking this up to the Wikigods. -- Rohan Rides Again 75.100.3.186 ( talk) 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rohan, I have appealed this to the Third Opinion process. You may make your case here.
My father, Frederick S. Jaffe, was a Planned Parenthood Vice President who in 1969 wrote a memo to a colleague listing a series of questions that would need to be asked about any population policy proposals. To illustrate one question regarding selectivity of impact in the U.S., he created a table of many of the current proposals of the time, from many sources (with attribution) and ranked them on that criteria. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have seized upon that table to claim that, by not denouncing some of the options, Planned Parenthood in fact supported such policies as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies". They ignore the fact that the table also includes such wacky ideas as "Encourage increased homosexuality" and "Chronic Depression". Again, most of these proposals came from sources outside of Planned Parenthood.
The gist of what Rohan and others are attempting to add to this page is circumstantial evidence tying Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to such policies and including a link to a a page entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". He/they further have added information about the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (of which Jaffe was one of nine consultants) without any original citations, relying on a single quote from Jaffe that can be interpreted in many ways.
Rohan and I disagree on three key points:
I would like the wording changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo
Thank you, DaveJaffe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, User:Doniago is correct that Third Opinion does not apply because there are more than two editors involved. On the other hand, I will offer an opinion, not as a 3O volunteer, but simply as an editor. First, User:DaveJaffe should not be edited the article at all, but should be requesting edits on the talk page. Second, the above discussion is nearly incomprehensible because of its length. See too long, didn't read (and I mostly didn't), and walls of text. Concise arguments are almost always more persuasive than very long ones. Third, I would suggest that the next step may be either moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. In either case, it would be advisable to keep the arguments concise. DRN volunteers will tell participants to be civil and concise. In an RFC, if the introductory question isn't short and to the point, the RFC is a waste. (There is often lengthy and tedious discussion after the question for an RFC that is ignored, but the question must be concise.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Doniago, Robert McClenon: The Third Opinion page states that "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation". It's hard to tell since the other editor here is anonymous but most of the changes have been made by someone who identifies him/herself as "Rohan" in the Talk page. Yes there is a lot of talk on this page but I believe I have summarized my case concisely in the section immediately above. I would like to resubmit for a Third Opinion. Thanks, DaveJaffe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not just tell the man to try compromising? He wants to be the sole and final arbiter of what appears on this page, just because it concerns his father. That's the bottom line. Tell him to stop it. RohanRidesAgain ( talk) 23:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
PediaWikiMaster ( talk) 01:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Doniago,
Robert McClenon, thanks for your help. I have submitted this to DRN per your suggestion.
DaveJaffe (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
As the author of the site that Rohan has been linking to, I have to say that I am finding this debate very entertaining. I'm not going to participate in the discussion, but I did want to say a few words in defense of my site as a source to be linked to.
There is no other site on the web that provides as much information about the Jaffe Memo as mine. Not only did I carefully re-construct the table itself, but I also tracked down nearly all of the sources that Frederick Jaffe referred to, and I provided links to them. If someone really wanted people to be able to make up their own minds, it isn't only the memorandum that needs to be read, but also the sources that Jaffe was synthesizing is critical. My site has those sources. No other site does.
There are probably a hundred sites that are critical of the 'Jaffe Memo.' Look into it, and you will see none that have the number of primary sources and research specifically on the memo that I provide.
I agree with Rohan that DaveJaffe misrepresents what the actual debate is, but I want to be clear about the purpose of my site. I clearly say on the home page: "Whether or not they were implemented because of the advocacy of Planned Parenthood’s ‘Population Control’ division (Frederick Jaffe being in charge of that division), is not the concern of this site."
The goal of my site is not to nail Frederick Jaffe so much as it is to expose the entire population control paradigm, of which I'm afraid to say, the any objective review of the FACTS show Jaffe was immersed in.
The Jaffe 'memo' provides a handy, one-page illustration of all the different kinds of things that people were discussing at the time--both inside and outside of Planned Parenthood. It is not a question of "rehashing the family planning/population policy debates of 40+ years ago", as DaveJaffe puts it. It is about being honest about just what those debates were, which is the whole point of the the memo in the first place. To deny this is to completely skew the record. 'Propaganda,' I think, was the word.
The word Rohan used was 'sanitizing.' That's exactly what DaveJaffe is trying to do.
As an olive branch to DaveJaffe, I will happily let you write a response which I will post to my site. If you had other primary sources (which according to you will exonerate your father), we could upload them to the site, too. Send me a message through Wikipedia. I don't mind having the record 'straight.' It's the whole point of my site.
(Rohan, you may contact me, too. I have more material which has not yet made it to the site.)
Thanks,
Anthony Horvath, PhD AnthAthan ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)— AnthAthan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Anthony, since you're here, why not stick around?
This is from something you quote (www.jaffememo.com/excerpt-from-piotrows-world-population-crisis-re-jaffe/156.htm) on your site:
In November 1967 the sociologist Kingsley Davis rocked the family planning world with a forceful article in Science magazine insisting that family planning could not solve the population problem.
Motivation, not birth control, was the critical factor, he argued. Motivation depended not on contraceptives or on family planning as he narrowly defined it, but rather on laws, customs, and social policies that in most countries still encouraged childbearing.
Many of the population activists were horrified. Planned Parenthood came down firmly on the side of family planning. As Fred Jaffe put it, the sociologists’ stress on motivation or in the United States on the "culture of poverty" was a "cop-out" to excuse the fact that family planning was still not easily accessible for poor disadvantaged women and that social services were still inhibited in making it available.
In what way are Davis and Jaffe on the same side of this debate? Paul Jaffe (oldest son of Frederick S. Jaffe) PaulJaffe ( talk) 17:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Per ThePlatypusofDoom and Robert McClenon I am requesting that this page be reverted to my edits of 18:42, 7 May 2016. Thank you, DaveJaffe ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this matter was handled through the Dispute Resolution procedure, as if there were only 2 people involved. I weighed in on this and agreed that Rohan's version more accurately explained the controversy. Denying both sides the ability to include factual information, per my suggestion, is unfair and clearly shows bias in favor of the original post. PediaWikiMaster ( talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)— PediaWikiMaster ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
(PS, I do think it was a good move to put the abortion warning on this article.) AnthAthan ( talk) 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Two admins not involved in this dispute have found that your and Rohan and PediaWikiMaster's interpretation of the memo is WP:FRINGE. For the record, I was not involved in creating those 3 pages. They appear to be copies of this page. I was not even aware of them until now. DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. That's all I have to say about all this. My eyes glazed over reviewing the conversation. I tried to contribute to the DRN and was told to 'wait.' Well. My time ran out and I couldn't. Now I will probably have to wait for the fall term to start, unless I get lucky. But I don't even know what I would be allowed to do. We run every thing by the son of Frederick Jaffe from here on out, then? I'm just reserving the right to return to this when I get a chance. As far as I'm concerned, the entry as it stands completely misrepresents the controversy. Better to delete all mention to it at all if you aren't going to do it fairly. And by fairly I mean at minimum the man's son shouldn't be the one writing it. Shouldn't there be a neutrality message on the site now, since it is 100% written by him?
For anyone else who comes along in the meantime, please know I stand by my statement that if the 'defenders say' something then you should actually make sure the reader of the entry knows what it is the DEFENDERS say and what the CRITICS say. Right now, its just revisionism.
Very sad. Wow. Just wow.
Out for now. RohanRidesAgain ( talk) 02:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed this bit
"In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced. In fact, the table was a listing of current proposals, with sources documented, not the policies of Planned Parenthood. citation needed
The original memo is available online. [1]"
References
because there were no secondary WP:RS, and the WP:PRIMARY source wasn't that excellent either (Google Drive can be any sort of prank). So, what secondary WP:RS are there? "On the Internet" is not the same as "Should be included on WP." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång This was extensively litigated in 2016. I was supported by User:keri, User:ThePlatypusofDoom and User:Robert McClenon. See above. Why do we have to go through this again? DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång First of all, I obtained a copy of the original memo directly from Planned Parenthood, scanned it and put it on my own Google Drive for everyone to see. No one has ever contested the authenticity of it. Nothing has changed regarding a memo that is 51 years old and from a person who has been dead 42 years in the four years since it was extensively litigated and the wording I had was approved. DonIago's edit are just a rehash of an old conspiracy theory intended to claim Planned Parenthood supports "encouraging homosexuality" and "compulsory sterilization", which, if you read the original memo, with its attributions of where these suggestions come from, is laughable. If you or DonIago need to waste everyone's time by re-litigating this please restore the page to its pre-December 10 version while the litigation is underway. User:ThePlatypusofDoom and User:Robert McClenon, please help me again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJaffe ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I apologize if I misunderstood the instructions. The Talk page had a big Locked notice on it (which apparently was changed today) so I assumed that the content discussed at length four years ago on the Talk page was also locked. I won't do any more editing and I'll ask my brother Rick not to as well, but I think my request is reasonable to re-establish the page as of Dec 10 while we have the whole discussion over again, which it appears these folks are requesting. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I've checked for sources, and the closest to
WP:RS I've come up with is
I'm assuming noone is going to argue that jaffememo.com is a WP:RS, but the interested can find a Jaffe memo article on Conservapedia. So in conclusion and in summary, I think my removal was quite reasonable. But of course there may be other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Some research here [5] [6] may pay off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon We made some small revisions to the text of the Jaffe Memo section and found the required sources. Please make these changes for us. Also, can you remove the "citation needed" next to his birth and death years in the first paragraph? Other Wikipedia pages don't seem to require such citations. Thanks for your help!
The Jaffe Memo
In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced.
In fact, the table was a listing of then-current proposals, with sources documented; and with further sourcing provided in a concurrent piece by Berelson [9]. They do not represent the thinking of Jaffe [10] in his capacity as a Planned Parenthood official.
The original memo is available online.[11]
[9] Berelson, B. "Beyond Family Planning," Science 1969 Feb 7; 163 (3867) 533-543. Also in: Studies in Family Planning 1969 Feb; 1 (38) 1-16. https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Biblio/Eprints/%20A-C/berelson.1969.beyond.FP.Studies.in.FP.pdf
[10] Jaffe, FS. "A Strategy for Implementing Family Planning Services in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 1968 Apr; 58 (4) 713–725. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228383/pdf/amjphnation00060-0099.pdf
DaveJaffe (
talk)
06:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
DonIago We are trying to find an online source for the birth year but the Washington Post obituary you referenced lists his age from which you can work backwards. Is that good enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång The memo was written in 1968, thus the supporting documents are from that time. Robert McClenon Please remove "In recent years a" from my requested update to the page. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
DonIago Okay, we found a reference to his birth year: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n80062919.html Robert McClenon Please add. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon We did a lot of additional research and have come up with new wording for the Jaffe Memo section that we think will satisfy
Gråbergs Gråa Sång's requirement for documentation of the controversy around the memo, going back to the early 70s. We even found a letter from Jaffe to Senator Alan Cranston from 1973, clarifying that neither he nor Planned Parenthood endorsed the proposals in the table. Please add the following text to the Frederick S. Jaffe page:
The "Jaffe Memo"
A 1969 memorandum written by Jaffe has been a subject of controversy for most of its existence.
The memo, requested by Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that compiled and classified a list of then-current ideas -- from various quarters -- of how to achieve population control. The table, referring back to the memo, was then added to an extensively-sourced 1970 review [10] that analyzed these proposals.
This published version of the table was then detached from the review, reprinted and publicized [11] by a third party, and presented as the memo itself.
Over the years, other parties have followed suit. In this form, the table -- dubbed the Jaffe-Berelson Memorandum [12] or simply the Jaffe Memo [13] -- has been widely circulated. It has been cited to accuse Jaffe -- and by extension, Planned Parenthood -- of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions or sterilizations.
Despite these claims, the coercive items listed in the table did not represent the advocacy [14,15] or the thinking [16] of Jaffe; or his work [17] as an official of Planned Parenthood.
Of the controversy, Jaffe stated that "the memorandum makes clear that neither I nor the Planned Parenthood Federation of America advocates any of the specific proposals embodied in the table which go beyond voluntary actions of individual couples to space and limit births." [14,15]
In the memo itself, Jaffe suggests that "the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far to achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S. population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms." (p. 4)
The original memo is available online [18] or in the report [19] of a 1973 congressional hearing.
[10] Elliott R, Landman LC, Lincoln R, Tsuoroka T. "U. S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature," Family Planning Perspectives 1970 October; 2 (4) ii-xvi. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a52c/118d2c3bb441cf61d6aed353eacbf0815382.pdf
[11] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; pp. 199-200.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
[12] Oversight of Family Planning Programs, 1981: Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, on Examination on the Role of the Federal Government in Birth Control, Abortion Referral, and Sex Education Programs, March 31, 1981; pp. 119, 124.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Oversight_of_Family_Planning_Programs_19/cOpJP083dv0C
[13] A Tale of Multiple Versions.
http://jaffememo.com/a-tale-of-multiple-versions
[14] Letter to Senator Alan Cranston, June 8, 1973.
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1l6BBERmuFQ-Q-ZT8An2M-pf3f7OTND-S/view
[15] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; p. 492.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
[16] Brody JE. “Experts Agree on Overpopulation Peril, but Disagree Sharply on Remedies,” New York Times 1974 June 21.
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/21/archives/experts-agree-on-overpopulation-peril-but-disagree-sharply-on.html
[17] Jaffe FS. "A Strategy for Implementing Family Planning Services in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 1968 April; 58 (4) 713–725.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228383/pdf/amjphnation00060-0099.pdf
[18] “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States.”
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KCqtNShmxgYTA1REcxai1OME0/view
[19] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; pp. 493-501.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Neighborhood Review Thanks for cleaning up the formatting. Would you please post the above section (I'm not allowed to since the subject is my father)? Thanks, Dave Jaffe DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Neighborhood Review Thanks again for cleaning up the formatting. Are you still planning on posting the Jaffe Memo section? Thanks, Dave Jaffe DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Jaffe conceived these radical suggestions and submitted them for approval. He was prepared to push them further if the other methods he suggested failed. 2601:245:4680:1836:29D3:DD7D:8A45:9ACA ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frederick S. Jaffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I am inquiring why my recent edit to the page concerning the Jaffe memo was reverted by Doniago, apparently for not being a "reliable source." But all I did was quote from the memo itself, to list the points given in the controversial appendix table. How could the memo itself not be a reliable source for an article discussing it??
I welcome discussion on this matter.
~MR — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosbyRedux1865 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
96.61.7.169 ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Rohan, my father was actually making a case *against* a government population control policy, in favor of letting families voluntary choose their family size: "The hypothesis ... is that the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far toward achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S. population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms." He then raises a series of questions that would need to be asked of any policy proposals regarding the effectiveness or fairness of these proposals *if* voluntary family planning was deemed insufficient to reduce fertility to replacement levels. The table is to illustrate the question of who the proposal would affect.
His questions at the end (Do we need one - and if so, how soon? Is the anticipated gain worth the likely cost?) indicate he clearly indicated that he felt that voluntary family planning was sufficient and that any other policies were untenable.
Now, you may differ in your interpretation, and you may disagree with his viewpoint, but, as you pointed out, Wikipedia is for facts, not interpretation. My purpose in adding this paragraph to the bio was to provide a link to the original memo and let people decide for themselves. Feel free to post your interpretation elsewhere on the Internet, not here. Dave DaveJaffe ( talk) 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Look Rohan if you want to rehash the family planning/population policy debates of 40+ years ago create your own page or use the existing Wikipedia page: /info/en/?search=Human_population_planning. This section of Frederick Jaffe's bio treats one memo and really just one table within that memo. All we know about the table is this: "The attached table attempts a rough sorting of the principal measures discussed, according to whether their impact would be universal or selective." Period. Full stop. It doesn't endorse or denounce any of them. That is a fact. Everything else you write about it is your interpretation or speculation. Again, do you really think he endorsed encouraging increased homosexuality?
As for repeatedly reverting edits we are both guilty of that. I'm not concerned about a fair review of this. Your use of the word "defender" is highly subjective. Your link to a page entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page" is certainly not the objective source that Wikipedia requires (and note the "single page" - you are talking about the table). And why do you remain anonymous? DaveJaffe ( talk) 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous you can't "defend" a table any more than you can defend a table of baseball batting averages. I have created a PDF of the memo per your suggestion so there is no longer any need for your links. I have asked Donner60 how to engage someone to help us settle this. DaveJaffe ( talk) 18:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you are completely misrepresenting both the memorandum and the controversy. It makes sense that you would do that because of your admitted conflict of interest, but it doesn't make it right. When you say "it is just a table" what you are really saying is, "In my opinion, it is just a table." Your idea of 'letting people make up their own minds' without linking to people who have a critical viewpoint essentially turns this entry into a propaganda piece, ensuring that only one side of the debate is heard, and implying that only one side of the debate has a legitimate point. Again, understandable that the son of a vice-president of Planned Parenthood would want to do that, but not by any stretch of the imagination 'objective.' I look forward to kicking this up to the Wikigods. -- Rohan Rides Again 75.100.3.186 ( talk) 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rohan, I have appealed this to the Third Opinion process. You may make your case here.
My father, Frederick S. Jaffe, was a Planned Parenthood Vice President who in 1969 wrote a memo to a colleague listing a series of questions that would need to be asked about any population policy proposals. To illustrate one question regarding selectivity of impact in the U.S., he created a table of many of the current proposals of the time, from many sources (with attribution) and ranked them on that criteria. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have seized upon that table to claim that, by not denouncing some of the options, Planned Parenthood in fact supported such policies as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies". They ignore the fact that the table also includes such wacky ideas as "Encourage increased homosexuality" and "Chronic Depression". Again, most of these proposals came from sources outside of Planned Parenthood.
The gist of what Rohan and others are attempting to add to this page is circumstantial evidence tying Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to such policies and including a link to a a page entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". He/they further have added information about the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (of which Jaffe was one of nine consultants) without any original citations, relying on a single quote from Jaffe that can be interpreted in many ways.
Rohan and I disagree on three key points:
I would like the wording changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo
Thank you, DaveJaffe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, User:Doniago is correct that Third Opinion does not apply because there are more than two editors involved. On the other hand, I will offer an opinion, not as a 3O volunteer, but simply as an editor. First, User:DaveJaffe should not be edited the article at all, but should be requesting edits on the talk page. Second, the above discussion is nearly incomprehensible because of its length. See too long, didn't read (and I mostly didn't), and walls of text. Concise arguments are almost always more persuasive than very long ones. Third, I would suggest that the next step may be either moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. In either case, it would be advisable to keep the arguments concise. DRN volunteers will tell participants to be civil and concise. In an RFC, if the introductory question isn't short and to the point, the RFC is a waste. (There is often lengthy and tedious discussion after the question for an RFC that is ignored, but the question must be concise.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Doniago, Robert McClenon: The Third Opinion page states that "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation". It's hard to tell since the other editor here is anonymous but most of the changes have been made by someone who identifies him/herself as "Rohan" in the Talk page. Yes there is a lot of talk on this page but I believe I have summarized my case concisely in the section immediately above. I would like to resubmit for a Third Opinion. Thanks, DaveJaffe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not just tell the man to try compromising? He wants to be the sole and final arbiter of what appears on this page, just because it concerns his father. That's the bottom line. Tell him to stop it. RohanRidesAgain ( talk) 23:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
PediaWikiMaster ( talk) 01:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Doniago,
Robert McClenon, thanks for your help. I have submitted this to DRN per your suggestion.
DaveJaffe (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
As the author of the site that Rohan has been linking to, I have to say that I am finding this debate very entertaining. I'm not going to participate in the discussion, but I did want to say a few words in defense of my site as a source to be linked to.
There is no other site on the web that provides as much information about the Jaffe Memo as mine. Not only did I carefully re-construct the table itself, but I also tracked down nearly all of the sources that Frederick Jaffe referred to, and I provided links to them. If someone really wanted people to be able to make up their own minds, it isn't only the memorandum that needs to be read, but also the sources that Jaffe was synthesizing is critical. My site has those sources. No other site does.
There are probably a hundred sites that are critical of the 'Jaffe Memo.' Look into it, and you will see none that have the number of primary sources and research specifically on the memo that I provide.
I agree with Rohan that DaveJaffe misrepresents what the actual debate is, but I want to be clear about the purpose of my site. I clearly say on the home page: "Whether or not they were implemented because of the advocacy of Planned Parenthood’s ‘Population Control’ division (Frederick Jaffe being in charge of that division), is not the concern of this site."
The goal of my site is not to nail Frederick Jaffe so much as it is to expose the entire population control paradigm, of which I'm afraid to say, the any objective review of the FACTS show Jaffe was immersed in.
The Jaffe 'memo' provides a handy, one-page illustration of all the different kinds of things that people were discussing at the time--both inside and outside of Planned Parenthood. It is not a question of "rehashing the family planning/population policy debates of 40+ years ago", as DaveJaffe puts it. It is about being honest about just what those debates were, which is the whole point of the the memo in the first place. To deny this is to completely skew the record. 'Propaganda,' I think, was the word.
The word Rohan used was 'sanitizing.' That's exactly what DaveJaffe is trying to do.
As an olive branch to DaveJaffe, I will happily let you write a response which I will post to my site. If you had other primary sources (which according to you will exonerate your father), we could upload them to the site, too. Send me a message through Wikipedia. I don't mind having the record 'straight.' It's the whole point of my site.
(Rohan, you may contact me, too. I have more material which has not yet made it to the site.)
Thanks,
Anthony Horvath, PhD AnthAthan ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)— AnthAthan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Anthony, since you're here, why not stick around?
This is from something you quote (www.jaffememo.com/excerpt-from-piotrows-world-population-crisis-re-jaffe/156.htm) on your site:
In November 1967 the sociologist Kingsley Davis rocked the family planning world with a forceful article in Science magazine insisting that family planning could not solve the population problem.
Motivation, not birth control, was the critical factor, he argued. Motivation depended not on contraceptives or on family planning as he narrowly defined it, but rather on laws, customs, and social policies that in most countries still encouraged childbearing.
Many of the population activists were horrified. Planned Parenthood came down firmly on the side of family planning. As Fred Jaffe put it, the sociologists’ stress on motivation or in the United States on the "culture of poverty" was a "cop-out" to excuse the fact that family planning was still not easily accessible for poor disadvantaged women and that social services were still inhibited in making it available.
In what way are Davis and Jaffe on the same side of this debate? Paul Jaffe (oldest son of Frederick S. Jaffe) PaulJaffe ( talk) 17:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Per ThePlatypusofDoom and Robert McClenon I am requesting that this page be reverted to my edits of 18:42, 7 May 2016. Thank you, DaveJaffe ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this matter was handled through the Dispute Resolution procedure, as if there were only 2 people involved. I weighed in on this and agreed that Rohan's version more accurately explained the controversy. Denying both sides the ability to include factual information, per my suggestion, is unfair and clearly shows bias in favor of the original post. PediaWikiMaster ( talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)— PediaWikiMaster ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
(PS, I do think it was a good move to put the abortion warning on this article.) AnthAthan ( talk) 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Two admins not involved in this dispute have found that your and Rohan and PediaWikiMaster's interpretation of the memo is WP:FRINGE. For the record, I was not involved in creating those 3 pages. They appear to be copies of this page. I was not even aware of them until now. DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. That's all I have to say about all this. My eyes glazed over reviewing the conversation. I tried to contribute to the DRN and was told to 'wait.' Well. My time ran out and I couldn't. Now I will probably have to wait for the fall term to start, unless I get lucky. But I don't even know what I would be allowed to do. We run every thing by the son of Frederick Jaffe from here on out, then? I'm just reserving the right to return to this when I get a chance. As far as I'm concerned, the entry as it stands completely misrepresents the controversy. Better to delete all mention to it at all if you aren't going to do it fairly. And by fairly I mean at minimum the man's son shouldn't be the one writing it. Shouldn't there be a neutrality message on the site now, since it is 100% written by him?
For anyone else who comes along in the meantime, please know I stand by my statement that if the 'defenders say' something then you should actually make sure the reader of the entry knows what it is the DEFENDERS say and what the CRITICS say. Right now, its just revisionism.
Very sad. Wow. Just wow.
Out for now. RohanRidesAgain ( talk) 02:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed this bit
"In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced. In fact, the table was a listing of current proposals, with sources documented, not the policies of Planned Parenthood. citation needed
The original memo is available online. [1]"
References
because there were no secondary WP:RS, and the WP:PRIMARY source wasn't that excellent either (Google Drive can be any sort of prank). So, what secondary WP:RS are there? "On the Internet" is not the same as "Should be included on WP." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång This was extensively litigated in 2016. I was supported by User:keri, User:ThePlatypusofDoom and User:Robert McClenon. See above. Why do we have to go through this again? DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång First of all, I obtained a copy of the original memo directly from Planned Parenthood, scanned it and put it on my own Google Drive for everyone to see. No one has ever contested the authenticity of it. Nothing has changed regarding a memo that is 51 years old and from a person who has been dead 42 years in the four years since it was extensively litigated and the wording I had was approved. DonIago's edit are just a rehash of an old conspiracy theory intended to claim Planned Parenthood supports "encouraging homosexuality" and "compulsory sterilization", which, if you read the original memo, with its attributions of where these suggestions come from, is laughable. If you or DonIago need to waste everyone's time by re-litigating this please restore the page to its pre-December 10 version while the litigation is underway. User:ThePlatypusofDoom and User:Robert McClenon, please help me again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJaffe ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I apologize if I misunderstood the instructions. The Talk page had a big Locked notice on it (which apparently was changed today) so I assumed that the content discussed at length four years ago on the Talk page was also locked. I won't do any more editing and I'll ask my brother Rick not to as well, but I think my request is reasonable to re-establish the page as of Dec 10 while we have the whole discussion over again, which it appears these folks are requesting. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I've checked for sources, and the closest to
WP:RS I've come up with is
I'm assuming noone is going to argue that jaffememo.com is a WP:RS, but the interested can find a Jaffe memo article on Conservapedia. So in conclusion and in summary, I think my removal was quite reasonable. But of course there may be other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Some research here [5] [6] may pay off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon We made some small revisions to the text of the Jaffe Memo section and found the required sources. Please make these changes for us. Also, can you remove the "citation needed" next to his birth and death years in the first paragraph? Other Wikipedia pages don't seem to require such citations. Thanks for your help!
The Jaffe Memo
In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced.
In fact, the table was a listing of then-current proposals, with sources documented; and with further sourcing provided in a concurrent piece by Berelson [9]. They do not represent the thinking of Jaffe [10] in his capacity as a Planned Parenthood official.
The original memo is available online.[11]
[9] Berelson, B. "Beyond Family Planning," Science 1969 Feb 7; 163 (3867) 533-543. Also in: Studies in Family Planning 1969 Feb; 1 (38) 1-16. https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Biblio/Eprints/%20A-C/berelson.1969.beyond.FP.Studies.in.FP.pdf
[10] Jaffe, FS. "A Strategy for Implementing Family Planning Services in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 1968 Apr; 58 (4) 713–725. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228383/pdf/amjphnation00060-0099.pdf
DaveJaffe (
talk)
06:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
DonIago We are trying to find an online source for the birth year but the Washington Post obituary you referenced lists his age from which you can work backwards. Is that good enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång The memo was written in 1968, thus the supporting documents are from that time. Robert McClenon Please remove "In recent years a" from my requested update to the page. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
DonIago Okay, we found a reference to his birth year: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n80062919.html Robert McClenon Please add. Thanks! DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon We did a lot of additional research and have come up with new wording for the Jaffe Memo section that we think will satisfy
Gråbergs Gråa Sång's requirement for documentation of the controversy around the memo, going back to the early 70s. We even found a letter from Jaffe to Senator Alan Cranston from 1973, clarifying that neither he nor Planned Parenthood endorsed the proposals in the table. Please add the following text to the Frederick S. Jaffe page:
The "Jaffe Memo"
A 1969 memorandum written by Jaffe has been a subject of controversy for most of its existence.
The memo, requested by Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that compiled and classified a list of then-current ideas -- from various quarters -- of how to achieve population control. The table, referring back to the memo, was then added to an extensively-sourced 1970 review [10] that analyzed these proposals.
This published version of the table was then detached from the review, reprinted and publicized [11] by a third party, and presented as the memo itself.
Over the years, other parties have followed suit. In this form, the table -- dubbed the Jaffe-Berelson Memorandum [12] or simply the Jaffe Memo [13] -- has been widely circulated. It has been cited to accuse Jaffe -- and by extension, Planned Parenthood -- of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions or sterilizations.
Despite these claims, the coercive items listed in the table did not represent the advocacy [14,15] or the thinking [16] of Jaffe; or his work [17] as an official of Planned Parenthood.
Of the controversy, Jaffe stated that "the memorandum makes clear that neither I nor the Planned Parenthood Federation of America advocates any of the specific proposals embodied in the table which go beyond voluntary actions of individual couples to space and limit births." [14,15]
In the memo itself, Jaffe suggests that "the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far to achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S. population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms." (p. 4)
The original memo is available online [18] or in the report [19] of a 1973 congressional hearing.
[10] Elliott R, Landman LC, Lincoln R, Tsuoroka T. "U. S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature," Family Planning Perspectives 1970 October; 2 (4) ii-xvi. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a52c/118d2c3bb441cf61d6aed353eacbf0815382.pdf
[11] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; pp. 199-200.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
[12] Oversight of Family Planning Programs, 1981: Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, on Examination on the Role of the Federal Government in Birth Control, Abortion Referral, and Sex Education Programs, March 31, 1981; pp. 119, 124.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Oversight_of_Family_Planning_Programs_19/cOpJP083dv0C
[13] A Tale of Multiple Versions.
http://jaffememo.com/a-tale-of-multiple-versions
[14] Letter to Senator Alan Cranston, June 8, 1973.
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1l6BBERmuFQ-Q-ZT8An2M-pf3f7OTND-S/view
[15] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; p. 492.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
[16] Brody JE. “Experts Agree on Overpopulation Peril, but Disagree Sharply on Remedies,” New York Times 1974 June 21.
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/21/archives/experts-agree-on-overpopulation-peril-but-disagree-sharply-on.html
[17] Jaffe FS. "A Strategy for Implementing Family Planning Services in the United States," American Journal of Public Health 1968 April; 58 (4) 713–725.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228383/pdf/amjphnation00060-0099.pdf
[18] “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States.”
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KCqtNShmxgYTA1REcxai1OME0/view
[19] Family Planning Services and Population Research Amendments of 1973: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S. 1708 ... S. 1632 ... May 8, 9, 10, and 23, 1973; pp. 493-501.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Family_Planning_Services_and_Population/ZiZymMlC8HkC
DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC) DaveJaffe ( talk) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Neighborhood Review Thanks for cleaning up the formatting. Would you please post the above section (I'm not allowed to since the subject is my father)? Thanks, Dave Jaffe DaveJaffe ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Neighborhood Review Thanks again for cleaning up the formatting. Are you still planning on posting the Jaffe Memo section? Thanks, Dave Jaffe DaveJaffe ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Jaffe conceived these radical suggestions and submitted them for approval. He was prepared to push them further if the other methods he suggested failed. 2601:245:4680:1836:29D3:DD7D:8A45:9ACA ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)