Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Should Sanger's Full Name Include Slee?

Of interest is this downloadable Pathe News item (downloadable free at https://www.britishpathe.com/thumbnails.php?id=61182):

"Mrs Margaret Slee, President of America's planned Parenthood Federation is interviewed by Pathe's John Parsons.

Mrs Slee chatting to JP about her theory that women in starving developing countries should have no more babies for 10 years."

What is the consensus that her name in the opening paragraph be amended to Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee?--User:Brenont (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to whether Sanger actually ever adopted the surname Slee. I'm not going to remove the addition now, but I believe it'd be prudent to provide some more instances of her using that name before keeping the change. The title of this section was misleading. I missed your intent and others possibly did too. Silence doesn't always mean consent. Ando228 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and capitalism

The article should maybe explain what were Sanger's views on christianity and capitalism. I found a quote which seems to indicate that she was hostile to both : Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism. [1] [2] She also felt that "dysgenic races" should include "Fundamentalists and Catholics" in addition to "blacks, Hispanics, (and) American Indians." [3] ADM (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would take those quotes with a grain of salt, if I were you. I have seen them promulgated by anti-Sanger sites, but they never seem to give a primary source. I know for a fact that the first quote does not appear in any issue of The Woman Rebel. As to the second one, I have yet to find any evidence that she ever labeled any religious or ethnic group "dysgenic" as a whole. It would be great if you could do some research to track down the original sources of these quotes. George Grant's Killer Angel attributes the first one to David Goldstein, Suicide Bent (St. Paul, MN, "Radio Replies," 1945, p.72). MFNickster (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Opponents of Sanger have often laid the charge of antisemitism against her, given the fact that she was a supporter of eugenics and was rumored of have anti-semitic admirers in Nazi Germany. However this charge of anti-semitism seems misguided at best, since Sanger's husband William has apparently Jewish himself. Also, Sanger had many friends in the birth control and socialist movement who were secular Jews. It would be interesting if the article could clear up this issue, since it is a bit strange that Sanger be alleged of having been anti-semitic and pro-semitic at the same time. ADM (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of anti-semitism in this article, or of kitten-eating for that matter. It is probably better to stick to the facts, rather than attempt to preemptively address every potential spurious attack from anti-Sanger editors (with whom lies the burden of proof for such charges). / edg ☺ ☭ 10:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pivot of Civilization was writen by Margaret Sanger

The article has nothing about the Sanger's book The Pivot of Civilization , writen by this eugenist. If you want to read the Sanger's ideas, the complete text of her book The Pivot of Civilization is in this site: [Open]. Agre22 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

3.2 Eugenics and euthanasia rearranged

From a reporting perspective, the initial paragraph was dangerously arranged describing other negative eugenics proponents' beliefs that Sanger did not share before Sanger's own beliefs. This article is about Sanger, not negative eugenics, so her beliefs should have been first; I felt the original arrangement would taint Sanger's description. How the reader perceives her should be based on the facts about her, not what others with beliefs that follow under the same label have done that are different from her. Frankly, I think the beliefs of other negative eugenics proponents should be moved off of the article entirely and possibly onto a separate article about negative eugenics, as their severity I think detracts from the article about Margaret Sanger. --Chibiabos (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Eugenics and Racial Views Treated with Kid Gloves?

If this were the article on Adolf Hitler and someone inserted mollifying language like "Early in [his] writings, [Hitler], like many [Germans] in the early 20th Century, sometimes entertained thoughts on human development that could be considered archaic," it would get deleted immediately. Why is it tolerated in this article? Madler 05:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madler (talk • contribs)

I signed this, as is obvious. Why is it saying I didn't sign? Madler 13:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madler (talk • contribs)
I completely agree. There are many many people out there claiming Sanger was a racist. If that's not true then there should be an explanation of why that's not true. Doubtless many of those arguments take things out of context and so on, but the truth is there ARE troubling aspects to some of Sanger's views, and ignoring them will just encourage people to believe she Hitler. For example, this article repeatedly makes claims like "well sure Sanger believed some people were innately better than others and that the "feeble-minded" (whatever that means) and degenerate should be forcibly prevented from reproducing etc. etc., but many people believed that at the time so what does it matter?" It does matter because 1. many people also admired Hitler (sorry to keep bringing him into it), that doesn't make it excusable, especially since 2. Sanger's views on reproduction continue to be extremely influential and relevant, so they deserve to be considered from all angles. Anyway the point is sure we should try to keep things objective and steer clear of alarmism, but if we ignore the issues we'll only do a lot more harm than good. (93.41.194.42 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

How about stating the obvious. Hitler was directly responsible for killing over 11 million Europeans because he believed they were racially inferior to Germans and were occupying space and using resources that could be used by Germans. Sanger never killed anybody. There is significantly more evidence that Hitler was a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a historical focus. Cover the controversies during her lifetime and afterward by documenting them with news sources and authors. Balance is sometimes difficult to achieve, so it's best to avoid giving undue weight to any particular aspect of the article. MFNickster (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Two citations (both easily obtainable) were given pertaining to a direct quote. It should not be reverted without some explanation. I checked the archives before putting the material in, and if this matter was previously discussed I must have missed it. Please do not revert referenced material without explanation.Edstat (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because (1) the nature of your edits has been discussed many times on this talk page, and the result is to avoid "piling on" numerous, pointed quotes; (2) the points your sources are making are already amply covered in the "Eugenics and euthanasia" section; (3) the section you are editing is "Legacy" which - by definition - should discuss the impact of the subject in todays society ... your material has nothing to do with legacy; and (4) your source for that quote is dubious. Do you have a hardcopy of that book? Can you provide the entire surrounding text (here on the Talk page) so we can see the context of the quote? and (5) it is more significant what secondary sources say about the subject rather than her own primary quotes (because the former show academic interest, and have been filtered by research). Please discuss your proposed changes to the article here before making them. See WP:BRD. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I don't see THIS point in the archives. Please indicate where you think THIS point has been discussed. 2. This is not "piling on" - I don't see this point discussed anywhere, except to perhaps hide her record or reinterpret her record, but not actually discuss her record. 3. Legacy seems to me to the the appropriate place for this, because the point is despite her racism, in today's society it appears to be ignored due to the political situation wherein the group that she was most racist against finds itself in the quandry of being aligned with planned parenthood. 4. You cannot call a source dubious and so be it. The orignial source is the personal letter in the Collection - but more importantly, it has been reviewed and discussed in a secondary, independent source, and is so cited. I gave the Google snippet, which is clear to anyone. Yes, I have a hard copy of the book. It is available to anyone for .99 to $4.99 via alibris or abebooks. There is no wikipedia requirement that the reader be able to see the entire content of a source *online* - the source (which I will add author and isbn, in addition to the title) is given, so the reader can either go to the library or purchase their own copy if they want to read the entire book. 5. Again, the google source is a secondary source. Finally, your directive to discuss before proposed changes violates WP:Bold, especially because the material is secondary sources and independent.
So, I will leave it up to other editors to suggest where in this article might be a better place than "legacy" - but if hearing none, I will restore the original material.Edstat (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, your legacy argument is inconsistent with the material in that section on 1939 and 1957, because it certainly isn't about "today's" society.Edstat (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Finally, for now, I have read a number of your contributions, where you seem to champion criticisms of minorities (especially Jews and Judaism, Israel, etc.) and on more than one occasion your criticisms have overcome AfD nominations due to the principle that criticisms should not be hidden, concealed, reinterpreted, censored, etc. I believe the current material is consistent with that editing style. I'm not saying this to edit to make a point; I'm saying this to agree what you have held elsewhere that the notion of legitimate, sourced, criticism is appropriate.Edstat (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And what does the 2ndary source say about this quote? Can you type here what the author of the secondary source says about the quote (the text before and after the quote)? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source

I'm happy to be your typist, but I'm confused. Your comments above appear to indicate THIS has been discuss previously; how could that be if noone until now made reference to THIS point? Furthermore, what would have been the basis of your delete because according to your view the secondeary source is "dubious" if you are unfamilier with the book?

In any case, the quotes below are from 'Woman's body, woman's right: A social history of birth control in America' by Linda Gordon (NY: Grossman Publishers, 1976, ISBN: 0670778176). The page numbers are slightly off, because the Google snipit refers to the 1974 originial issue; what I have is the 2n issue of 1976). The citation in the text you deleted is found on pages 332-33 in the 1976 version. I give various quotes leading up to this to set the context. At the conclusion of the snippit, Gordon gives the footnote 120 (p. 455), which is: "Sanger to Clarence Gamble, October 19, 3919, in Sanger, Smith" which is the first reference I indicated in the text you deleted.

“Sager, too, had always argued the “racial” values of birth control, but as time progressed she gave less attention to feminists arguments and more to eugenic ones…More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control, she wrote in 1919. In Women and the New Race, published in 1920, she put together statistics…in a manner certain to stimulate racist fears” (p. 281).

“The racism and virulence of her eugenic rhetoric grew most extreme in the early 1930s. In 1932 she recommended the sterilization or segregation by sex of “the whole dysgenic population” (p. 282.

“In 1929, Harvard eugenist Edward East wrote to Sanger…‘it would be a very interesting thing…if..Perhaps, without embarrassing questions, would it be possible to make a judgment as to whether the person [patients in your clinic are] more or less pure black, mulatto, quadroon, etc.’ Sanger agreed, anticipating no difficulties, “as already colored patients coming to our Clinic have been willing to talk” (p. 286-287).

“Clinics encountered difficulties in teaching …women to use birth control properly. Some such women were unteachable, Sanger and several other birth control leaders agreed…For these women, sterilization was recommended” ( p. 287).

“In attracting professionals, the ABCL had to overcome the taint of radicalism that clung to Sanger for decades” (p. 293).

“Racism, then as now, is not a Southern problem. Indeed, the tendency to project it exclusively upon the South has been a device of Northern racism. In 1939 the Birth Control Federation of America, responding to the cooperativeness of Southern state public-health officials, designed a ‘Negro Project,’ arguing that Southern poverty was a major national problem and one which could be ameliorated through birth-rate reduction. This project was a microcosm of the elitist birth-control programs whose design eliminated the possibility of popular, grass roots involvement in birth control as a cause. ‘The mass of Negros,’ argued the project proposal, ‘particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that proportion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.’119 Despite the pretense of concern with the unfit among Negros, this statement was immediately followed by a chart showing the over-all increase of the black as opposed to the white population. The eugenic disguise fell off to reveal overt white supremacy.’ Public health statistics,’ the proposal went on, ‘merely hint at the primitive state of civilization in which most Negros in the South live” (p. 332).

As to her lagacy, it can be stated conclusively that African American women have far more abortions than any other ethnicity in the US, e.g., [1], which is something that needs to be added to that section.Edstat (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... I dont see any mention of Sanger on page 332 of the text you provide above. Am I missing something? --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you aren't missing anything. Sanger's mention, cited on p. 332-3, is the google snipit, which was already provided. Did you want me to retype that too?
"As Sanger noted, in a private letter, 'We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to their more rebelious members'," which is the text I put in that you deleted.Edstat (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so the material you are trying to add to the article is that some of Sanger's policies were racist, because they targeted blacks. But that is precisely the scope of the existing section Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia. That section already has extensive content, but you are welcome to improve that section if you like. But be warned that it is already rather large, and any additional material would probably violate the WP:Undue policy. Regarding the "Legacy" section: unless you can find some secondary source that specifically discusses the Negro Project's racism/eugenics in a "legacy" context, it doesn't belong in the Legacy section. --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your comments appear to me to be WP:Own, so I "caution" (you "warn" an editor preemptively? WP:GoodFaith?) you there. As for the existing section, again, it is a superb job of cover up, misdirect, downplay, reinterpret, etc. If someone came to this encyclopedia to find out about the origins of birth control from Sanger's perspective, particularly as it relates to her leaving the far left, joining with the socialists until the eugenics movement was discredited, and then realigning with the far left without abandoning her racist views, then they would leave this entry without having much of a clue – was that was the intent of the political revisionism behind how this entry was written? So, if you are requesting I swap out the WP:WeaselWords for her actual views, I can do that. Furthermore, the length of the section is immaterial. WP:NOTPAPER prevails that if the notoriety warrants, space is not an object.Edstat (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, I note you did not respond to how you have interpreted the Legacy section as being relevant today, when the bulk of what is currently in that section pertains to 1939 and 1957? Hmmmm?Edstat (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said, feel free to improve the Eugenics section. But the length cannot grow much longer, or else it violates WP:Undue. Also, the section is too quote-heavy, and since we are striving for an encyclopedic presentation, quotes should account for no more than, say, half the content in a section. So if you are going to improve that section, try to replace some of the quotes with encyclopedic prose. See WP:quote. If you have lots of quotes you want to add, consider putting them in WikiQuotes. As for the Legacy section, a quick glance shows that all the content discusses awards etc she received after she died (or retired). If you feel that some material in that seciton is not relevant to her legacy, identify it here, and we can discuss moving it into another section. --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Noleander. And questioning his faith is not constructive.67.50.81.195 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Carthage College Scandal?

I tried to add info about her negative legacy, the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College that included Sean Bryan, but the material was removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.63.211 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit said:
1 negative aspect of Margaret Sanger's legacy was the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College, which consisted of Sean Bryan and Emily Kaminsky, who were kind of obnoxious.
There's no cite to suggest who these people might be, and "kind of obnoxious" isn't exactly informative or encyclopedic. If this is about something that happened recently, remember that Sanger has been dead for a long time, and has little influence on PP's current day-to-day activities. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for how to edit this page productively

Another questionable source: item #36; please list its source, or at least its page number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.25.251 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I just left this message for User:Neutral_POV_Enforcer, who got blocked for 24 hours after making a small number of bad edits to this page. (In my view, the block was probably not quite justified, but almost.)

It might be useful to other people who want to edit this page, but who are tempted to do so in an unproductive manner, or who are wondering why they got blocked after making unproductive edits.


Hi. I see that some of your edits to this page have been reverted and that you've been temporarily blocked from editing. Although your change comments suggest that you think this was "censorship of significant minority views" based on another editor's "preferences", I think the reversions were more a result of the style of your edits than of their content. In fact, I wish I could revert the reversion, since your edit discusses an important aspect of Sanger's views that is underemphasized in the article as it stands — although it is mentioned, other parts of the current article implicitly deny it, e.g., "She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth," which is a false description of her views, at least in 1921. But the quality of your edits was so poor that restoring them would make the article worse instead of better.

You can almost certainly achieve the balance you seek. Here are four suggestions for improving your edits in the future:

First, back up your assertions with references to reliable sources. Blackgenocide.org is an unashamedly partisan site (starting from the very domain name!) full of illiterate misspellings and punctuation problems, providing no references to primary sources, with no reputation for accuracy that I know of, signed with a @yahoo.com email address and a P.O. Box. It might be relevant to link it from an article on Clenard Childress, if he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it's not relevant to the Margaret Sanger article. It's what we call a questionable source:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

This description fits blackgenocide.org to a T: blackgenocide.org has no reputation for checking the facts and no editorial oversight; it's a website expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (specifically, it equates the legality of abortion to genocide, and attempts to link it to racism); and it relies heavily on personal opinions. Also, as far as I can tell, it cites no primary sources itself, even in cases where it purports to quote others, which would serve to conceal any falsehoods it may or may not be propagating in support of its extremist views.

Instead, look for reliable sources. Since Sanger actually did advocate mandatory sterilization of the "feeble-minded," a policy which was adopted for quite some time in the US and quite controversial, it should not be difficult to find reliable third-party sources to back this up; Amazon has at least two biographies of her, and numerous articles about her have been published in periodicals over the years. If absolutely necessary, you can fall back on primary sources; Sanger made her opinions at one point in her life quite clear in The Pivot of Civilization, and continued to publish her opinions widely throughout her life. However, be very careful that your edits don't quote her out of context, or they are likely to be reverted, particularly since you already have a black mark on your record here.

Verifiable accuracy using reliable sources is a fundamental aspect of the NPOV pillar that your username refers to.

Second, use good style in your references. Instead of just making an [http://example.com/ inline link], use <ref></ref>, and inside the <ref></ref>, use one of the citation templates, such as {{cite}}; you can find its proper usage described at Template:Cite. Be as specific as possible: provide page numbers, URLs, specific quotations, names of publishers, year of publication, and so on. In theory, of course, some helpful WikiGnome could come along and fix up a sloppily-formatted reference that you added. In practice, though, the less work you put into the article, and the worse the result, the more likely it is that someone will revert it. By demonstrably putting in real work to improve the quality of the page, you can reduce the suspicion that you are only here to make trouble, rather than helping out the project.

Of course, this applies to every edit you make; you should take care that it's formatted correctly, without spelling and punctuation errors, and so on. But your edits didn't have those problems; they just had carelessly-formatted references (which also happened to be to questionable sources, as described in the first point.)

Third, assume good faith. If you snark in your change comments that other editors are "censoring" your "significant minority views" (as if that's relevant on a matter of amply verifiable fact such as Sanger's views on eugenics!) and add a sarcastic "sorry, but", as you did, you're going to piss people off, which makes them (a) less able to consider your edits fairly, (b) less able to contribute fairly themselves, and (c) likely to believe that you're just here to make trouble, rather than wanting to make a real contribution. Successful collaboration in a Wiki depends on a body of people who aren't overly pissed off, because pissed-off edits are almost always bad edits.

Fourth, don't make only controversial edits. There are lots and lots of places where you can contribute without participating in edit wars. If you don't do that, then other editors will, again, come to believe that you're just here to make trouble, not to make Wikipedia better, and most or all of your edits will eventually be reverted and you will probably get banned permanently. Your choice of username is going to make this an uphill battle for you; it strongly suggests that it's a WP:single-purpose account. When the block on your account expires, you might consider switching to a new account name, and maybe linking to it on your user page to avoid the appearance of WP:sock puppetry. (Linking is not mandatory, but it might be a good idea; see WP:CLEANSTART.)

Uncontroversial edits are a lot easier than controversial edits. You don't have to defend them from reversion, they're much easier because you can afford to be quite a bit sloppier in referencing them, and they're more fun, because people don't launch personal attacks on you for them.

I guess I should disclose where I'm coming from on these issues.

Depending on your definitions, I'm probably not a Christian. In the US system of racism, I'm "white", although I'm about 5% Cherokee. I admire Sanger's courage, and I support birth control, but I deplore some of her views, including her advocacy of mandatory sterilization of certain people (in her case, the "feeble-minded", rather than any ethnic group). I'm no Sanger scholar, although I've read some of The Pivot of Civilization.

However, to me, all of these issues shrink into insignificance next to the issue of access to accurate information. I think genocide, mandatory sterilization, racism, and other human-rights abuses only exist because of ignorance. I think the petty power struggles among groups of people, likewise, stem from ignorance — whether racial groups, religious groups, political groups, or nations. I think the most effective way to fight these problems is by providing universal access to all human knowledge, a project for which Wikipedia is currently an enormously important and effective implement. That's why I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2001, why I've been editing occasionally ever since, why I helped out with Wikimania last year, and why I'm writing you this message.

So I deplore things that decrease the quality of Wikipedia in order to serve some lower purpose, such as birth control, anti-abortionism, or some other political struggle. I think you'll find that most Wikipedians feel the same way. People will rarely revert your edits just because they are in the service of some political struggle — probably the vast majority of the edits to Armenian genocide or Scientology are by people with strong political views, and many of them have questionable motives — but they will revert them if your edits make the article worse instead of better, as in this case.

So I share what I take to be your interest in improving the accuracy of this article, even if it casts someone I admire in a bad light. I encourage you to try again, but do a better job next time. Your passion for the subject can be harnessed to do good instead of ill.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this due to my habit of making long posts but WP:TLDR.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Yeah, that is kind of a problem with that. A person would have to be pretty motivated to read the whole thing, although maybe an editing block would be adequate motivation for some people. Sorry. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize, you didn't force me to read it. :P
Who knows maybe somebody will find it informative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't critique what you didn't read...WP:CRITICISM--Novus Orator 07:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What Every Girl Should Know was available in Yiddish in 1916 too

לייענען אָנליין בייַ ייִדיש בוך צענטער —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.149 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User 66.183.126.253

Some edits of the above (which puts the subject in very unfavourable light) have been made by the above user and reverted by users PHGustaff and White Shadows on the basis of not NPOV and Undue. I have no axe to grind in this and am just curious. I'd like to know exactly what is the reason for the reverts. If the edits (which appear to be quotes of Sanger) are verifiable, it's not clear to me why they shouldn't be included. I have limited knowledge of Sanger so my question may be way off base. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Very unfavorable light" is part of it. They're cherrypicked quotes chosen to emphasize a facet of Sanger that's already discussed, at a length consensus agrees is adequate, on the page. They're also mixed up with a bunch of original POV diatribe. They're not an attempt to improve the page, but essentially an attack. I have no problem with your question, though. PhGustaf (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The material is just copied verbatim from other websites.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in this (or post again) but I have to say that the quotes that the IP wanted to put in (I'm ignoring the diatribe) are of a different order to the way it's presented in Margaret Sanger#Eugenics and euthanasia. Assuming they're genuine quotes, it's unclear to me why the content of that section is as it is. I can see that the IP has got a POV to push - no doubt about that - but even so, those quotes and the sub-section don't sit comfortably together. (Fyi - to try to evidence my neutrality - I'm British, never heard of this woman before, and stumbled across this page by chance!). DeCausa (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 00:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the same old smears by means of out-of-context quotation. If the user has any substantial criticism to contribute that covers the significance of these quotes in context, then it would be acceptable. Otherwise the hit-and-run approach of copying and pasting quotes from pro-life sites violates WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. MFNickster (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed text

This text seems an smear based on

1. Apparently later activities of an author after his article was published in Planned Parenthood and on

2. confusing a call for sterilization of the profoundly retarded in this 1933 article with a call for euthenasia

April, 1933, the Planned Parenthood publication Birth Control Review printed an article by Ernst Rüdin (who became a member of the Nazis' Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy in June) which declared "the danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman," and called for action "without delay."[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.102 (talk • contribs) 2009-12-07T01:01:16

Implantation wording?

Ocanter: you inserted some new wording in the article. Could you explain it more? It may be okay, but I don't quite understand it. Also, could you supply some text from the cited source, which would justify the new wording? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it was unclear the way I worded it before. Tell me if you think it's clearer now. Ocanter (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I still dont understand. The new text you added reads:
"In a 1916 edition of Family Limitation, Sanger wrote,'Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called abortion.' However, she also advised women to douche with boric acid and to take quinine in order to prevent the implantation of an ovum in the uterus (Sanger may not have realized that fertilization always occurs before implantation). She wrote further, "No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."
My questions are (1) why bother including "Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called abortion", that seems like a ho-hum definition of a term. (2) The word "however" makes no sense, since the next sentence does not contradict the prior. (3) "(Sanger may not have realized that fertilization always occurs before implantation)." appears to be WP:original research and is prohibited unless you have a source that says that. Finally, could you please provide some text from the cited source that justifies what you are aiming for here? Why dont you propose your new text here and lets work on it before putting it in the article? --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right that it may be confusing to some people, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer. The facts that are at odds are 1) Sanger abhorred abortion, which she defined as attempting to interfere with the development of a fertilized ovum, and 2) Sanger recommended something that we now know to interfere with the development of a fertilized ovum. The only explanation I can think of is that it was not known at that time that fertilization occurs before implantation. Therefore the word 'however' makes perfect sense; the sentence it introduces does not contradict the previous sentence, but the previous sets of sentences taken together. Consider these statements:

1) Abortion is the wrong way (Sanger); 2) Interfering with the development of a fertilized egg is abortion (Sanger); 3) Preventing implantation interferes with the development of a fertilized egg (modern medical science); therefore, if all these premises are true: 4) Preventing implantation is abortion (Barbara 2,3) and 5) Preventing implantation is the wrong way (Barbara 4,1) yet

Yet Sanger recommended preventing implantation. Then either she recommended something that she thought was the wrong way, or she was incapable of making the simplest rational inferences, or she was unaware of the third premise. I think the most likely thing is that she was unaware of the third premise.

Is that clear? She denounced abortion, but then she recommended something that was, by her own definition, abortion. I can only infer that she did not know that it was by her definition abortion. I understand that we are not supposed to make any rational inferences of our own, however simple, but I'm not sure how else to state the facts. Well, OK, I'll just state them and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. If you know of any source that says when it was discovered that fertilization occurs before implantation, that would seem to be relevant. 03:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocanter (talk • contribs)

Its not particularly clear but this is complicated by the fact that this was a radically different topic the nearly hundred years ago that pamphlet was written. The solution is to rely on secondary sources which consider her writing in context and do the interpretion that experts do. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for quotes

BobEnyart: I just reverted some material you added. Could you provide the source you are reading from? See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, please refer to WP:Quote on the use of quotes in articles (generally discouraged) and WP:Undue (avoiding over-emphasis on contentious issues). --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, thanks for asking for the source. I'm not sure what was unclear about the book title and page number, but at this Google Books link you can see the passage on the page cited in their scan of the original work. [4]
Also, I myself checked the book out of the Denver Public Library before I ever believed that the quote was real. I've scanned it myself also. I'm familiar with the standards at the other links you've provided. This quote however is extraordinary and provides insight into this important historical figure. Once you've verified the source, would you consider restoring the suggested edit? Thanks! Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, and for taking the time to discuss. What do you think of the section in the article entitled "Eugenics and euthanasia"? Do you think it covers the topic of Sanger's views on Eugenics accurately? Is there some particular aspect of her views that you think is not yet included in the article? Why did you pick that particular quote for inclusion in the article? What do you think about that section's use of quotes, vis-a-vis WP:LONGQUOTE? Do you think the section would be more encyclopedic if some of the quotes were removed and replaced with narrative paraphrasing (and perhaps the quotes included in footnotes)? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting source?

Ocanter: you deleted material from a source, writing in your edit summary "Contradicts MS's autobiography". But contradictory material is acceptable. See WP:Truth. The only problem with contradictory material would be if it were not explained properly, and caused readers to get confused. But in this case, the context and source of the material is clear. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes should be avoided unless absolutely necessary

Claudio: Generally, the encyclopedia should use prose (narrative) and quotes should be used sparingly. What quote do you want to insert, and why is it better as a quote than as prose? --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead text: founder of ??

My understanding is that MS founded the Birth Control League, but then resigned from that leadership, and a few years later, it merged with some other organizations to form Planned Parenthod. Sanger then became a director of the International Planned Parenthood. I'm no expert on those details, and I may well be wrong, but in any case, the lead - if its going to talk about that - needs to reflect the facts accurately. Also, the Section in the body of the article must be consistent with what the lead says. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Birth Control League article: "In June 1928, Margaret Higgins Sanger resigned as president of the American Birth Control League, founding the National Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control and splitting the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau from the League. In 1939 the two were reconciled and merged to form the Birth Control Federation of America. In 1942 the name was changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America." I cannot vouch for its accuracy. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess one of the key questions is: who all was on the board of directors of the Birth Control Federation of America when it evolved into Planned Parenthood? How many, if any, of those are considered "founders"? Would it be more accurate to just say Sanger was the "first president of Planned Parenthood"? --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanger is commonly known as founder of Planned Parenthood, that is supported by the sources. Then I will change the lead and restore the deleted sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It does look like PP itself on its web site describes her as the founder, but the other source does not: it says "[Sanger founded] the American Birth Control League (which became, in 1942, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America)" ... which is not the same as saying she is the founder of PP. Better would be a secondary (PP is a primary source) unbiased source which says she is the founder. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not know what source is you talking about. I inserted this source: Parenthood in America: an encyclopedia. N-Z, Volume 1 by Lawrence Balter, which at page 527 states about Sanger: "Sanger, Margaret ... The founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America". Thre is also this other source: Historical dictionary of the 1950s by James Stuart Olson, which at page 224, also claims: "Margaret Sanger, the eventual founder of Planned Parenthood". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The section "legacy" would be the best place to establish this type of material before repeatedly attempting to change the WP:LEAD when it isn't yet in the article's body. Maybe the legacy section should say something like: "Sanger founded ABCL, which became PP in 1942 and PP considers Sanger its founder." Jesanj (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Claudio, there is a difference between being the founder of something and the eventual founder of something. Jesanj (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
First: Clearly, Jesanj reverted without read the source, that is disruptive. Editors should firstly read the sources to verify. "Eventual" is what ONE of the sources says, but the other which was cited in the article does NOT say "eventual" but simple says: "founder of Planned Parenthood". Why are not you reading well?-- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Noleander: I do agree with the last (current) version you have edited. I will just add the sources ot if you prefer do it yourself. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
My personal preference is that Lead paragraphs should not have footnotes. WP:Lead says they are optional in the Lead. I think it looks cleaner and more professional without footnotes. 100% of the material in the Lead is supposed to be in the body of the article, so any footnotes can be down there, and already there are quite a few. If you have more sources on how Sanger was the "founder" of PP, and was the first president, I'd recommend putting those down in the body where the creation of PP is described. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed the text in the body of the article to read as follows: "In 1938, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau re-merged with the ABCL and the merged organization was named the Birth Control Federation of America.[3] In 1942 the name was changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Sanger served as the first President. From 1952 to 1959 she served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; at the time it was the largest private international "family planning" organization." --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics in lead?

I see no reason to hide this important aspect of Sanger's ideology, unless the purpose of this article is to eulogize Sanger. Discussion? Ocanter (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you find some WP:Reliable sources (non biased) that describe her as a "eugenicist"? Even if you can, how prevalent is that characterization relative to other descriptors that major biographers and com mentors use? If that characterization is used by a minority, it would violate WP:Undue policy to put it in the lead paragraph. See WP:Lead. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, but the lead should reflect which is already stated in the "eugenics" section: Sanger advocated for birth control as a means to assist "the race toward the elimination of the unfit" and to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born. It was part of Sanger's arguments, grounds and philosophy. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It was an incidental part of her beliefs, not the major part, and it's not what she's mainly known for. Featuring eugenics in the lead give it undue weight. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm also not persuaded your sentence is due. Her philosophy also included socialism, some views on masturbation, and an affinity for freedom of speech. And the sentence you wrote was also undue on its own, in my opinion, because the article says "from being born into a disadvantaged life" which comes off as exculpatory. And yet the "dysgenic" (we should have a common explanation for that term) sentence, is even uncited in the article. Jesanj (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to pile on here. I think that not only is it undue, but such a statement would have to have context for the reader to understand. It reads as a confusing hit and run when included in the lead. The article is better without the addition you are proposing. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DawnBards: Incidental? Sanger advocated for birth control on that grounds and terms in a lot of articles, some of them published at the Eugenics Review journal. Certainly these were not the unique arguments she used, but my edit is not claiming that. There is a section of five paragraphs in the body, so a single phrase in the lead summarizing it is not undue weight. Undue lack of weight is not mentioning those grounds at all in the lead.

Jesanj: if other elements of her philosophy are not included in the lead yet, then it is not a reasonable reason to delete the elements ("prevent dysgenic borns" and "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit") that I am including in the lead. Otherwise, following your own argument, the other partial elements of her grounds, which are currently mentioned in the lead ("for women to more equal footing" and "prevent abortions") should be deleted also. Metal.lunch: the lead is giving the false impression that Sanger grounds were solely those mentioned currently in the lead while the own body shows another thing. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC) -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including any mention of eugenics in the lead per se. I object to the language that you have attempted to add. We don't use language like that anymore so its unclear what it means when you say things like "dysgenic" and "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". If you can find a way of clearly and concisely summarizing her relationship with eugenics in a way that is neutral and not confusing, then I'd strongly consider supporting it. In general you should probably avoid quotes altogether here. The argument that a topic which occupies an entire section of the article ought to get mention in the lede has merit. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I would not object to a minor mention in the lead, something like "..., and a supporter of negative eugenics..." or something like that. But to place it in the 1st sentence would not be appropriate, since most biographers do not emphasize it to that degree. Maybe in a latter paragraph in the lead? --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this sort of approach. Jesanj (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy section and selection bias

I know 1920s thinking is odd compared to contemporary values, but consider this: how are we protecting the philosophy section from a selection bias of emphasizing what people find interesting now? There are lots of primary sources in the section. Currently citations 19 through 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 and 36 are primary sources. Jesanj (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. The best rule to follow would be WP:Secondary sources, in other words, no quotes from MS herself could be in that section unless a reliable secondary source (biographer, etc) quoted MS in their (the secondary source's) discussion of the topic. Otherwise, the set of quotes are dependent on mortal editors picking-and-choosing, which is not a good recipe when sensitive subject material is involved. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Add Template:Primary_sources to the philosophy section? Jesanj (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is a really good point - I think there have been instances here of quote mining and cherry-picking in an effort to emphasize particular points of view, and using only secondary, reliable sources would mitigate it. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, stick to secondary sources. The language of social sciences in the 19teens and 1920s was so different from now that its very easy to cherry-pick some quotes and make the subject sound like an alien. I've seen several sources already which remark on this particular problem with Margaret Sanger and note that you could do the same with many intellectuals and speakers of the period. I'll add a template to the section. We've already gotten rid of the the really long quotes from the eugenics sub-section because they seemed especially problematic but we should cleanup the rest of the philosophy section in to be less reliant on quotes. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be noticed that even the "early life" section is cited with an autobiography made by Sanger self. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just moved the primary sources tag to the article head for this reason. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, but to be fair the article is not solely based on primary sources. But if you still think that it deserves the tag, then I will not complaint. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Pursuant to the above discussion, and to eliminate the "Primary sources" tag, I searched for 2ndary sources that discuss those quotes. There were 4 quotes: I could not find any 2ndary source that discussed two of them, so I removed those two quotes. The other two quotes (both on masturbation) did have one, rather minor, 2ndary source, so I provided that 2ndary source as a footnote, and moved the two quotes into the footnote. Also, since that topic is only mentioned by one 2ndary source, it is probably not important enough to mention in the lead, so I removed it from the lead. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article review: initiator needed

This article has been nominated for Good Article status (see the notice at the top of the talk page). If anyone wants to start the review process, that would be great. Only persons who have not "significantly contributed" to the article can initiate the review, otherwise I would initiate it. --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Although in general supportive of the idea, I am also very cautious. As a controversial article, with already a few POV-pushers on top of it, it could be very risky out of a neutrality point of view to set this process in motion. How can we avoid <humor mode on> an invasion of the barbarians<humor mode off>?? Night of the Big Wind talk 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. More eyes on any article is always a good thing. I presume that the GA reviewers would focus on layout, grammar, readability, and the like, not POV issues. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing

"Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint..."

Why excuse her? Because whitewashing her image is important politically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

More eugenics material?

Brechbill: The article already has a rather large section on Eugenics. Increasing that section to get much larger would run afoul of the WP:Undue policy. In theory, there is no problem with adding more detail (that is supported by good sources), but at the same time the other sections in the article should also be beefed up so the level of detail stays proportional to its relevance to MS's career. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I added that she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and a Planned Parenthood worshiper reverted my edit even though she is listed on the American Eugenics Society article here on wikipedia. Congrats.


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

 Done - Section and paragraph sizes are now more uniform and readable. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There are six paragraphs in the lead, two of which consist of only two sentences. WP:Lead recommends no more than four paragraphs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Was not aware of the four paragraph guideline. --Noleander (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Inline cites have been provided for all statements likely to be challenged. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Lead is now a summary of entire article. Specific aspects of lead may still need work, if reviewer so determines. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Prose is just about adequate in conveying information, but is not enjoyable to read. It does not flow. It reads like a series of disjointed notes. We have a series of very short sentences, and sometimes very short paragraphs - "Sanger was arrested eight times." is an entire paragraph. The lack of detail and context is frustrating, and the writing at this point is at starter level, and not something one expects at GA level. As the meaning is conveyed, I would be inclined to make a note of it as something to improve if everything else were OK and still list, but combined with the other faults I'm seeing, this is another reason inhibiting listing. It's fairly borderline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Prose has been improved substantially. Not my strong suit. Any remaining issues should be specifically identified and I/we can work on them. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On hold

I've not yet checked sources for accuracy, neutral POV, coverage, etc; the article doesn't meet the basic criteria for presentation and formatting. I'm putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow some copy-editing to take place to improve presentation, for the formatting of the sections and the lead to be addressed to met the relevant guidelines, and for inline citations to be found to support the various challengeable statements and opinions present in the article. I have done some tags to help indicate where the citations are most needed. This is not exhaustive, and attention should be paid to where in-line citations are needed.. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I (and perhaps others) will work on those areas. --Noleander (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Cool. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • An impressive amount of work has been done on the article. I'll take a closer look in the next few days. Inline cites appear much more often, though there are some dates and positions given for Sanger that might be questioned. It's never the amount of cites that matters, but if they are appropriately supporting the sort of information that people may rely on and be embarrassed if they got wrong. I thought I'd check a few dates that are uncited, and note that the article says: "In 1923, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control (NCFLBC)...", while this source says it was formed in 1929, and she served as Chairman until 1932 when the organisation was incorporated and she was named president. What is the relationship between The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News founded in 1917, and the two publications, The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News launched in 1937? This source indicates that The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News were separate publications until 1937 when they became amalgamated as The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News. I'm disconcerted that two statements I pick on to check both appear to be incorrect and misleading. This does sometimes happen even in the best of articles, but it's worth checking through the article again to ensure that dates and facts are correct and are appropriately cited. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Those two issues have been fixed. Still need to inspect the rest of the article for accuracy. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those mistakes. I'll fix them. That material dates from before my time on this article (not to say I have not made my fair share of errors :-). FYI: I'll be on Wikibreak from Oct 5 to Oct 12, so I'll be unable to reply to any questions or make any edits. Not to imply that I'm the only editor that can work on the GA nomination, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wonders if I got offended and left in a huff :-) After Oct 13, I'll be able to resume work on this. We'll get it there eventually. --Noleander (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to give more time. I'm inclined to keep reviews open as long as there is positive progress being made, and there appears to be a chance of reaching a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. I'm frequently nagged by Wizardman for keeping reviews open for well over a month, though I see the GA process as being one that improves the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and as long as that is happening, then I'm quite content. While I have not been impressed with the quality of this article so far, I have been impressed by your work ethic, and willingness to push this through to GA listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. The end of October should be do-able. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I scrutinized the entire article, and validated the sources and checked the text against the sources for accuracy (most of them: I do not have access to some sources). I made several changes to improve accuracy, and removed a few statements that were not sufficiently sourced. I think the article is now ready for another pass of the review process. --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving me a nudge. I had this marked down as a long hold and pushed it to the back of my schedule. I will take a closer look as soon as I have some more time. I note that quite a few images have been added to the article. Images can be very helpful to the reader in gaining an understanding, and of bringing a topic to life, and also of making an article look more attractive, so aiding readability. Some thought should be given to the layout, the appearance, the amount, and the educational value of the images. Relevant guidelines are MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM. Consideration should also be given to the size and helpfulness of WP:Captions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I've reviewed the MOS illustration guidelines, and - based on those guidelines - removed an image, and improved a few captions. The pictures should now be satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Sources added to that footnote. That was intended to just be a clarifying Note distinguishing the separation from the divorce ... the details and sources were in the article body. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be more acceptable to have multiple footnotes (separate numbers)? The goal of the bullets was simple to make the prose look cleaner: a single [23] is cleaner than [23][24][25]. But either way is fine by me: I have no preference. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we need multiple cites in the first place? If the material in the sentence can be supported by one source that is enough. If you are using books which would otherwise not get cited in the article, and which you feel are of value, it is acceptable to have a short "further reading" section. I know that I have been tempted at times to use multiple cites purely because a source was interesting and I wanted to make use of it! SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. That is a tough call. I guess the multiple cites are useful if readers are interested in a particular fact (e.g. Sanger's divorce) and they want to read as much about it as possible, or see how the various biographers treated it. Is there a WP guideline that limits footnote quantity? I know there are such guidelines for images and external links. Another problem is that a sentence may contain two facts, one from one source and the other from a second source: and eliminating one source would not be good in that situation. That said, I have no objection to cutting them back to one source per footnote if you prefer. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
...another solution would be to keep the information in the footnote, but lay it out as a paragraph rather than bullets. So the footnote might look like:
23^ Baker, p 63; Chesler, p 152.
24^ Engelman, p 252 (date of divorce); Chesler, p 52 (date of separation).
That way all the information is still there for the readers, but the ugly bullets are gone. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I tried this suggestion (multiple sources in a single paragraph) in footnotes #1, #2, and #4, so we could see what it looks like. I think this may be a good approach: I'm looking at several hardback scholarly books at this moment, and it is common for them to include multiple sources within one footnote "paragraph". They seem to use semicolons to separate the sources within the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Aha! I found a WP guideline on this: WP:CITEBUNDLE. It recommends the bullet approach. There is also a WP essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill but it seems to be addressing the situation where an editor goes crazy and includes 10 or 20 sources for a given fact. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Okay, I found a good middle ground: I eliminated the bullets, but kept the multiple sources in each footnote. Each is separated by a line break, so it looks clean. Let me know if it is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we need the list of recipients of the Margaret Sanger Awards? I think it's appropriate to mention that there is an award named after her, and to gain some idea of the importance or respect of the award, though am not sure of the value of naming celebrity recipients. It feels like the importance is being generated by the list of celebrities, rather than the award itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Removed overly detailed list of recipients. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Inspired by this milieu, she started writing a series of articles about sexual hygiene entitled "What Every Mother Should Know" and "What Every Girl Should Know" for the socialist magazine New York Call", has four cites, which of them support the view that Sanger was "Inspired by this milieu"? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Reworded to more accurately reflect the sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "birth control" is mentioned nine times in the lead. Probably not possible given the subject matter, but could this be reduced? And, at the same time, could that she coined the term itself be put into the first paragraph per WP:LEAD's suggestion that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I moved "coined" into the first paragraph. Of the remaining 8 uses of "birth control": I was able to change one to the synonym "contraception". Two are in proper names. That leaves five ... but I do not think any of the remaining five can be changed. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass

There has been some very impressive work done on this article. It serves as a readable, useful and well cited overview of an important and interesting birth control activist. There is ongoing work to do, however this now meets GA criteria. Examples of ongoing work are ensuring that statements such as "Europe had a much more liberal view of contraception than the United States" do have cites; tidying up the presentation so that there are fewer short paragraphs; and tidying up logical flow - in the Birth control movement section for example we end one paragraph in 1917 then start the next in 1916 and end the section by going back to 1913. It's not always possible to ensure a perfect chronological flow, nor to keep all matters neatly grouped, but it's something to keep an eye on, and attempt to avoid such toing and froing. Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your help ... both the review and your contributions to the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. It couldn't have been easy.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It was not easy, but I learned a lot. Silk Tork was a big help. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New material

Brechbill123: what is the material you are trying to add to this article? --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Brechbill123: the KKK information is already mentioned above in the article no need to duplicate it. Likewise, the Negro Project is already mentioned. Also, the article has a separate "Eugenics" section: so any material on eugenics should go in that section, not other sections. Also: the article is up for GA nomination (see above) so please discuss any major changes to the article here first, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this: can you list here the material you want to add that is not yet in the article? --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Full name in lead: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee vs. Margaret Higgens Sanger?

I notice the very first sentence starts with a four word name: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee. I've reviewed the sources, and I've only found that in a couple of obscure places. None (zero) of the biographies of Sanger use that 4-word name anywhere. Nor can I find it in the online resources of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project. The sources use "Margaret Sanger" 99% of the time, and "Margaret Higgens Sanger" 1% of the time. I propose to change it to "Margaret Higgens Sanger". --Noleander (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the sources overwhelmingly support that change. Be bold? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nova Science Publishers"

An editor has added a rather contentious claim, sourced to a purported academic publication by Nova Science Press. A bit of Google searching reveals a large number of people claiming that this is a vanity press or academic publishing "scam", that it solicits publications via mass email, and that it lacks a reliable peer-review process (or possibly any peer-review process at all). Given the contentious nature of the claim, which seems to say that Sanger objected only to the methodology employed by the Nazis in committing atrocities, and not the justifications for them, I would think we would prefer a well-known and well-regarded academic publisher.

I have reverted this insertion for the time being. Any thoughts on this subject? I think at minimum this source should not be referenced prior to some discussion at RSN. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources please! Night of the Big Wind talk 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I will list a few below, but there seem to be rather a lot of them. Of course, none of these is itself a reliable source, or I wouldn't have even posted this question.

http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/05/nova-publishers-legitimate-or-bogus.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112742
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/beware-nova-publishers-and-frank-or-nadya-columbus-president-and-editor-in-chief/
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=26097.0
http://ask.metafilter.com/177104/publisher-reputation
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/No-NOVA-Science-Publishers-is-3425349.S.39527615?qid=5c7a3812-61ac-4811-8261-e536dd0616b0&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_3425349
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/nova-publishers/
http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=69 [in a comment at the bottom]

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Journal, whether it's a "vanity press" publication or not. You can find the full text of the article online if you Google the authors' names. If you want to examine their credentials, here are the web pages of two of them. MFNickster (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the publication and review process, but I do also notice that they seem to be psychologists, not historians/political scientists/etc. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
On a cursory examination, it looks like more guilt by association. Hitler was inspired by American eugenicists, ergo Sanger is like Hitler. Claiming that only her "methodology" differed from the Nazis may be accurate if you consider only the distinction between killing people and not killing people. AFAIK, Sanger never advocated killing anyone. Also, they make some historical errors like claiming that her "Plan for Peace" had the same goals as the Nazis and that she wrote "in reference to the Nazi eugenics plan 'The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.'" In fact, she wrote that in 1921 before Hitler came to power or wrote Mein Kampf. MFNickster (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Race section and WP:NPOV

The source provided (available http://www.openisbn.com/preview/0801486122/) for this statement"Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but " doesn't state Sanger believed such.


"Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint,"
I removed the above because it represents a violation of WP:NPOV. Describing a view on race as "archaic" is clearly a point of view. It doesn't matter if this is the language used in the citation or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The purpose of Wikipedia is not to present a sanitized version of the facts. We must trust that users are capable of forming their own opinions taking into account historical context and views of the time.

After all, Sanger herself said " the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics”

It is relevant that Margaret Sanger in The Pivot of Civilization (1922) wrote;

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." -- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.26.5 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Permenant semi-protection

It seems every couple of days someone comes in and inserts a strong pov edit about Sanger's views on race or eugenics. It'd be easier if this page was permanently semi-protected. Where can we go to request that? I also sort of think that all "controversial" pages should be semi-protected. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this entry has numerous inaccuracies

Hello,

I showed this entry to my graduate students during our discussion of Ellen Chesler's biography last night. There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, especially in the sections on eugenics and race. We would like to edit these sections but the entry is locked. Please advise as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.31.39 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is indeed locked for unregistered users. But because the article is controversial, the best way is to write a draft and publish it here on the talkpage. We can then discuss the draft and apply the beneficial parts onto the article. Your draft must be sourced. We will be looking forward for your draft and welcome you on Wikipedia!Night of the Big Wind talk 22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am a registered user, and it appears locked period; not just locked for unregistered users. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
Sorry, at the moment the article is completely locked, due to an editwar going on. But even as a registered user, you better come up with a draft before making changes. Opinions are, to put it mildly, very varied among the followers of the article. Writing drafts and discuss them beforehand, prevents you falling straight in to boiling hot water. The Banner talk 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
IP: Night of the Big Wind's advice is good. A couple of other options available are (1) create an account (register) in WP and edit under the account; or (2) Post a note here on the Talk page summarizing what the inaccuracies are, and another editor is likely to research it and resolve the problems. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmprescott (talk • contribs) 15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good debate on this topic, just wanted to add that the sections on Eugenics and Race would benefit from links to work on feminist scholars about how race and eugenicism factored into the first-wave movement, as a strategy to obtain women rights - rather than a goal in itself. That would add needed context to her views. See: Weinbaum, Alys Eve. "Writing Feminist Genealogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Racial Nationalism, and the Reproduction of Maternalist Feminism." Feminist Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer, 2001): pp. 271-302. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.55.198 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Life/Early Life Section

The fact that Sanger's parents were both Catholics, and one a "devote Catholic" implies that such a background as a child somehow makes Margaret Sanger more "objective" regarding her views on birth control. Sort of a "I've lived my life on both sides now" sense of authenticity to her views. At the very least, the background info shows an upbringing that may have influenced her later. That is OK. Then the section goes on to talk of her father's conversion to atheism and activism. This implies that Margaret Sanger was influenced by her father's conversion to such things. That is OK, too. In fact, the entire first section of Early Life can be read as stating this: mom, the devote Catholic, died of 50 from...cervical cancer (note: this is UNRELATED medically to 18 pregnancies, but those without an MD will assume the opposite); dad, the Catholic, saw the light and converted to social activism and atheism. Sanger then went to work and saw the light, too.

The fact is that this section includes two alleged influencial people in Margaret Sanger's life (influencial because why otherwise bother with the details of mom and dad) but omits the details of another potential influencial individual, William Sanger, Margaret's first husband. Considering the "Early Life" section here is supposed to educate us on "influences" (devote Catholic with 18 pregnancies dies of cervical cancer; Catholic father become atheist social activist), I propose the following addition:

AFTER this sentence: "In 1902, Margaret Higgins married architect William Sanger, and the couple settled in New York City.[10]"

ADD this sentence: "Son of German-Jewish immigrants, William Sanger was an architect with an interest in radical politics. After a few years of unsatisfying suburban domesticity in Yonkers and then in Hastings-on-Hudson, William Sanger and his family moved to New York City, where he introduced his wife Margaret to the bohemian world of radical artists and activists. They both joined the local Socialist Party and participated in such radical events as the 1913 Paterson Strike Pageant."

[source is http://wyatt.elasticbeanstalk.com/mep/MS/xml/bsangerw.html, itself citing The Margaret Sanger Papers Electronic Edition: Margaret Sanger and The Woman Rebel, 1914-1916, eds. Esther Katz, Cathy Moran Hajo and Peter Engelman (Columbia, S.C.: Model Editions Partnership, 1999). On the Web at http://mep.blackmesatech.com/mep/]

I believe that my request is fair, accurate as per references, and appropriately adds to the influential people in Margaret Sanger's formative years.

My email is sajbarnes@comcast.net if anyone wants to let me know the result of my request (I cannot seem to log in today). Stephen A. Barnes, MD, JD Houston 76.31.203.30 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to material of that nature. However, the wyatt.elasticbeanstalk.com web site does not meet the WP:RS requirement. You (or another editor ... I dont have time this month) must find and read an unbiased biography of Sanger (or a comparable good-quality source) and use that as the foundation for the material. It is not sufficient to rely on elasticbeanstalk's assertion that they read the original source: the editor adding the material must read it. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The source you use must be identified in a footnote to any new material added. --Noleander (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'd like to discuss a couple of recent edits:

  • This seems a bit heavy-handed and polemical on the one hand; it's sort of beating the reader over the head that she was a socialist who associated with socialist socialists to do socialist stuff, etc. Sinclair's defining characteristic was not that he was a "socialist", but that he was a muckraking author and journalist. The edit is also wrong - Sanger is criticized today predominantly by anti-abortion activists, not by people who oppose birth control.
  • This edit introduces extensive redundancies. I don't think it's very useful to the reader to go into great detail about the Rockefellers (and it leaves the reader wondering why the Rockefellers were so supportive of Sanger's work if she supposedly advocated their assassination?) The sourcing is dubious in some cases (e.g. Angela Frank's book, which is a polemic).

Also, many of the recent edits have introduced extensive typographical errors and duplicated text. This is a Good Article, and while I agree it can always be improved, it might be useful to go a bit slower and take a bit more care in editing. MastCell Talk 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I took out the Angela Franks reference and replaced it with a reference Ellen Chesler's Woman of Valor. I also removed my reference to Upton Sinclair and Sanger's other friends being socialists. The only two things I restored were the reference to Margaret Sanger calling for the murder of Rockefeller, again with a more appropriate source this time, Chesler, and Sanger's quote about the negative effects of masturbation on young girls, but I didn't restore her other comments on that topic because you seemed to think the sexuality section was to long and detailed. Is it ok now. And with regards to why Sanger changed her stance on the Rockefellers, she became less socialistic and more friendly to business in her outlook as she became older. Perhaps we could work that into the article. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it; I think your recent edits are a big improvement. MastCell Talk 18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I found this source that says Margaret Sanger had a husband at age 18 prior to William Sanger but don't know if that's true. Should this info be added to the article? http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt --RJR3333 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That source looks totally biased and unreliable to me. It is better to look for information about the marriage in a more reliable source. The Banner talk 11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ [5]
  2. ^ Rüdin, "Eugenics Sterlization: An Urgent Need", Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 102-104
  3. ^ O'Conner, Karen, Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook, p 743.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Sanger/Archive_2&oldid=1078398738"