This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Check it: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 ( talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
לייענען אָנליין בייַ ייִדיש בוך צענטער —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.149 ( talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)
Brechbill123: what is the material you are trying to add to this article? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'd like to discuss a couple of recent edits:
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Check it: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 ( talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
לייענען אָנליין בייַ ייִדיש בוך צענטער —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.149 ( talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)
Brechbill123: what is the material you are trying to add to this article? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'd like to discuss a couple of recent edits:
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)