![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
This quote from the Eugenics section was removed, claiming it is "undue weight". Below, I list the WP undue weight criteria and show that this does not appear to qualify as undo weight.
The book citation template was used to link directly to p. 112 which contains the quote, with the full context readily available: http://books.google.com/books?id=DjEbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight:
I would like to consider restoring this quote. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
With the explanations above answering the few objections, it seems this quote should now be included in the article, especially as presented, including that it helps the reader identify who Sanger views as unfit and why she would want to eliminate them. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 04:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this article fails to have a neutral POV. Here is an undocumented judgmental statement:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…" Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood It is questionable that this statement is ommitted while others are included. 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article from American Weekly March 1934, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=101807.xml Sanger pleads for quite radical societal reform: she wants the creation of a "permit for parenthood" without which no one would have the right to have a child, and she pleads for a "better distribution of babies". Isn't that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.37.92 ( talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review the edits by Esther119. A few times a source written by Esther Katz shows up in her edits, often enough to give me a strange feeling. Are the edits reliable? Use of own work? Or nothing wrong here? The Banner talk 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1. According to this article (unfortunately, it suffers from typos), Ms Sanger made known her parting with eugenics views in a piece that appeared in The Birth Control Review, February 1919. Since there is a whole section here on Sanger's eugenics ideas, should not a separation from those ideas be mentioned? < http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm>
2. In the 1980 TV movie about Margaret Sanger: Portrait of a Rebel: The Remarkable Mrs. Sanger, starring Bonnie Franklin < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081359/>, there was a segment about Sanger's involvement in the first case of child abuse brought in New York City. According to the film (as I remember it from 33 years ago), since there was no statute protecting children from parental abuse, the case hinged on a law for the protection of animals from abuse because the child was being treated no better than an animal. If this is based in truth, then Sanger's involvement in the protection of child from abuse should be mentioned as it is germane to this article.
[Since my memory of this film is vague, please forgive me if I have gotten any facts wrong. I did not see the Dana Delany version, Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2> or the 1999 documentary, Margaret Sanger < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261047/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>.]
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to add a sourced inflammatory quote or fact, please read
WP:UNDUE first, then describe why
reliable,
secondary sources give the same weight that you'd like to give it here.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to change "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" to "Critics" (giving the reason --- "Removed implication of motive and substituted a more neutral term"), and within minutes it was changed back. The reason given was "In this case it is relevant to tell who are her critics."
All her critics, or just many of them? Come on now. By attributing criticisms of her eugenics and alleged racism to "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" you're ignoring other possible reasons for the criticism unrelated to abortion. The implication is that these criticisms are trumped up charges, and need not be considered on their own merits.
I believe simply using the word 'critics' is the best and most objective description, but if others insist on emphasizing something that people already know, or would assume to be the case (that many opponents of the legalization of abortion criticize Sanger in various ways), I suggest saying, "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion, as well as others,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.34.67.80 ( talk) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. It is especially bizarre since she was generally anti-abortion herself. AnarchistMatt ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
A recent editor added this photo which was subsequently removed. Just in case anyone re-adds it, be aware that it is a fake. It's part of an annual Margaret Sanger at the Ku Klux Klan Rally Art Contest encouraging Photoshoppers to "commemorate Sanger at the Klan rally in unique artistic ways." No known photos exist of Sanger at the KKK meeting (not "rally") she claims to have spoken at. MFNickster ( talk) 23:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This article really needs to be looked over completely and possibly rewritten. It seems slightly biased and contains a flat out lie about Martin Luther King Jr. because he did not accept the Margaret Sanger Award or give an acceptance speech. He wasn't even there, yet this article claims he gave an acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.
§~TexasChickStuckInCali~§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasChickStuckInCali ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I realise this will likely need a bit of cropping but http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.23669/ is Margaret Sanger "Probably taken outside Sanger's Brownsville clinic trial at the King's County Court of Special Sessions, Jan. 30, 1917 (Source: Staff of Margaret Sanger Papers project, NYU, 2014)"- it's also a rather good photograph of her. Are there any objections to making that image the lead, moving the current lead down a bit? Alternatively, we could put it into the section on her trial.
I think Sanger deserves a featured picture, and this - and a picture of her Brooklyn Clinic I found - seem the best candidates. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I note with interest the recent disagreement ( context) over how to best represent Sanger's views on abortion. Spwlearning, since there seems to be little support for your adding the quote as it stands, perhaps you could suggest an alternative way to incorporate the information in the article if the source is reliable? Maybe Maunus, The Banner and others might be willing to discuss this so we don't run the risk of WP:3RR issues. Basie ( talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is ridiculously favourable to Sanger, and since one contributor states that an alteration he made was removed within minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was written by, and is being constantly monitored by, Sanger's disciples. I found it very troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.67.237 ( talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was a discussion on Facebook about which woman should appear on the new U.S. $10 bill. When I shared this article, the image of Sanger's eugenics article appears instead of her picture. Looks like someone has done a clever hack to highlight her controversial beliefs instead of her positive contributions. Can anyone fix it? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The new User:Chrononem is making edits to this article that in my opinion are making the article less neutral. Beside that, he is acting as an experienced user, although registered only a few days ago. To avoid an edit war, I like more eyes on this article to keep the neutrality intact. The Banner talk 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, in fact I mentioned it earlier on Banner's talk page. I do not want to see an edit war.
Thank you, Banner. I may seem experienced but this is my first foray into Wikipedia. Years ago I worked on varrious video game wiki's so I know most of the rules; That may contribute to my apparent experience. Regaurdless, I hope you reconsider your recent edit. I believe you are not taking the time to consider the attitude words convey, how certain words should be used carefully on wikipedia due to their accusatory nature. Chrononem ☎ 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
While Sanger did not wholly escape the racist attitudes of her time
Isn't this a little too positive? It makes it seem as if she was a victim of her racism. What? That's such a bullshit way of putting it. She was a racist, why not outright state it? Anyone who meets up with the female chapter of the KKK is a racist. Or maybe they're just 'victims'? That's portraying her as a victim that attempted but failed to do something noble. Claiming that colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated (The Pivot of Civilization - Margaret Sanger) doesn't sound like the glowing portrayal of her as a precious commodity. Can we at least make mention of SOME of her racism instead of sweeping it under the rug with you only bring it up if youre against abortion and hey it was the 1920's Hitler's racism is also excused hey 1920's
While Ted Bundy was not able to escape his insanity, poor poor Teddy
Hell, this whole article is a glowing review of Margaret.
Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics.[61][62][note 8] In spite of such attacks, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement.
in other words, many who dislike her say this, but these attacks haven't diminished her as a saint. Yes, let's reduce any controversies surrounding her to a blurb. A blurb that claims people only bring these claims up because they are opposed to abortion. Not because, you know, they're opposed to racism and eugenics. I'm just surprised at the wording and the way this entire article dismisses any valid critiques of her as coming from people that dislike abortion and women.
Did planned parenthood write this article themselves?
and for the record, I actually have nothing against eugenics and believe that if there is a valid scientific basis then it is up for discussion. I'm also totally for abortion, but that isn't the point. The point is that this is a shit article. 108.41.215.105 ( talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It certainly seems as though the main writer of this article is trying to downplay her racism. A lot of historical revisionism is going on here trying whitewash her white supremacy. I nominate you to edit it. ( 50.190.172.58 ( talk) 04:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)flippp)
There's need for considerable caution in editing this article as there seems to be much misinformation promulgated on both sides. E.g., Sanger is quoted above as likening "colored people" to "human weeds" and this is sourced to her book "The Pivot of Civilization" --- I can't find that quote in either the Gutenberg or Google on-line version of that book. SHJohnson ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up. Wikiquote identifies the "human weeds" quote as a misattribution. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger SHJohnson ( talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My sense is that the person who wrote the above criticism isn't aware of just how mainstream the idea of eugenics was at the time. It was the belief that some members of society should be encouraged to procreate and some should be discouraged. And it was not necessarily a racist belief either; for example W.E.B. Dubois was involved in the eugenics movement. He obviously did not support "white supremacy." Some aspects of the eugenics movement were openly racist and some were not. It's far too broad a brush to equate eugenics beliefs in the early 20th century with the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.194.138 ( talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave this Sanger quote here. Wikipedia is a joke source for a reason, and Orwellian recasting of racist Progressives for political points is a good reason:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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 any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger, "Women, Morality, and Birth Control" 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C463:210:5440:5DA6:A41D:87C1 ( talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This not puffery but backed up with sources like these: [1], [2], [3], [4] and many more. The Banner talk 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the two sections flagged in this-current version of the article, with two {peacock} tags, clearly contains “real information”. Moreover, the flagged sections are reasonably well cited. I’m surprised such a tag even exists; it strongly smacks of being the ultimate [I DON’T LIKE IT] tag that is every bit as biased a viewpoint as the verbiage it criticizes. What sort of editors are we allowing to flit about on Wikipedia (or camp out on a particular article) slapping these tags on articles? Not even Jimbo himself wields that much judgmental clout.
If there truly were entire sections of articles that ‘promoted the subject in a subjective manner and did not impart real information,’ the entire section should be removed, taken to a dedicated discussion page, and the two edit-warring camps can then go at it—hopefully backing up their prose with genuine citations from real RSs. I'm not going to even think about removing these tags, which are an edit-warring abomination unto the eyes of the wikipedian world, as I can tell that treading here on this article is bad ‘cess. Greg L ( talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the abortion section, because it was sourced almost entirely to a) primary sources and b) secondary sources that didn't support the written claims. While inclusion of the subject's own writings is not taboo in a bio article, they can't be used to support an entire "controversy" section. Secondary sources don't appear to support the claim that Sanger had any great moral problem with abortion; it looks like the cited primary sources are either part of, or describing, the rhetoric which she used to advocate contraception, rather than a description of her personal views. I've salvaged the secondary source to another section. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR: care to weigh in on why you believe your interpretation of primary sources outweighs secondary source analysis? Please don't even bother to cite ridiculous things like RedState. I must remind you that POV/NPOV, which you keep mistakenly citing, is about reflecting reliable sources, not about conforming to some editor's subjective view of what would be neutral. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of deleting material based on unreliable sources and added references to the reliable sources already in use in the article. I omitted questionable interpretations based on selective reading of the primary sources, especially when it has not been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. I believe my summary is supported by secondary sources. The reduced exposition reflects emphasis and the degree of coverage in secondary sources that span four decades. Jason from nyc ( talk) 11:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can't primary sources be used as sources when actual quotations are placed in the article? If I write, "[So-and-so] wrote [such-and-such]" in a Wiki article, am I allowed to use an online edition of the work in which So-and-so actually did write such-and-such as a source? If not, why not? Thanks, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 14:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the text below removed by ArtifexMayhem and restored by an IP shortly thereafter. As presented, I agree it's problematic, yet also agree it likely makes sense to include in some fashion. Here's the text, which was at the end of the Abortion section:
She wrote: "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." [1] She also wrote: "To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life." [2]
The problematic thing I noticed was that the first quote comes from a passage in which she's talking about how dangerous abortions were. Just below that quote she says "It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow." In other words, in this context, the "disgrace" she's talking about seems more along the lines of a disgrace that there are laws which prevent access to birth control, leading to unnecessary [dangerous] abortions. Of course, we'd need a reliable secondary source for either interpretation, which is why I moved the text here rather than modify it.
The second quote does appear to be a moral objection in addition to her legal/ethical/practical objections. I moved that here too as it seems like a bad idea to include a line like that in an article about a controversial subject, citing only a primary source. I don't have a strong opinion on what the best course is and don't intend to remove the text again if this has been discussed in the past and this thread isn't useful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the misinformation included about Margaret Sanger in the eugenics section, as none of the information provided has been verified by historians. This misinformation is a large part of the rhetoric promoted by those in the anti-choice movement, and investigation of her papers by historians has never supported the conclusions drawn by such groups. Comment added by Naha8 ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is working women emphasized under Social activism? If an implication needs to be made shouldn't it be " working women" rather than vaguely suggesting it? If not should I remove the emphasis? Chrononem ☎ 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel like Sanger's lecture to the KKK is as relevent to her racial controvercies as her affiliation with Black leaders. I suggest it be included in that section. Thoughts? Chrononem ☎ 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
But others have raised important points as to the substance of her speech as opposed to the prejudices of the audience. This is a bio about Sanger, not the people in the audience. I'd argue that the current inclusion is already too much and gives undue weight to a part of the story that has little relevance to her notability. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANI's section "Violation of 1RR on sanctioned article." pointed me to the page history here, but while I expected to see two or three users battling it out, I saw lots of reversions by lots of people. Unless I've misunderstood something here, this is an ideal candidate for page protection to prevent edit-warring. Please make suggestions here for big changes, if you want to see them enacted in the next 24 hours; just come to my talk page to request uncontroversial changes, whether typo fixes or simple factual things, or to ask me to lengthen/shorten/remove the protection. Nyttend ( talk) 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger was a racist and a eugenist! She deeply believed blacks should be eliminated. How could this possibly be overlooked in her determination to get birth control more accessible? Birth control for who? MY sources are ALL of the history around this woman, her book, "The Pivot of Civilization", which deplores the (reckless breeding), among the poor. Makes outrageous claims of mass amounts of, again, her words, below par children. The need for birth control and the need for better breeding.
Do we say Hitler ever had a virtue? No, NO, we do not. Why? He believed exactly as Sanger did, there are inferior races!
24.8.129.231 ( talk) 23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
← It's not "POV" to say that anti-abortionists cherry-pick or outright fabricate quotes supposedly "proving" that Sanger was out to eliminate African-Americans. It's a fact that such dishonest behavior has occurred, and has it has been repeatedly documented and debunked by independent, reliable sources. See:
The attempts to link Sanger to Nazi Germany are particularly ignorant, given that Sanger was an ardent anti-Nazi and contributed money and influence to oppose Nazi Germany in the 1930s (Sanger's published works were also vilified and banned in Nazi Germany). So no, this is not an issue of two dueling POVs. It's an issue where reliable sources have identified this material as an example of particularly persistent, politically motivated dishonesty. We don't artificially "compromise" between reliable sources and partisan and misleading political rhetoric, because this is an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In the last decade especially, opponents of reproductive rights have highlighted the birth control movement's association with eugenics-the flawed science of human betterment that influenced social policy from the late 19th century through the 1920s and that was used to justify Nazi atrocities during World War II-and condemned the pioneer birth control activists, Margaret Sanger in particular, as racist. A number of books published in the last 20 years and scores of Internet sites feature incendiary quotes, misappropriated or taken out of context, as evidence that the movement used coercive racist policies, advocated the extermination of blacks and Jews, and carried out millions of abortions. Some reproductive rights supporters have chosen to side-step the controversy and depict a movement that never strayed from its early feminist and humanitarian intentions. Ideologues on both sides have failed to either evaluate the documentary record of the movement or carefully consider the historical context.
— Engelman, Peter (2011), A history of the birth control movement in America, p. xix{{ citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)
Just before this biography first went to press in 1992, the journalist Molly Ivins brought to my attention a pamphlet circulating among conservatives called The Legacy of Planned Parenthood that vilifies Sanger as a racist and eugenicist. The smear campaign that began with this single publication of limited circulation, however, has since turned into a virtual industry, fueled by the Internet. A recent survey of cyberspace by the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project uncovered ceaseless repetition by antiabortion and antifeminist Web sites and blogs of a handful of alleged quotes from Sanger that are either completely inaccurate or cited entirely out of context. "False information," as the editors of the papers project recently wrote, "is repeated so often that many of the more mainstream sites and reference publications feel compelled to construct a false debate: Sanger the humanitarian feminist vs. Sanger the racist eugenicist."
Among their examples is the popular anonymous-source reference site Wikipedia, which shows up at the top of the list for most Google and other popular Internet engine searches of individuals of prominence. Constantly being revised and easily corrupted by readers with ideological agendas, the Wikipedia entry on Sanger is more often than not factually incorrect and intellectually incoherent in its efforts to meld differing points of view. But it is where thousands of individuals, and especially young people, are getting their information about her. Erroneous and scurrilous information is indeed now so ubiquitous that Planned Parenthood feels compelled to post denials and clarifications on its own popular Web site, including a moving testimonial to the "kinship" between the family planning and civil rights movements by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., when he accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 1966.
— Chesler, Ellen (2011) [First published 1992], Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, p. 488
Is there any grounds for discussion and compromise here? I am skeptical. It looks to me like we're going to need to head to Discretionary Sanctions, and probably to ArbCom, to get anywhere at all. (Question: since this sure looks like a gender-related controversy, does it also fall under Arbitration Enforcement for Gamergate? For Gender Gap Task Force? If so, does AE trump DS?) I also observe that, with much attention focused on Wikipedia's handling of sexual harassment, it would be better for the project to sort this out soon and quietly, rather than have it devolve into a major mess. MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:22, 19 August 2015 (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 | → | Archive 7 |
This quote from the Eugenics section was removed, claiming it is "undue weight". Below, I list the WP undue weight criteria and show that this does not appear to qualify as undo weight.
The book citation template was used to link directly to p. 112 which contains the quote, with the full context readily available: http://books.google.com/books?id=DjEbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight:
I would like to consider restoring this quote. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
With the explanations above answering the few objections, it seems this quote should now be included in the article, especially as presented, including that it helps the reader identify who Sanger views as unfit and why she would want to eliminate them. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 04:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this article fails to have a neutral POV. Here is an undocumented judgmental statement:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…" Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood It is questionable that this statement is ommitted while others are included. 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
In this article from American Weekly March 1934, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=101807.xml Sanger pleads for quite radical societal reform: she wants the creation of a "permit for parenthood" without which no one would have the right to have a child, and she pleads for a "better distribution of babies". Isn't that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.37.92 ( talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review the edits by Esther119. A few times a source written by Esther Katz shows up in her edits, often enough to give me a strange feeling. Are the edits reliable? Use of own work? Or nothing wrong here? The Banner talk 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1. According to this article (unfortunately, it suffers from typos), Ms Sanger made known her parting with eugenics views in a piece that appeared in The Birth Control Review, February 1919. Since there is a whole section here on Sanger's eugenics ideas, should not a separation from those ideas be mentioned? < http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm>
2. In the 1980 TV movie about Margaret Sanger: Portrait of a Rebel: The Remarkable Mrs. Sanger, starring Bonnie Franklin < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081359/>, there was a segment about Sanger's involvement in the first case of child abuse brought in New York City. According to the film (as I remember it from 33 years ago), since there was no statute protecting children from parental abuse, the case hinged on a law for the protection of animals from abuse because the child was being treated no better than an animal. If this is based in truth, then Sanger's involvement in the protection of child from abuse should be mentioned as it is germane to this article.
[Since my memory of this film is vague, please forgive me if I have gotten any facts wrong. I did not see the Dana Delany version, Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2> or the 1999 documentary, Margaret Sanger < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261047/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>.]
Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to add a sourced inflammatory quote or fact, please read
WP:UNDUE first, then describe why
reliable,
secondary sources give the same weight that you'd like to give it here.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to change "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" to "Critics" (giving the reason --- "Removed implication of motive and substituted a more neutral term"), and within minutes it was changed back. The reason given was "In this case it is relevant to tell who are her critics."
All her critics, or just many of them? Come on now. By attributing criticisms of her eugenics and alleged racism to "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" you're ignoring other possible reasons for the criticism unrelated to abortion. The implication is that these criticisms are trumped up charges, and need not be considered on their own merits.
I believe simply using the word 'critics' is the best and most objective description, but if others insist on emphasizing something that people already know, or would assume to be the case (that many opponents of the legalization of abortion criticize Sanger in various ways), I suggest saying, "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion, as well as others,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.34.67.80 ( talk) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. It is especially bizarre since she was generally anti-abortion herself. AnarchistMatt ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
A recent editor added this photo which was subsequently removed. Just in case anyone re-adds it, be aware that it is a fake. It's part of an annual Margaret Sanger at the Ku Klux Klan Rally Art Contest encouraging Photoshoppers to "commemorate Sanger at the Klan rally in unique artistic ways." No known photos exist of Sanger at the KKK meeting (not "rally") she claims to have spoken at. MFNickster ( talk) 23:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This article really needs to be looked over completely and possibly rewritten. It seems slightly biased and contains a flat out lie about Martin Luther King Jr. because he did not accept the Margaret Sanger Award or give an acceptance speech. He wasn't even there, yet this article claims he gave an acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.
§~TexasChickStuckInCali~§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasChickStuckInCali ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I realise this will likely need a bit of cropping but http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.23669/ is Margaret Sanger "Probably taken outside Sanger's Brownsville clinic trial at the King's County Court of Special Sessions, Jan. 30, 1917 (Source: Staff of Margaret Sanger Papers project, NYU, 2014)"- it's also a rather good photograph of her. Are there any objections to making that image the lead, moving the current lead down a bit? Alternatively, we could put it into the section on her trial.
I think Sanger deserves a featured picture, and this - and a picture of her Brooklyn Clinic I found - seem the best candidates. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I note with interest the recent disagreement ( context) over how to best represent Sanger's views on abortion. Spwlearning, since there seems to be little support for your adding the quote as it stands, perhaps you could suggest an alternative way to incorporate the information in the article if the source is reliable? Maybe Maunus, The Banner and others might be willing to discuss this so we don't run the risk of WP:3RR issues. Basie ( talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is ridiculously favourable to Sanger, and since one contributor states that an alteration he made was removed within minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was written by, and is being constantly monitored by, Sanger's disciples. I found it very troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.67.237 ( talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was a discussion on Facebook about which woman should appear on the new U.S. $10 bill. When I shared this article, the image of Sanger's eugenics article appears instead of her picture. Looks like someone has done a clever hack to highlight her controversial beliefs instead of her positive contributions. Can anyone fix it? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The new User:Chrononem is making edits to this article that in my opinion are making the article less neutral. Beside that, he is acting as an experienced user, although registered only a few days ago. To avoid an edit war, I like more eyes on this article to keep the neutrality intact. The Banner talk 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, in fact I mentioned it earlier on Banner's talk page. I do not want to see an edit war.
Thank you, Banner. I may seem experienced but this is my first foray into Wikipedia. Years ago I worked on varrious video game wiki's so I know most of the rules; That may contribute to my apparent experience. Regaurdless, I hope you reconsider your recent edit. I believe you are not taking the time to consider the attitude words convey, how certain words should be used carefully on wikipedia due to their accusatory nature. Chrononem ☎ 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
While Sanger did not wholly escape the racist attitudes of her time
Isn't this a little too positive? It makes it seem as if she was a victim of her racism. What? That's such a bullshit way of putting it. She was a racist, why not outright state it? Anyone who meets up with the female chapter of the KKK is a racist. Or maybe they're just 'victims'? That's portraying her as a victim that attempted but failed to do something noble. Claiming that colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated (The Pivot of Civilization - Margaret Sanger) doesn't sound like the glowing portrayal of her as a precious commodity. Can we at least make mention of SOME of her racism instead of sweeping it under the rug with you only bring it up if youre against abortion and hey it was the 1920's Hitler's racism is also excused hey 1920's
While Ted Bundy was not able to escape his insanity, poor poor Teddy
Hell, this whole article is a glowing review of Margaret.
Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics.[61][62][note 8] In spite of such attacks, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement.
in other words, many who dislike her say this, but these attacks haven't diminished her as a saint. Yes, let's reduce any controversies surrounding her to a blurb. A blurb that claims people only bring these claims up because they are opposed to abortion. Not because, you know, they're opposed to racism and eugenics. I'm just surprised at the wording and the way this entire article dismisses any valid critiques of her as coming from people that dislike abortion and women.
Did planned parenthood write this article themselves?
and for the record, I actually have nothing against eugenics and believe that if there is a valid scientific basis then it is up for discussion. I'm also totally for abortion, but that isn't the point. The point is that this is a shit article. 108.41.215.105 ( talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It certainly seems as though the main writer of this article is trying to downplay her racism. A lot of historical revisionism is going on here trying whitewash her white supremacy. I nominate you to edit it. ( 50.190.172.58 ( talk) 04:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)flippp)
There's need for considerable caution in editing this article as there seems to be much misinformation promulgated on both sides. E.g., Sanger is quoted above as likening "colored people" to "human weeds" and this is sourced to her book "The Pivot of Civilization" --- I can't find that quote in either the Gutenberg or Google on-line version of that book. SHJohnson ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up. Wikiquote identifies the "human weeds" quote as a misattribution. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger SHJohnson ( talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My sense is that the person who wrote the above criticism isn't aware of just how mainstream the idea of eugenics was at the time. It was the belief that some members of society should be encouraged to procreate and some should be discouraged. And it was not necessarily a racist belief either; for example W.E.B. Dubois was involved in the eugenics movement. He obviously did not support "white supremacy." Some aspects of the eugenics movement were openly racist and some were not. It's far too broad a brush to equate eugenics beliefs in the early 20th century with the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.194.138 ( talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave this Sanger quote here. Wikipedia is a joke source for a reason, and Orwellian recasting of racist Progressives for political points is a good reason:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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 any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger, "Women, Morality, and Birth Control" 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C463:210:5440:5DA6:A41D:87C1 ( talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This not puffery but backed up with sources like these: [1], [2], [3], [4] and many more. The Banner talk 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the two sections flagged in this-current version of the article, with two {peacock} tags, clearly contains “real information”. Moreover, the flagged sections are reasonably well cited. I’m surprised such a tag even exists; it strongly smacks of being the ultimate [I DON’T LIKE IT] tag that is every bit as biased a viewpoint as the verbiage it criticizes. What sort of editors are we allowing to flit about on Wikipedia (or camp out on a particular article) slapping these tags on articles? Not even Jimbo himself wields that much judgmental clout.
If there truly were entire sections of articles that ‘promoted the subject in a subjective manner and did not impart real information,’ the entire section should be removed, taken to a dedicated discussion page, and the two edit-warring camps can then go at it—hopefully backing up their prose with genuine citations from real RSs. I'm not going to even think about removing these tags, which are an edit-warring abomination unto the eyes of the wikipedian world, as I can tell that treading here on this article is bad ‘cess. Greg L ( talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the abortion section, because it was sourced almost entirely to a) primary sources and b) secondary sources that didn't support the written claims. While inclusion of the subject's own writings is not taboo in a bio article, they can't be used to support an entire "controversy" section. Secondary sources don't appear to support the claim that Sanger had any great moral problem with abortion; it looks like the cited primary sources are either part of, or describing, the rhetoric which she used to advocate contraception, rather than a description of her personal views. I've salvaged the secondary source to another section. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Professor JR: care to weigh in on why you believe your interpretation of primary sources outweighs secondary source analysis? Please don't even bother to cite ridiculous things like RedState. I must remind you that POV/NPOV, which you keep mistakenly citing, is about reflecting reliable sources, not about conforming to some editor's subjective view of what would be neutral. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of deleting material based on unreliable sources and added references to the reliable sources already in use in the article. I omitted questionable interpretations based on selective reading of the primary sources, especially when it has not been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. I believe my summary is supported by secondary sources. The reduced exposition reflects emphasis and the degree of coverage in secondary sources that span four decades. Jason from nyc ( talk) 11:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can't primary sources be used as sources when actual quotations are placed in the article? If I write, "[So-and-so] wrote [such-and-such]" in a Wiki article, am I allowed to use an online edition of the work in which So-and-so actually did write such-and-such as a source? If not, why not? Thanks, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 14:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the text below removed by ArtifexMayhem and restored by an IP shortly thereafter. As presented, I agree it's problematic, yet also agree it likely makes sense to include in some fashion. Here's the text, which was at the end of the Abortion section:
She wrote: "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." [1] She also wrote: "To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life." [2]
The problematic thing I noticed was that the first quote comes from a passage in which she's talking about how dangerous abortions were. Just below that quote she says "It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow." In other words, in this context, the "disgrace" she's talking about seems more along the lines of a disgrace that there are laws which prevent access to birth control, leading to unnecessary [dangerous] abortions. Of course, we'd need a reliable secondary source for either interpretation, which is why I moved the text here rather than modify it.
The second quote does appear to be a moral objection in addition to her legal/ethical/practical objections. I moved that here too as it seems like a bad idea to include a line like that in an article about a controversial subject, citing only a primary source. I don't have a strong opinion on what the best course is and don't intend to remove the text again if this has been discussed in the past and this thread isn't useful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the misinformation included about Margaret Sanger in the eugenics section, as none of the information provided has been verified by historians. This misinformation is a large part of the rhetoric promoted by those in the anti-choice movement, and investigation of her papers by historians has never supported the conclusions drawn by such groups. Comment added by Naha8 ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is working women emphasized under Social activism? If an implication needs to be made shouldn't it be " working women" rather than vaguely suggesting it? If not should I remove the emphasis? Chrononem ☎ 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel like Sanger's lecture to the KKK is as relevent to her racial controvercies as her affiliation with Black leaders. I suggest it be included in that section. Thoughts? Chrononem ☎ 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
But others have raised important points as to the substance of her speech as opposed to the prejudices of the audience. This is a bio about Sanger, not the people in the audience. I'd argue that the current inclusion is already too much and gives undue weight to a part of the story that has little relevance to her notability. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANI's section "Violation of 1RR on sanctioned article." pointed me to the page history here, but while I expected to see two or three users battling it out, I saw lots of reversions by lots of people. Unless I've misunderstood something here, this is an ideal candidate for page protection to prevent edit-warring. Please make suggestions here for big changes, if you want to see them enacted in the next 24 hours; just come to my talk page to request uncontroversial changes, whether typo fixes or simple factual things, or to ask me to lengthen/shorten/remove the protection. Nyttend ( talk) 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger was a racist and a eugenist! She deeply believed blacks should be eliminated. How could this possibly be overlooked in her determination to get birth control more accessible? Birth control for who? MY sources are ALL of the history around this woman, her book, "The Pivot of Civilization", which deplores the (reckless breeding), among the poor. Makes outrageous claims of mass amounts of, again, her words, below par children. The need for birth control and the need for better breeding.
Do we say Hitler ever had a virtue? No, NO, we do not. Why? He believed exactly as Sanger did, there are inferior races!
24.8.129.231 ( talk) 23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
← It's not "POV" to say that anti-abortionists cherry-pick or outright fabricate quotes supposedly "proving" that Sanger was out to eliminate African-Americans. It's a fact that such dishonest behavior has occurred, and has it has been repeatedly documented and debunked by independent, reliable sources. See:
The attempts to link Sanger to Nazi Germany are particularly ignorant, given that Sanger was an ardent anti-Nazi and contributed money and influence to oppose Nazi Germany in the 1930s (Sanger's published works were also vilified and banned in Nazi Germany). So no, this is not an issue of two dueling POVs. It's an issue where reliable sources have identified this material as an example of particularly persistent, politically motivated dishonesty. We don't artificially "compromise" between reliable sources and partisan and misleading political rhetoric, because this is an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In the last decade especially, opponents of reproductive rights have highlighted the birth control movement's association with eugenics-the flawed science of human betterment that influenced social policy from the late 19th century through the 1920s and that was used to justify Nazi atrocities during World War II-and condemned the pioneer birth control activists, Margaret Sanger in particular, as racist. A number of books published in the last 20 years and scores of Internet sites feature incendiary quotes, misappropriated or taken out of context, as evidence that the movement used coercive racist policies, advocated the extermination of blacks and Jews, and carried out millions of abortions. Some reproductive rights supporters have chosen to side-step the controversy and depict a movement that never strayed from its early feminist and humanitarian intentions. Ideologues on both sides have failed to either evaluate the documentary record of the movement or carefully consider the historical context.
— Engelman, Peter (2011), A history of the birth control movement in America, p. xix{{ citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)
Just before this biography first went to press in 1992, the journalist Molly Ivins brought to my attention a pamphlet circulating among conservatives called The Legacy of Planned Parenthood that vilifies Sanger as a racist and eugenicist. The smear campaign that began with this single publication of limited circulation, however, has since turned into a virtual industry, fueled by the Internet. A recent survey of cyberspace by the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project uncovered ceaseless repetition by antiabortion and antifeminist Web sites and blogs of a handful of alleged quotes from Sanger that are either completely inaccurate or cited entirely out of context. "False information," as the editors of the papers project recently wrote, "is repeated so often that many of the more mainstream sites and reference publications feel compelled to construct a false debate: Sanger the humanitarian feminist vs. Sanger the racist eugenicist."
Among their examples is the popular anonymous-source reference site Wikipedia, which shows up at the top of the list for most Google and other popular Internet engine searches of individuals of prominence. Constantly being revised and easily corrupted by readers with ideological agendas, the Wikipedia entry on Sanger is more often than not factually incorrect and intellectually incoherent in its efforts to meld differing points of view. But it is where thousands of individuals, and especially young people, are getting their information about her. Erroneous and scurrilous information is indeed now so ubiquitous that Planned Parenthood feels compelled to post denials and clarifications on its own popular Web site, including a moving testimonial to the "kinship" between the family planning and civil rights movements by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., when he accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 1966.
— Chesler, Ellen (2011) [First published 1992], Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, p. 488
Is there any grounds for discussion and compromise here? I am skeptical. It looks to me like we're going to need to head to Discretionary Sanctions, and probably to ArbCom, to get anywhere at all. (Question: since this sure looks like a gender-related controversy, does it also fall under Arbitration Enforcement for Gamergate? For Gender Gap Task Force? If so, does AE trump DS?) I also observe that, with much attention focused on Wikipedia's handling of sexual harassment, it would be better for the project to sort this out soon and quietly, rather than have it devolve into a major mess. MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)