![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 |
The section on "Race" starts with Sanger's views on Aboriginal Australians. Where is there a citation that her views are controversial? Are there anthropologists who study aboriginal groups debating Sanger's views? The first paragraph seems to be the opinion of wikipedia editors who cite Sanger's work and decided it controversial. The last paragraph mentions "sexual and racial chaos" but it isn't clear that race here means "human race" as opposed to white vs. black vs. others. Reading some of here work one finds "the race" means "human race." Jason from nyc ( talk)
The next paragraph starts with "Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders ..." What attitudes? On anthropology? On the human race? Why would black leaders be expected to object and who says they should? This is an opinion by wikipedia editors. And it is written by analyzing primary sources. Jason from nyc ( talk)
The remainder of the section isn't about a controversy with the exception of the last sentence. It is about how well she was received by leaders of the black community. We should delete the 1st paragraph of the "Race" section and perhaps the whole section. Any mention of her outreach to the black community should be part of her life's work and in the "Life" section somewhere. Jason from nyc ( talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are trying to suggest that Aboriginal Australians actually posses inhibited brain development. If that is the case I would refer you to WP:NDP and Wikipedia:Discrimination#Prohibited_activities. Otherwise it should stand on its own that these statements are controversial. Chrononem ☎ 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine, since you obviously won't stop until you've gotten yourself banned I went ahead and got you a source. [1] That describes scientific racism.
It is not necessary to explain either that racism is controversial or that Margret's ideas were racist. Giving her ideas is enough. Chrononem ☎ 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It is said a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat knows no law except nature which impels him to procreate whatever the result. Every normal man and Woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells in thinking deeply, are never sensual. [2]
Thirdly: we have come to the conclusion, based on widespread investigation and experience, that this education for parenthood and of parenthood must be based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the submerged masses, can never be of the slightest value in effecting any changes in the mores of the people. Such systems have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted. [3]
Only that on EN wikipedia we have to follow English rules, which means parenthetical statements stand alone. That you don't recognize "woeful" as bemoaning tells me that this may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT especially considering your history edit warring on this page. As for "traditional" feel free to replace it with "other" or "highminded" if you so choose. I don't see what it would hurt for you to use her actual words. They convey her feelings better than wikipedia could. Chrononem ☎ 12:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This recent set of changes removed balancing content in a manner seriously at odds with WP:NPOV, without any explanation in the edit summaries and, as far as I can see, without a substantial explanation on this talk page. I don't see any consensus for this kind of major refocusing of the text. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems a large part of this discussion revolves around what is and isn't controversial. I ask: why is it even titled as such? Why not just the neutral "Views"? The title as it stands appears to be misconceptional in my opinion. What's controversial about her views on sexuality? They frankly sound like something that would have been "normal" in a Western country today. The title is also borderline WP:CRITICISM. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Returning to the question: A key point here is that any discussion of Sanger’s views on race must be set in the context of contemporary opinion. Some of her writing from the 1920s espouses ideas about race that were widely held at the time but that were later disproven and rejected. Views which merely reflected contemporary scientific, medical, and scholarly opinion may deserve brief note, taking care to contextualize them. Wikipedia should not, however, engage in fake controversy or publicize partisan talking points by ripping Sanger's writing out of the intellectual context of the time. If Sanger believed that impulse control was a heritable trait for which persons of color were not always notable, her belief had been shared by recent presidents -- both Republic and Democratic -- by contemporary anthropologists, and by writers ranging from Dorothy Sayers to Joseph Moncure March. A sentence or two should suffice: more would be too much. MarkBernstein ( talk) 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
First request: Please delete the 1st sentence of the race section on aboriginal Australians. It was about a single sentence she wrote in 1912 ( WP:UNDUE) that is not of significance to any reliable source. This is either WP:FRINGE (see comments above on Family Research Council as a proposed source) or without such sources WP:ORIGINAL research. Professor Gillian Cowlishaw tells us these views were the prevalent views of physical anthropologists in the early 20th century until the work of Alfred Radcliffe-Brown about 1930. [3] ("Australian Aboriginal studies: The anthropologists' accounts". In M. de Lepervanche; G. Bottomley. The Cultural Construction of Race, 1988.) Sanger starts her sentence with "It is said ..." so she doesn't even know if she should accept expert opinion. She never met the aboriginals and there is no indication that she accepted this view as fact let alone that she came to this view from prejudice. To insinuate racism as is done in "fringe" research is the kind of WP:SYNTHESIS we reject. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Second request: Delete the 2nd sentence in the race section that starts with "Elsewhere she wrote ..." as it is WP:ORIGINAL research that takes her usage of the words "race" and "racial" to mean "white race vs. others" when a careful reading of the article makes it clear she means "human race" as she always does. There is no evidence that she is expressing racist sentiment in the article. Cherry picking this quote out of context and putting it into a section called "Race" makes it appear that she sees a problem between alleged races (white vs. other). Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"she means 'human race' as she always does." - Jason from nyc
Schwarzschild Point, why do keep reinserting the 1st paragraph. It is clear your one secondary source was rejected as unreliable. This leaves nothing but original research by cherry-picking and extracting from context sentences from primary sources that are either undue weight or unintelligible outside the context. Please revert your edit instead of edit-warring. Jason from nyc ( talk) 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The relevance of the quote to the controversy surrounding Sanger's views on race is self-evident. I don't believe for a second that you truly doubt that. But self-evidence isn't the criteria by which things are included in the project, particularly when there's disagreement among editors (for whatever reason) on inclusion. My point is that her views on race, and in particular that quote, are quite obviously controversial. Now, given that, it should be incumbent upon all of us, as contributors to this project, to source that fact. To do otherwise, because exclusion of the quote plays into a political agenda outside the scope of making this an informative article, is wikilawyering, plain and simple. It's playing on a technicality to suit an agenda. The quality of the articles in the search result aren't at issue, because their sole purpose is to demonstrate that there is a controversy. Their mere existence demonstrates this. If it were a handful of articles, then one could argue that they were on the fringe -- but there are thousands, they represent the opinions of a good portion of the US population (with whom you -- and I, for that matter -- apparently do not agree, but a good portion nonetheless) and the same points are being made by mainstream candidates for US President. There is a legitimate claim to controversy, as anybody with eyes can see. That's not to say that the position of both sides of the controversy have merit -- that's an entirely different point. But the controversy is there. There seems to be a very new confusion around the project as to what secondary sources are and how they relate to primary sources... and even more troubling, an outright disparaging of primary sources. The articles I referenced from the Google search are not secondary sources. They're not even primary sources. They're direct evidence. They demonstrate the controversy. So it's correct to say that none of them can properly be used as sources to back up the claim of controversy. They could be used as examples (which does happen elsewhere on the project) but that's it. You can call that original research or synthesis or whatever technicality you'd like to throw at it, but these things are not hard and fast rules. Not everything on wikipedia has to be sourced. Observations are allowed, if they're reasonable. But in this case there is clearly disagreement, so I agree that a higher standard should be used. Further down this talk page, I have given some examples of articles (from more "respectable" sources) that point out the controversy. Note that these also are not secondary sources with respect to the controversy. They are primary sources. They are secondary sources with respect to Sanger's quotes, or the comments made by others. But with respect to referring to the controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes, they are primary sources. I agree the distinctions are confusing and in fact I think it's just absurd to put so much weight on primary vs. secondary sources for things like this. That's why this obsession over it (which seems endemic on the project, of late) baffles me so much. But in the interests of reaching consensus, I am fine with locating acceptable sources that make the observation that there's a controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes on race. There are several listed further down this page, and I'll locate more as time permits. Unless you're seriously going to continue pretending you believe there isn't a controversy in the first place, it would be appreciated if you helped with finding good sources so that we could discuss the controversies in the article. -- Khgtcv ( talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I made several copy-edits and moved "sexuality" and "abortion" from "controversies" to "views". Everything was reverted en bloc by SchwarzchildPoint, with a comment about taking it to talk, but that user (a relatively new user from their contributions, though they leapt directly and expertly into a thorny religious page controversy before arriving here) did not in fact explain what he objected to or whether any of the work I volunteered here might be acceptable. For example, the revert restores outright grammatical errors; is it desirable to edit-war for illiteracies? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that she was controversial all her life, let's change "Controversies" to "Views." Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
− With regard to Sanger's views on race, it appear to me that the W. E. B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. all supported Sanger. I’ve not found any comment from Booker T. Washington, Paul Robeson, or A. Philip Randolph. I'm not seeing a controversy. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In my view, Margaret Sanger cannot "currently [be] involved in racial controversy" (quoting Chrononem above). Margaret Sanger is dead. She has been dead for fifty years. She is is not currently involved in anything. In her life, she was involved in controversies, notably over whether discussion of birth control was obscene (1911-1936) and whether the state has a compelling interest in regulating or prohibiting the sale of birth control devices (finally settled in the US by Griswold v Connecticut 1965). These controversies define her career and are extensively covered throughout her career; they don't require a separate section.
Sanger’s views on race seem not to have been especially controversial during her life, but have evoked some subsequent discussion. Some of this can be addressed in her biography, especially in connection with the Harlem clinic, her ongoing work with W. E. B. Du Bois, and the inaugural Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. Others aspects -- especially her writing on eugenics -- don’t fit easily into her achievements; they gave rise to no lasting institutions, created no enduring programs, and attained no great following. A brief discussion of this later controversy (or debate over her legacy) might make sense. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin remove the GA icon because the article was deliosted? Check the article history on the top of this page for details.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition". nyu.edu. Retrieved 24 August 2015. Checkingfax ( talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Due to the apparent disputes and ongoing edit warring, I've temporarily protected the article (again). Please see my full rationale here. Rjd0060 ( talk) 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your time is valuable, but in the interest of saving you (or other admins) future time, could you explain a little bit about what you'd like to see discussed before the protection is lifted? It currently seems as though protection is being "gamed" (by both sides in this dispute) to freeze the page in a form as close as possible to that which one side or the other prefers. Each side tries to sneak in edits or reverts up until the last minute, and then requests protection. I don't think a discussion on the merits of the topic (controversy over Sanger's statements on race) is going to get anywhere, since neither side will concede the same terms of debate.. even the notion of "controversy" is being drawn into question, and both sides are essentially just wikilawyering each other to death. Treating the protection merely as an enforced "cooling-off" period seems counter-productive, if you're just being manipulated into playing a role in this silly game between warring factions. I think maybe a concrete agreement between disputing parties as to how they should resolve the content issues -- and not a resolution of the content issues themselves -- is perhaps a good idea. Thoughts? -- Khgtcv ( talk) 23:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She used "Margaret Sanger Slee" in private correspondence. She was inducted into Arizona Women's hall of Fame as "Margaret Sanger Slee" [10] [11] and it is the name on the headstone of her grave. [12]. It's not her common name but it belongs next to her maiden name. It figures prominently in her non-public correspondence. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Somewhere the article should state that in 1939 Margaret Sanger joined the Anti-Nazi Committee. [1] HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A source used has misquoted or misrepresented a quotation of the supreme court. The quotation "the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception" actually comes from the decision of people vs. Byrne, and it finds that "A woman has the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception". There is no reference to gender bias or the feeling of any woman during copulation. Actual sources for the case can be found here: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/griswoldoral.htm or here: https://books.google.com/books?id=IIo7AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (beginning pg. 682) for the Sanger trial and Byrne trial respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justalittleresearch ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first1 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}
to
{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first2 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}
which fixes the duplicate editor-first1
parameter.
Frietjes (
talk)
14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
• pluralize “miscarriage” and “abortion”, as required by “frequent” MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the sub-section "Abortion" in the "Controversies" section. (1) There is nothing about a controversy in that paragraph. (2) There is no controversy in reliable sources. (3) The subject is covered in the main body of the article and this just restates her views. (4) As MastCell explained above, WP:CRITICISM discourages "criticism" and "controversy" sections--better to integrate the material in the main body of the article. This is an clear example of redundant copy that serves no good purpose. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, reference #95 is:
"Sanger, Margaret, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment", Birth Control Review, February 1919, pp. 11–12, Online"
The title of the article in document at the URI provided ( http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth%20Control%20Review/1919-02%20February.pdf) is:
"A Victory, A New Year and A New Day"
Therefore either the current reference needs to be corrected or if the document at the URI provided is not truly the work of Sanger, Margaret then the reference needs to be removed.
Shantnup ( talk) 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I expanded the one sentence on neo-Malthusianism to explain her views and show her influence on that movement (sorry for typo in edit summary). Her biographies note the influence of this movement on her from 1914 on. There is a danger that younger readers won't understand the concept and context but I included links to our articles on Malthusianism and over-population. The latter was still a major concern in the late 60s and early 70s. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.
should be changed to
Sanger approved of the widely accepted practice of forced sterilization of "severely retarded people."
The reasons are manyfold. (1) The word “advocated” suggests advancing a policy not already in place. For example, it would be odd to say that in the 2012 presidential election both candidates advocated a central bank. “Advocated” should be changed to "approved of." (2) The phrase “undeniably feeble-minded” is antiquated language that leaves the idea up to our reader’s imagination. The Valenza reference (which we cite) uses “severely retarded people” to make clear what she’s referring to. [15]
To justify the notion of it being a “widely accepted practice” and not one originating with Sanger, I refer to the Chesler biography, page 215. Chesler explains: "What is more, nearly universal agreement was reached during the 1920s on the propriety of passing compulsory sterilization statutes to govern the behavior of individuals carrying deficiencies believed to be inherited, such as mental retardation, insanity, or uncontrollable epilepsy. This movement reached its zenith with the enactment of such laws in thirty states." [16]
Please add the reference "Chesler 1992, pp. 215-217" and keep the Valenza reference. You might want to add a link to the Velenza abstract. Jason from nyc ( talk) 15:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Learnt norton ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As stated here, she favored the "liberation" of women's sex lives. But that term is meaningless. A book review last week on NPR of a book on "the Pill" claimed she was in favor of extra-martial sex, and had many sexual partners. This article HIDES the fact in the statement that she "became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists...". If in fact "became involved with" means "had sex with", the euphemism is really inappropriate and misleading here. She also encouraged the same behavior in her husband, and both are apparently well established facts. This is noteworthy, both for her times and in our current cultural context. 72.172.10.197 ( talk) 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Race section, a pair of IPs have been making efforts to disparage WEB Du Bois, reducing him from co-founder of the NAACP (which he was) to merely it's magazine editor (which he was also). Since these IP editors were unsatisfied with the readily-available references available on D Bois's Wikipedia page, I have added refs from the national monument, from Martin Luther King’s eulogy, and from the NAACP. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You contested the co-founder claim; I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that provided abundant evidence -- including that specific claim in the lede. I provided abundant documentation, and clarified the importance of Du Bois. Whether the additions are an appropriate level of detail is a discussion we can have at some future time, once the point is established. Du Bois’ prominent, indeed indispensable, role in the history of the era is very well attested. MarkBernstein ( talk) 02:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
107.150.94.4 is deleting additional sources of info. Sources that they specifically requested. This logic is extremely dubious, not to mention unhelpful and destructive to the article itself. -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:47, 22 March 2016 (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 6 | Archive 7 |
The section on "Race" starts with Sanger's views on Aboriginal Australians. Where is there a citation that her views are controversial? Are there anthropologists who study aboriginal groups debating Sanger's views? The first paragraph seems to be the opinion of wikipedia editors who cite Sanger's work and decided it controversial. The last paragraph mentions "sexual and racial chaos" but it isn't clear that race here means "human race" as opposed to white vs. black vs. others. Reading some of here work one finds "the race" means "human race." Jason from nyc ( talk)
The next paragraph starts with "Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders ..." What attitudes? On anthropology? On the human race? Why would black leaders be expected to object and who says they should? This is an opinion by wikipedia editors. And it is written by analyzing primary sources. Jason from nyc ( talk)
The remainder of the section isn't about a controversy with the exception of the last sentence. It is about how well she was received by leaders of the black community. We should delete the 1st paragraph of the "Race" section and perhaps the whole section. Any mention of her outreach to the black community should be part of her life's work and in the "Life" section somewhere. Jason from nyc ( talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are trying to suggest that Aboriginal Australians actually posses inhibited brain development. If that is the case I would refer you to WP:NDP and Wikipedia:Discrimination#Prohibited_activities. Otherwise it should stand on its own that these statements are controversial. Chrononem ☎ 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine, since you obviously won't stop until you've gotten yourself banned I went ahead and got you a source. [1] That describes scientific racism.
It is not necessary to explain either that racism is controversial or that Margret's ideas were racist. Giving her ideas is enough. Chrononem ☎ 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It is said a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat knows no law except nature which impels him to procreate whatever the result. Every normal man and Woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells in thinking deeply, are never sensual. [2]
Thirdly: we have come to the conclusion, based on widespread investigation and experience, that this education for parenthood and of parenthood must be based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the submerged masses, can never be of the slightest value in effecting any changes in the mores of the people. Such systems have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted. [3]
Only that on EN wikipedia we have to follow English rules, which means parenthetical statements stand alone. That you don't recognize "woeful" as bemoaning tells me that this may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT especially considering your history edit warring on this page. As for "traditional" feel free to replace it with "other" or "highminded" if you so choose. I don't see what it would hurt for you to use her actual words. They convey her feelings better than wikipedia could. Chrononem ☎ 12:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This recent set of changes removed balancing content in a manner seriously at odds with WP:NPOV, without any explanation in the edit summaries and, as far as I can see, without a substantial explanation on this talk page. I don't see any consensus for this kind of major refocusing of the text. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems a large part of this discussion revolves around what is and isn't controversial. I ask: why is it even titled as such? Why not just the neutral "Views"? The title as it stands appears to be misconceptional in my opinion. What's controversial about her views on sexuality? They frankly sound like something that would have been "normal" in a Western country today. The title is also borderline WP:CRITICISM. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Returning to the question: A key point here is that any discussion of Sanger’s views on race must be set in the context of contemporary opinion. Some of her writing from the 1920s espouses ideas about race that were widely held at the time but that were later disproven and rejected. Views which merely reflected contemporary scientific, medical, and scholarly opinion may deserve brief note, taking care to contextualize them. Wikipedia should not, however, engage in fake controversy or publicize partisan talking points by ripping Sanger's writing out of the intellectual context of the time. If Sanger believed that impulse control was a heritable trait for which persons of color were not always notable, her belief had been shared by recent presidents -- both Republic and Democratic -- by contemporary anthropologists, and by writers ranging from Dorothy Sayers to Joseph Moncure March. A sentence or two should suffice: more would be too much. MarkBernstein ( talk) 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
First request: Please delete the 1st sentence of the race section on aboriginal Australians. It was about a single sentence she wrote in 1912 ( WP:UNDUE) that is not of significance to any reliable source. This is either WP:FRINGE (see comments above on Family Research Council as a proposed source) or without such sources WP:ORIGINAL research. Professor Gillian Cowlishaw tells us these views were the prevalent views of physical anthropologists in the early 20th century until the work of Alfred Radcliffe-Brown about 1930. [3] ("Australian Aboriginal studies: The anthropologists' accounts". In M. de Lepervanche; G. Bottomley. The Cultural Construction of Race, 1988.) Sanger starts her sentence with "It is said ..." so she doesn't even know if she should accept expert opinion. She never met the aboriginals and there is no indication that she accepted this view as fact let alone that she came to this view from prejudice. To insinuate racism as is done in "fringe" research is the kind of WP:SYNTHESIS we reject. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Second request: Delete the 2nd sentence in the race section that starts with "Elsewhere she wrote ..." as it is WP:ORIGINAL research that takes her usage of the words "race" and "racial" to mean "white race vs. others" when a careful reading of the article makes it clear she means "human race" as she always does. There is no evidence that she is expressing racist sentiment in the article. Cherry picking this quote out of context and putting it into a section called "Race" makes it appear that she sees a problem between alleged races (white vs. other). Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"she means 'human race' as she always does." - Jason from nyc
Schwarzschild Point, why do keep reinserting the 1st paragraph. It is clear your one secondary source was rejected as unreliable. This leaves nothing but original research by cherry-picking and extracting from context sentences from primary sources that are either undue weight or unintelligible outside the context. Please revert your edit instead of edit-warring. Jason from nyc ( talk) 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The relevance of the quote to the controversy surrounding Sanger's views on race is self-evident. I don't believe for a second that you truly doubt that. But self-evidence isn't the criteria by which things are included in the project, particularly when there's disagreement among editors (for whatever reason) on inclusion. My point is that her views on race, and in particular that quote, are quite obviously controversial. Now, given that, it should be incumbent upon all of us, as contributors to this project, to source that fact. To do otherwise, because exclusion of the quote plays into a political agenda outside the scope of making this an informative article, is wikilawyering, plain and simple. It's playing on a technicality to suit an agenda. The quality of the articles in the search result aren't at issue, because their sole purpose is to demonstrate that there is a controversy. Their mere existence demonstrates this. If it were a handful of articles, then one could argue that they were on the fringe -- but there are thousands, they represent the opinions of a good portion of the US population (with whom you -- and I, for that matter -- apparently do not agree, but a good portion nonetheless) and the same points are being made by mainstream candidates for US President. There is a legitimate claim to controversy, as anybody with eyes can see. That's not to say that the position of both sides of the controversy have merit -- that's an entirely different point. But the controversy is there. There seems to be a very new confusion around the project as to what secondary sources are and how they relate to primary sources... and even more troubling, an outright disparaging of primary sources. The articles I referenced from the Google search are not secondary sources. They're not even primary sources. They're direct evidence. They demonstrate the controversy. So it's correct to say that none of them can properly be used as sources to back up the claim of controversy. They could be used as examples (which does happen elsewhere on the project) but that's it. You can call that original research or synthesis or whatever technicality you'd like to throw at it, but these things are not hard and fast rules. Not everything on wikipedia has to be sourced. Observations are allowed, if they're reasonable. But in this case there is clearly disagreement, so I agree that a higher standard should be used. Further down this talk page, I have given some examples of articles (from more "respectable" sources) that point out the controversy. Note that these also are not secondary sources with respect to the controversy. They are primary sources. They are secondary sources with respect to Sanger's quotes, or the comments made by others. But with respect to referring to the controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes, they are primary sources. I agree the distinctions are confusing and in fact I think it's just absurd to put so much weight on primary vs. secondary sources for things like this. That's why this obsession over it (which seems endemic on the project, of late) baffles me so much. But in the interests of reaching consensus, I am fine with locating acceptable sources that make the observation that there's a controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes on race. There are several listed further down this page, and I'll locate more as time permits. Unless you're seriously going to continue pretending you believe there isn't a controversy in the first place, it would be appreciated if you helped with finding good sources so that we could discuss the controversies in the article. -- Khgtcv ( talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I made several copy-edits and moved "sexuality" and "abortion" from "controversies" to "views". Everything was reverted en bloc by SchwarzchildPoint, with a comment about taking it to talk, but that user (a relatively new user from their contributions, though they leapt directly and expertly into a thorny religious page controversy before arriving here) did not in fact explain what he objected to or whether any of the work I volunteered here might be acceptable. For example, the revert restores outright grammatical errors; is it desirable to edit-war for illiteracies? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that she was controversial all her life, let's change "Controversies" to "Views." Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
− With regard to Sanger's views on race, it appear to me that the W. E. B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. all supported Sanger. I’ve not found any comment from Booker T. Washington, Paul Robeson, or A. Philip Randolph. I'm not seeing a controversy. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In my view, Margaret Sanger cannot "currently [be] involved in racial controversy" (quoting Chrononem above). Margaret Sanger is dead. She has been dead for fifty years. She is is not currently involved in anything. In her life, she was involved in controversies, notably over whether discussion of birth control was obscene (1911-1936) and whether the state has a compelling interest in regulating or prohibiting the sale of birth control devices (finally settled in the US by Griswold v Connecticut 1965). These controversies define her career and are extensively covered throughout her career; they don't require a separate section.
Sanger’s views on race seem not to have been especially controversial during her life, but have evoked some subsequent discussion. Some of this can be addressed in her biography, especially in connection with the Harlem clinic, her ongoing work with W. E. B. Du Bois, and the inaugural Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. Others aspects -- especially her writing on eugenics -- don’t fit easily into her achievements; they gave rise to no lasting institutions, created no enduring programs, and attained no great following. A brief discussion of this later controversy (or debate over her legacy) might make sense. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin remove the GA icon because the article was deliosted? Check the article history on the top of this page for details.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition". nyu.edu. Retrieved 24 August 2015. Checkingfax ( talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Due to the apparent disputes and ongoing edit warring, I've temporarily protected the article (again). Please see my full rationale here. Rjd0060 ( talk) 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your time is valuable, but in the interest of saving you (or other admins) future time, could you explain a little bit about what you'd like to see discussed before the protection is lifted? It currently seems as though protection is being "gamed" (by both sides in this dispute) to freeze the page in a form as close as possible to that which one side or the other prefers. Each side tries to sneak in edits or reverts up until the last minute, and then requests protection. I don't think a discussion on the merits of the topic (controversy over Sanger's statements on race) is going to get anywhere, since neither side will concede the same terms of debate.. even the notion of "controversy" is being drawn into question, and both sides are essentially just wikilawyering each other to death. Treating the protection merely as an enforced "cooling-off" period seems counter-productive, if you're just being manipulated into playing a role in this silly game between warring factions. I think maybe a concrete agreement between disputing parties as to how they should resolve the content issues -- and not a resolution of the content issues themselves -- is perhaps a good idea. Thoughts? -- Khgtcv ( talk) 23:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She used "Margaret Sanger Slee" in private correspondence. She was inducted into Arizona Women's hall of Fame as "Margaret Sanger Slee" [10] [11] and it is the name on the headstone of her grave. [12]. It's not her common name but it belongs next to her maiden name. It figures prominently in her non-public correspondence. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Somewhere the article should state that in 1939 Margaret Sanger joined the Anti-Nazi Committee. [1] HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A source used has misquoted or misrepresented a quotation of the supreme court. The quotation "the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception" actually comes from the decision of people vs. Byrne, and it finds that "A woman has the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception". There is no reference to gender bias or the feeling of any woman during copulation. Actual sources for the case can be found here: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/griswoldoral.htm or here: https://books.google.com/books?id=IIo7AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (beginning pg. 682) for the Sanger trial and Byrne trial respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justalittleresearch ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first1 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}
to
{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first2 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}
which fixes the duplicate editor-first1
parameter.
Frietjes (
talk)
14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
• pluralize “miscarriage” and “abortion”, as required by “frequent” MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the sub-section "Abortion" in the "Controversies" section. (1) There is nothing about a controversy in that paragraph. (2) There is no controversy in reliable sources. (3) The subject is covered in the main body of the article and this just restates her views. (4) As MastCell explained above, WP:CRITICISM discourages "criticism" and "controversy" sections--better to integrate the material in the main body of the article. This is an clear example of redundant copy that serves no good purpose. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, reference #95 is:
"Sanger, Margaret, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment", Birth Control Review, February 1919, pp. 11–12, Online"
The title of the article in document at the URI provided ( http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth%20Control%20Review/1919-02%20February.pdf) is:
"A Victory, A New Year and A New Day"
Therefore either the current reference needs to be corrected or if the document at the URI provided is not truly the work of Sanger, Margaret then the reference needs to be removed.
Shantnup ( talk) 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I expanded the one sentence on neo-Malthusianism to explain her views and show her influence on that movement (sorry for typo in edit summary). Her biographies note the influence of this movement on her from 1914 on. There is a danger that younger readers won't understand the concept and context but I included links to our articles on Malthusianism and over-population. The latter was still a major concern in the late 60s and early 70s. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Margaret Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.
should be changed to
Sanger approved of the widely accepted practice of forced sterilization of "severely retarded people."
The reasons are manyfold. (1) The word “advocated” suggests advancing a policy not already in place. For example, it would be odd to say that in the 2012 presidential election both candidates advocated a central bank. “Advocated” should be changed to "approved of." (2) The phrase “undeniably feeble-minded” is antiquated language that leaves the idea up to our reader’s imagination. The Valenza reference (which we cite) uses “severely retarded people” to make clear what she’s referring to. [15]
To justify the notion of it being a “widely accepted practice” and not one originating with Sanger, I refer to the Chesler biography, page 215. Chesler explains: "What is more, nearly universal agreement was reached during the 1920s on the propriety of passing compulsory sterilization statutes to govern the behavior of individuals carrying deficiencies believed to be inherited, such as mental retardation, insanity, or uncontrollable epilepsy. This movement reached its zenith with the enactment of such laws in thirty states." [16]
Please add the reference "Chesler 1992, pp. 215-217" and keep the Valenza reference. You might want to add a link to the Velenza abstract. Jason from nyc ( talk) 15:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Learnt norton ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As stated here, she favored the "liberation" of women's sex lives. But that term is meaningless. A book review last week on NPR of a book on "the Pill" claimed she was in favor of extra-martial sex, and had many sexual partners. This article HIDES the fact in the statement that she "became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists...". If in fact "became involved with" means "had sex with", the euphemism is really inappropriate and misleading here. She also encouraged the same behavior in her husband, and both are apparently well established facts. This is noteworthy, both for her times and in our current cultural context. 72.172.10.197 ( talk) 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Race section, a pair of IPs have been making efforts to disparage WEB Du Bois, reducing him from co-founder of the NAACP (which he was) to merely it's magazine editor (which he was also). Since these IP editors were unsatisfied with the readily-available references available on D Bois's Wikipedia page, I have added refs from the national monument, from Martin Luther King’s eulogy, and from the NAACP. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You contested the co-founder claim; I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that provided abundant evidence -- including that specific claim in the lede. I provided abundant documentation, and clarified the importance of Du Bois. Whether the additions are an appropriate level of detail is a discussion we can have at some future time, once the point is established. Du Bois’ prominent, indeed indispensable, role in the history of the era is very well attested. MarkBernstein ( talk) 02:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
107.150.94.4 is deleting additional sources of info. Sources that they specifically requested. This logic is extremely dubious, not to mention unhelpful and destructive to the article itself. -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)