![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
To my opinion, the edit is rather negative. So with heavy heart I have reverted and present the edit here, broken up in pieces. This for easier editing.
Old text:
“ | Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." | ” |
New text:
“ | Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." (It should be noted that biographer Ellen Chesler attempted unsuccessfully to find corroboration of this story. [1]: 63 ) | ” |
comments
Thank you for splitting this up because it's a lot to digest. I'd suggest:
New section: Abortion
“ | Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights.
[1]: 12–14, 81–88, 271 However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right.
[2]: 36–37
[1]: 125 Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT."
[3] Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
[4]: 217
Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed. Then as now there was evidence that in that case most women would seek to end their pregnancy by other means. In the 1930s a study conducted in Sanger's birth control clinic by Dr. Hannah Stone showed that, out of 204 women who came to the clinic and were found to be pregnant (and hence could not be given contraceptives), 190 of them apparently did not carry the fetus to term, but most likely had had either a legal ("therapeutic") or illegal ("back-alley") abortion. [1]: 301–302 This study could have been interpreted -- although this was not Sanger's interpretation -- as saying that reproductive health required legal access to safe abortion as well as to contraception, and that the two are inextricably linked. At this time several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, were calling for legalization of abortion as well as contraceptives. [2]: 36–39 [5] [6] Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that, despite Hannah Stone's research, legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. |
” |
comments
New section: Criticism
“ | Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a
Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group."
[1]: 366–367 Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them, whatever she might have thought of their views or actions in other areas. In the same way, although there is little evidence that she personally held racist views (other than those that were held by most mainstream white Americans of the time), she was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist
[2] authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer
Lothrop Stoddard.
[3]
Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger [3]), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of civil rights leaders, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson. [4] Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. [5]: 182–188 "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options." [5]: 188 |
” |
aut
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).To The Banner (and other editors). My purpose in these edits is to put some balance in the article, in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Every statement is sourced to a credible source. For example, Chesler's biography is in general favorable to Sanger (in her conclusion she says Sanger should be "venerated"), Lader was a close protege of Sanger, and two other sources were Sanger's own autobiographies. I tried to use neutral editorial wording. If you think I failed, please suggest how to make the wording better, but please don't revert. In order to preserve neutrality, I decided against including a criticism by Chesler of Sanger's reliability and personality (except to note that Chesler's biography raised doubts about the veracity of the Sadie Sacks story). The characterization of Lothrop Stoddard as a klansman and Nazi sympathizer is taken from the Wikipedia page about him. Please note that my sources are not anti-Sanger or anti-birth control or anti-abortion, and I comment that Sanger herself was probably not a racist, although some of her associates such as Stoddard clearly were. It is consistent with Wikipedia policy to provide balance in an article about a controversial person, provided that the criticism is well-sourced, and that is all I did. Of course I welcome suggestions for improving the edit, especially if you think that the wording is insufficiently neutral. NightHeron ( talk) 13:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the source by Ann Hibner Koblitz it appears to be self published and thus IMO not suitable. That user appears to be adding refs to that author to a fair number of articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In 2015, Koblitz won the "Transdisciplinary Book Award" of the Arizona State University Institute for Humanities Research for her book Sex and Herbs and Birth Control: Women and Fertility Regulation Through the Ages; the award is "presented for a nonfiction work that reflects the finest contemporary humanities-based scholarship on any topic."[27] NightHeron ( talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: It seems to me that the added content goes against the Manual of Style
Instructional and presumptuous language guideline. "It should be noted that..." is specifically discouraged by the
Words to watch guideline. Other examples of editorializing are "Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed", and "Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them". Additionally,
WP:Criticism states, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." I would therefore support the removal of the content. Some specific facts could be added to the article if they concisely stated, neutrally phrased and not given undue weight.
Scolaire (
talk)
10:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
“ | Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights.
[1]: 12–14, 81–88, 271 However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right.
[2]: 36–37
[1]: 125 Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT."
[3]: 155 Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
[4]: 217
In this era several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, saw contraception and abortion as being inextricably linked, and were calling for legalization of abortion. [2]: 36–39 [5] [6] Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. |
” |
“ | Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a
Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group."
[4]: 366–367 She was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist
[7] authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer
Lothrop Stoddard.
[8]: 173 Chesler comments:
Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger [8]: 173 ), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of prominent African Americans, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson. [9] Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. [10]: 182–188 "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options." [10]: 188 |
” |
NightHeron ( talk) 03:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Chesler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Lol. She wasn't a racist she just valued the opinion of the Ku Klux Klan on the topic of aborting black babies. Does any realize how absurd that sounds and how much of a bigot it makes you if you've ever raised your voice and called someone a racist? Stonewall Jackson wasn't a racist either he actually taught slaves how to read, he just lived in a bad time. However most of Margaret Sangers fan club probably had some choice words about erasing him and every other confederate soldier from history. Margaret Sanger wasn't racist she just opened the first clinic in Harlem, then later added blacks to the staff. Donald Trump is a huge racist though, but he didn't kill millions of black babies to eliminate inferior genes from civilization.
Jsin607 ( talk) 22:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is a disgusting white wash of Margaret Sanger and her racial views intentionally omitting information for the sole purpose of promoting planned Parenthood. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a political tool yet every year it degrades itself further. I don't know how it is now but when I was in college it was an instant failing grade if you used Wikipedia as a source for anything. I'm sure that's changed now since academia is also a whitewashed political arm now as well. Be on notice that some day I'm going to edit this page to be more balanced to Margaret Sanger and the millions of black babies who died for her. SMH... Jsin607 ( talk) 22:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords added a section that, in my opinion, is incorrect.
“ | In the 21st century, Sanger is regarded as an early American democratic socialist. [1] | ” |
In fact, the section assigns her the status as "democratic socialist", many years after her dead and many after the term was invented. The source for this is a blog. According to IOnlyKnowFiveWords, a blog from a notable historian. But still it is a blog and not a reliable source.
Should the section (and the category) be removed? The Banner talk 07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I as well as many others have tried editing this page to give a more balanced point of view on this topic, providing sources to both a favorable and a critical view of many aspects.
However, these edits seems to be reverted with no credible cause or reason apart that some reviewers don't like the other point of view.
In my specific example, the letter to Gamble has a quote in it:
"We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
Which is immediately followed by the correct "think" and labels any person who views this as evidence to a calculated effort to reduce the black population is a "conspiracy theorist" and unequivocally wrong.
An unbiased approach would be to mention both point of views as equal: one supporting this view, and the other explaining that this was written to avoid that understanding, as the links and references supporting both point of view exists and neither have been proven true or false in an unbiased way. These are both legit opinions, but one is treated as fact and the other as a conspiracy theory.
I have tried editing it to a more balanced text, and wrote that she did support eugenics to support the other point of view. That was reverted by @britishfinance claiming I didn't link to reference of her support for eugenics. I re-edited it adding the reference for that, as well as mentioned it was already in the article as well as in the links for reference at the end of this paragraph. At the very least, I got a reason for reverting so that I could address it and fix it.
That was reverted by @the_banner - this time for no reason at all, except he didn't like it. The comment on the revert was simply "no, that is not the truth" without bothering to provide any explanation to weather that was not truth. The claim of her support for eugenics was already in the article earlier, so I cannot understand how it can be true there and not in this paragraph.
It seems there is a very heavy biased in editing this source, and seems like making any changes to remove this bias is met with a mob mentality, shutting down any view that goes against their own. This leads to hurting Wikipedia credibility as a balanced source of information.
I still think this should be addressed and changed, but I am not sure how to report or appeal these users actions, so I will put it here to a discussion.
This is the current text:
New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, conspiracy theorists have attempted to exploit the quotation "as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will".
It should be changed. It is biased and telling the reader what is the correct "think" rather than informing the reader.
My suggestion was:
The letter, along with other evidence of her support for eugenics [1] provided strong evidence that led many to believe that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, while others, such as the New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that the letter would have been meant to avoid that mistaken notion.
Keeping the same references at the end.
What is the process of appealing these edits or having a civil discussion, rather than keep editing it and they keep reverting it? I see based on the talk page that I am not the only one who feels this bias exists and have been shut down by these editors.
Spetel ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Further reading on this "talk" is full of references and full on admissions of editors taking sides.
quotes like "then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp" to choosing which sources are true and which are false, I see that this is a much bigger problem than I thought.
Is there a responsible adult who can shut down these heavily biased moderators who behave more like a mob than editors?
Spetel (
talk)
16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
While I was checking sources in the "Work with the African-American community," I noticed the block quote is incorrect. The letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble of December 10, 1939 is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. The actual paragraph that contains the "word to go out" line is:
The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
I'm not sure where the article is getting the first two sentences of this paragraph:
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.
It seems as though this quote is combining two different sources? Anyway, as the quote is introduced as "she [Margaret Sanger] wrote to Gamble," it should probably stick to the text from the letter.
I'll change it and cite the letter directly after the quote. However, I might wait until the latest revert war ends so my changes don't get lost in the reverts.
FecundityBlog ( talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger was given life membership in 1926 to the New Jersey woman's Auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan. She was a proud member until her death in 1966. She was also given full membership into the Nazi party on the orders of Adolf Hitler in 1937 she did not reject this membership until January of 1942 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:65CC:2606:58EE:39D0 ( talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Just the notes and the highlights of the Klan meeting of her speech. Where they cheered her statements that abortion be used on black babies and other undesirable races. They were so happy with her speech they gave her full life membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9C86:614F:52F:A152 ( talk) 11:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.
My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building.
My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, “Wait here. We will come for you.” She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.
After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o’clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly the night in a hotel.Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger; an autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 400–402.
Anytime I try to post the documents they are blocked and removed by the fans of planned parenthood and other unqualified people who want to protect the image of this 40 year member of the KKK and 4 year member of the NAZI party. TRUTH is not relevant and facts are not allowed on this Margaret Sanger site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9DF7:F3A4:5CB8:FDE5 ( talk) 10:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Look at the quote in her own words above. She was offered to speak to many KKK groups. She gave many speeches to Klan groups why? Because she was a 40 year member of the KKK that's WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Anytime I post facts they are removed by the unqualified under the claim of original research. Sanger was directly tied in to the Nazi party and given full membership along with Lothrop Stoddard in 1937. Stoddard was good friends with Heinrich Himmler who recommended to Hitler to make them full members of the Nazi Party and he did. Stoddard later met Hitler in 1940 directly. On December 11,1941 Hitler declared war on the USA. Sanger renounced her Nazi membership in January of 1942 to stay out of trouble with the US government. The name of her group was changed to plan parenthood in 1942 to distance the group from Sanger and her KKK and Nazi ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What you unqualified people need to do is use the freedom of information act to get the FBI file on Sanger and read the file for yourselves. Or is that to much original research for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No you dumbass the file from the FBI way later than that one. You must request it under the freedom of information act. Do it yourself unless your just plain lazy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:FC23:45C4:9B9B:B1C ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
There was a statement added to the article that Margaret Sanger supported under the counter abortions in private, while publicly condemning abortion. The only reference given for this claim was broken, so I have removed this claim.
(As an aside, when I clicked the broken reference link, it directed me to a different reference in the bibliography, and so I just spent the past half hour or so going down a wild goose chase.)
Also, the second sentence in the paragraph of the abortion section is now a sentence fragment. I'll fix that now. FecundityBlog ( talk)
As it now stands, the "Eugenics" section includes the following:
I have no problem with saying that she was associated with Stoddard, since that claim has a source, and I don't dispute that Stoddard was dreadfully racist. The problem is that the source for the phrase "extreme racist" (Reference 124, currently) is one of Stoddard's own books describing his beliefs. Unless he specifically states that he is an "extreme racist", isn't the editor who put this in taking his (the editor's) own inference for granted? My understanding is that if you're gonna state that Stoddard was an extreme racist, you should cite a source which says that he was an extreme racist (perhaps in other wording), not cite his own book and invite the reader to infer that he was, from reading his book. Isn't that one of the points in WP:PRIMARY?
Accordingly, I'm putting in a tag.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 06:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
HandsomeMrToad: Would it be okay to replace it with the following referenced text?
She was closely associated with one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the Klansman [PSP 1] [PSP 2] and Nazi sympathizer [PSP 3] Lothrop Stoddard. [PSP 4]: 173
NightHeron ( talk) 18:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
She sought the support of one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]
She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]
HandsomeMrToad: Thinking more about the revised wording, I'm concerned that the passive "was supported by" allows for the possibility that Sanger had no ties with Stoddard and did not welcome his support. To clarify that this was not the case, would it be okay to add the following text at the end of that sentence?
who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. [PSP 5]
Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
References for Primary source plus reader-interpretation in "Eugenics" section
There are inconsistent citation styles that I propose to resolve. Specifically,
Except for the The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger changes that should be done together, I would do this at a slow pace, maybe one a day or two at most, so that editors will have a chance to see & review each change.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been some disagreements on whether or not Margaret Sanger can be labeled as a Eugenicist in the intro paragraph of the article. I believe this is an accurate label to present of her. We know from the article section, and the sources presented therein, that Sanger was a proponent of Negative Eugenics. Her standing as a significant member in the Eugenics movement in the United States means it's not inappropriate to put this label in the introductory paragraph.
The Best joke ( talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (COT)
Due to several pieces of literature authored by her, I feel it would be appropriate to add the title of a eugenicist. For example, in The Birth Control Review 1921 issue, she creates a specific section called "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds a term started by a physicist by the name of Edward Kempf who was a known supporter of eugenics. She spoke at several eugenics conferences, making statements such as "the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." She even once wrote and I quote "consequences of breeding from stock lacking human vitality always will give us social problems and perpetuate institutions of charity and crime." In her speech "My Way to Peace" she talks about the compulsory sterilization of people with disabilities. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”(My Way to Peace). In her letter to Clarence Gamble, she goes as far as explaining her dealings in the African-American community “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get 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.” These are all inherently eugenics based statements. The willful neglect to include this in one of her many titles shows the POV of the authors of this page being imposed on readers. I have to agree with the section talking about the bias in this page and within the editing team. You fail to acknowledge any stance other than your own and censor those that go against your belief. As someone who is new to the Wiki community but has engaged in investigative journalism for almost 4 years now, this is unacceptable. Cwpom ( talk) 09:20, 13 Aug 2019 (EST)
+
Please, also keep an eye on Negro Project where someone is depicting Sanger as an eugenist. The Banner talk 00:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Sanger was a eugenicist by definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenicist Overseer19XX ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
EKS321 ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)While it is true that Dr. Martin Luther King accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, this should in no way imply that he endorsed her stances on Eugenics or abortion. Abortion was illegal in 1996 and Planned Parenthood was merely an institution that concentrated on family planning through the use of contraception. Dr. King was an ordained minister who supported all efforts to make families stronger, while limiting the instances of childbirth out of marriage, no matter what the race. EKS321 ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Is this true: In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).
"It seems that the Eugenic ideas from its founder have left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood's surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy." The Washington Times, May 5, 2014.
Wow. If we suppress this, then Wikipedia loses credibility. Is that what you want?
Thank you for considering including these comments,
FidesEtRatio-Community ( talk) 05:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this edit [3] is appropriate. Do we make similar statements about being in fashion at the time when other names are removed from buildings and institutions because of associations with racism? We don't in connection with Woodrow Wilson and Princeton's recent decision, see [4]. It sounds like we're criticizing Planned Parenthood for planning to remove the name. NightHeron ( talk) 11:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Ellen Chesler, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank, and the author of a biography of Ms. Sanger and the birth control movement, said that while the country is undergoing vast social change and reconsidering prominent figures from the past, Ms. Sanger’s views have been misinterpreted. The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp. She rejected some eugenicists’ belief that white middle-class families should have more children than others, Ms. Chesler said. Instead, Ms. Sanger believed that the quality of all children’s lives could be improved if their parents had smaller families, Ms. Chesler said, adding that Ms. Sanger believed Black people and immigrants had a right to that better life.edit to add: perhaps it would better with attribution to make clear it isn't WP:OR. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
a unique person in supporting eugenics. But if you think that needs more emphasis, by all means add a statement to the eugenics section to the effect that such views were in fashion in her time. That's the place for it. It doesn't belong in its present location, where it is likely to be read as a negative judgment about Planned Parenthood's renaming. NightHeron ( talk) 21:20, 22 July 2020 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
To my opinion, the edit is rather negative. So with heavy heart I have reverted and present the edit here, broken up in pieces. This for easier editing.
Old text:
“ | Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." | ” |
New text:
“ | Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." (It should be noted that biographer Ellen Chesler attempted unsuccessfully to find corroboration of this story. [1]: 63 ) | ” |
comments
Thank you for splitting this up because it's a lot to digest. I'd suggest:
New section: Abortion
“ | Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights.
[1]: 12–14, 81–88, 271 However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right.
[2]: 36–37
[1]: 125 Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT."
[3] Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
[4]: 217
Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed. Then as now there was evidence that in that case most women would seek to end their pregnancy by other means. In the 1930s a study conducted in Sanger's birth control clinic by Dr. Hannah Stone showed that, out of 204 women who came to the clinic and were found to be pregnant (and hence could not be given contraceptives), 190 of them apparently did not carry the fetus to term, but most likely had had either a legal ("therapeutic") or illegal ("back-alley") abortion. [1]: 301–302 This study could have been interpreted -- although this was not Sanger's interpretation -- as saying that reproductive health required legal access to safe abortion as well as to contraception, and that the two are inextricably linked. At this time several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, were calling for legalization of abortion as well as contraceptives. [2]: 36–39 [5] [6] Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that, despite Hannah Stone's research, legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. |
” |
comments
New section: Criticism
“ | Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a
Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group."
[1]: 366–367 Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them, whatever she might have thought of their views or actions in other areas. In the same way, although there is little evidence that she personally held racist views (other than those that were held by most mainstream white Americans of the time), she was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist
[2] authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer
Lothrop Stoddard.
[3]
Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger [3]), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of civil rights leaders, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson. [4] Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. [5]: 182–188 "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options." [5]: 188 |
” |
aut
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).To The Banner (and other editors). My purpose in these edits is to put some balance in the article, in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Every statement is sourced to a credible source. For example, Chesler's biography is in general favorable to Sanger (in her conclusion she says Sanger should be "venerated"), Lader was a close protege of Sanger, and two other sources were Sanger's own autobiographies. I tried to use neutral editorial wording. If you think I failed, please suggest how to make the wording better, but please don't revert. In order to preserve neutrality, I decided against including a criticism by Chesler of Sanger's reliability and personality (except to note that Chesler's biography raised doubts about the veracity of the Sadie Sacks story). The characterization of Lothrop Stoddard as a klansman and Nazi sympathizer is taken from the Wikipedia page about him. Please note that my sources are not anti-Sanger or anti-birth control or anti-abortion, and I comment that Sanger herself was probably not a racist, although some of her associates such as Stoddard clearly were. It is consistent with Wikipedia policy to provide balance in an article about a controversial person, provided that the criticism is well-sourced, and that is all I did. Of course I welcome suggestions for improving the edit, especially if you think that the wording is insufficiently neutral. NightHeron ( talk) 13:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the source by Ann Hibner Koblitz it appears to be self published and thus IMO not suitable. That user appears to be adding refs to that author to a fair number of articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In 2015, Koblitz won the "Transdisciplinary Book Award" of the Arizona State University Institute for Humanities Research for her book Sex and Herbs and Birth Control: Women and Fertility Regulation Through the Ages; the award is "presented for a nonfiction work that reflects the finest contemporary humanities-based scholarship on any topic."[27] NightHeron ( talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: It seems to me that the added content goes against the Manual of Style
Instructional and presumptuous language guideline. "It should be noted that..." is specifically discouraged by the
Words to watch guideline. Other examples of editorializing are "Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed", and "Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them". Additionally,
WP:Criticism states, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." I would therefore support the removal of the content. Some specific facts could be added to the article if they concisely stated, neutrally phrased and not given undue weight.
Scolaire (
talk)
10:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
“ | Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights.
[1]: 12–14, 81–88, 271 However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right.
[2]: 36–37
[1]: 125 Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT."
[3]: 155 Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
[4]: 217
In this era several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, saw contraception and abortion as being inextricably linked, and were calling for legalization of abortion. [2]: 36–39 [5] [6] Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. |
” |
“ | Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a
Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group."
[4]: 366–367 She was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist
[7] authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer
Lothrop Stoddard.
[8]: 173 Chesler comments:
Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger [8]: 173 ), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of prominent African Americans, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson. [9] Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. [10]: 182–188 "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options." [10]: 188 |
” |
NightHeron ( talk) 03:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Chesler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Lol. She wasn't a racist she just valued the opinion of the Ku Klux Klan on the topic of aborting black babies. Does any realize how absurd that sounds and how much of a bigot it makes you if you've ever raised your voice and called someone a racist? Stonewall Jackson wasn't a racist either he actually taught slaves how to read, he just lived in a bad time. However most of Margaret Sangers fan club probably had some choice words about erasing him and every other confederate soldier from history. Margaret Sanger wasn't racist she just opened the first clinic in Harlem, then later added blacks to the staff. Donald Trump is a huge racist though, but he didn't kill millions of black babies to eliminate inferior genes from civilization.
Jsin607 ( talk) 22:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is a disgusting white wash of Margaret Sanger and her racial views intentionally omitting information for the sole purpose of promoting planned Parenthood. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a political tool yet every year it degrades itself further. I don't know how it is now but when I was in college it was an instant failing grade if you used Wikipedia as a source for anything. I'm sure that's changed now since academia is also a whitewashed political arm now as well. Be on notice that some day I'm going to edit this page to be more balanced to Margaret Sanger and the millions of black babies who died for her. SMH... Jsin607 ( talk) 22:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords added a section that, in my opinion, is incorrect.
“ | In the 21st century, Sanger is regarded as an early American democratic socialist. [1] | ” |
In fact, the section assigns her the status as "democratic socialist", many years after her dead and many after the term was invented. The source for this is a blog. According to IOnlyKnowFiveWords, a blog from a notable historian. But still it is a blog and not a reliable source.
Should the section (and the category) be removed? The Banner talk 07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I as well as many others have tried editing this page to give a more balanced point of view on this topic, providing sources to both a favorable and a critical view of many aspects.
However, these edits seems to be reverted with no credible cause or reason apart that some reviewers don't like the other point of view.
In my specific example, the letter to Gamble has a quote in it:
"We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
Which is immediately followed by the correct "think" and labels any person who views this as evidence to a calculated effort to reduce the black population is a "conspiracy theorist" and unequivocally wrong.
An unbiased approach would be to mention both point of views as equal: one supporting this view, and the other explaining that this was written to avoid that understanding, as the links and references supporting both point of view exists and neither have been proven true or false in an unbiased way. These are both legit opinions, but one is treated as fact and the other as a conspiracy theory.
I have tried editing it to a more balanced text, and wrote that she did support eugenics to support the other point of view. That was reverted by @britishfinance claiming I didn't link to reference of her support for eugenics. I re-edited it adding the reference for that, as well as mentioned it was already in the article as well as in the links for reference at the end of this paragraph. At the very least, I got a reason for reverting so that I could address it and fix it.
That was reverted by @the_banner - this time for no reason at all, except he didn't like it. The comment on the revert was simply "no, that is not the truth" without bothering to provide any explanation to weather that was not truth. The claim of her support for eugenics was already in the article earlier, so I cannot understand how it can be true there and not in this paragraph.
It seems there is a very heavy biased in editing this source, and seems like making any changes to remove this bias is met with a mob mentality, shutting down any view that goes against their own. This leads to hurting Wikipedia credibility as a balanced source of information.
I still think this should be addressed and changed, but I am not sure how to report or appeal these users actions, so I will put it here to a discussion.
This is the current text:
New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, conspiracy theorists have attempted to exploit the quotation "as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will".
It should be changed. It is biased and telling the reader what is the correct "think" rather than informing the reader.
My suggestion was:
The letter, along with other evidence of her support for eugenics [1] provided strong evidence that led many to believe that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, while others, such as the New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that the letter would have been meant to avoid that mistaken notion.
Keeping the same references at the end.
What is the process of appealing these edits or having a civil discussion, rather than keep editing it and they keep reverting it? I see based on the talk page that I am not the only one who feels this bias exists and have been shut down by these editors.
Spetel ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Further reading on this "talk" is full of references and full on admissions of editors taking sides.
quotes like "then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp" to choosing which sources are true and which are false, I see that this is a much bigger problem than I thought.
Is there a responsible adult who can shut down these heavily biased moderators who behave more like a mob than editors?
Spetel (
talk)
16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
While I was checking sources in the "Work with the African-American community," I noticed the block quote is incorrect. The letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble of December 10, 1939 is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. The actual paragraph that contains the "word to go out" line is:
The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
I'm not sure where the article is getting the first two sentences of this paragraph:
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.
It seems as though this quote is combining two different sources? Anyway, as the quote is introduced as "she [Margaret Sanger] wrote to Gamble," it should probably stick to the text from the letter.
I'll change it and cite the letter directly after the quote. However, I might wait until the latest revert war ends so my changes don't get lost in the reverts.
FecundityBlog ( talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Margaret Sanger was given life membership in 1926 to the New Jersey woman's Auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan. She was a proud member until her death in 1966. She was also given full membership into the Nazi party on the orders of Adolf Hitler in 1937 she did not reject this membership until January of 1942 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:65CC:2606:58EE:39D0 ( talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Just the notes and the highlights of the Klan meeting of her speech. Where they cheered her statements that abortion be used on black babies and other undesirable races. They were so happy with her speech they gave her full life membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9C86:614F:52F:A152 ( talk) 11:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.
My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building.
My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, “Wait here. We will come for you.” She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.
After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o’clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly the night in a hotel.Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger; an autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 400–402.
Anytime I try to post the documents they are blocked and removed by the fans of planned parenthood and other unqualified people who want to protect the image of this 40 year member of the KKK and 4 year member of the NAZI party. TRUTH is not relevant and facts are not allowed on this Margaret Sanger site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9DF7:F3A4:5CB8:FDE5 ( talk) 10:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Look at the quote in her own words above. She was offered to speak to many KKK groups. She gave many speeches to Klan groups why? Because she was a 40 year member of the KKK that's WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 04:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Anytime I post facts they are removed by the unqualified under the claim of original research. Sanger was directly tied in to the Nazi party and given full membership along with Lothrop Stoddard in 1937. Stoddard was good friends with Heinrich Himmler who recommended to Hitler to make them full members of the Nazi Party and he did. Stoddard later met Hitler in 1940 directly. On December 11,1941 Hitler declared war on the USA. Sanger renounced her Nazi membership in January of 1942 to stay out of trouble with the US government. The name of her group was changed to plan parenthood in 1942 to distance the group from Sanger and her KKK and Nazi ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What you unqualified people need to do is use the freedom of information act to get the FBI file on Sanger and read the file for yourselves. Or is that to much original research for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 ( talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No you dumbass the file from the FBI way later than that one. You must request it under the freedom of information act. Do it yourself unless your just plain lazy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:FC23:45C4:9B9B:B1C ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
There was a statement added to the article that Margaret Sanger supported under the counter abortions in private, while publicly condemning abortion. The only reference given for this claim was broken, so I have removed this claim.
(As an aside, when I clicked the broken reference link, it directed me to a different reference in the bibliography, and so I just spent the past half hour or so going down a wild goose chase.)
Also, the second sentence in the paragraph of the abortion section is now a sentence fragment. I'll fix that now. FecundityBlog ( talk)
As it now stands, the "Eugenics" section includes the following:
I have no problem with saying that she was associated with Stoddard, since that claim has a source, and I don't dispute that Stoddard was dreadfully racist. The problem is that the source for the phrase "extreme racist" (Reference 124, currently) is one of Stoddard's own books describing his beliefs. Unless he specifically states that he is an "extreme racist", isn't the editor who put this in taking his (the editor's) own inference for granted? My understanding is that if you're gonna state that Stoddard was an extreme racist, you should cite a source which says that he was an extreme racist (perhaps in other wording), not cite his own book and invite the reader to infer that he was, from reading his book. Isn't that one of the points in WP:PRIMARY?
Accordingly, I'm putting in a tag.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 06:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
HandsomeMrToad: Would it be okay to replace it with the following referenced text?
She was closely associated with one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the Klansman [PSP 1] [PSP 2] and Nazi sympathizer [PSP 3] Lothrop Stoddard. [PSP 4]: 173
NightHeron ( talk) 18:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
She sought the support of one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]
She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]
HandsomeMrToad: Thinking more about the revised wording, I'm concerned that the passive "was supported by" allows for the possibility that Sanger had no ties with Stoddard and did not welcome his support. To clarify that this was not the case, would it be okay to add the following text at the end of that sentence?
who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. [PSP 5]
Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
References for Primary source plus reader-interpretation in "Eugenics" section
There are inconsistent citation styles that I propose to resolve. Specifically,
Except for the The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger changes that should be done together, I would do this at a slow pace, maybe one a day or two at most, so that editors will have a chance to see & review each change.
Peaceray ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been some disagreements on whether or not Margaret Sanger can be labeled as a Eugenicist in the intro paragraph of the article. I believe this is an accurate label to present of her. We know from the article section, and the sources presented therein, that Sanger was a proponent of Negative Eugenics. Her standing as a significant member in the Eugenics movement in the United States means it's not inappropriate to put this label in the introductory paragraph.
The Best joke ( talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (COT)
Due to several pieces of literature authored by her, I feel it would be appropriate to add the title of a eugenicist. For example, in The Birth Control Review 1921 issue, she creates a specific section called "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds a term started by a physicist by the name of Edward Kempf who was a known supporter of eugenics. She spoke at several eugenics conferences, making statements such as "the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." She even once wrote and I quote "consequences of breeding from stock lacking human vitality always will give us social problems and perpetuate institutions of charity and crime." In her speech "My Way to Peace" she talks about the compulsory sterilization of people with disabilities. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”(My Way to Peace). In her letter to Clarence Gamble, she goes as far as explaining her dealings in the African-American community “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get 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.” These are all inherently eugenics based statements. The willful neglect to include this in one of her many titles shows the POV of the authors of this page being imposed on readers. I have to agree with the section talking about the bias in this page and within the editing team. You fail to acknowledge any stance other than your own and censor those that go against your belief. As someone who is new to the Wiki community but has engaged in investigative journalism for almost 4 years now, this is unacceptable. Cwpom ( talk) 09:20, 13 Aug 2019 (EST)
+
Please, also keep an eye on Negro Project where someone is depicting Sanger as an eugenist. The Banner talk 00:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Sanger was a eugenicist by definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenicist Overseer19XX ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
EKS321 ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)While it is true that Dr. Martin Luther King accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, this should in no way imply that he endorsed her stances on Eugenics or abortion. Abortion was illegal in 1996 and Planned Parenthood was merely an institution that concentrated on family planning through the use of contraception. Dr. King was an ordained minister who supported all efforts to make families stronger, while limiting the instances of childbirth out of marriage, no matter what the race. EKS321 ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Is this true: In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).
"It seems that the Eugenic ideas from its founder have left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood's surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy." The Washington Times, May 5, 2014.
Wow. If we suppress this, then Wikipedia loses credibility. Is that what you want?
Thank you for considering including these comments,
FidesEtRatio-Community ( talk) 05:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this edit [3] is appropriate. Do we make similar statements about being in fashion at the time when other names are removed from buildings and institutions because of associations with racism? We don't in connection with Woodrow Wilson and Princeton's recent decision, see [4]. It sounds like we're criticizing Planned Parenthood for planning to remove the name. NightHeron ( talk) 11:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Ellen Chesler, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank, and the author of a biography of Ms. Sanger and the birth control movement, said that while the country is undergoing vast social change and reconsidering prominent figures from the past, Ms. Sanger’s views have been misinterpreted. The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp. She rejected some eugenicists’ belief that white middle-class families should have more children than others, Ms. Chesler said. Instead, Ms. Sanger believed that the quality of all children’s lives could be improved if their parents had smaller families, Ms. Chesler said, adding that Ms. Sanger believed Black people and immigrants had a right to that better life.edit to add: perhaps it would better with attribution to make clear it isn't WP:OR. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
a unique person in supporting eugenics. But if you think that needs more emphasis, by all means add a statement to the eugenics section to the effect that such views were in fashion in her time. That's the place for it. It doesn't belong in its present location, where it is likely to be read as a negative judgment about Planned Parenthood's renaming. NightHeron ( talk) 21:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)