![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I am just learning about Sanger, so I do not feel qualified to edit, however this sentence seems problematic:
"Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia."
Why is Sanger's politics attributed to her husband? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslaw ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.W.W.’s could meet. These vehement individualists had to have an audience, preferably a small, intimate one. They really came to see Bill; I made the cocoa. I used to listen in, not at all sure my opinions would be accepted by this very superior group. When I did meekly venture something, I was quite likely to find myself on the opposite side—right in a left crowd and vice versa.[1]
"Having dabbled in Socialist politics, and even as suburbanites attended party meetings in Yonkers, the Sangers joined New York City's active Socialist Party Local 5. " "Margaret was quickly recruited for the party's women's committee, but unsure of herself and uncertain of the strength of her comrades' interest in women's issues, she deferred to her husband." "As a measure of her own diffidence in those years, however, Margaret recalled that these people really came to see her husband..."I just don't see being shy or "diffident" as any support for the implication that she derived her leftist politics from her husband, particularly after an upbringing by a freethinker father that probably influenced how she came to her political leanings (and could possibly be what attracted her to that husband).I agree with FecundityBlog about the rest of the sentence..."threw herself into" is rather meaningless, while the sentences that follow are factual and specific. Maybe it should also go? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...I quoted the Chesler biography above, and suggest this alternative which is more clearly supported by the biography:
In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. The couple became active in local socialist politics. Margaret Sanger joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence textile strike and the 1913 Paterson silk strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman.(with a number of wikilinks in there as well) Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
References
MS had her objections to abortion, and wrote plenty against it, but I don't think it's right to call her an "anti-abortion activist", especially not in the lead paragraph. When she mentioned abortion, it was always in order to support legalizing contraceptives and making them available and well-known. She didn't try to strengthen laws against abortion or to prevent abortions in any way other than by making contraceptives legal, available, and well-known.
So I think the article will be better if we keep her objections to abortion in the "Views" section, not in the lead paragraph.
From time to time we have a similar debate when right-wingers try to put "eugenicist" or "supporter of eugenics" into the lead paragraph. Yes, she agreed with the core principle of eugenics (that our decisions about breeding could improve future generations' pool of heritable traits), but support for eugenics was not her primary mission. When she mentioned eugenics, or abortion, it was always as a reason for legalizing, and advertising, and promoting, birth control. Her primary mission was supporting women's right to use birth-control for whatever reasons the women wanted to use it: no matter whether for eugenic reasons, or for financial reasons, or in order to avoid the stress of giving birth too many times without having to withhold sex from their husbands, or in order to avoid having abortions, or for any other reason.
Responses, and debate, and, ultimately, consensus, are welcome! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 06:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
IP editor 72.69.127.200 has capitalized almost all uses of 'black' as an ethno-racial color label (to 'Black'). Current guideline at MOS:PEOPLELANG allows for either use, and best practice is to discuss changes between acceptable styles before making them. That said, I support 72's changes. I think the clear national ties to the US, where 'Black' is commonly supported by style guides, is reason enough for the switch. Any objections? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"In her autobiography, she justified her decision to address them by writing "Always to me any aroused group was a good group," meaning that she was willing to seek common ground with anyone who might help promote legalization and awareness of birth-control. She described the experience as "weird", and reported that she had the impression that the audience were all half-wits, and, therefore, spoke to them in the simplest possible language, as if she were talking to children." 04:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:300:6C30:45A9:CBF7:79C2 ( talk)
"However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortions throughout the bulk of her professional career, declining to participate in them as a nurse."
This is not found at all in the Planned Parenthood link, and Planned Parenthood makes it repeatedly clear that she would be 100% for their mission, which includes abortion. Why this sudden attempt to rewrite her to make it sound like she opposed her own company? Page three is the most important part and it does not have her opposed to abortion. 2601:154:C480:D650:D8FE:8957:D565:4F49 ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The quotation by the author of the definitive biography of Sanger has been in the article for over 4 years. I reverted the removal because Chesler's statement deals in a balanced way with a controversial aspect of Sanger, and it's an analysis by an expert on Sanger. According to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, if a substantive change in the stable version of an article is disputed, the onus is on an editor who wants the change to seek consensus for the change on the talk-page. Until a consensus is reached, the stable version should remain without the change. NightHeron ( talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
shockingly dishonest" is a violation of WP:NPA and could result in sanctions. On a related subject, it turns out that your contribution page shows that before you removed the Chesler quotation a few hours ago your account had made zero edits for the previous 6 1/2 years. That seems peculiar, to say the least. NightHeron ( talk) 18:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The quotation is an attributed statement by a subject expert, and clearly does not violate NPOV. Chesler is doing her job as a historian, which is to evaluate Sanger in the context of her time. Many people of the early 20th century whom we generally admire made alliances with racists. For example the U.S. women's suffrage leader
Susan B. Anthony signed a statement supporting the segregationists' demand for states rights "that was intended to mollify and bring Southern U.S. suffrage groups into the fold
" (see
Women's suffrage in the United States#Anti-black racism). Whether or not they deserve admiration despite that is a moral judgment for readers to make for themselves.
NightHeron (
talk)
18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is Stoddard identified as a Klansman? He was, but only among many other things.He's identified as a Klansman to make it clear that Wikipedia is not referring to him as a racist by today's standards, but by the standards of any time. It's extremely relevant to point that out. NightHeron ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It is undeniably fact that Margaret Sanger was a prominent American eugenics. The debate is whether or not her eugenics was her reasoning for founding planned parenthood. Many independent requests have been made to include the statement of fact the Margaret Sanger was a eugenics and each time it has been shut down, presumably out of the fear that this statement of historically accepted fact could lead a reader to come to distasteful conclusions about Margaret Sanger as whole. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors or any honest informational writer to omit facts out of fear that the facts may sway a readers opinion. In fact, it is extremely disingenuous and disgusting. It is the duty of honest editors to make all statements of fact clear, not to play to public opinion and heroify people. This article should be greatly expanded to go into depth on Margaret Sanger's beliefs on eugenics and all facts, including those that may show her founding of Planned Parenthood to be, as is with the current narrative, not racist. The addition of eugenics into this article does not have to be biased. It does however absolutely need to be included. JoIsAGod ( talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.Sanger is not predominantly known for being a eugenicist. Any attempt to make her known primarily for this is a clear example of tendentious editing & thus a violation of the second pillar of Wikipedia,
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
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.This statement can be read one of two ways. In a negative reading, it would be and attempt to deceive African-Americans. In a positive reading, it would be in the "please don't let me be misunderstood" vein; that the benefit of offering birth control to the African-American community should be not be construed as an attempt to reduce their numbers any more than any other American. Given the fact that W. E. B. Du Bois & both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the Work with the African-American community section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly original research. Peaceray ( talk) 05:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
How do you justify this text:
She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and that poverty was hereditary.
The referenced link states:
"Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." Jogershok ( talk) 15:47, 10 February 2023 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I am just learning about Sanger, so I do not feel qualified to edit, however this sentence seems problematic:
"Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia."
Why is Sanger's politics attributed to her husband? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslaw ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.W.W.’s could meet. These vehement individualists had to have an audience, preferably a small, intimate one. They really came to see Bill; I made the cocoa. I used to listen in, not at all sure my opinions would be accepted by this very superior group. When I did meekly venture something, I was quite likely to find myself on the opposite side—right in a left crowd and vice versa.[1]
"Having dabbled in Socialist politics, and even as suburbanites attended party meetings in Yonkers, the Sangers joined New York City's active Socialist Party Local 5. " "Margaret was quickly recruited for the party's women's committee, but unsure of herself and uncertain of the strength of her comrades' interest in women's issues, she deferred to her husband." "As a measure of her own diffidence in those years, however, Margaret recalled that these people really came to see her husband..."I just don't see being shy or "diffident" as any support for the implication that she derived her leftist politics from her husband, particularly after an upbringing by a freethinker father that probably influenced how she came to her political leanings (and could possibly be what attracted her to that husband).I agree with FecundityBlog about the rest of the sentence..."threw herself into" is rather meaningless, while the sentences that follow are factual and specific. Maybe it should also go? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...I quoted the Chesler biography above, and suggest this alternative which is more clearly supported by the biography:
In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. The couple became active in local socialist politics. Margaret Sanger joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence textile strike and the 1913 Paterson silk strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman.(with a number of wikilinks in there as well) Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
References
MS had her objections to abortion, and wrote plenty against it, but I don't think it's right to call her an "anti-abortion activist", especially not in the lead paragraph. When she mentioned abortion, it was always in order to support legalizing contraceptives and making them available and well-known. She didn't try to strengthen laws against abortion or to prevent abortions in any way other than by making contraceptives legal, available, and well-known.
So I think the article will be better if we keep her objections to abortion in the "Views" section, not in the lead paragraph.
From time to time we have a similar debate when right-wingers try to put "eugenicist" or "supporter of eugenics" into the lead paragraph. Yes, she agreed with the core principle of eugenics (that our decisions about breeding could improve future generations' pool of heritable traits), but support for eugenics was not her primary mission. When she mentioned eugenics, or abortion, it was always as a reason for legalizing, and advertising, and promoting, birth control. Her primary mission was supporting women's right to use birth-control for whatever reasons the women wanted to use it: no matter whether for eugenic reasons, or for financial reasons, or in order to avoid the stress of giving birth too many times without having to withhold sex from their husbands, or in order to avoid having abortions, or for any other reason.
Responses, and debate, and, ultimately, consensus, are welcome! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 06:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
IP editor 72.69.127.200 has capitalized almost all uses of 'black' as an ethno-racial color label (to 'Black'). Current guideline at MOS:PEOPLELANG allows for either use, and best practice is to discuss changes between acceptable styles before making them. That said, I support 72's changes. I think the clear national ties to the US, where 'Black' is commonly supported by style guides, is reason enough for the switch. Any objections? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"In her autobiography, she justified her decision to address them by writing "Always to me any aroused group was a good group," meaning that she was willing to seek common ground with anyone who might help promote legalization and awareness of birth-control. She described the experience as "weird", and reported that she had the impression that the audience were all half-wits, and, therefore, spoke to them in the simplest possible language, as if she were talking to children." 04:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:300:6C30:45A9:CBF7:79C2 ( talk)
"However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortions throughout the bulk of her professional career, declining to participate in them as a nurse."
This is not found at all in the Planned Parenthood link, and Planned Parenthood makes it repeatedly clear that she would be 100% for their mission, which includes abortion. Why this sudden attempt to rewrite her to make it sound like she opposed her own company? Page three is the most important part and it does not have her opposed to abortion. 2601:154:C480:D650:D8FE:8957:D565:4F49 ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The quotation by the author of the definitive biography of Sanger has been in the article for over 4 years. I reverted the removal because Chesler's statement deals in a balanced way with a controversial aspect of Sanger, and it's an analysis by an expert on Sanger. According to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, if a substantive change in the stable version of an article is disputed, the onus is on an editor who wants the change to seek consensus for the change on the talk-page. Until a consensus is reached, the stable version should remain without the change. NightHeron ( talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
shockingly dishonest" is a violation of WP:NPA and could result in sanctions. On a related subject, it turns out that your contribution page shows that before you removed the Chesler quotation a few hours ago your account had made zero edits for the previous 6 1/2 years. That seems peculiar, to say the least. NightHeron ( talk) 18:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The quotation is an attributed statement by a subject expert, and clearly does not violate NPOV. Chesler is doing her job as a historian, which is to evaluate Sanger in the context of her time. Many people of the early 20th century whom we generally admire made alliances with racists. For example the U.S. women's suffrage leader
Susan B. Anthony signed a statement supporting the segregationists' demand for states rights "that was intended to mollify and bring Southern U.S. suffrage groups into the fold
" (see
Women's suffrage in the United States#Anti-black racism). Whether or not they deserve admiration despite that is a moral judgment for readers to make for themselves.
NightHeron (
talk)
18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is Stoddard identified as a Klansman? He was, but only among many other things.He's identified as a Klansman to make it clear that Wikipedia is not referring to him as a racist by today's standards, but by the standards of any time. It's extremely relevant to point that out. NightHeron ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It is undeniably fact that Margaret Sanger was a prominent American eugenics. The debate is whether or not her eugenics was her reasoning for founding planned parenthood. Many independent requests have been made to include the statement of fact the Margaret Sanger was a eugenics and each time it has been shut down, presumably out of the fear that this statement of historically accepted fact could lead a reader to come to distasteful conclusions about Margaret Sanger as whole. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors or any honest informational writer to omit facts out of fear that the facts may sway a readers opinion. In fact, it is extremely disingenuous and disgusting. It is the duty of honest editors to make all statements of fact clear, not to play to public opinion and heroify people. This article should be greatly expanded to go into depth on Margaret Sanger's beliefs on eugenics and all facts, including those that may show her founding of Planned Parenthood to be, as is with the current narrative, not racist. The addition of eugenics into this article does not have to be biased. It does however absolutely need to be included. JoIsAGod ( talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.Sanger is not predominantly known for being a eugenicist. Any attempt to make her known primarily for this is a clear example of tendentious editing & thus a violation of the second pillar of Wikipedia,
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
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.This statement can be read one of two ways. In a negative reading, it would be and attempt to deceive African-Americans. In a positive reading, it would be in the "please don't let me be misunderstood" vein; that the benefit of offering birth control to the African-American community should be not be construed as an attempt to reduce their numbers any more than any other American. Given the fact that W. E. B. Du Bois & both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the Work with the African-American community section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly original research. Peaceray ( talk) 05:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
How do you justify this text:
She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and that poverty was hereditary.
The referenced link states:
"Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." Jogershok ( talk) 15:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)