Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Do we need the section on "Race" and should it be in controversies?

The section on "Race" starts with Sanger's views on Aboriginal Australians. Where is there a citation that her views are controversial? Are there anthropologists who study aboriginal groups debating Sanger's views? The first paragraph seems to be the opinion of wikipedia editors who cite Sanger's work and decided it controversial. The last paragraph mentions "sexual and racial chaos" but it isn't clear that race here means "human race" as opposed to white vs. black vs. others. Reading some of here work one finds "the race" means "human race." Jason from nyc (talk)

The next paragraph starts with "Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders ..." What attitudes? On anthropology? On the human race? Why would black leaders be expected to object and who says they should? This is an opinion by wikipedia editors. And it is written by analyzing primary sources. Jason from nyc (talk)

The remainder of the section isn't about a controversy with the exception of the last sentence. It is about how well she was received by leaders of the black community. We should delete the 1st paragraph of the "Race" section and perhaps the whole section. Any mention of her outreach to the black community should be part of her life's work and in the "Life" section somewhere. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Since she does have controversial statements on race, including that bit on Aboriginal Australians, we should leave it under controversies or risk loosing WP:NEUTRAL. If you want to move the part about how well she was received by the black community I agree that it belongs in the "life" section. Chrononem ☎ 12:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Who says it is controversial? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians, for one. Chrononem ☎ 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

When? Proof? Citation, please? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Who says abortion or eugenics is controversial? Should we entitle it "Racism" instead? Chrononem ☎ 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are other topics. We need reliable sources to document that her comments on aboriginals are controversial, then or now. Got a reliable source? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to suggest that Aboriginal Australians actually posses inhibited brain development. If that is the case I would refer you to WP:NDP and Wikipedia:Discrimination#Prohibited_activities. Otherwise it should stand on its own that these statements are controversial. Chrononem ☎ 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing about the claims one way or another. I asking for evidence that in 1912 this was considered controversial and by whom? Sanger wasn't an anthropologist so her regurgitation of anthropological claims isn't relevant to her notability. If they are controversial there must be sources debating the merits of the case or for her repeating such questionable claims. We report what sources state. Where's the sources that state there is a controversy with her remarks on aboriginals in 1912? If there are no sources aside from primary sources, the paragraph should be removed. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The controversies section is not limited to views in 1912 and is clearly intended to address modern controversies as well. Requiring a source to explain that racism is controversial, (even in the civil rights era) is an example of WP:PETTIFOG Chrononem ☎ 15:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not an article on racism or even Aboriginal Australians. If there is a controversy today (or then) there must be sources arguing both sides. If that there is agreement there is no controversy. You have no sources. There is no controversy. Take the 1st paragraph out. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not likely to happen. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT might be some good reading material for you. Chrononem ☎ 15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research isn't admissible whether I like it or not. Sources, please! Jason from nyc (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to look for them. Like I said, asking for proof that racism is controversial to remove a section you don't like is wikilawyering; Adding a citation explaining that racism is controversial is unnecessary; and if you remove the section you will probably be reverted. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Chrononem ☎ 16:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Claiming the subject is racist has not been supported by reliable sources. Not every error uttered by an historical figure becomes a controversy, this is especially true if it is a point in passing not of the figure's specialty. If she is such a racist as you say there should surely be reliable sources given how much has been written about her. Your POV isn't admissible for an article on wikipedia. I've looked and can't find reliable source so I'm not surprised that you're "not going to look for them." No sources, no inclusion! Jason from nyc (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, secondary sources are required. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, since you obviously won't stop until you've gotten yourself banned I went ahead and got you a source. That describes scientific racism.

It is not necessary to explain either that racism is controversial or that Margret's ideas were racist. Giving her ideas is enough. Chrononem ☎ 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not home at my computer and have limited access from my mobile device. I can't see what this source says about Sanger. Can you give me the quote? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters because I don't see how a definition of scientific racism helps when the problem is original research based on primary sources. E.g.,...

The first sentence of the "Controversies - Race" section makes the claim that,

Sanger's writings echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races.

This is supposedly supported by Sanger's own writings,

In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians, to her "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development," possessed "so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets," as compared to the "normal man and Woman." who were able to exercise control over their desires.

Issues of WP:PRIMARY aside, the source doesn't support the first sentence (nor does it support the second sentence due to cherry picking of the quotes). Here is the full quote,

It is said a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat knows no law except nature which impels him to procreate whatever the result. Every normal man and Woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells in thinking deeply, are never sensual.

Note that "It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known..." has been replaced with to her "the lowest known species of the human...", and that she makes no comparison between the "aboriginal Australian" and "normal man and Woman." Does she repeat some of the scientific racism known to be so prevalent in 1912? Sure. Is it evidence that she was a racist? That is for reliable, secondary sources to decide.

The last sentence is more of the same,

Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."

The actual paragraph from the source,

Thirdly: we have come to the conclusion, based on widespread investigation and experience, that this education for parenthood and of parenthood must be based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the submerged masses, can never be of the slightest value in effecting any changes in the mores of the people. Such systems have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted.

I have no idea how this supports the claim that she had "ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races" or where she even mentions "traditional sexual ethics" - whatever those are - much less does any bemoaning.

In sum, without reliable, secondary sources, the first paragraph cannot remain in the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You make the case for the removal of the first paragraph and we do have a census for that. User:Chrononem has failed to provide reliable secondary sources and has defiantly stated that "giving her ideas is enough," which it is not. Once again we should remove the 1st paragraph. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

in English grammar, commas framing a phrase represents a parenthetical statement. I know it's a difficult language but this is EN wikipedia.Chrononem ☎ 12:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised. What's your point? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Only that on EN wikipedia we have to follow English rules, which means parenthetical statements stand alone. That you don't recognize "woeful" as bemoaning tells me that this may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT especially considering your history edit warring on this page. As for "traditional" feel free to replace it with "other" or "highminded" if you so choose. I don't see what it would hurt for you to use her actual words. They convey her feelings better than wikipedia could. Chrononem ☎ 12:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As a consensus has formed to delete the 1st paragraph, why not be gracious and revert your revert? We may very well agree at another time or another article; let's end this discussion with a show of good will. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for you to violate NPOV here. Artifex has tried the same thing in the past and been stopped by other editors, Naha8 likewise was stopped for the same reason and then banned. One of your own most recent edits on this area was reverted as POV by The Banner, a wikinemesis of mine if there ever was one. If the agenda you were trying to push wasn't comically biased you can be sure he would have let it slide. Any edit you make to push your agenda will be reverted. If not by me then by one of the many editors that have reverted your similar edits in the past. Chrononem ☎ 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We still need reliable, secondary sources for the first paragraph. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The awkward part is that race and eugenics should be in the context of their time. But it is done by editors living in 2015 using sources that are available in 2015. The Banner talk 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am in support of removing second paragraph. Artifex and Jason from nyc are right about that not belonging, The citations originally in the first do seem sufficient. Schwarzschild Point • 06:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Schwarzschild Point, you restored the 1st paragraph "Sanger's writings echoed her ideas about inferiority ...". Was that your intention? What is your reasoning? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It was, of course. It seems that removing that one only makes sense politically. The second paragraph though, it's all kinds of out of place under controversies. And you're right that it's full of opinion. Schwarzschild Point • 13:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I think you misunderstood us. The paragraph about aboriginals is not based on reliable secondary sources; it is original research. Can you review the above debate and give us your reasoning. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a direct quote, nu? Not original research? If a person is looking for information on Sanger's racism this is the first place they'll come, nu? If you want it should be better sourced you should find better sources. They seem fine to me. People who come here to read about Sanger will be looking for he views on race, nu? You want they should find nothing? Schwarzschild Point • 14:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It has two direct quotes taken out of context (as some above have noted) with additional words added by Wikipedia editors. There are no secondary sources to explain that there is a controversy. It is merely the opinion and point of view of wikipedia editors. That makes it original research. This is explained above. There is no consensus for this paragraph to be in the article because it is original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This recent set of changes removed balancing content in a manner seriously at odds with WP:NPOV, without any explanation in the edit summaries and, as far as I can see, without a substantial explanation on this talk page. I don't see any consensus for this kind of major refocusing of the text. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My single edit to restore the balancing material removed in these latest edits was promptly reverted. This article needs more attention from fresh eyes and in the meantime it seems clear to me that the article needs a POV tag. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably needs a tag concerning the use of primary sources as well. Regardless, I'm not sure which notice board I should take this to WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or WP:FRINGE. I'm leaning towards fringe. Opinions? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably the right idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tends to be "fringe" but when editors refuse to cite their sources it appears as "original research" and sometimes "undue". They're interrelated. By the way, should we not have this article protected given recent edit history? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and talk about what's really at issue: Margaret Sanger's views on race have been in the news lately because they're a talking point among GOP (Conservative) candidates for President of the United States. The quote about the Aboriginal population is embarrassing because it confirms that yes, she held racist views. So some people are trying to get it removed from the article, via some convoluted Wikilawyering. There is no need to get worked up over it; just wait for it to no longer be a current event, and people will stop caring. There is no consensus to make any change, and no need to keep arguing about it. --Khgtcv (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me say I agree with your basic point in all your posts today. It is important for readers to find information about controversies in this article. I've put controversies in other article regardless of the merits because they were discussed in reliable sources and the reader should find the answers in Wikipedia. My objection is bringing in controversies that are only discussed in "fringe" literature. Once reliable sources discuss them we have an opportunity to report both sides. If they are only in the fringe (and there are unlimited fringe theories) we have to do original research. As you say, the charges that Sanger is racist against blacks is being discussed and we have secondary sources for this discussion. We should us them. And we should have a lead paragraph appropriate to the subject.

The 1912 aboriginal quote is only discussed in the "fringe." As a consequence we'd have to do original research to refute it. I've done that. I noted that "Professor Gillian Cowlishaw tells us these views were the prevalent views of physical anthropologists in the early 20th century until the work of Alfred Radcliffe-Brown about 1930.[2] ("Australian Aboriginal studies: The anthropologists' accounts". In M. de Lepervanche; G. Bottomley. The Cultural Construction of Race, 1988.) Sanger starts her sentence with 'It is said ...' so she doesn't even know if she should accept expert opinion. She never met the aboriginals and there is no indication that she accepted this view as fact let alone that she came to this view from prejudice. To insinuate racism as is done in 'fringe' research is the kind of WP:SYNTHESIS we reject." Others point out the context of the statement in that it is a rhetorical devise for a lead-in to the main topic she wishes to discuss. She's not known for her work on aboriginal culture or policy. It's a one time passing reference to erroneous theories by physical anthropologists in 1912. I suggest we have an appropriate lead paragraph about the charges of her being racists towards blacks as a lead-in to the other two paragraphs about her support by prominent black leaders. That's a fair and balanced analysis of the controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we need the section on "Controversy"?

It seems a large part of this discussion revolves around what is and isn't controversial. I ask: why is it even titled as such? Why not just the neutral "Views"? The title as it stands appears to be misconceptional in my opinion. What's controversial about her views on sexuality? They frankly sound like something that would have been "normal" in a Western country today. The title is also borderline WP:CRITICISM. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The controversy section is standard fare. I wouldn't be adverse to calling it views but then why would we limit it to her controversial views. "Views" would require us to include a lot of superfluous information. Chrononem ☎ 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc:@Prinsgezinde: Yes, a section on controversies is needed, because Sanger's views have clearly been the subject of a good deal of controversy, and continue to be --- and, as User:Chrononem points out, a controversy section is standard in Wikipedia. --- Professor JR (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have found more sources on Sanger's controversy as it relates to racism courtesy of the the washington times. Note that my intent of providing this source is to prove that there is controversy, not that Sanger is racist. Schwarzschild Point • 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That was written by Arina Grossu of the Family Research Council. Let me ask you and everyone here: is that a reliable source for our article? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

of course not. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. You guys are completely incorrect in asserting that "Controversy" sections are "standard in Wikipedia". In fact, standalone "controversy" or "criticism" sections are strongly deprecated and are a mark of a poorly constructed and poorly written article. The best practice is to integrate positive, negative, and controversial material into a unified narrative, rather than to segregate "criticism" or "controversy" into a separate section. (As an aside, where Wikipedia articles have standalone "controversy" sections, they are often an indicator that the article in question is a focus of tendentious or agenda-driven editing). There's more at WP:CRITICISM. I don't care to get involved in this dispute at the moment, but I do feel the need to correct a very fundamental misunderstanding, evident in this subsection, about best practices for writing Wikipedia articles. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: In case you hadn't noticed, this article IS the "focus of tendentious or agenda-driven editing", and edit warring, which is why some have suggested in good faith the appropriateness of a section on "Controversy". --- Professor JR (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

But a standalone "controversy" section is not a solution to the problem of tendentious editing; it's more like a reward for it, or a capitulation to it. I don't doubt that the "controversy" section was developed in good faith, but it is at odds with the best practices for writing Wikipedia articles. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the "controversy" layout seems completely inappropriate here. The "sexuality" section, for example, is under "controversy" but doesn't really talk about a controversy, or specifically say what was controversial about the views/actions it describes. The section on abortion just describes Sanger's views, but does not address or discuss any controversy over them. In other places (especially the race & Eugenics sections), it really seems like the "controversy" section is being used by modern-day critics of Sanger to list views she held or things she said/wrote which they believe are self-evidently controversial, from their personal, modern-day perspective. This is not encyclopedic and probably isn't NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the question: A key point here is that any discussion of Sanger’s views on race must be set in the context of contemporary opinion. Some of her writing from the 1920s espouses ideas about race that were widely held at the time but that were later disproven and rejected. Views which merely reflected contemporary scientific, medical, and scholarly opinion may deserve brief note, taking care to contextualize them. Wikipedia should not, however, engage in fake controversy or publicize partisan talking points by ripping Sanger's writing out of the intellectual context of the time. If Sanger believed that impulse control was a heritable trait for which persons of color were not always notable, her belief had been shared by recent presidents -- both Republic and Democratic -- by contemporary anthropologists, and by writers ranging from Dorothy Sayers to Joseph Moncure March. A sentence or two should suffice: more would be too much. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this very much. It's dishonest to just list some things she said (which sound objectionable to modern ears), without putting Sanger's statements and views in their proper historical and cultural context. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Edit request

First request: Please delete the 1st sentence of the race section on aboriginal Australians. It was about a single sentence she wrote in 1912 (WP:UNDUE) that is not of significance to any reliable source. This is either WP:FRINGE (see comments above on Family Research Council as a proposed source) or without such sources WP:ORIGINAL research. Professor Gillian Cowlishaw tells us these views were the prevalent views of physical anthropologists in the early 20th century until the work of Alfred Radcliffe-Brown about 1930.[3] ("Australian Aboriginal studies: The anthropologists' accounts". In M. de Lepervanche; G. Bottomley. The Cultural Construction of Race, 1988.) Sanger starts her sentence with "It is said ..." so she doesn't even know if she should accept expert opinion. She never met the aboriginals and there is no indication that she accepted this view as fact let alone that she came to this view from prejudice. To insinuate racism as is done in "fringe" research is the kind of WP:SYNTHESIS we reject. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea MarkBernstein (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Obvious keep Per the entire argument in the sections above. Chrononem ☎ 16:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Second request: Delete the 2nd sentence in the race section that starts with "Elsewhere she wrote ..." as it is WP:ORIGINAL research that takes her usage of the words "race" and "racial" to mean "white race vs. others" when a careful reading of the article makes it clear she means "human race" as she always does. There is no evidence that she is expressing racist sentiment in the article. Cherry picking this quote out of context and putting it into a section called "Race" makes it appear that she sees a problem between alleged races (white vs. other). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Urgently necessary: The quote used here is actively misleading, and seems intended to insinuate a construction its author did not hold. Compare James Oppenheim’s famous poem, "Bread and Roses": As we come marching, marching, we bring the Greater Days/The rising of the women means the rising of the race." MarkBernstein (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Obvious keep Per the entire argument in the sections above.

"she means 'human race' as she always does."
- Jason from nyc

Showing your true, very POV, colors? Chrononem ☎ 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you know? How do you know I don't have a secondary source for that statement? Now it is incumbent on you to provide reliable secondary sources for the text that is in the article, which is what we are discussing. When I requested secondary sources in the sections above (i.e. "Original research isn't admissible whether I like it or not. Sources, please!"), you responded "I'm not going to look for them." Jason from nyc (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your POV has been obvious from the start. As mentioned earlier, even Banner has reverted your edits as POV and he's not exactly centrist himself. It's just nice to see you switch from wikilawyering to straight up advocating for your favorite people. Chrononem ☎ 12:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Urgent request: I suggest the protection of this page be extended by a minimum of one week to deter the immediate resumption of edit warring I expect to see when the shields drop. The article will still be there in a week after everyone has had a chance to acquire some objectivity. Chrononem ☎ 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop accusing other editors and respond to the policy based argument that the first paragraph is not supported by sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is supported, sources were provided. It's only not supported by your own POV. Chrononem ☎ 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any secondary sources for the first paragraph of the race section? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A primary source is provided. As for the secondary let me ask this first: Are you having trouble grasping that it is controversial, in which case you wouldn't be able to consider, say reference four as 'fringe' since we are only establishing the controversiality or are you afraid it sounds like we are calling Sanger Racist, in which case you can rest assured that the section only addresses the controversy caused by Sanger's words and not their meaning. Chrononem ☎ 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the primary source you provided for the 2nd sentence: [4]. The word "race" is used four times. Two of the times it is in the phrase "human race." At no time do we see "white race" or "Negro race" or any other so-called race. Since this section is title "Race" and is written totally as if it were about race in the inter-racial sense, this sentence should not be in it, period! Now your primary research may differ from mine in terms of assigning meaning to her words and their usefulness for the "Race" section. Thus, we need reliable secondary sources telling us that she is talking about inter-racial matters. You con't see that, do you? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is obvious that Sanger was and is a controversial figure (i.e., no, I am not having trouble grasping that fact). The problem is the the use of primary sources to synthesise information that makes a claim, either directly or inferred, that is not explicitly stated in the sources. The source suggested is extremely poor but there are plenty of other high quality sources available that speak to Sanger's views on race, et al. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The term "Race" in that instance is a subset of "the world" I see no information to indicate she was speaking of poorly managed animal husbandry. Chrononem ☎ 19:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I am not against the modification of this paragraph, only its abject deletion. If you can provide a NPOV alternative that still explains Margret Sanger's racial controversy I wouldn't have a problem with a substitution, as long as it is the better option. Chrononem ☎ 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I take this as an announcement that you will continue you campaign to get this article POV and unbalanced and that you are willing to editwar over it. Sorry to be so blunt! The Banner talk 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, blunt honesty would be a nice surprise. As in the past, "NPOV" does not mean "Banner's point of view." There are plenty of other websites that will allow you a platform to present that. Chrononem ☎ 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that you consider a neutral version as my personal point of view. Thanks for the compliment. The Banner talk 10:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You're conflating wikipedia's policy and your own views. I'm saying you mistake your own position for a neutral point of view and edit accordingly. Chrononem ☎ 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You don't have a published reliable secondary source on the topic so it is you that is pushing a POV. One doesn't have to have any point of view when removing unsupported original research--only a dedication to making Wikipedia reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

When you remove content that is sourced elsewhere, when it would be difficult to source the fact that it was controversial directly (you can't put it in the header) it indicates that you are motivated by something other than wikipedia policy. Chrononem ☎ 13:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you would question my motives--contrary to assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A provision of assumptions is that they can be disproven. Chrononem ☎ 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Schwarzschild Point, why do keep reinserting the 1st paragraph. It is clear your one secondary source was rejected as unreliable. This leaves nothing but original research by cherry-picking and extracting from context sentences from primary sources that are either undue weight or unintelligible outside the context. Please revert your edit instead of edit-warring. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it. There is clearly no consensus for that paragraph to be in the article, highly recommend that no one try re-inserting it absent a clear consensus in favor of including it - the reasons why it should not be in the article have been repeatedly and very convincingly outlined on this talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You do not correctly understand consensus. I count eleven editors involved six want that the information be deleted, four want that it should be spared and one wants that it should be chanded to "views". No consensus for removal, this is not a vote. WP:consensus After you know what it is any more claiming to have it should be seen as disruptive editing. Schwarzschild Point • 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a vote, so counting up who does/doesn't support the change is not really helpful. Compelling, policy-based, and well-sourced arguments have been made for removal, but the arguments for inclusion seem to be POV and not consistent with wikipedia guidelines. The content clearly does not belong in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is quite clearly no consensus for removing it in the first place. It was in the article for nearly two years, and only became an issue because of recent controversy in the news -- all the more reason it should stay, as it provides relevant detail on a controversial point. I think it could be made more neutral perhaps, by linking to examples on either side of the controversy. Sanger's original statement (and a primary source is fine for that, I don't understand the confusion that has infested wikipedia in recent years over the role of primary vs. secondary sources.. primary sources are ALWAYS preferred) lends itself to various interpretations. Her style of phrasing, for example, could imply she is merely repeating popular opinion of the time while remaining agnostic to its validity (or lack thereof) or it could be that she is merely being agnostic with respect to the sexual claims and accepts at face value the part about aboriginals being barely above chimps in terms of brain development. So then link to secondary sources (which -- a point that has been lost recently -- are primary with respect to the opinions they provide) that provide the various competing interpretations of her statement. That is, after all, why they're controversial in the first place. It's not an "offensive statement" section, it's a "controversy" section, which implies disagreement. But whitewashing it out of existence does not serve the project, and it's quite transparent that the point is to discredit one side of the dispute outside the project, by making the material harder to find. It is a matter of weight, but not undue weight with respect to the article -- rather, it's an attempt to reduce the weight given to one side of the argument in the real world by eliminating the weight that inclusion in a wikipedia article provides. Accuse me of bad faith all you want, but I fully understand what's going on here. Those of you trying to keep it out of the article are (for the most part -- there are probably exceptions) doing so base on your own political convictions and are concerned about the wikipedia article being used to support the argument of those you oppose. And honestly I don't care whether you're doing that or not. I don't find it surprising that somebody who lived during that era might hold mildly racist views, nor do I care at all about the views of one of the founders of an organization to any degree that influences my opinion of that organization. But I do object to treating a wikipedia article as a battleground for ideological battles, which is what's going on here. Sanger said some things that were possibly racist. Yeah, that's not great for supporters of Planned Parenthood.. but who cares? She said them, they're controversial, just describe that situation as fairly as possible and move on. Sanger doesn't need to be a perfect angel for Planned Parenthood to be a good thing, or for the GOP candidates bashing it to be wrong. Let's figure out how to add the quote -- with appropriate references to the various interpretations and examples (even bring up how it factors into the current debate, for instance!) and stop wikilawyering each other to death here. --Khgtcv (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a very simple Google search on "margaret sanger aboriginal" brings up over 12,000 results, the second of which is a primary source (NYU's Sanger Project of her public papers) and -- I think this is the actual problem here that concerns people who want the quote removed -- the wikipedia article as the first result. After that, there are thousands upon thousands of results from various journals, newspapers, blogs, discussion boards, etc. that all make it very very clear that the quote is at the heart of a controversy. The argument here on the talk page is just further proof that there's a controversy. I know full well that none of you doubt that there's a controversy. It's just that calling it into question is a tactical move to try to get the embarrassing quote out of the article, so that wikipedia is no longer the top result for a search on this topic. I applaud the effort, but I think it's misguided. I support Planned Parenthood, I think most of the arguments against Sanger are based on misquotes or misunderstandings -- I also don't think it should matter one bit in terms of evaluating the role of Planned Parenthood in society -- but in this one case yes, she said things that sound pretty racist, and those statements have fueled a controversy. I think we should actually even be addressing the mis-quotes and identifying them as such; they're part of the controversy too. This article is supposed to be informative, not flattery. Because abortion is controversial, Sanger's life and views have been controversial. That's not undue weight; that's just the way it is. --Khgtcv (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually did google the search string you suggest. What comes up are very low-quality sources like briebart.com, lifenews.com, and firstlightforum.com (that result has the wonderful headline "Baby murderer Margaret Sanger: the wife of a Jew and 'Mother of the American Abortion Holocaust'"). These are not the sorts of sources that we should be paying any attention to at all. Can you please either direct us to a specific, high-quality, reliable source that highlights the quote? If you can present just one (instead of erroneously insisting that the relevance of the quote is self-evident) I would be happy to take your insistence that the aboriginal quote should be in the article seriously. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of the quote to the controversy surrounding Sanger's views on race is self-evident. I don't believe for a second that you truly doubt that. But self-evidence isn't the criteria by which things are included in the project, particularly when there's disagreement among editors (for whatever reason) on inclusion. My point is that her views on race, and in particular that quote, are quite obviously controversial. Now, given that, it should be incumbent upon all of us, as contributors to this project, to source that fact. To do otherwise, because exclusion of the quote plays into a political agenda outside the scope of making this an informative article, is wikilawyering, plain and simple. It's playing on a technicality to suit an agenda. The quality of the articles in the search result aren't at issue, because their sole purpose is to demonstrate that there is a controversy. Their mere existence demonstrates this. If it were a handful of articles, then one could argue that they were on the fringe -- but there are thousands, they represent the opinions of a good portion of the US population (with whom you -- and I, for that matter -- apparently do not agree, but a good portion nonetheless) and the same points are being made by mainstream candidates for US President. There is a legitimate claim to controversy, as anybody with eyes can see. That's not to say that the position of both sides of the controversy have merit -- that's an entirely different point. But the controversy is there. There seems to be a very new confusion around the project as to what secondary sources are and how they relate to primary sources... and even more troubling, an outright disparaging of primary sources. The articles I referenced from the Google search are not secondary sources. They're not even primary sources. They're direct evidence. They demonstrate the controversy. So it's correct to say that none of them can properly be used as sources to back up the claim of controversy. They could be used as examples (which does happen elsewhere on the project) but that's it. You can call that original research or synthesis or whatever technicality you'd like to throw at it, but these things are not hard and fast rules. Not everything on wikipedia has to be sourced. Observations are allowed, if they're reasonable. But in this case there is clearly disagreement, so I agree that a higher standard should be used. Further down this talk page, I have given some examples of articles (from more "respectable" sources) that point out the controversy. Note that these also are not secondary sources with respect to the controversy. They are primary sources. They are secondary sources with respect to Sanger's quotes, or the comments made by others. But with respect to referring to the controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes, they are primary sources. I agree the distinctions are confusing and in fact I think it's just absurd to put so much weight on primary vs. secondary sources for things like this. That's why this obsession over it (which seems endemic on the project, of late) baffles me so much. But in the interests of reaching consensus, I am fine with locating acceptable sources that make the observation that there's a controversy surrounding Sanger's quotes on race. There are several listed further down this page, and I'll locate more as time permits. Unless you're seriously going to continue pretending you believe there isn't a controversy in the first place, it would be appreciated if you helped with finding good sources so that we could discuss the controversies in the article. --Khgtcv (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said there wasn't a controversy. But the way to discuss the controversy is by summarizing what high-quality, reliable sources say about the subject, not by arbitrarily choosing a quote from a primary source and stuffing it into the article, assuming that it speaks for itself, or by putting content that doesn't even talk about a controversy under a "controversy" heading and assuming that readers will figure out what to think. What we need to do is find high-quality, reliable (preferably academic) sources that discuss the controversies that have surrounded Sanger, read them, and summarize them in the article. This isn't rocket science - wikipedia policies/guidelines are pretty clear about how we're supposed to approach this. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Views

I made several copy-edits and moved "sexuality" and "abortion" from "controversies" to "views". Everything was reverted en bloc by SchwarzchildPoint, with a comment about taking it to talk, but that user (a relatively new user from their contributions, though they leapt directly and expertly into a thorny religious page controversy before arriving here) did not in fact explain what he objected to or whether any of the work I volunteered here might be acceptable. For example, the revert restores outright grammatical errors; is it desirable to edit-war for illiteracies? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Schwarzschild Point didn't merely revert your edit but added a considerable amount of text as well. As someone who left a message in my talk about an inadequate edit summary, one would have hoped for better. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: IMHO -- especially in view of User:SchwarzschildPoint’s deceptive edit summary -- I'd appreciate it if someone would please revert either to my version or to the version preceding my edit. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Why don't you both agree to self-revert and we'll start over again. @Schwarzschild Point: how about it? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess this isn't going to work. I'll do a revert to last consensus version. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

About two seconds of mousework revealed that Schwarszchild reverted two of Mark's edits, the last one and one he got in right before page protection. That seems less dishonest than Jason's choice of a "consensus" edit. Chrononem ☎ 13:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that she was controversial all her life, let's change "Controversies" to "Views." Jason from nyc (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that would require Wikipedia to call imply that she is racist if it wants to deal with the racial controversy she's been involved in. Chrononem ☎ 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Was Margaret Sanger in fact involved in racial controversy? Did contemporary leaders of, say, the NAACP criticize her position? I notice, for example, that Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted the Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. W. E. B. DuBois presided over the opening of Sanger’s Harlem clinic, and Malcolm X worked with Sanger’s organization in the 1960s [5]. “Following a Sanger lecture in his church, Reverend Adam Clayton Powell of the Abyssinian Baptist Church endorsed birth control.”[6]. Where is the controversy? ^{–This unsigned comment was left by User:MarkBernstein}

The controversy section is not limited to contemporary leaders, she currently is involved in racial controversy and Wikipedia should not ignore it in order to whitewash her legacy. Chrononem ☎ 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So produce some reliable, non-primary sources that you think can be used to discuss that controversy and we'll talk about what's worth including. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scroll up and click on ref 4 for one. The controversy section was in place before I arrived here I'm only trying to preserve it. The proper, good faith, way to remove or change it would involve adding Citation needed tags where appropriate and waiting for sources before trying to remove it. Chrononem ☎ 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's an editorial, written by someone who is clearly biased, and it demonstrably misrepresents Sangers views. I've got no problem with a brief section at the end of the article talking about modern "controversies" (IE, the misrepresentation of Sanger by pro-life activists and how wrong those depictions are) using sources like the ones mastcell and others linked above. But that's something quite different from the "controversy" section we currently have (and which you're trying to preserve) which, this existence of which (as a "controversy" section) is not supported by any RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The question, I believe, was whether she was controversial, not whether she was actually racist, the fact that both her detractors and defenders are biased is self evident as literally no one else cares about her. Both the quotes that one side uses and the interactions the other should be presented. Neither are sufficiently biased to be called fringe and someone coming to learn about Margret Sanger would need to know about them. Chrononem ☎ 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said that the issue is whether or not she was racist, or labelled her detractors "fringe," or said that only one perspective should be represented. You are defending a "controversy" section which does not, in fact, discuss any controversies, or cite any RS which indicate that there was a controversy. As I said above, no one questions the fact that she is controversial today, and I would not be opposed to a brief section discussing those controversies at the end of the article. Nor would I be opposed to a "controversy" section which actually discusses the controversies Sanger was involved in during her lifetime. But the current "controversy" section does neither of those things - it is simply a discussion of her views, and does not discuss any controversies at all. Therefore, it is mis-titled. If you want the article to include a "controversy" section then you need to propose/write a section that actually deals with and discusses controversies about Sanger. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

− With regard to Sanger's views on race, it appear to me that the W. E. B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. all supported Sanger. I’ve not found any comment from Booker T. Washington, Paul Robeson, or A. Philip Randolph. I'm not seeing a controversy. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Then go here and Ctrl F "Race-Based." That's a very pro-Sanger article and it even mentions her racial controversy. Chrononem ☎ 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually reading the sources? "While she did not advocate efforts to limit population growth solely on the basis of class, ethnicity, or race, and refused to encourage positive eugenics for white, native-born, middle and upper classes, Sanger's reputation was permanently tainted by the growing prominence of race-based eugenics." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I have said countless times, I am not arguing that Sanger is racist, only that there is controversy regarding her and race and that it needs to be addressed and not deleted. Chrononem ☎ 19:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an essential difference between "she is" and "others see her as". With the article being about Margaret Sanger, the second part must be clearly separated from the main article when relevant. Not mixing it up as you are doing. The Banner talk 20:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And as you've also been repeatedly told - the problem is that the article, as it stands, doesn't actually address any actual controversy about Sanger's views on Race. It just takes primary sources out of context to suggest a controversy, in a misleading way. If there was a controversy, there will be reliable, secondary sources out there that address the controversy. You need to find and present those before we can talk about there being a "racial controversy" section. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's one: [7] I especially like this one since it does address many of the mis-quotes as well. (Also because the author's "what do Margaret Sanger's views on race have to do with Planned Parenthood now" attitude matches my own.) --Khgtcv (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's another: [8] That's a review of 'The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger, Volume 2, Birth Control Comes of Age, 1928-1939' that starts off by pointing out how Sanger's views on race were controversial. --Khgtcv (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's one by Ellen Chesler (whose bio of Sanger we use in the article): [9] Jason from nyc (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

These seem like useful sources - but they don't support the existence or need for the "controversies" section and the "race" section that we've been arguing about here - rather, they suggest the need to write a new "controversies" section which focuses on how the memory of Sanger has been used for political purposes (and, yes, been controversial) since her death. I would totally support that - but I don't see how any of these sources support the old "controversies" section. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see support for the old controversies section. I believe Chesler's article shows that she has been controversial among recent Republican candidates who alleged that she has a racial bias. This is a controversy today. As Chesler is a Sanger biographer, she is a reliable source about the record and can correct current misconceptions. I believe Khgtcv has a point; given that these accusations are being expressed and addressed in reliable mainstream sources, they should be mentioned here to help the reader understand the facts. We do have a single paragraph at the end of the Legacy section, so we weren't remiss on noting her role in current political discourse. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

In my view, Margaret Sanger cannot "currently [be] involved in racial controversy" (quoting Chrononem above). Margaret Sanger is dead. She has been dead for fifty years. She is is not currently involved in anything. In her life, she was involved in controversies, notably over whether discussion of birth control was obscene (1911-1936) and whether the state has a compelling interest in regulating or prohibiting the sale of birth control devices (finally settled in the US by Griswold v Connecticut 1965). These controversies define her career and are extensively covered throughout her career; they don't require a separate section.

Sanger’s views on race seem not to have been especially controversial during her life, but have evoked some subsequent discussion. Some of this can be addressed in her biography, especially in connection with the Harlem clinic, her ongoing work with W. E. B. Du Bois, and the inaugural Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. Others aspects -- especially her writing on eugenics -- don’t fit easily into her achievements; they gave rise to no lasting institutions, created no enduring programs, and attained no great following. A brief discussion of this later controversy (or debate over her legacy) might make sense.MarkBernstein (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing GA icon

Can an admin remove the GA icon because the article was deliosted? Check the article history on the top of this page for details.--Retrohead (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2015

"The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition". nyu.edu. Retrieved 24 August 2015. Checkingfax (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Do an 'edit source' for my request and you will see Y. Checkingfax (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're asking, so please either be more explicit or wait for someone else who understands what you're asking for. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-protected

Hi. Due to the apparent disputes and ongoing edit warring, I've temporarily protected the article (again). Please see my full rationale here. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, your rationale is correct and this needed to be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is extremely unfortunate. We (admins) have enough to do aside from reviewing discussions/arguments for a consensus on EP requests. This isn't something we like to do but something that is necessary to protect the article and its history. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your time is valuable, but in the interest of saving you (or other admins) future time, could you explain a little bit about what you'd like to see discussed before the protection is lifted? It currently seems as though protection is being "gamed" (by both sides in this dispute) to freeze the page in a form as close as possible to that which one side or the other prefers. Each side tries to sneak in edits or reverts up until the last minute, and then requests protection. I don't think a discussion on the merits of the topic (controversy over Sanger's statements on race) is going to get anywhere, since neither side will concede the same terms of debate.. even the notion of "controversy" is being drawn into question, and both sides are essentially just wikilawyering each other to death. Treating the protection merely as an enforced "cooling-off" period seems counter-productive, if you're just being manipulated into playing a role in this silly game between warring factions. I think maybe a concrete agreement between disputing parties as to how they should resolve the content issues -- and not a resolution of the content issues themselves -- is perhaps a good idea. Thoughts? --Khgtcv (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Khgtcv. I'll first point out that it has been nearly a week and there has been pretty much no discussion on any of the disputed items here. Perhaps these discussions are taking place elsewhere? I don't know. I see the edit requests below and hopefully we can get to those soon.

Now to address your point: the protection is meant to prevent the back and forth which is pretty much the most extreme counter productive activity (next to blatant vandalism) that occurs on this wiki. That is what protection is for and that is what it has done. However, it is also meant to "force" discussion - which doesn't always work. And lastly - as I stated before, it is extremely unlikely that another page protection will be issued ahead of blocking users. I think (unfortunately) we're at that point if it continues beyond next month. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but since the version has been frozen closer to what I believe is supported by sources, I haven't been motivated to ask for changes. I'd like to understand why the editors who object to the current version have not argued for changes. The last time the article was frozen, I initiated a discussion for two edit changes. Secondly, while I have changes to propose, I'd like to make them to a stable version. Is the current version the consensus version? Or will all my work be reverted in mass with dozens of other changes? I hesitate to improve paragraphs that will be completely ripped out.Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Add "Margaret Sanger Slee" as name in opening

She used "Margaret Sanger Slee" in private correspondence. She was inducted into Arizona Women's hall of Fame as "Margaret Sanger Slee"[10][11] and it is the name on the headstone of her grave.[12]. It's not her common name but it belongs next to her maiden name. It figures prominently in her non-public correspondence. --DHeyward (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No objections, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting an edit: Sanger's opposition to the Nazis

Somewhere the article should state that in 1939 Margaret Sanger joined the Anti-Nazi Committee. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific about where this should be inserted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Bad Source: 33, Lepore, Jill - recommend removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A source used has misquoted or misrepresented a quotation of the supreme court. The quotation "the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception" actually comes from the decision of people vs. Byrne, and it finds that "A woman has the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception". There is no reference to gender bias or the feeling of any woman during copulation. Actual sources for the case can be found here: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/griswoldoral.htm or here: https://books.google.com/books?id=IIo7AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (beginning pg. 682) for the Sanger trial and Byrne trial respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justalittleresearch (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose: :I don't follow what talk objects to in this paraphrase, which appears in a New Yorker article written by Jill Lepore, David Woods Kemper '41 Professor of American History at Harvard University. Off the top of my head, it’s difficult to imagine a stronger pedigree for a source than the holder of a Harvard chair and the legendary New Yorker fact checkers. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm confused by this - it's a direct quote from the cited source, which clearly meets RS standards. Justalitteresearch, can you clarify what the issue is? this source also seems to back up Lepore's statement. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Justalitteresearch has found the quote in question in the trial of Sanger's sister, Mrs. Byrne, by going to the original source for the trial of Mrs. Byrne. I don't see the original source for Sanger's trial in the same volume even though she was arrested at the same time. The same line of argument by the same defense lawyer may have resulted in the same statement by the judge (which is the quote given in the article and repeated above). Lepore is correct about the quote but it is unclear if it was said at Sanger's trial or only her sister's. As Lepore is a reliable source, we should assume it was also said in Sanger's trial. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 2 September 2015

Please change

{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first1 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}

to

{{Citation | last = Rosenbaum | first = Judith | chapter = The Call to Action: Margaret Sanger, the Brownsville Jewish Women, and Political Activism | editor-last1 = Kaplan | editor-first1 = Marion | editor-last2 = Moore | editor-first2 = Deborah | title = Gender and Jewish history | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780253222633 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=Dfw6PcG1ojQC&pg=PA251 | ref = }}

which fixes the duplicate editor-first1 parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 August 2015

During her work among working class immigrant women, Sanger was exposed to graphic examples of women who underwent frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion for lack of information on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

• hyphenate "working-class"
• replace "was exposed to graphic examples of" to "met". (If this is too drastic, replace "was exposed to" to "witnessed". But the women were people, not examples.)

• pluralize “miscarriage” and “abortion”, as required by “frequent” MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 September 2015

Please delete the sub-section "Abortion" in the "Controversies" section. (1) There is nothing about a controversy in that paragraph. (2) There is no controversy in reliable sources. (3) The subject is covered in the main body of the article and this just restates her views. (4) As MastCell explained above, WP:CRITICISM discourages "criticism" and "controversy" sections--better to integrate the material in the main body of the article. This is an clear example of redundant copy that serves no good purpose. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 September 2015

Currently, reference #95 is:

"Sanger, Margaret, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment", Birth Control Review, February 1919, pp. 11–12, Online"

The title of the article in document at the URI provided (http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth%20Control%20Review/1919-02%20February.pdf) is:

"A Victory, A New Year and A New Day"

Therefore either the current reference needs to be corrected or if the document at the URI provided is not truly the work of Sanger, Margaret then the reference needs to be removed.

Shantnup (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• support, and editor who falsified the title should be sanctioned.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• comment - there are two articles by Sanger in that issue, one of them actually is called "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." It starts on page 11/12. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also see the 2nd article on page 11 even though it isn't listed in the article list on page one. We might want to use a url to the NYU archive [13] instead of the copy of the issue posted by life dynamics.com's "Archive of the American Holocaust" [14] Jason from nyc (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. We should definitely change the url. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done I've changed the URL and updated the citation to use Template:Cite journal. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Malthusianism

I expanded the one sentence on neo-Malthusianism to explain her views and show her influence on that movement (sorry for typo in edit summary). Her biographies note the influence of this movement on her from 1914 on. There is a danger that younger readers won't understand the concept and context but I included links to our articles on Malthusianism and over-population. The latter was still a major concern in the late 60s and early 70s. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 September 2015

In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.

should be changed to

Sanger approved of the widely accepted practice of forced sterilization of "severely retarded people."

The reasons are manyfold. (1) The word “advocated” suggests advancing a policy not already in place. For example, it would be odd to say that in the 2012 presidential election both candidates advocated a central bank. “Advocated” should be changed to "approved of." (2) The phrase “undeniably feeble-minded” is antiquated language that leaves the idea up to our reader’s imagination. The Valenza reference (which we cite) uses “severely retarded people” to make clear what she’s referring to.[15]

To justify the notion of it being a “widely accepted practice” and not one originating with Sanger, I refer to the Chesler biography, page 215. Chesler explains: "What is more, nearly universal agreement was reached during the 1920s on the propriety of passing compulsory sterilization statutes to govern the behavior of individuals carrying deficiencies believed to be inherited, such as mental retardation, insanity, or uncontrollable epilepsy. This movement reached its zenith with the enactment of such laws in thirty states."[16]

Please add the reference "Chesler 1992, pp. 215-217" and keep the Valenza reference. You might want to add a link to the Velenza abstract. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all changes to the article with other editors before using {{editprotected}}. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Comments please, everyone! Anyone? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, support, although the phrasing seems awkward to me - how about, "approved of the forced sterilization of 'severely retarded people,' which was a widely accepted practice at the time." ? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support MarkBernstein (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not use a direct quote from Sanger? "We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded," Pivot of Civilization, pp. 101-102. MFNickster (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is almost always better to use a scholarly secondary source than a primary source for something like this. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree, but in this case it seems pointless to search for sources to settle whether she "supported," "advocated" or "approved of" such a policy when she used the word "prefer." If we're talking about Pivot in particular, secondary sources will only add ambiguity. MFNickster (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We could talk about "Pivot" in the article. If the aim is to discuss her views of eugenics in Pivot, then the above quote is the wrong one. The above quote is from Chapter IV. Chapter VIII addresses eugenics and its limits. She writes “we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of 'fit' and 'unfit.' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.” But beyond this she finds the idea of government determination of fitness abhorrent. “The trouble with any effort of trying to divide humanity into the 'fit' and the 'unfit,' is that we do not want, as H. G. Wells recently pointed out, to breed for uniformity but for variety.” She continues with the perils of deciding who is “abnormal—men like Rousseau, Dostoevsky, Chopin, Poe, Schumann, Nietzsche, Comte, Guy de Maupassant,—and how many others?” … “It only emphasizes the dangers of external standards of 'fit' and 'unfit.' ... These limitations are more strikingly shown in the types of so-called 'eugenic' legislation passed or proposed by certain enthusiasts. ... As for the sterilization of habitual criminals, not merely must we know more of heredity and genetics in general, but also acquire more certainty of the justice of our laws and the honesty of their administration before we can make rulings of fitness or unfitness merely upon the basis of a respect for law.”

The case of the severely mentally retarded is the exception to the rule, the one case that she believes is obvious to everyone. The rule is that the state can’t be trusted to define “fit” and “unfit.” If our aim is to summarize her views in Pivot, it would not be fair to pick the “exception” rather than the “rule.” It’s interesting that we take that "Pivot" quote out of Valenza’s article when his abstract says “In part of her most important work, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger's dissent from eugenics was made clear. By examining extracts from her books, the author refutes the notion that Sanger was a eugenicist.” There's a danger if we try to decide which quote in Pivot best expresses her views. Deferring the secondary sources is preferable. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It was "widely accepted" in certain circles. It was by no means universally accepted. 161.202.72.171 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

those "certain circles" we're the consensus of respectable scientific, medical, and political opinion at the time, as supported by the consensus of our reliable sources, wHose sock are you, IP? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Sanger's use of the phrase "undeniably feeble-minded" is not meant to distinguish between the types and severity of feeble-mindedness, but to distinguish between the feeble-minded and those who would be erroneously placed in that category due to social, environmental, class and racial biases. Changing the text to read "severely mentally retarded" would obfuscate the true meaning of her words. She makes it quite clear earlier in "Pivot" that she believes that 10% of the population can correctly be classified as feeble-minded using advanced "scientific" methods like the Binet I.Q. test, including the "border-line" cases who may appear to be normal, and those who have evaded discovery by the state by leading quiet lives.

It is also worth noting that the sentence preceding the sentence under discussion uses quotes around the phrase "profoundly retarded," but neither of the footnoted sources use that phrase. This is also understandable, since the assertion is that Sanger only advocated segregation/sterilization for the severely afflicted is unequivocally incorrect. Her estimate in "Peace Plan" was 15 or 20 million people would be subject to her policy.

The phrase "severely mentally retarded" comes from a publication funded by an organization named after a former president of planned parenthood. While I do not dispute it is a "reliable source," it should be kept in mind that is a biased source, and it that case, it would be best to let the quote from the primary source stand without interpretation.

If we cherry pick the primary source and ignore the secondary source's interpretation we are doing original research. Even if you don't agree with my replacement statement, the current sentence should be removed as it doesn't properly reflect the sources, which you admit. Jason from nyc (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Learnt norton (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the phrasing is acceptable as it is. I don't think her advocacy is really in dispute, since publishing your approval of a policy is certainly advocacy. Also, the phrase "undeniably feeble-minded" is historically true to the source, though it makes sense to footnote it to clarify its meaning in the context of the times. MFNickster (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Previously you correctly pointed out that our article is talking about her views in "Pivot" and I'm grateful you did. The source we cite says "In part of her most important work, 'Pivot of Civilization,' Sanger's dissent from eugenics was made clear." [17] Do you think we properly reflect the source with this quote? Jason from nyc (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Her sexual behavior and philosophy

As stated here, she favored the "liberation" of women's sex lives. But that term is meaningless. A book review last week on NPR of a book on "the Pill" claimed she was in favor of extra-martial sex, and had many sexual partners. This article HIDES the fact in the statement that she "became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists...". If in fact "became involved with" means "had sex with", the euphemism is really inappropriate and misleading here. She also encouraged the same behavior in her husband, and both are apparently well established facts. This is noteworthy, both for her times and in our current cultural context.72.172.10.197 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The sex lives of prominent people in the early 20th century are often very hard to recover because our evidence for them is very thin. To say that Sanger’s philosophy is "meaningless", as you do above, may make contemporary right-wing extremists feel better but it has no chance to become part of the encyclopedia and is a borderline policy violation. The article hides nothing; by when Sanger became involved with intellectuals, artists, and social activists she doubtless had tea or coffee with them, met them for drinks, had them over for dinner, joined them at the theater or the ballpark. She might have gone to bed with some of them, or she might not; we only know what people wrote, and even then it can be difficult to achieve certainty. If you're interested in a history of sexuality in among the Greenwich Village elite of the early 20th century, you could perhaps write a page on the subject. For Sanger alone, however, you're going to have a hard time finding sources, and even then according them due weight will reduce their presence here to a sliver. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Du Bois

In the Race section, a pair of IPs have been making efforts to disparage WEB Du Bois, reducing him from co-founder of the NAACP (which he was) to merely it's magazine editor (which he was also). Since these IP editors were unsatisfied with the readily-available references available on D Bois's Wikipedia page, I have added refs from the national monument, from Martin Luther King’s eulogy, and from the NAACP. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent edit introduced more detail about Du Bois than is appropriate for an article about Sanger. I can't speak for other editors but my revert was based on the absence of citation. A citation to support the "co-founder" claim is all that's needed. I would not contest such an edit. 107.150.94.4 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You contested the co-founder claim; I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that provided abundant evidence -- including that specific claim in the lede. I provided abundant documentation, and clarified the importance of Du Bois. Whether the additions are an appropriate level of detail is a discussion we can have at some future time, once the point is established. Du Bois’ prominent, indeed indispensable, role in the history of the era is very well attested. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Additional Sources

107.150.94.4 is deleting additional sources of info. Sources that they specifically requested. This logic is extremely dubious, not to mention unhelpful and destructive to the article itself. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121106055029/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0615F93D5B117B93CBA9178BD95F438685F9 to http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0615F93D5B117B93CBA9178BD95F438685F9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201233315/http://www.nyu.edu:80/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_bcfa.html to http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_bcfa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)