Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Suggested Edit under "Social Activism"

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)

Lotuslaw, good question. That paragraph appears to be sourced to Woman of Valor, and I cannot seem to find in that book any claim that she took on her husband's politics; rather, the couple simply seemed to be in agreement with their interests in socialism. I'm going to remove that opening clause. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. I got an edit conflict. It looks like I was editing at the same time as Schazjmd. Well, anyway, here is what I was writing:

Welcome to the subject area. I think you have a healthy skepticism. There are numerous instances of conflating Sanger's beliefs with someone else's around her and vice versa.

That being said, I think this particular passage is consistent with her autobiography. The way she described it, radical politics was more her husband's scene that she got into by way of her husband. For instance: 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.

(As an aside, that last sentence always stuck out with me because I've felt that way numerous times.)

For what it is worth, I don't particularly care for the passage one way or the other. It abstracts away so many details that I'm not sure what to make of it. She "threw herself" into the radical politics of her time\place, but that meant she disagreed with some things and agreed with some things, sometimes respected the people she disagreed with, etc. etc.

FecundityBlog (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Woman of Valor addresses those early years in New York this way: "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)

Is "threw herself into" an accurate paraphrasing of the source (Chesler's biography)? If not, perhaps it can be replaced with "became involved in", which is more factual. NightHeron (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, I don't think so. Here are the current sentences in the article:

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)

Schazjmd Your modified version looks good to me. Just one minor editing change: replace the comma in the last sentence with "and". NightHeron (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, oh, I cut off that sentence (...) in quoting; the full sentence is 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)

Schazjmd Thanks. Now it looks fine to me. NightHeron (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I see the criticism of "Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics" better now. It does make it sound like her beliefs were derived from her husband's. I think in my head I switched it to mean what wrote in her autobiography. Good catch. FecundityBlog (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"Anti-abortion activist"

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)

As far as I know, Sanger tried to prevent abortions (and certainly back-street abortions) by making other birth-control options available. To call her an anti-abortion activist is plain incorrect. The Banner talk 10:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that she was definitely not an anti-abortion activist. Actually, I don't see that term used in the lead. The term "anti-abortion advocate" is used in the infobox. The latter term is arguably correct, but it might be WP:UNDUE to put it in the infobox for the reasons given above. I'm neutral on whether or not that should be removed from the infobox. Whether or not "anti-abortion advocate" stays in the infobox, the term "birth control activist" needs to be added there, since that was much more central to her life than anti-abortion advocacy. NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

black/Black

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)

Capitalise all (White/Black) or capitalise none (white/black). You might question the motives of these style guides: does anyone really think that suddenly police are going to stop murdering unarmed black men, or that housing discrimination will end over night because the New York Times started calitalising Black but not white? No. And those newspapers KNOW better - they're only jumping on the bandwagon because they think it will boost THEIR OWN image. And so they can pretend like they're all promoting social justice while really not doing a damn thing.

We have no such special interest strings tying us down, and we are not beholden to what commercial newspapers make of their practices.

Furthermore, every time you capitalise Black and don't capitalise white, you are enabling white supremacists and KKK groups, by giving them evidence of their "racism against whites" BS; don't do their recruiting for them. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1016:1F91:1572:29CC (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that capitalizing Black does not accomplish anything concrete in reducing killings of Black people by the police or anything else, and The New York Times does not deserve boundless praise for deciding to capitalize Black. However, there is a good rationale for capitalizing the word. In the U.S. most Black people share a common culture and history. White people don't. The basis for Black nationalism was to unite the Black community in the struggle against oppression. Whites as a group are not oppressed (although poor whites are often badly treated). The basis for so-called "white nationalism" is hatred of racial minorities. Your claim that capitalizing Black helps white supremacists recruit lacks credibility. Do you have any evidence for such an extraordinary claim? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

where is the actual cite for this

"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)

Reference #16, pp. 366-367 MFNickster (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No Proof She Was Anti Abortion

"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)

Ample references and a detailed explanation are given in the main body, in the section on abortion. NightHeron (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Chesler quote

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)

I agree on both the content and procedural points. The content should be restored pending some change in consensus. In a section that is, I think, over-reliant on primary sources, the loss of this reliably sourced, secondary content is damaging to the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the quote should (continue to be) included. Modern analysis of a historical figure is important to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely should be included. NightHeron and Fffeathers give good reasons. The quote also contextualizes Sanger's ideas and actions; see Presentism. Maybe we should identify Chesler again, who is quoted numerous times but whose name is buried in the social activism section. Remember that most readers only skim through articles and would think, "Who's Chesler?" I suggest the following text, to which I've restored the word "unequivocally," which is in Chesler's book. I've made it into a simple quotation rather than using a quote template, and just for the talk page have omitted refs.

She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. Yet biographer Ellen Chesler comments, "Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since." YoPienso (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The comments are clearly a justification and don't reference any evidence except the opinion of her biographer. Further it can and should be argued that failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of your cause is racist. This is the prominent claim against known racist individuals like Donald Trump. 66.25.197.180 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As section 1.5 of the article explains, some of the leading African American activists and intellectuals of the 20th century, such as W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr., had excellent relations with Sanger and supported her work. A bit different from Donald Trump. NightHeron (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, I'm not sure the "yet" is justified, but I'd be fine with your proposal if it were just "Biographer Ellen ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That quotation absolutely belongs to the article, as it is a reliable source and brings balance to the article. Removing it makes the article non-neutral. The Banner talk 17:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Far from it, the quotation is moralization, an attempt to recontextualize the subject according to the author's world view. It has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. We can trust our readers to make their own moral determinations, we should stick with fact and ditch the opinions. Schwarzschild Point • 17:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We can trust our readers to make their own moral determinations, we should stick with fact and ditch the opinions. True, and that is just the argument here to keep the quotation. The Banner talk 17:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a shockingly dishonest take, Banner. It makes me question your objectivity on this subject at all Schwarzschild Point • 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Banner is correct. Your accusation that another editor is "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)

IP 66.25.197.180, the biographer's opinion is fact-based; according to Harvard a publisher's blurb, the book "is acclaimed as definitive and is widely used and cited by scholars and activists alike in the fields of women's health and reproductive rights."

IP 66.25.197.180, did you check out Presentism? Students of history cannot understand why people thought and acted as they did in the past without understanding the context of the times. That's what the Chesler comment provides--context. And it doesn't fully justify Sanger, as Chesler notes her position "has haunted her ever since."

Firefangledfeathers, my reason for "Yet" is that Chesler's comment contrasts with Stoddard's support. But any editor is free to delete it if it makes it into the article. YoPienso (talk) 18:10, 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)

My apologies to all for asserting Harvard had praised Chesler's book; they sell it, but the praise is Simon & Schuster's blurb. Nonetheless, it's true--Google Scholar shows 528 citations. The New York Times listed it in "Notable Books of the Year 1992." Women's Media Center has a biography on her; I suppose I should create one here at WP. YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect. But I would highly appreciate it when you create the article about Chesler. The Banner talk 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to create the BLP yourself since it's doubtful I'll get around to it. YoPienso (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There is now a substantial Wikidata record for Ellen Chesler. Peaceray (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've adjusted the quote, but the Chesler ref has an odd "15" floating there. I think it's a page number, but I can't fix it. I do only simple refs, not templated ones. YoPienso (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Chesler commented on Sanger's not being a racist herself needs to be connected to the fact that she was supported by an overt racist. Therefore, I began the sentence with "Although," and reconnected it to the first clause. I also removed the phrase about Stoddard being a board member of the ABCL; that belongs in his bio, not Sanger's, or at least not in this section of Sanger's. I pasted the whole thing into the Stoddard talk page. (It wasn't a run-on sentence, btw, just long, and containing unnecessary info.) YoPienso (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the changes for several reasons. First, the fact that Stoddard was on the Board of Directors of Sanger's ABCL belongs there, because it shows that Sanger's involvement with Stoddard was deeper than just that he supported her. Sanger isn't responsible for who supported her, but she controlled the ABCL and is responsible for inviting Stoddard to be on the Board of Directors. Without that detail it's not clear why anyone would fault Sanger on the issue of racism. Second, Chesler doesn't connect her statement on racism specifically to Stoddard, and there were other questionable race-related decisions by Sanger (for example, speaking to the New Jersey Women's Auxiliary of the KKK). The wording "Although..., Chesler commented" implies that Chesler was directly responding to Sanger's connection with Stoddard. Third, there is no need to make the paragraph into one long sentence. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole section is problematic. What is racism even doing in the eugenics section? Shouldn't it be in the "Work with the African American community" section? Why is Stoddard identified as a Klansman? He was, but only among many other things. I realize these topics (African American community, eugenics, racism) overlap, but there's little cohesion in the section. It needs a bigger fix than what we've tried.

Specifically to your reversion, as it stands, we have two unrelated sentences jammed together. What's the point of the paragraph? Certainly Stoddard was a proponent of her cause, so there's no reason not to join the sentences to make the point that even though she collaborated with racists she wasn't one. YoPienso (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is divided into a section on her life and activities and a section on her views. Her work with the African American community clearly belongs where it is, in the former section. The reasons for concern about Sanger's racial views and Chesler's response to those concerns belong in the section on Sanger's views and specifically the eugenics subsection, because the eugenics movement of the time was the context for the relationship between birth control advocates and racists such as Stoddard.

I really don't understand your comment 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)

I propose moving the Stoddard/Chesler passage up to the second paragraph of the "Eugenics" section, where racial issues are discussed. YoPienso (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. NightHeron (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Transparency

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)

You're entitled to your personal opinion of Sanger, but your POV is ahistorical. In her time, most of the influential thinkers of the day were at least somewhat sympathetic to eugenics. Sanger was a moderate compared to many (for example, she was opposed to coercion). Eugenics was not what she was known for, and was not a significant part of her outlook. As you admit, the issue of identifying her as a eugenicist has been discussed repeatedly, and a consensus of Wikipedia editors agrees with the above assessment. Your edit was counter to that consensus.

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you want anyone to take you seriously, don't start out by accusing other editors of being "extremely disingenuous and disgusting". NightHeron (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron I do assume your good faith in this subject.

Here are some more facts for you to consider:

Alexis mcGill Johnson, the president of Planned Parenthood, herself has stated: "… as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood's founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people."

And I believe Planned Parenthood NY has removed Sangers from its founder's name:

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html

And a few other quotes I have posted below to show what she really has believed.

In response to your comment on "In her time, most of the influential thinkers of the day were at least somewhat sympathetic to eugenics.", I have commented below and here repeating again that she was not just showing sympathy, she took good faith actions and was impactful:

1) She invited people who owned a concentration camp in South Africa to speak on her conferences;

2) Her organization the League worked closely with American Eugenic Association, sharing offices, opinions/articles.

3) She had MA KKK high official Lothorop Stoddard to be on her board.

She was among the elite class of the day. These people together influenced people like Adolf Hitler.

These facts cannot be ignored and should made known to anyone who is interested. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

JoIsAGod, your comments also ignore that there is a lengthy section in the article specifically on Sanger and eugenics. If you have reliable sources that include information that is not addressed adequately in the article, please bring them to the talk page for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@JoIsAGod: First, as per MOS:FIRST, 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.

Second, you, as well as others, may derive the notion that Sanger was racist from her "Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble". December 10, 1939.. In this letter she states 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)

Eugenics and Birth Control

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)

We base what we say about her on high-quality WP:RSes cited throughout the article, which are written by experts who consider the full context rather than a single out-of-context pull-quote. They say that she opposed eugenics along racial lines, so we say the same. (In particular I feel like you may be misunderstanding the line in question - "negative eugenics" summarizes the quote you highlighted.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)