Talk:Margaret Sanger

Are we trying to hide Margaret Sanger's beliefs about Black people?

Is this true: In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

"It seems that the Eugenic ideas from its founder have left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood's surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy." The Washington Times, May 5, 2014.

Wow. If we suppress this, then Wikipedia loses credibility. Is that what you want?

Thank you for considering including these comments,

FidesEtRatio-Community (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death, and the current article represents a consensus based on debate. Please read the talk page archives to get some background on it. MFNickster (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a normal article but an opinion piece [1] posted in a conservative newspaper. Ms. Grossu works for a Christian conservative organisation with as purpose: (name removed) is a Christian bioethics research center at (name removed) that explores the nexus of biomedicine, biotechnology, and our common humanity. (name removed) fosters a distinctly Christian conception of bioethics that is both academically rigorous and broadly accessible.. That center belongs to an an evangelical Christian university.

Their viewpoints are clearly more important than the truth as established by academic research over many decades. And the opinion piece contains many falsehoods. Completely unreliable source. The Banner talk 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Banner / MFNickster: This is neither an opinion piece or by a "Christian" organization - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/5/planned-parenthood-accused-racism-employees-suppor/. Are we saying that the people WITHIN Planned Parenthood are fringe voices to be ignored too? Why are we still ignoring this issue? Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

LOL, they announced to take name down but the article claimed it was already done. See the given source. That is why I reverted it. Not to hide that she took part in a then fashionable stance long ago. The Banner talk 18:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say the Washington Post article is newsworthy and might merit a mention in the article. The stuff about Clarence Gamble and abortion in the black community (which has nothing to do with Sanger) is already covered and does not need to be added. MFNickster (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add that her eugenics stance was "in fashion"?

I'm not sure this edit [2] is appropriate. Do we make similar statements about being in fashion at the time when other names are removed from buildings and institutions because of associations with racism? We don't in connection with Woodrow Wilson and Princeton's recent decision, see [3]. It sounds like we're criticizing Planned Parenthood for planning to remove the name. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You can indeed read it like that but it was mend to set the eugenics in a time-context. The Banner talk 12:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Time Context"? Either you espoused eugenics and the ideal of a master race, which didn't include minorities, or you didn't. Please explain because it could appear to a third party reader that you are whitewashing the actual story. Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

I love that you start canvassing straight away. But are you also willing to burn everybody at the stake who was involved in the Tomahawk chop? Context is everything. Good sourcing is also a thing. The Banner talk 18:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. Consensus building is a normal and proper editing procedure. Ckruschke (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Generally, canvassing is frowned upon. The Banner talk 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And, I see this and this as personal attacks and clear POV. It looks like attempts to keep the article neutral are not to your liking. The Banner talk 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Just to clarify, my concern is not about your intentions, but rather about the way the phrasing is likely to be read, especially since the same point could be raised in opposition to removing names of most other people associated with racism. For example, the pro-slavery stance of leaders of the Confederacy in the American South was certainly "in fashion" in that region at that time. NightHeron (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me see what others think. But I think it is necessary to set things in a time-related context. Even when that is unpleasant. The Banner talk 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that edit too, however the source supports it: Ellen Chesler, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank, and the author of a biography of Ms. Sanger and the birth control movement, said that while the country is undergoing vast social change and reconsidering prominent figures from the past, Ms. Sanger’s views have been misinterpreted. The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp. She rejected some eugenicists’ belief that white middle-class families should have more children than others, Ms. Chesler said. Instead, Ms. Sanger believed that the quality of all children’s lives could be improved if their parents had smaller families, Ms. Chesler said, adding that Ms. Sanger believed Black people and immigrants had a right to that better life. edit to add: perhaps it would better with attribution to make clear it isn't WP:OR. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Chesler is already quoted in the "Eugenics" section of the article saying that Sanger was not personally a racist. No one is disputing the fact that eugenics was in fashion at that time. If Chesler's opinion is going to be quoted in opposition to changing the name, which would mean quoting her twice on the issue of Sanger's connection with racism, then for balance there should be an opinion on the other side of the name removal issue. Otherwise it will seem that Wikipedia is taking a position against Planned Parenthood on the naming. The question is not whether or not the "in fashion" phrase is correct and supported by RS (I agree that it is). The question is whether it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to put it there, supported by a Chesler quote. NightHeron (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you portray Sanger as a unique person in supporting eugenics without giving the proper circumstances and background, that is in my opinion plain POV. As making her the black sheep of her era. It is not my point that I want the info out, it is my point that the info must be fair, neutral and in context. The Banner talk 20:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sanger's support for eugenics is discussed at length in the eugenics section of the article. I think it's made clear there that by no means was Sanger a unique person in supporting eugenics. But if you think that needs more emphasis, by all means add a statement to the eugenics section to the effect that such views were in fashion in her time. That's the place for it. It doesn't belong in its present location, where it is likely to be read as a negative judgment about Planned Parenthood's renaming. NightHeron (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm removing that phrase. If there are further comments giving a good reason for it to be there, of course it can be put back. In its present location it looks to me like a violation of WP:NPOV, implying that Wikipedia disapproves of Plan Parenthood's renaming decision. NightHeron (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

So you want to hide the background and make the article a bit more POV. Sorry to see that happen. The Banner talk 11:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The extra verbiage does seem defensive to me. It adds context but it's POV context. If anything, context should be added using quotes from the cited article - Ellen Chesler is quoted saying almost the exact the same thing: "The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp." MFNickster (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)