Talk:Margaret Sanger

Removed text

This text seems an smear based on

1. Apparently later activities of an author after his article was published in Planned Parenthood and on

2. confusing a call for sterilization of the profoundly retarded in this 1933 article with a call for euthenasia

April, 1933, the Planned Parenthood publication Birth Control Review printed an article by Ernst Rüdin (who became a member of the Nazis' Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy in June) which declared "the danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman," and called for action "without delay."

On reverting material related to racisim

Two citations (both easily obtainable) were given pertaining to a direct quote. It should not be reverted without some explanation. I checked the archives before putting the material in, and if this matter was previously discussed I must have missed it. Please do not revert referenced material without explanation.Edstat (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because (1) the nature of your edits has been discussed many times on this talk page, and the result is to avoid "piling on" numerous, pointed quotes; (2) the points your sources are making are already amply covered in the "Eugenics and euthanasia" section; (3) the section you are editing is "Legacy" which - by definition - should discuss the impact of the subject in todays society ... your material has nothing to do with legacy; and (4) your source for that quote is dubious. Do you have a hardcopy of that book? Can you provide the entire surrounding text (here on the Talk page) so we can see the context of the quote? and (5) it is more significant what secondary sources say about the subject rather than her own primary quotes (because the former show academic interest, and have been filtered by research). Please discuss your proposed changes to the article here before making them. See WP:BRD. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't see THIS point in the archives. Please indicate where you think THIS point has been discussed. 2. This is not "piling on" - I don't see this point discussed anywhere, except to perhaps hide her record or reinterpret her record, but not actually discuss her record. 3. Legacy seems to me to the the appropriate place for this, because the point is despite her racism, in today's society it appears to be ignored due to the political situation wherein the group that she was most racist against finds itself in the quandry of being aligned with planned parenthood. 4. You cannot call a source dubious and so be it. The orignial source is the personal letter in the Collection - but more importantly, it has been reviewed and discussed in a secondary, independent source, and is so cited. I gave the Google snippet, which is clear to anyone. Yes, I have a hard copy of the book. It is available to anyone for .99 to $4.99 via alibris or abebooks. There is no wikipedia requirement that the reader be able to see the entire content of a source *online* - the source (which I will add author and isbn, in addition to the title) is given, so the reader can either go to the library or purchase their own copy if they want to read the entire book. 5. Again, the google source is a secondary source. Finally, your directive to discuss before proposed changes violates WP:Bold, especially because the material is secondary sources and independent.

So, I will leave it up to other editors to suggest where in this article might be a better place than "legacy" - but if hearing none, I will restore the original material.Edstat (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, your legacy argument is inconsistent with the material in that section on 1939 and 1957, because it certainly isn't about "today's" society.Edstat (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, for now, I have read a number of your contributions, where you seem to champion criticisms of minorities (especially Jews and Judaism, Israel, etc.) and on more than one occasion your criticisms have overcome AfD nominations due to the principle that criticisms should not be hidden, concealed, reinterpreted, censored, etc. I believe the current material is consistent with that editing style. I'm not saying this to edit to make a point; I'm saying this to agree what you have held elsewhere that the notion of legitimate, sourced, criticism is appropriate.Edstat (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And what does the 2ndary source say about this quote? Can you type here what the author of the secondary source says about the quote (the text before and after the quote)? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source

I'm happy to be your typist, but I'm confused. Your comments above appear to indicate THIS has been discuss previously; how could that be if noone until now made reference to THIS point? Furthermore, what would have been the basis of your delete because according to your view the secondeary source is "dubious" if you are unfamilier with the book?

In any case, the quotes below are from 'Woman's body, woman's right: A social history of birth control in America' by Linda Gordon (NY: Grossman Publishers, 1976, ISBN: 0670778176). The page numbers are slightly off, because the Google snipit refers to the 1974 originial issue; what I have is the 2n issue of 1976). The citation in the text you deleted is found on pages 332-33 in the 1976 version. I give various quotes leading up to this to set the context. At the conclusion of the snippit, Gordon gives the footnote 120 (p. 455), which is: "Sanger to Clarence Gamble, October 19, 3919, in Sanger, Smith" which is the first reference I indicated in the text you deleted.

“Sager, too, had always argued the “racial” values of birth control, but as time progressed she gave less attention to feminists arguments and more to eugenic ones…More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control, she wrote in 1919. In Women and the New Race, published in 1920, she put together statistics…in a manner certain to stimulate racist fears” (p. 281).

“The racism and virulence of her eugenic rhetoric grew most extreme in the early 1930s. In 1932 she recommended the sterilization or segregation by sex of “the whole dysgenic population” (p. 282.

“In 1929, Harvard eugenist Edward East wrote to Sanger…‘it would be a very interesting thing…if..Perhaps, without embarrassing questions, would it be possible to make a judgment as to whether the person [patients in your clinic are] more or less pure black, mulatto, quadroon, etc.’ Sanger agreed, anticipating no difficulties, “as already colored patients coming to our Clinic have been willing to talk” (p. 286-287).

“Clinics encountered difficulties in teaching …women to use birth control properly. Some such women were unteachable, Sanger and several other birth control leaders agreed…For these women, sterilization was recommended” ( p. 287).

“In attracting professionals, the ABCL had to overcome the taint of radicalism that clung to Sanger for decades” (p. 293).

“Racism, then as now, is not a Southern problem. Indeed, the tendency to project it exclusively upon the South has been a device of Northern racism. In 1939 the Birth Control Federation of America, responding to the cooperativeness of Southern state public-health officials, designed a ‘Negro Project,’ arguing that Southern poverty was a major national problem and one which could be ameliorated through birth-rate reduction. This project was a microcosm of the elitist birth-control programs whose design eliminated the possibility of popular, grass roots involvement in birth control as a cause. ‘The mass of Negros,’ argued the project proposal, ‘particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that proportion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.’¹¹⁹ Despite the pretense of concern with the unfit among Negros, this statement was immediately followed by a chart showing the over-all increase of the black as opposed to the white population. The eugenic disguise fell off to reveal overt white supremacy.’ Public health statistics,’ the proposal went on, ‘merely hint at the primitive state of civilization in which most Negros in the South live” (p. 332).

As to her lagacy, it can be stated conclusively that African American women have far more abortions than any other ethnicity in the US, e.g., , which is something that needs to be added to that section.Edstat (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... I dont see any mention of Sanger on page 332 of the text you provide above. Am I missing something? --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you aren't missing anything. Sanger's mention, cited on p. 332-3, is the google snipit, which was already provided. Did you want me to retype that too?

"As Sanger noted, in a private letter, '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 their more rebelious members'," which is the text I put in that you deleted.Edstat (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the material you are trying to add to the article is that some of Sanger's policies were racist, because they targeted blacks. But that is precisely the scope of the existing section Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia. That section already has extensive content, but you are welcome to improve that section if you like. But be warned that it is already rather large, and any additional material would probably violate the WP:Undue policy. Regarding the "Legacy" section: unless you can find some secondary source that specifically discusses the Negro Project's racism/eugenics in a "legacy" context, it doesn't belong in the Legacy section. --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments appear to me to be WP:Own, so I "caution" (you "warn" an editor preemptively? WP:GoodFaith?) you there. As for the existing section, again, it is a superb job of cover up, misdirect, downplay, reinterpret, etc. If someone came to this encyclopedia to find out about the origins of birth control from Sanger's perspective, particularly as it relates to her leaving the far left, joining with the socialists until the eugenics movement was discredited, and then realigning with the far left without abandoning her racist views, then they would leave this entry without having much of a clue – was that was the intent of the political revisionism behind how this entry was written? So, if you are requesting I swap out the WP:WeaselWords for her actual views, I can do that. Furthermore, the length of the section is immaterial. WP:NOTPAPER prevails that if the notoriety warrants, space is not an object.Edstat (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note you did not respond to how you have interpreted the Legacy section as being relevant today, when the bulk of what is currently in that section pertains to 1939 and 1957? Hmmmm?Edstat (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to improve the Eugenics section. But the length cannot grow much longer, or else it violates WP:Undue. Also, the section is too quote-heavy, and since we are striving for an encyclopedic presentation, quotes should account for no more than, say, half the content in a section. So if you are going to improve that section, try to replace some of the quotes with encyclopedic prose. See WP:quote. If you have lots of quotes you want to add, consider putting them in WikiQuotes. As for the Legacy section, a quick glance shows that all the content discusses awards etc she received after she died (or retired). If you feel that some material in that seciton is not relevant to her legacy, identify it here, and we can discuss moving it into another section. --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. And questioning his faith is not constructive.67.50.81.195 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Carthage College Scandal?

I tried to add info about her negative legacy, the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College that included Sean Bryan, but the material was removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.63.211 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit said:

1 negative aspect of Margaret Sanger's legacy was the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College, which consisted of Sean Bryan and Emily Kaminsky, who were kind of obnoxious.

There's no cite to suggest who these people might be, and "kind of obnoxious" isn't exactly informative or encyclopedic. If this is about something that happened recently, remember that Sanger has been dead for a long time, and has little influence on PP's current day-to-day activities. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for how to edit this page productively

I just left this message for User:Neutral_POV_Enforcer, who got blocked for 24 hours after making a small number of bad edits to this page. (In my view, the block was probably not quite justified, but almost.)

It might be useful to other people who want to edit this page, but who are tempted to do so in an unproductive manner, or who are wondering why they got blocked after making unproductive edits.

Hi. I see that some of your edits to this page have been reverted and that you've been temporarily blocked from editing. Although your change comments suggest that you think this was "censorship of significant minority views" based on another editor's "preferences", I think the reversions were more a result of the style of your edits than of their content. In fact, I wish I could revert the reversion, since your edit discusses an important aspect of Sanger's views that is underemphasized in the article as it stands — although it is mentioned, other parts of the current article implicitly deny it, e.g., "She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth," which is a false description of her views, at least in 1921. But the quality of your edits was so poor that restoring them would make the article worse instead of better.

You can almost certainly achieve the balance you seek. Here are four suggestions for improving your edits in the future:

First, back up your assertions with references to reliable sources. Blackgenocide.org is an unashamedly partisan site (starting from the very domain name!) full of illiterate misspellings and punctuation problems, providing no references to primary sources, with no reputation for accuracy that I know of, signed with a @yahoo.com email address and a P.O. Box. It might be relevant to link it from an article on Clenard Childress, if he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it's not relevant to the Margaret Sanger article. It's what we call a questionable source:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

This description fits blackgenocide.org to a T: blackgenocide.org has no reputation for checking the facts and no editorial oversight; it's a website expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (specifically, it equates the legality of abortion to genocide, and attempts to link it to racism); and it relies heavily on personal opinions. Also, as far as I can tell, it cites no primary sources itself, even in cases where it purports to quote others, which would serve to conceal any falsehoods it may or may not be propagating in support of its extremist views.

Instead, look for reliable sources. Since Sanger actually did advocate mandatory sterilization of the "feeble-minded," a policy which was adopted for quite some time in the US and quite controversial, it should not be difficult to find reliable third-party sources to back this up; Amazon has at least two biographies of her, and numerous articles about her have been published in periodicals over the years. If absolutely necessary, you can fall back on primary sources; Sanger made her opinions at one point in her life quite clear in The Pivot of Civilization, and continued to publish her opinions widely throughout her life. However, be very careful that your edits don't quote her out of context, or they are likely to be reverted, particularly since you already have a black mark on your record here.

Verifiable accuracy using reliable sources is a fundamental aspect of the NPOV pillar that your username refers to.

Second, use good style in your references. Instead of just making an [http://example.com/ inline link], use <ref></ref>, and inside the <ref></ref>, use one of the citation templates, such as {{cite}}; you can find its proper usage described at Template:Cite. Be as specific as possible: provide page numbers, URLs, specific quotations, names of publishers, year of publication, and so on. In theory, of course, some helpful WikiGnome could come along and fix up a sloppily-formatted reference that you added. In practice, though, the less work you put into the article, and the worse the result, the more likely it is that someone will revert it. By demonstrably putting in real work to improve the quality of the page, you can reduce the suspicion that you are only here to make trouble, rather than helping out the project.

Of course, this applies to every edit you make; you should take care that it's formatted correctly, without spelling and punctuation errors, and so on. But your edits didn't have those problems; they just had carelessly-formatted references (which also happened to be to questionable sources, as described in the first point.)

Third, assume good faith. If you snark in your change comments that other editors are "censoring" your "significant minority views" (as if that's relevant on a matter of amply verifiable fact such as Sanger's views on eugenics!) and add a sarcastic "sorry, but", as you did, you're going to piss people off, which makes them (a) less able to consider your edits fairly, (b) less able to contribute fairly themselves, and (c) likely to believe that you're just here to make trouble, rather than wanting to make a real contribution. Successful collaboration in a Wiki depends on a body of people who aren't overly pissed off, because pissed-off edits are almost always bad edits.

Fourth, don't make only controversial edits. There are lots and lots of places where you can contribute without participating in edit wars. If you don't do that, then other editors will, again, come to believe that you're just here to make trouble, not to make Wikipedia better, and most or all of your edits will eventually be reverted and you will probably get banned permanently. Your choice of username is going to make this an uphill battle for you; it strongly suggests that it's a WP:single-purpose account. When the block on your account expires, you might consider switching to a new account name, and maybe linking to it on your user page to avoid the appearance of WP:sock puppetry. (Linking is not mandatory, but it might be a good idea; see WP:CLEANSTART.)

Uncontroversial edits are a lot easier than controversial edits. You don't have to defend them from reversion, they're much easier because you can afford to be quite a bit sloppier in referencing them, and they're more fun, because people don't launch personal attacks on you for them.

I guess I should disclose where I'm coming from on these issues.

Depending on your definitions, I'm probably not a Christian. In the US system of racism, I'm "white", although I'm about 5% Cherokee. I admire Sanger's courage, and I support birth control, but I deplore some of her views, including her advocacy of mandatory sterilization of certain people (in her case, the "feeble-minded", rather than any ethnic group). I'm no Sanger scholar, although I've read some of The Pivot of Civilization.

However, to me, all of these issues shrink into insignificance next to the issue of access to accurate information. I think genocide, mandatory sterilization, racism, and other human-rights abuses only exist because of ignorance. I think the petty power struggles among groups of people, likewise, stem from ignorance — whether racial groups, religious groups, political groups, or nations. I think the most effective way to fight these problems is by providing universal access to all human knowledge, a project for which Wikipedia is currently an enormously important and effective implement. That's why I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2001, why I've been editing occasionally ever since, why I helped out with Wikimania last year, and why I'm writing you this message.

So I deplore things that decrease the quality of Wikipedia in order to serve some lower purpose, such as birth control, anti-abortionism, or some other political struggle. I think you'll find that most Wikipedians feel the same way. People will rarely revert your edits just because they are in the service of some political struggle — probably the vast majority of the edits to Armenian genocide or Scientology are by people with strong political views, and many of them have questionable motives — but they will revert them if your edits make the article worse instead of better, as in this case.

So I share what I take to be your interest in improving the accuracy of this article, even if it casts someone I admire in a bad light. I encourage you to try again, but do a better job next time. Your passion for the subject can be harnessed to do good instead of ill.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this due to my habit of making long posts but WP:TLDR.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, that is kind of a problem with that. A person would have to be pretty motivated to read the whole thing, although maybe an editing block would be adequate motivation for some people. Sorry. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you didn't force me to read it. :P

Who knows maybe somebody will find it informative.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What Every Girl Should Know was available in Yiddish in 1916 too

לייענען אָנליין בייַ ייִדיש בוך צענטער