Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Sanger: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,301 edits
Line 97: Line 97:


Okay, thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hmprescott|Hmprescott]] ([[User talk:Hmprescott|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hmprescott|contribs]]) 15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Okay, thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hmprescott|Hmprescott]] ([[User talk:Hmprescott|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hmprescott|contribs]]) 15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Good debate on this topic, just wanted to add that the sections on Eugenics and Race would benefit from links to work on feminist scholars about how race and eugenicism factored into the first-wave movement, as a strategy to obtain women rights - rather than a goal in itself. That would add needed context to her views. See: Weinbaum, Alys Eve. "Writing Feminist Genealogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Racial Nationalism, and the Reproduction of Maternalist Feminism." Feminist Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer, 2001): pp. 271-302.

Revision as of 07:08, 2 April 2012

Good articleMargaret Sanger has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Template:Findnotice

More eugenics material?

Brechbill: The article already has a rather large section on Eugenics. Increasing that section to get much larger would run afoul of the WP:Undue policy. In theory, there is no problem with adding more detail (that is supported by good sources), but at the same time the other sections in the article should also be beefed up so the level of detail stays proportional to its relevance to MS's career. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and a Planned Parenthood worshiper reverted my edit even though she is listed on the American Eugenics Society article here on wikipedia. Congrats.


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

 Done - Section and paragraph sizes are now more uniform and readable. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are six paragraphs in the lead, two of which consist of only two sentences. WP:Lead recommends no more than four paragraphs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Was not aware of the four paragraph guideline. --Noleander (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Inline cites have been provided for all statements likely to be challenged. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Lead is now a summary of entire article. Specific aspects of lead may still need work, if reviewer so determines. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is just about adequate in conveying information, but is not enjoyable to read. It does not flow. It reads like a series of disjointed notes. We have a series of very short sentences, and sometimes very short paragraphs - "Sanger was arrested eight times." is an entire paragraph. The lack of detail and context is frustrating, and the writing at this point is at starter level, and not something one expects at GA level. As the meaning is conveyed, I would be inclined to make a note of it as something to improve if everything else were OK and still list, but combined with the other faults I'm seeing, this is another reason inhibiting listing. It's fairly borderline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Prose has been improved substantially. Not my strong suit. Any remaining issues should be specifically identified and I/we can work on them. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I've not yet checked sources for accuracy, neutral POV, coverage, etc; the article doesn't meet the basic criteria for presentation and formatting. I'm putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow some copy-editing to take place to improve presentation, for the formatting of the sections and the lead to be addressed to met the relevant guidelines, and for inline citations to be found to support the various challengeable statements and opinions present in the article. I have done some tags to help indicate where the citations are most needed. This is not exhaustive, and attention should be paid to where in-line citations are needed.. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I (and perhaps others) will work on those areas. --Noleander (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An impressive amount of work has been done on the article. I'll take a closer look in the next few days. Inline cites appear much more often, though there are some dates and positions given for Sanger that might be questioned. It's never the amount of cites that matters, but if they are appropriately supporting the sort of information that people may rely on and be embarrassed if they got wrong. I thought I'd check a few dates that are uncited, and note that the article says: "In 1923, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control (NCFLBC)...", while this source says it was formed in 1929, and she served as Chairman until 1932 when the organisation was incorporated and she was named president. What is the relationship between The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News founded in 1917, and the two publications, The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News launched in 1937? This source indicates that The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News were separate publications until 1937 when they became amalgamated as The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News. I'm disconcerted that two statements I pick on to check both appear to be incorrect and misleading. This does sometimes happen even in the best of articles, but it's worth checking through the article again to ensure that dates and facts are correct and are appropriately cited. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Those two issues have been fixed. Still need to inspect the rest of the article for accuracy. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those mistakes. I'll fix them. That material dates from before my time on this article (not to say I have not made my fair share of errors :-). FYI: I'll be on Wikibreak from Oct 5 to Oct 12, so I'll be unable to reply to any questions or make any edits. Not to imply that I'm the only editor that can work on the GA nomination, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wonders if I got offended and left in a huff :-) After Oct 13, I'll be able to resume work on this. We'll get it there eventually. --Noleander (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to give more time. I'm inclined to keep reviews open as long as there is positive progress being made, and there appears to be a chance of reaching a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. I'm frequently nagged by Wizardman for keeping reviews open for well over a month, though I see the GA process as being one that improves the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and as long as that is happening, then I'm quite content. While I have not been impressed with the quality of this article so far, I have been impressed by your work ethic, and willingness to push this through to GA listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The end of October should be do-able. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I scrutinized the entire article, and validated the sources and checked the text against the sources for accuracy (most of them: I do not have access to some sources). I made several changes to improve accuracy, and removed a few statements that were not sufficiently sourced. I think the article is now ready for another pass of the review process. --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for giving me a nudge. I had this marked down as a long hold and pushed it to the back of my schedule. I will take a closer look as soon as I have some more time. I note that quite a few images have been added to the article. Images can be very helpful to the reader in gaining an understanding, and of bringing a topic to life, and also of making an article look more attractive, so aiding readability. Some thought should be given to the layout, the appearance, the amount, and the educational value of the images. Relevant guidelines are MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM. Consideration should also be given to the size and helpfulness of WP:Captions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I've reviewed the MOS illustration guidelines, and - based on those guidelines - removed an image, and improved a few captions. The pictures should now be satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sources added to that footnote. That was intended to just be a clarifying Note distinguishing the separation from the divorce ... the details and sources were in the article body. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be more acceptable to have multiple footnotes (separate numbers)? The goal of the bullets was simple to make the prose look cleaner: a single [23] is cleaner than [23][24][25]. But either way is fine by me: I have no preference. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need multiple cites in the first place? If the material in the sentence can be supported by one source that is enough. If you are using books which would otherwise not get cited in the article, and which you feel are of value, it is acceptable to have a short "further reading" section. I know that I have been tempted at times to use multiple cites purely because a source was interesting and I wanted to make use of it! SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That is a tough call. I guess the multiple cites are useful if readers are interested in a particular fact (e.g. Sanger's divorce) and they want to read as much about it as possible, or see how the various biographers treated it. Is there a WP guideline that limits footnote quantity? I know there are such guidelines for images and external links. Another problem is that a sentence may contain two facts, one from one source and the other from a second source: and eliminating one source would not be good in that situation. That said, I have no objection to cutting them back to one source per footnote if you prefer. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...another solution would be to keep the information in the footnote, but lay it out as a paragraph rather than bullets. So the footnote might look like:
23^ Baker, p 63; Chesler, p 152.
24^ Engelman, p 252 (date of divorce); Chesler, p 52 (date of separation).
That way all the information is still there for the readers, but the ugly bullets are gone. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this suggestion (multiple sources in a single paragraph) in footnotes #1, #2, and #4, so we could see what it looks like. I think this may be a good approach: I'm looking at several hardback scholarly books at this moment, and it is common for them to include multiple sources within one footnote "paragraph". They seem to use semicolons to separate the sources within the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I found a WP guideline on this: WP:CITEBUNDLE. It recommends the bullet approach. There is also a WP essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill but it seems to be addressing the situation where an editor goes crazy and includes 10 or 20 sources for a given fact. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Okay, I found a good middle ground: I eliminated the bullets, but kept the multiple sources in each footnote. Each is separated by a line break, so it looks clean. Let me know if it is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the list of recipients of the Margaret Sanger Awards? I think it's appropriate to mention that there is an award named after her, and to gain some idea of the importance or respect of the award, though am not sure of the value of naming celebrity recipients. It feels like the importance is being generated by the list of celebrities, rather than the award itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Removed overly detailed list of recipients. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Inspired by this milieu, she started writing a series of articles about sexual hygiene entitled "What Every Mother Should Know" and "What Every Girl Should Know" for the socialist magazine New York Call", has four cites, which of them support the view that Sanger was "Inspired by this milieu"? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Reworded to more accurately reflect the sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "birth control" is mentioned nine times in the lead. Probably not possible given the subject matter, but could this be reduced? And, at the same time, could that she coined the term itself be put into the first paragraph per WP:LEAD's suggestion that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I moved "coined" into the first paragraph. Of the remaining 8 uses of "birth control": I was able to change one to the synonym "contraception". Two are in proper names. That leaves five ... but I do not think any of the remaining five can be changed. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

There has been some very impressive work done on this article. It serves as a readable, useful and well cited overview of an important and interesting birth control activist. There is ongoing work to do, however this now meets GA criteria. Examples of ongoing work are ensuring that statements such as "Europe had a much more liberal view of contraception than the United States" do have cites; tidying up the presentation so that there are fewer short paragraphs; and tidying up logical flow - in the Birth control movement section for example we end one paragraph in 1917 then start the next in 1916 and end the section by going back to 1913. It's not always possible to ensure a perfect chronological flow, nor to keep all matters neatly grouped, but it's something to keep an eye on, and attempt to avoid such toing and froing. Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your help ... both the review and your contributions to the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. It couldn't have been easy.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was not easy, but I learned a lot. Silk Tork was a big help. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New material

Brechbill123: what is the material you are trying to add to this article? --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brechbill123: the KKK information is already mentioned above in the article no need to duplicate it. Likewise, the Negro Project is already mentioned. Also, the article has a separate "Eugenics" section: so any material on eugenics should go in that section, not other sections. Also: the article is up for GA nomination (see above) so please discuss any major changes to the article here first, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: can you list here the material you want to add that is not yet in the article? --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full name in lead: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee vs. Margaret Higgens Sanger?

I notice the very first sentence starts with a four word name: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee. I've reviewed the sources, and I've only found that in a couple of obscure places. None (zero) of the biographies of Sanger use that 4-word name anywhere. Nor can I find it in the online resources of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project. The sources use "Margaret Sanger" 99% of the time, and "Margaret Higgens Sanger" 1% of the time. I propose to change it to "Margaret Higgens Sanger". --Noleander (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the sources overwhelmingly support that change. Be bold? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nova Science Publishers"

An editor has added a rather contentious claim, sourced to a purported academic publication by Nova Science Press. A bit of Google searching reveals a large number of people claiming that this is a vanity press or academic publishing "scam", that it solicits publications via mass email, and that it lacks a reliable peer-review process (or possibly any peer-review process at all). Given the contentious nature of the claim, which seems to say that Sanger objected only to the methodology employed by the Nazis in committing atrocities, and not the justifications for them, I would think we would prefer a well-known and well-regarded academic publisher.

I have reverted this insertion for the time being. Any thoughts on this subject? I think at minimum this source should not be referenced prior to some discussion at RSN. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please! Night of the Big Wind talk 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will list a few below, but there seem to be rather a lot of them. Of course, none of these is itself a reliable source, or I wouldn't have even posted this question.

http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/05/nova-publishers-legitimate-or-bogus.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112742
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/beware-nova-publishers-and-frank-or-nadya-columbus-president-and-editor-in-chief/
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=26097.0
http://ask.metafilter.com/177104/publisher-reputation
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/No-NOVA-Science-Publishers-is-3425349.S.39527615?qid=5c7a3812-61ac-4811-8261-e536dd0616b0&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_3425349
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/nova-publishers/
http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=69 [in a comment at the bottom]

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the Journal, whether it's a "vanity press" publication or not. You can find the full text of the article online if you Google the authors' names. If you want to examine their credentials, here are the web pages of two of them. MFNickster (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of the publication and review process, but I do also notice that they seem to be psychologists, not historians/political scientists/etc. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a cursory examination, it looks like more guilt by association. Hitler was inspired by American eugenicists, ergo Sanger is like Hitler. Claiming that only her "methodology" differed from the Nazis may be accurate if you consider only the distinction between killing people and not killing people. AFAIK, Sanger never advocated killing anyone. Also, they make some historical errors like claiming that her "Plan for Peace" had the same goals as the Nazis and that she wrote "in reference to the Nazi eugenics plan 'The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.'" In fact, she wrote that in 1921 before Hitler came to power or wrote Mein Kampf. MFNickster (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race section and WP:NPOV

"Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint,"
I removed the above because it represents a violation of WP:NPOV. Describing a view on race as "archaic" is clearly a point of view. It doesn't matter if this is the language used in the citation or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permenant semi-protection

It seems every couple of days someone comes in and inserts a strong pov edit about Sanger's views on race or eugenics. It'd be easier if this page was permanently semi-protected. Where can we go to request that? I also sort of think that all "controversial" pages should be semi-protected. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this entry has numerous inaccuracies

Hello,

I showed this entry to my graduate students during our discussion of Ellen Chesler's biography last night. There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, especially in the sections on eugenics and race. We would like to edit these sections but the entry is locked. Please advise as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.31.39 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed locked for unregistered users. But because the article is controversial, the best way is to write a draft and publish it here on the talkpage. We can then discuss the draft and apply the beneficial parts onto the article. Your draft must be sourced. We will be looking forward for your draft and welcome you on Wikipedia!Night of the Big Wind talk 22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP: Night of the Big Wind's advice is good. A couple of other options available are (1) create an account (register) in WP and edit under the account; or (2) Post a note here on the Talk page summarizing what the inaccuracies are, and another editor is likely to research it and resolve the problems. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmprescott (talk • contribs) 15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good debate on this topic, just wanted to add that the sections on Eugenics and Race would benefit from links to work on feminist scholars about how race and eugenicism factored into the first-wave movement, as a strategy to obtain women rights - rather than a goal in itself. That would add needed context to her views. See: Weinbaum, Alys Eve. "Writing Feminist Genealogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Racial Nationalism, and the Reproduction of Maternalist Feminism." Feminist Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer, 2001): pp. 271-302.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Sanger&oldid=485119270"