|The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to abortion, including this article.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.
You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Sanger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|Margaret Sanger has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|Margaret Sanger was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on October 16, 2011 and October 16, 2016.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Disgusting white wash
This article is a disgusting white wash of Margaret Sanger and her racial views intentionally omitting information for the sole purpose of promoting planned Parenthood. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a political tool yet every year it degrades itself further. I don't know how it is now but when I was in college it was an instant failing grade if you used Wikipedia as a source for anything. I'm sure that's changed now since academia is also a whitewashed political arm now as well. Be on notice that some day I'm going to edit this page to be more balanced to Margaret Sanger and the millions of black babies who died for her. SMH... Jsin607 (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jsin607: Or maybe your concocted ideas about her racial views are intended to smear Planned Parenthood. We've been over this before on this talk page and it's surely in the archives too, but I'll present you with these links to consider.Time, Snopes, Politifact, Planned Parenthood, Family Planning Perspectives. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no objective reason not to include negative info about Sanger as long as it is accurate and supported, but you might want to consider the political objectives of who wants you to believe this about her, and why. MFNickster (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jsin607-- then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp. margaret sanger is among the un-smearable icons of our side like obama, jfk, hillary, eric holder, van jones, etc, and any attempted mud-slinging will be wiped away and the slinger overtly and covertly silenced. just save time and go back to browsing infowars or whatever. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords added a section that, in my opinion, is incorrect.
|“||In the 21st century, Sanger is regarded as an early American democratic socialist.||”|
- Wittner, Lawrence (November 3, 2015). "Democratic Socialism Has Deep Roots in American Life". HuffPost. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
In fact, the section assigns her the status as "democratic socialist", many years after her dead and many after the term was invented. The source for this is a blog. According to IOnlyKnowFiveWords, a blog from a notable historian. But still it is a blog and not a reliable source.
Should the section (and the category) be removed?07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ow, and IOnlyKnowFiveWords insists on this piece, having restored it several times already. 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Member of the KKK and Nazi PArty
Margaret Sanger was given life membership in 1926 to the New Jersey woman's Auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan. She was a proud member until her death in 1966. She was also given full membership into the Nazi party on the orders of Adolf Hitler in 1937 she did not reject this membership until January of 1942 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:65CC:2606:58EE:39D0 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources to back up your claim? 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Just the notes and the highlights of the Klan meeting of her speech. Where they cheered her statements that abortion be used on black babies and other undesirable races. They were so happy with her speech they gave her full life membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9C86:614F:52F:A152 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- So, no evidence?
22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- AFAIK the only source of info about her KKK speech was her own autobiography, in which she says she didn't even dare to mention abortion. MFNickster (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe this is the passage to which you are referring:
All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.
My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building.
My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, “Wait here. We will come for you.” She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.
After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o’clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly the night in a hotel.Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger; an autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 400–402.
- According to this, she did not mention abortion at this speech. If she did, she would likely have nothing but negative things to say. See her own words on abortion. My article also briefly touches on the accusations of wanting to exterminate ethnic groups, which began way back in 1917. It's both remarkable and troubling that lies spread about you a hundred years later still resurface long after you are dead. FecundityBlog (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- AFAIK the only source of info about her KKK speech was her own autobiography, in which she says she didn't even dare to mention abortion. MFNickster (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, we just had a lengthy discussion earlier this year about whether Margaret Sanger ever endorsed abortion as a method of family limitation. Any citable sources in this regard would be be greatly appreciated. FecundityBlog (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Anytime I try to post the documents they are blocked and removed by the fans of planned parenthood and other unqualified people who want to protect the image of this 40 year member of the KKK and 4 year member of the NAZI party. TRUTH is not relevant and facts are not allowed on this Margaret Sanger site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9DF7:F3A4:5CB8:FDE5 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Where and when did you try to post them? Please link the edit(s). MFNickster (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- (incidentally, fact checkers at Politifact rate the claim as "false" MFNickster (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Look at the quote in her own words above. She was offered to speak to many KKK groups. She gave many speeches to Klan groups why? Because she was a 40 year member of the KKK that's WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- She said offers were extended, not that she accepted them. If you have any further documentation, please point to it now or there is no point continuing this debate. As this is a controversial article, ALL additions need to be referenced. MFNickster (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also: even if she gave more speeches, that does NOT support your assertion that she was a member of the Klan, or the Nazi Party. You need a reliable source that backs it up (and after years of searching for something like that, I highly doubt it exists). MFNickster (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Anytime I post facts they are removed by the unqualified under the claim of original research. Sanger was directly tied in to the Nazi party and given full membership along with Lothrop Stoddard in 1937. Stoddard was good friends with Heinrich Himmler who recommended to Hitler to make them full members of the Nazi Party and he did. Stoddard later met Hitler in 1940 directly. On December 11,1941 Hitler declared war on the USA. Sanger renounced her Nazi membership in January of 1942 to stay out of trouble with the US government. The name of her group was changed to plan parenthood in 1942 to distance the group from Sanger and her KKK and Nazi ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I can't tell if you've edited the article since you're not logged in, but I have reviewed every edit made in the past year, and of the edits attempting to link Sanger to the Klan or Nazis, not a single one has included a source (reliable or otherwise) backing it up. So I can only conclude that you are not editing in good faith, and are merely pushing POV. Please prove me wrong! MFNickster (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
What you unqualified people need to do is use the freedom of information act to get the FBI file on Sanger and read the file for yourselves. Or is that to much original research for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you mean this FBI file? Because I couldn't find any others. Again, please provide a link. There's no reason not to include such material if it's factual, but I strongly suspect the docs you're referring to, if they exist, will turn out to be bogus. MFNickster (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No you dumbass the file from the FBI way later than that one. You must request it under the freedom of information act. Do it yourself unless your just plain lazy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:FC23:45C4:9B9B:B1C (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I have been more than patient and it's clear that you are not serious about improving the article. I should have known better from past experience. Sanger had nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis. Please stop this ridiculous smear campaign. MFNickster (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shouting, roaring and insulting is not going to help you at all. Just give reliable sources for your statements. 12:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I did submit a FOIA request to the FBI for materials on Sanger and they replied that their search returned no results. I'm looking into other avenues since Ellen Chesler's book does make mention of compiled FBI documents, but I'm not expecting this to turn up anything significant. MFNickster (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Heavy bias in this page hurts Wikipedia credibility
I as well as many others have tried editing this page to give a more balanced point of view on this topic, providing sources to both a favorable and a critical view of many aspects.
However, these edits seems to be reverted with no credible cause or reason apart that some reviewers don't like the other point of view.
In my specific example, the letter to Gamble has a quote in it:
"We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
Which is immediately followed by the correct "think" and labels any person who views this as evidence to a calculated effort to reduce the black population is a "conspiracy theorist" and unequivocally wrong.
An unbiased approach would be to mention both point of views as equal: one supporting this view, and the other explaining that this was written to avoid that understanding, as the links and references supporting both point of view exists and neither have been proven true or false in an unbiased way. These are both legit opinions, but one is treated as fact and the other as a conspiracy theory.
I have tried editing it to a more balanced text, and wrote that she did support eugenics to support the other point of view. That was reverted by @britishfinance claiming I didn't link to reference of her support for eugenics. I re-edited it adding the reference for that, as well as mentioned it was already in the article as well as in the links for reference at the end of this paragraph. At the very least, I got a reason for reverting so that I could address it and fix it.
That was reverted by @the_banner - this time for no reason at all, except he didn't like it. The comment on the revert was simply "no, that is not the truth" without bothering to provide any explanation to weather that was not truth. The claim of her support for eugenics was already in the article earlier, so I cannot understand how it can be true there and not in this paragraph.
It seems there is a very heavy biased in editing this source, and seems like making any changes to remove this bias is met with a mob mentality, shutting down any view that goes against their own. This leads to hurting Wikipedia credibility as a balanced source of information.
I still think this should be addressed and changed, but I am not sure how to report or appeal these users actions, so I will put it here to a discussion.
This is the current text:
New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, conspiracy theorists have attempted to exploit the quotation "as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will".
It should be changed. It is biased and telling the reader what is the correct "think" rather than informing the reader.
My suggestion was:
The letter, along with other evidence of her support for eugenics  provided strong evidence that led many to believe that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, while others, such as the New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that the letter would have been meant to avoid that mistaken notion.
Keeping the same references at the end.
What is the process of appealing these edits or having a civil discussion, rather than keep editing it and they keep reverting it? I see based on the talk page that I am not the only one who feels this bias exists and have been shut down by these editors.
Further reading on this "talk" is full of references and full on admissions of editors taking sides. quotes like "then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp" to choosing which sources are true and which are false, I see that this is a much bigger problem than I thought. Is there a responsible adult who can shut down these heavily biased moderators who behave more like a mob than editors? Spetel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that your claim is just not in the source given. 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- The comments by Cramyourspam on this talk page about "our side" are wildly outside the correct use of Wikipedia. I did not take exception with them at the time because they were so absurd I assumed they were a false flag attempt to discredit Wikipedians in general. Looking back through Cramyourspam's edit history, I see that Cramyourspam has edited the Margaret Sanger article in the past, so in retrospect I should have taken exception at the time.
- With regard to the specific claim that Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate specific ethnic/racial groups, the only direct evidence that has been presented has been the sentence "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" from a letter she wrote to Clarence Gamble dated December 10, 1939. That letter is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. If one reads the letter in full, one can see that there it does not express a desire to eliminate the "Negro" population. Taking a sentence fragment out of context does not constitute evidence. If there is any actual evidence presented that Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate specific ethnic/racial groups, then I for one would be happy to include this information in the article page. Such evidence has yet to be presented.
- With regard to belief in eugenics, Margaret Sanger's support for eugenics is not in question. Indeed, there is a section on this in the article. What constitutes "eugenics" beliefs varies person to person. Simply having beliefs labeled "eugenics" is not evidence that one wants to eliminate an ethnic/racial group any more than having beliefs labeled "conservative" is evidence they want to eliminate an ethnic/racial group just because someone else labeled "conservative" once said something to that effect.
- One cannot balance an article to better include an interpretation for which there is no evidence. FecundityBlog (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Quote from letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble is wrong
While I was checking sources in the "Work with the African-American community," I noticed the block quote is incorrect. The letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble of December 10, 1939 is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. The actual paragraph that contains the "word to go out" line is:
The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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.
I'm not sure where the article is getting the first two sentences of this paragraph:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the 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.
It seems as though this quote is combining two different sources? Anyway, as the quote is introduced as "she [Margaret Sanger] wrote to Gamble," it should probably stick to the text from the letter.
I'll change it and cite the letter directly after the quote. However, I might wait until the latest revert war ends so my changes don't get lost in the reverts.