Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Sanger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.205.26.5 (talk) at 19:23, 16 May 2012 (→‎Race section and WP:NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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) The purpose of Wikipedia is not to present a sanitized version of the facts. We must trust that users are capable of forming their own opinions taking into account historical context and views of the time.[reply]

After all, Sanger herself said " the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics”

It is relevant that Margaret Sanger in The Pivot of Civilization (1922) wrote;

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." -- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.55.198 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life/Early Life Section

The fact that Sanger's parents were both Catholics, and one a "devote Catholic" implies that such a background as a child somehow makes Margaret Sanger more "objective" regarding her views on birth control. Sort of a "I've lived my life on both sides now" sense of authenticity to her views. At the very least, the background info shows an upbringing that may have influenced her later. That is OK. Then the section goes on to talk of her father's conversion to atheism and activism. This implies that Margaret Sanger was influenced by her father's conversion to such things. That is OK, too. In fact, the entire first section of Early Life can be read as stating this: mom, the devote Catholic, died of 50 from...cervical cancer (note: this is UNRELATED medically to 18 pregnancies, but those without an MD will assume the opposite); dad, the Catholic, saw the light and converted to social activism and atheism. Sanger then went to work and saw the light, too.

The fact is that this section includes two alleged influencial people in Margaret Sanger's life (influencial because why otherwise bother with the details of mom and dad) but omits the details of another potential influencial individual, William Sanger, Margaret's first husband. Considering the "Early Life" section here is supposed to educate us on "influences" (devote Catholic with 18 pregnancies dies of cervical cancer; Catholic father become atheist social activist), I propose the following addition:

AFTER this sentence: "In 1902, Margaret Higgins married architect William Sanger, and the couple settled in New York City.[10]"

ADD this sentence: "Son of German-Jewish immigrants, William Sanger was an architect with an interest in radical politics. After a few years of unsatisfying suburban domesticity in Yonkers and then in Hastings-on-Hudson, William Sanger and his family moved to New York City, where he introduced his wife Margaret to the bohemian world of radical artists and activists. They both joined the local Socialist Party and participated in such radical events as the 1913 Paterson Strike Pageant."

[source is http://wyatt.elasticbeanstalk.com/mep/MS/xml/bsangerw.html, itself citing The Margaret Sanger Papers Electronic Edition: Margaret Sanger and The Woman Rebel, 1914-1916, eds. Esther Katz, Cathy Moran Hajo and Peter Engelman (Columbia, S.C.: Model Editions Partnership, 1999). On the Web at http://mep.blackmesatech.com/mep/]

I believe that my request is fair, accurate as per references, and appropriately adds to the influential people in Margaret Sanger's formative years.

My email is sajbarnes@comcast.net if anyone wants to let me know the result of my request (I cannot seem to log in today). Stephen A. Barnes, MD, JD Houston 76.31.203.30 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to material of that nature. However, the wyatt.elasticbeanstalk.com web site does not meet the WP:RS requirement. You (or another editor ... I dont have time this month) must find and read an unbiased biography of Sanger (or a comparable good-quality source) and use that as the foundation for the material. It is not sufficient to rely on elasticbeanstalk's assertion that they read the original source: the editor adding the material must read it. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The source you use must be identified in a footnote to any new material added. --Noleander (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Sanger&oldid=492908445"