Talk:Margaret Sanger: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:53, 10 October 2010 editTerra Novus (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,821 edits →Suggestions for how to edit this page productively ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:59, 17 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,681 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 8) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{GA nominee\|03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)\|nominator=] (])\|page=2\|subtopic=Culture, sociology and psychology\|status=onreview\|note=\|shortdesc=American birth control activist and nurse (1879–1966)}}
	{{skiptotoctalk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=y}}
	{{Talkheader}}
			{{Article history
	{{Round In Circles\|search=yes}}
			\|action1=GAN
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|
			\|action1date=21:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
	{{WPBiography\|living=no\|class=B\|priority=mid\|politician-work-group=yes\|core=yes\|listas=Sanger, Margaret}}
			\|action1link=Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1
	{{WikiProject Socialism
			\|action1result=listed
	\|class=B
			\|action1oldid=456070832
	\|importance=high
			\|action2=GAR
			\|action2date=18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Margaret Sanger/1
			\|action2result=delisted
			\|action2oldid=677331990
			\|currentstatus=DGA
			\|topic=socsci
			\|otd1date=2011-10-16\|otd1oldid=455879525
			\|otd2date=2016-10-16\|otd2oldid=744344984
			\|otd3date=2024-10-16\|otd3oldid=1251417948
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|listas=Sanger, Margaret\|blp=no\|1=
	{{WikiProject Sexuality
			{{WikiProject Biography \|politician-priority=mid \|politician-work-group=yes \|core=yes }}
	\|class=B
	\|importance=~~high~~		{{WikiProject Socialism \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Women's History \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Feminism \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Nursing \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject New York (state)}}
	}}		}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|ab\|long\|restriction=1RR}}
	{{V0.5\|class=B\|category=Socsci\|importance=High}}}}
	{{controversial (history)}}
	{{pbneutral}}
	{{notforum}}
	{{autoarchivingnotice\|bot=MiszaBot\|age=90\|small=no\|dounreplied=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 2		\|counter = 8
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(14d)		\|algo = old(14d)
Line 26:		Line 37:
	}}		}}

			== Member of the Nazi party and the KKK ==
	== Removed text ==

			She was both a member of the NAZI party and the KKK. They had to remove her from the leadership position she held in 1942 because the Nazis declared war on America on December 11. She still made statements of Nazi support after the declaration of war. ] (]) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
	This text seems an smear based on

			:This is not true. – ] (]) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
	1. Apparently later activities of an author after his article was published in Planned Parenthood and on
			:Oh yes, we'll just ignore ] and ] and just put those extreme things right in with no sources just because you said it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. ] <small>(])</small> 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::July of 2020 they removed her racist name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. case closed. ] (]) 06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Removing her name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood is no proof that she was a member of either the Nazi party or the KKK. ] (]) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			This article was a GA article in 2011. That lasted for four years, but it got de-listed in 2015 due to edit-waring. It was not de-listed due to failing GA criteria (other than the edit-warring criterion). Currently, the overall quality of the article looks pretty decent these days, so I was thinking of making a pass thru the article and - if it is suitable - doing a GA nomination. I don't doubt that vandals will come along and attack this article forever, but that is no reason to avoid GA status (see ]) Any objections? ] (]) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	April, 1933, the Planned Parenthood publication ''Birth Control Review'' printed an article by ] (who became a member of the ]s' ] in June) which declared "the danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman," and called for action "without delay."<ref>Rüdin, "Eugenics Sterlization: An Urgent Need", ''Birth Control Review,'' April 1932, p. 102-104</ref>

			:I've started making some minor improvements to the article. Overall it seems to be in pretty good shape. If anyone has any changes you think should be made to bring it up to GA status, let me know. ] (]) 22:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== On reverting material related to racisim ==
			::I'm not able to find many more improvements (appropriate for GA status), so I guess I'll nominate it for GA soon. If anyone has any comments, let me know. ] (]) 17:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Sounds like a good idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

	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.] (]) 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 ]. Thanks. --] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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)? --] (]) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

			I used to do a lot of GA reviews and took a closer look here. I think it looks pretty good. One thing that caught my eye. The lead should be a summary of the article. Regarding her position on abortion, it is summarized (and heavily sourced/cited) in the lead but I see only scattered mentions of it in the article, and don't see those same cites in the article. Any cites/source that are in the lead should also be in the article (and usually don't need to be in the lead). To me this is a bit of a red flag that either there is material in the lead that is not in the article or that the citing/sourcing is missing from wherever it is in the article. Especially for those reading it in current times, IMO coverage of this topic in the body of the article should be strengthened up a bit, with solid sourcing, and any sourcing/cites that are in the lead should be in the body. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Secondary source ==

			:Good points. I'll work on those things. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	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?
			:When I see a lead section that has zero citations, I'm always impressed ... it looks clean, and indicates that the article _probably_ has all the lead info replicated (and expounded on) in the body. Of course, to remove the cites, all the lead info/text must be replicated & cited in the body. I guess I could remove all the cites (after ensuring info is in the body) and see what the reviewer says. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I went thru the lead, and ensured that all the lead info was also represented in the body (some was not: I had to move/duplicate it). I then moved all footnotes from the lead to the corresponding body text (if not already there). So, there are now no footnotes in the lead; but 100% of the lead info is in the body, and footnotes are there. ] (]) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "Sexuality" section could be trimmed? ==
	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.

			The section ] seems a bit large, considering it was not a major aspect of Sanger's life work. All the info in there looks accurate & useful, but its large size may mislead readers into thinking it almost of equal importance as family planning, abortion, etc. But maybe I'm underestimating how much effort she put into the subject. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	“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).

			:I don't see any objections, so I think I will simply replace some of the numerous quotes there with paraphrases. Not deleting any material, simply tightening some quotes by making them encyclopedic prose. ] (]) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	“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.

			== New "Perception in the modern era" subsection under "Legacy" ==
	“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 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).

			Regarding the content in the "Legacy" section about 21st century impressions of Sanger, and criticisms from anti-abortion activists I created a new subsection "Perception in the modern era" and moved the text into the subsection. The content is not large, but it was not consistent with the other info in "Legacy". I looked at the ] article to see how they dealt with recent criticisms of Columbus & his impact, and that article had a subsection under "Legacy" called "Criticism and defense". So, I modeled that , but named the subsection "Perception in the modern era". It is not a large section, but it seems beneficial to have it. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	“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).
			{{Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA2}}

			== Find copy of article "America Needs a Code for Babies" in "American Weekly"? ==
	“In attracting professionals, the ABCL had to overcome the taint of radicalism that clung to Sanger for decades” (p. 293).

			The Eugenics section of the article uses a source: "America Needs a Code for Babies", an article in ''American Weekly ''magazine, 27 Mar 1934. I'm trying to find copy of that article. The article is important because opponents of Sanger quote from it a lot, and the quotes contain some inflammatory proposals (however, the proposals are clearly presented as hypothetical, perhaps exaggerated, proposals meant to stimulate debate... since the article itself states: ''"All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion..."'')
	“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.’<sup>119</sup> 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).

			The only copy of the article I can find, hardcopy or digital, is at not reliable anti-abortion website: https://blackinamerica.com/content/292940/america-needs-a-code-for-babies That website says they got the content from NYU Margaret Sangers project, but - if it was ever at NYU - it is no longer there.
	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., <ref></ref>, which is something that needs to be added to that section.] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] 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. --] (]) 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.] (]) 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?] (]) 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 ]. 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 ]. If you have lots of quotes you want to add, consider putting them in . 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. --] (]) 20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with Noleander. And questioning his faith is not constructive.] (]) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
	Check it: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			The same website says'' "Typed draft article. Source: American Weekly, Mar. 27, 1934 , Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B . Because only a partial copy of the printed article was found in Sanger's papers, the editors have used the complete typed draft in its place." ''
	== Carthage College Scandal? ==

			Im not 100% sure what that means, but it sounds like a copy of the magazine itself no longer exists anywhere, but at some point late in Sanger's life, the Library of Congress got some papers of hers, and among the papers was a typed draft of a magazine article. Indeed, the Library of Congress web site names a "America Needs a Code for Babies" paper from a Margaret Sanger collection, at https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998010.3. I suppose that is the typed draft. Did that draft paper ever get printed in a magazine?
	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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: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. ] (]) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

			Anyway, this article is going through a GA review, and the Eugenics section, of course, needs special scrutiny, and we need to be able to read all the referenced sources. So: Does anyone know where to find a copy of the "American Weekly" article?
	== Suggestions for how to edit this page productively ==

			I dont' think the document in Library of Congress will be useful, since that is merely a typed draft, and may or may not have made it into the magazine. ] (]) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	I just left this message for ], 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.)

			:Until we can find & read a copy of the American Weekly magazine, I changed the citation in the article to mention that it is a draft manuscript. I left the quotes (from the magazine) in the footnote. After we find the article, we can change the cite back to the magazine article. ] (]) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	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.
			::I posted a request for this article at ] ... with luck, they'll find it. ] (]) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::A helpful editor at ] found the article at https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/1043726343/ .. apparently it was a weekly insert; this particular source was in the "The Washington Herald".

			:::Since this appears to be a legit article that did make it into print, I'll restore the cite in this MS article to name the article. ] (]) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	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 Misplaced Pages article, but it's not relevant to the Margaret Sanger article. It's what we call a ]:

	: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 ]. 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 ]; 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 <nowiki></nowiki>, use <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>, and inside the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>, use one of the citation templates, such as <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki>; you can find its proper usage described at ]. 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, ]. 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", , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]. When the block on your account expires, you might consider switching to a new account name, and maybe linking to it on ] to avoid the appearance of ]. (Linking is not mandatory, but it might be a good idea; see ].)

	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 ]. In the US system of racism, I'm "white", although I'm about 5% ]. I admire Sanger's courage, and I support ], 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 Misplaced Pages is currently an enormously important and effective implement. That's why I started contributing to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] or ] 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.

	] (]) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

	:I can't believe I'm saying this due to my habit of making long posts but ].] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::Don't critique what you didn't read...]--<span style="background:burlywood; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;">]</span><span style="background:yellowgreen; color:white;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;"> ]</span> 07:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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

	<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 13:59, 17 January 2025

Margaret Sanger is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Noleander (talk) at 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: American birth control activist and nurse (1879–1966)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 21, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 16, 2011, October 16, 2016, and October 16, 2024.

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism High‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nursing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state)

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Member of the Nazi party and the KKK

She was both a member of the NAZI party and the KKK. They had to remove her from the leadership position she held in 1942 because the Nazis declared war on America on December 11. She still made statements of Nazi support after the declaration of war. 2600:1015:A027:EEB6:9EDA:C257:318D:C030 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, we'll just ignore WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP and just put those extreme things right in with no sources just because you said it. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

July of 2020 they removed her racist name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. case closed. 2600:1015:A005:3806:191C:2FEC:644C:7859 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing her name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood is no proof that she was a member of either the Nazi party or the KKK. Peaceray (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

This article was a GA article in 2011. That lasted for four years, but it got de-listed in 2015 due to edit-waring. It was not de-listed due to failing GA criteria (other than the edit-warring criterion). Currently, the overall quality of the article looks pretty decent these days, so I was thinking of making a pass thru the article and - if it is suitable - doing a GA nomination. I don't doubt that vandals will come along and attack this article forever, but that is no reason to avoid GA status (see Heckler's veto) Any objections? Noleander (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've started making some minor improvements to the article. Overall it seems to be in pretty good shape. If anyone has any changes you think should be made to bring it up to GA status, let me know. Noleander (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not able to find many more improvements (appropriate for GA status), so I guess I'll nominate it for GA soon. If anyone has any comments, let me know. Noleander (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I used to do a lot of GA reviews and took a closer look here. I think it looks pretty good. One thing that caught my eye. The lead should be a summary of the article. Regarding her position on abortion, it is summarized (and heavily sourced/cited) in the lead but I see only scattered mentions of it in the article, and don't see those same cites in the article. Any cites/source that are in the lead should also be in the article (and usually don't need to be in the lead). To me this is a bit of a red flag that either there is material in the lead that is not in the article or that the citing/sourcing is missing from wherever it is in the article. Especially for those reading it in current times, IMO coverage of this topic in the body of the article should be strengthened up a bit, with solid sourcing, and any sourcing/cites that are in the lead should be in the body. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good points. I'll work on those things. Noleander (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When I see a lead section that has zero citations, I'm always impressed ... it looks clean, and indicates that the article _probably_ has all the lead info replicated (and expounded on) in the body. Of course, to remove the cites, all the lead info/text must be replicated & cited in the body. I guess I could remove all the cites (after ensuring info is in the body) and see what the reviewer says. Noleander (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I went thru the lead, and ensured that all the lead info was also represented in the body (some was not: I had to move/duplicate it). I then moved all footnotes from the lead to the corresponding body text (if not already there). So, there are now no footnotes in the lead; but 100% of the lead info is in the body, and footnotes are there. Noleander (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"Sexuality" section could be trimmed?

The section Margaret_Sanger#Sexuality seems a bit large, considering it was not a major aspect of Sanger's life work. All the info in there looks accurate & useful, but its large size may mislead readers into thinking it almost of equal importance as family planning, abortion, etc. But maybe I'm underestimating how much effort she put into the subject. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any objections, so I think I will simply replace some of the numerous quotes there with paraphrases. Not deleting any material, simply tightening some quotes by making them encyclopedic prose. Noleander (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

New "Perception in the modern era" subsection under "Legacy"

Regarding the content in the "Legacy" section about 21st century impressions of Sanger, and criticisms from anti-abortion activists I created a new subsection "Perception in the modern era" and moved the text into the subsection. The content is not large, but it was not consistent with the other info in "Legacy". I looked at the Christopher Columbus article to see how they dealt with recent criticisms of Columbus & his impact, and that article had a subsection under "Legacy" called "Criticism and defense". So, I modeled that , but named the subsection "Perception in the modern era". It is not a large section, but it seems beneficial to have it. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing. Below are some immediate feedback on structuring of prose in the body/layout. I will need some more time to go through the different sources, and given the length/important of this article, I hope you're willing to take longer to review this. Let me know how I can make this reviewing experience a positive one for you, for example pinging you/structuring my feedback in a certain way etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this article. Back in 2011 I re-wrote it, and the article was given GA status (GA1), but it gradually degraded (edit warring, etc) and lost the status in 2015. So, here I am a second time.

Agree this review may take longer than normal.

Thanks for offering to make it a positive experience! The ideal reviewer would be sensible, a good listener, have lots of WP experience, and aware of GA criteria (and how they differ from FA criteria :-) And did I mention sensible? Noleander (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Lede

Currently the lede is very long. I think it could be shortened to 1-2 paragraphs. The first paragraph says nearly everything that she is most prominently known for, whereas the institutional context or her family influence is better saved for the body of article itself. It should note earlier, that she was a Eugenicist member. It should also note that a lot of her activism, was using court cases to bring publicity, being arrested 8x over her career.

Yes, it is too large, I'll make it shorter. Most FA articles on important people have 3 to 4 paragraphs in lead, so I'd prefer 3 minimum. WP:LEDE indicates "250 to 400 words" is standard for FA articles; MS lead is 421 words now, so I'll try to get it to around 300-350? Noleander (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I got it down to 254 words, 3 paragraphs. It still needs some word-smithing, but I think the size is about right now.

Re: "....she was a Eugenicist member" better words for her relationship with eugenics are: adhere/adherent; subscribe/subscriber; endorse/endorser; proponent; support/supporter; advocate/advocate; or propose/proposer. The word "member" suggests there is some official club, or a single official organization. Noleander (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Now at 267 words, 3 paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Layout and structure

The actual section ordering and naming is generally reasonable. I would shorten Planned Parenthood era to Planned Parenthood to be consistent. The body text is sometimes misplaced, for example in section about her death is content related to her legacy. I will make specific suggestions below

Regarding the sections in the article (not just "Planned Parenthood Era" section): The article is broken into three parts: (a) first several sections of the article (before "Views") are a chronological story of her life. (b) Within the "Views" section are the four contentious topics that deserve special focus because many readers will want to zoom in on them and get in-depth coverage. Ideally those four topics would be scattered thruout the life story, but that is not practical due to controversial nature of the 4 topics. These topic/issue subsections are not intended to hold any events or personal info. (c) After "Views" is the caboose: miscellaneous/references/legacy.

The "personal life" events (marriage, divorce) are scattered thruout the upper chronological sections, rather than concentrated in a "Personal life" section. (Ditto for all events in her life: they are in the appropriate chronological section). This is the model used in many biographical articles, such as Douglas Macarthur. I'd prefer to keep it that way. Maybe we could try something like Woodrow Wilson, where there is a "Marriage and family" section (in lieu of "personal life" section); that article also (like this MS article) has several chronological sections, followed by a topic/issue section "Race Relations" ... very much like is found in the MS article now. Unless there is a compelling reason, we should probably maintain that pattern. Noleander (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Below, you mention renaming some top-level sections (Birth Control Movement etc) ... we should probably get consensus on the overall layout (above) before acting on those. So, I'll not act on those particular suggestions (below) at this point in time. Noleander (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ditto for suggestions like "Her brother is unrelated to her death, should be moved to personal life section" ... I'll refrain from responding to that until the overall layout is finalized. Noleander (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been looking at FA-quality biography articles, and there seems to be a clear pattern:

The articles always begin with several chronological sections presenting the complete life story
The final (sub)section within the life story portion is always Death (or similar)
After the life story portion of the article, some (but not all) bios will have one or more "deep dive" sections for topics/issues that are especially significant for the subject of the bio. These topic/issue sections go into detail, but generally do not internally use a chronological or event-based approach
There is always a "Legacy" section at the bottom of the article, and if there are topic/issue sections, "Legacy" follows those.
"Personal Life" sections do not appear in articles of historically important people, but are found in bios of living celebrities.

I think the article's current layout is consistent with this established pattern. That said, I can see some potential improvements: (a) Improve names of individual sections, e.g. add word similar to "era" to the titles of the life story sections; and (b) ~~Perhaps promote subsections under "Views" to be top-level sections?? .. but that seems like it would lead to more confusion.~~ Noleander (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Section specific feedback

Early life

Rename this to personal life, so that it can include her relationship with HG Wells here in a more structured manner.

Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Mention who Grant, Stuart and her third child are in the body itself.
~~Wikilink to Union army (so people know which side)~~ Done

Social activism =

Can rename and shorten section to Activism, there isn't any kind of activism that is not social.

Done Noleander (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Wiki link Socialist Party of America~~ – linked to Socialist Party of New York instead, as the original text read Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party.
~~Wiki link Comstock law (once per section is not only allowed, but helpful here)~~ Done
The paragraph about Neo-Malthusian should make it more explicit this is connected to Eugenic politics.

I'm looked into that, and it looks like Malthusians are 100% concerned with overpopulation, and do not concern themselves with the fitness of the human race. The Malthusianism article only mentions eugenics once, and that is to say that eugenics was influenced by Malthusianism (as an argument to impose sterilization/birth control) but not the other way around. I learned that neo-malthusiansm only originated around 1920 or 21, and since Sanger's encounter was in 1914-15, the word in this paragraph should be "Malthusianism" not "Neo-Malthusianism". I improved the paragraph so it now reads: "She shared the concern of Malthusians that over-population led to poverty, famine and war.". I agree that the connection between eugenics and malthusianism should be included in the article ... and the Eugenics section already talks about overpopulation as related to eugenics, so if we need any additional emphasis, it should probably be added there. Noleander (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Birth control movement

Missing the most important/notable claim, Today, Sanger, along with Emma Goldman and Mary Dennett, is viewed as a founder and leader of the birth control movement.

Not sure that is appropriate. The first 7 top-level sections are intended to be a chronological listing of events in her life. Retrospective statments such as "today she is viewed ..." are better in the Lede or Legacy sections (or maybe the four Topic/Issue/Views sections). But if you feel strongly about it, I have no objection. See also discussion above about overall layout/sections for this article. Noleander (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be renamed to Birth control, as it's not primarily about the movement, but Sanger's activism/views around it. Of course the movement is relevant, and she is an early pioneer of it.

Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph about her relationship with HG Wells should be moved to personal/early life section, and her publication should be moved to her works. It comes off odd in a section that's about birth control movements

Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

American Birth Control League

What does shifting from radical politics mean? Some sources I read, suggest that it means she stopped defying laws/being provocative, but it's not clear here.

Done "Shift" in that paragraph means transisiting from solo, low-level efforts (e.g. submitting articles to socialist newpapers) to establishing large, well-funded organizations (ABCL). ~~I'll improve~~ I improved the wording to clarify. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The 3 paragraphs starting from Sanger invested a great deal of effort communicating with the general public. From 1916 onward seem to have nothing to do with American Birth Control League and are better placed in (social) activism section.

Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Death

Her brother is unrelated to her death, should be moved to personal life section

Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Eugenics

This is probably most controversial and challenging section to summarize in WP:NPOV manner and claims should be weighted/backed accordingly. This line is written in a wikivoice, and yet seems contradicted several lines later: Sanger's approach to eugenics did not have a racist component. Instead we should rely/summarize what different historians say (as does happen a lot here)

I will ask other editors for feedback/extra set of eyes here, as this is an important section where expertise could be invaluable

Thanks for helping on this: Eugenics is the one section that I know is not GA status yet. I've been working on it the past 2 days, and it ~~is still not there~~ is getting there. One thing I would tell reviewers is: that section is unique because it must be written now, in 2025, in a way that will help editors in future decades maintain it and stave-of edit wars. In other words: it should have more citations (sources) and more footnotes (with quotations and insights) than a typical WP article. Thus, a large number of cites & footnotes (and quotations) in the Eugenics section is not a reason to fail GA (provided the cites & footnotes are pertinent and reasonable). The only alternative to large footnotes (that I can see) is a statement in the Talk page about the Eugenic sources & content, perhaps pinned to the top of the Talk page; I've seen that in some articles about contentious subjects. But footnotes have the advantage that readers can see the information (not just editors) thus avoiding criticisms that the article is censored or ignoring sources. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The next change I was planning on making to the Eugenics section was to remove all Sanger quotes (I think there are 3 remaining) into footnotes; and replacing the quotes with prose equivalent, based on secondary sources. . But I'll wait on that task until you or other editors weigh in ... don't want to thrash the section. Noleander (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the Eugenics section is in fairly decent shape now ... perhaps GA quality? Before today, I do not think it was quite there. The tone is encyclopedic, sources are on-point, and primary sources are generally relegated to supplemental footnotes (leaving 2ndary sources in the citations). And it covers all the major points that sources discuss. Most importantly, the section now has a logical flow to it, whereas before it was a disjointed sequence of (valid) facts. There are a relatively large number of footnotes, but - due to the contentious nature of the section - it seems wise to keep them, so future readers & editors will have quick access to the data (vs a Talk page section), and they can resolve questions faster. Noleander (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In popular culture

Currently is bullet point list, while the legacy section has prose about her depictions in popular culture. Consider merging the two sections somehow

Agree "In Popular culture" (IPC) is peculiar. Initially, its content was part External Links section, but (I think) it somehow got moved into a dedicated section, and named "In Popular Culture". I don't think the IPC bullet items deserve prose ... rather than make it prose and merging with Legacy, maybe move the IPC bullets back into "External Links"? Noleander (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. I deleted the "In Popular culture" section and moved its contents (bullets) into External Links section. Let me know if you're not comfortable with that. Noleander (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Find copy of article "America Needs a Code for Babies" in "American Weekly"?

The Eugenics section of the article uses a source: "America Needs a Code for Babies", an article in American Weekly magazine, 27 Mar 1934. I'm trying to find copy of that article. The article is important because opponents of Sanger quote from it a lot, and the quotes contain some inflammatory proposals (however, the proposals are clearly presented as hypothetical, perhaps exaggerated, proposals meant to stimulate debate... since the article itself states: "All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion...")

The only copy of the article I can find, hardcopy or digital, is at not reliable anti-abortion website: https://blackinamerica.com/content/292940/america-needs-a-code-for-babies That website says they got the content from NYU Margaret Sangers project, but - if it was ever at NYU - it is no longer there.

The same website says "Typed draft article. Source: American Weekly, Mar. 27, 1934 , Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B . Because only a partial copy of the printed article was found in Sanger's papers, the editors have used the complete typed draft in its place."

Im not 100% sure what that means, but it sounds like a copy of the magazine itself no longer exists anywhere, but at some point late in Sanger's life, the Library of Congress got some papers of hers, and among the papers was a typed draft of a magazine article. Indeed, the Library of Congress web site names a "America Needs a Code for Babies" paper from a Margaret Sanger collection, at https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998010.3. I suppose that is the typed draft. Did that draft paper ever get printed in a magazine?

Anyway, this article is going through a GA review, and the Eugenics section, of course, needs special scrutiny, and we need to be able to read all the referenced sources. So: Does anyone know where to find a copy of the "American Weekly" article?

I dont' think the document in Library of Congress will be useful, since that is merely a typed draft, and may or may not have made it into the magazine. Noleander (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Until we can find & read a copy of the American Weekly magazine, I changed the citation in the article to mention that it is a draft manuscript. I left the quotes (from the magazine) in the footnote. After we find the article, we can change the cite back to the magazine article. Noleander (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I posted a request for this article at WP:RX ... with luck, they'll find it. Noleander (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A helpful editor at WP:RX found the article at https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/1043726343/ .. apparently it was a weekly insert; this particular source was in the "The Washington Herald".

Since this appears to be a legit article that did make it into print, I'll restore the cite in this MS article to name the article. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: