Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Sanger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMargaret 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
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 21, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia'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

Member of the Nazi party and the KKK

[edit]

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)[reply]

This is not true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Good article nomination?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

"Sexuality" section could be trimmed?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Lede

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done. Now at 267 words, 3 paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
274 words. Noleander (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and structure

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've been looking at FA-quality biography articles, and there seems to be a clear pattern:
  1. The articles always begin with several chronological sections presenting the complete life story
  2. The final (sub)section within the life story portion is always Death (or similar)
  3. 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
  4. There is always a "Legacy" section at the bottom of the article, and if there are topic/issue sections, "Legacy" follows those.
  5. "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. [Edit: cannot sensibly promote the subsections under "View" because readers would (in Table of Contents) perceive them as chapters in the chronological life story] Noleander (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section specific feedback

[edit]

Early life

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 =

[edit]
  • Can rename and shorten section to Activism, there isn't any kind of activism that is not social.
How about "Woman Rebel"? which (a) accurately describes this phase of her life; (b) is the name of the newletter she started to publish in this era; (c) has a photo that can be used in the section; and (d) is engaging, yet accurate. Noleander (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Birth control movement

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

American Birth Control League

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Death

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]

Eugenics

[edit]

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)[reply]
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. [There are 2 or 3 quotes from scholars in that section that are encyclopedia-worthy; I was not planning on removing them]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

Review terminated

[edit]

The GA2 review has been terminated (see discussion at User_talk:Shushugah#Margaret_Sanger_GA). The GA nomination process has been re-started, and it will be GA3 when a reviewer volunteers. Noleander (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Dearth of information on contraception

[edit]

Here is the text I'm complaining about:

Seeking to help these women, in 1913 Sanger visited public libraries, and later claimed she was unable to find information on contraception.

The position of the prepositional phrase in 1913 is awkward. The footnote that purports to dispute the difficulty she had in finding information on contraception, stating some materials on birth control actually were available in New York libraries, really misses the point, because the only implication was that the information wasn't readily available, not that it was completely impossible to find. Fabrickator (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA3. 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)[reply]

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Initial remarks

[edit]
  • Earwig's Copyvio detector reports 69% likely copyright infringement but, following checks of all top ten instances listed in the report, the result appears to be false positive, the result of a number of quotations of considerable length so that's pass on 2d criterion, but I'm yet to check the quotation formatting/referencing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article history indicates no edit wars or content disputes within past couple of weeks (at least), with nearly all edits in that period by the nominator alone. Pass on criterion 5.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the prose and the notes to the prose, I find the article sufficiently broad to cover all major aspects of the topic, and sufficiently focused to allow reasonably short reading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • ...ultimately became a stonecutter, chiseling angels and saints on tombstones reads strange - as if he carved only saints and angels on tombstones and nothing else or as editorialising, contrasting religious motifs to being an atheist. If he worked on other stuff too, I'd avoiod this formulation; otherwise I'd emphasise he did this exclusively.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed "saints and angels on tombstones". Noleander (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "notable" in ...labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence textile strike and the 1913 Paterson silk strike)... should not be there, sounds like editorial.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed "notable". Noleander (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way she became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman? Could you clarify very briefly please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added details & links: "She socialized with the bohemian community of Greenwich Village, including..." Also replaced cite to her autobiography with a two better cites. Sources suggest that she was influenced by the associations with these other people, and hint that they inspired her to become more radical/feminist/socialist. But I don't (yet) see a 2ndary source that says that directly. Noleander (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Later in the article, in the context of eugenics and racism, the words "fit" and "unfit" are used in the article, in quotes, to denote that they are offensive terms used by 1920's people, and not the 2020's WP editor's words. The WP MOS for that situation is MOS:QUOTEPOV. Noleander (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. I was only referring to the words used "as words" i.e. in reference to themselves. Tomobe03 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In She would return to Europe in 1922 and become the first woman to chair a session at an International Neo-Malthusian Conference,[31] and she organized the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth-Control Conference that took place in New York in 1925. is the text refering to two different conferences (one where Sanger chaired a session, and the one held in New York in 1925) or are those two references to the same conference (i.e. did Sanger chair a session at the 1925 New York conference)? Could you please clarify one way or the other?-- Tomobe03 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Improved wording to clarify that it was 2 distinct conferences.
  • In During her sojourn... I wonder is it sojourn in the UK (where she was in exile) or in the New York (for the conference in 1925). Please clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Reworded to "During her stay in England..." Noleander (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Arrest and exile" does not mention any arrest. Was Sanger arrested before December 1915 trial?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done changed section title to "Indictment and exile". I assumed she was arrested, but I cannot find any source that say she was put into handcuffs or booked before fleeing to Canada/England. Noleander (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment: The article uses a lot of quotations. I have not yet examined their referencing and whether they are true to the cited works, but reading through a portion of the article, I get the impression that there's simply too many of them. I don't think that in itself violates any GA criteria, but I'd report what she said where quotation is not really necessary, e.g. I believe ...she refused and said: "I cannot respect the law as it exists today." is an unnecessary quotation because it could say "...she refused and said she could not respect the law as it were at the time." Just for the record, I don't think quotations are univerasally superfluous. Those illustrating the potential origin of present-day phrases are especially useful (e.g. ...right of women to "own and control your bodies". In all, I'd recommend transforming excessive ones to indirect speech, but that's no dealbreaker here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree the article has too many quotes. I'll delete some. My general rule is to only include quotes if (1) good 2ndary sources mention the quote; and (2) the quote evokes something special or iconic. For background: the article has lots of quotes because from 2011 to recently there has been lots of edit warring and editors, naturally, insert quotes as a way to add certainty (vs relying on sources that could be biased). But lots of quotes are not appropriate for GA or FA. Moving some quotes into footnotes is another option. Noleander (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I converted several quotes into paraphrased prose. I left several quotes: a couple of iconic quotes that multiple 2ndary sources highlight; several in the abortion section since it is so contoversial, and I think readers need to see the actual words; Some in the Eugnics section since they may be perceived as highly offensive, and paraphrasing would remove essential information (e.g. definition of what constitutes "unfit"); and many quotes in the Notes are left as-is, since that is the purpose of those Notes: to let the intereested readers click on the superscript to see the raw data, as is commonly done in academic footnotes. That said, if you see more quotes that should be converted to paraphrase, let me know. Noleander (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a native speaker, but isn't it "served her sentence" instead of completed her sentence?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does New York's highest court refer to the New York Supreme Court?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In New York, and only in New York, the highest court is the "Appeals Court", and the next lower court is the "Supreme Court". This has caused confusion in the legal world for centuries. In the Judge Crane case discussed in the article , it is the highest court (the "Appeals court"). To avoid confusing readers, I think it is best to say "highest court". Noleander (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be best to clarify which court. I believe others might arrive at the same incorrect conclusion as I did. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DATERANGE, it's "1920–1921" instead of 1920–21.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotation marks in She described the experience as "weird" and... imply she was mistaken. Is there a conflicting account? If she's not contradicted, the quotation marks are not needed here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of her surviving brothers was College Football Hall of Fame player and Pennsylvania State University Head Football coach Bob Higgins. seems out of place in "Death" section as it is mentioned only there. Wouldn't it be better off in the "Early life" where her family is discussed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Removed the entire sentence about her brother. Not really needed anywhere in the article. He is already named & linked in the InfoBox at top of the article. Noleander (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done because, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should summarize information, i.e. everything in the infobox should be already stated and referenced in the prose body. If he is not mentionworthy in the article (I'd say it is worth mentioning her relationship with another notable person), he should not be listed in the infobox. (The same applies to the grandson.) At an FA level, where comprehensive coverage is required, I'd expect to find the information in the article; at the GA level where only main aspects of the topic are required to be covered, it would probably be OK to leave him out as well. In all, he cannot be in the infobox without being mentioned in the prose. Tomobe03 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Havelock Ellis is introduced twice (and mentioned by first and last name an additinal time), once as a physician and sexologist, and once as a psychologist and sexologist. He should be introduced only once, of course, and should be referred to by his last name only at the second reference per MOS:SURNAME--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done However, I kept is full name later at "... including close friends Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, and notables W.E.B. Du Bois and Winston Churchill ... " because using last names there sounds very odd: "... including close friends Ellis and Wells, and notables Du Bois and Winston Churchill ... " But I can remove the first names there, if you want. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early 1900s, when Sanger started on her path as an activist, abortion was illegal in all 50 states... sounds odd because in the early 1900s, no matter how the period is defined, the United states had 45-48 states, depending on the exact date. I know what you were getting at, but "...illegal in all the United States..." or something along those lines would be better.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Good catch. Noleander (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact" in In fact, for the first 16 years of operation,... sounds like an editorial and should be removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Sanger's feminist activism can be considered, additionally, as advocacy for free speech. is editorial. Does the source (Engelman) consider her activism as advocacy for free speech (or someone else). Say specifically who (by name(s) or "the majority/minority view") considers it so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, not sure how to handle that. The 2ndary sources say she did many feminist activities, and the sources (separately) say that she did (the same actions) in a fight for free speech. I put that ".. considered, additionally ..." sentence in as a transition sentence, to gradually ease the reader from feminism/womens right into Free Speech. I don't mind removing the sentence, but the section would start very abruptly. I'll look in the sources and see if I can find something better & more justifiable. As a last resort I can remove it. Noleander (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I changed that first sentence to Historian Peter Engelman characterizes Sanger's activism during years 1914 to 1916 as advocacy for free speech.. That removes any editorializing, and is 100% supported by the citation, which is the chapter in Engelmans book, with the chapter name "Birth Control and Free Speech". It is not the most elegant sentence, but it is better than an abrupt "why are we talking about free speech" start to the section. Noleander (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Du Bois and Churchill are indeed notable, so is Wells. I'd recommend replacing and notables with "as well as" as a more neutral term (or something similar).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading After the U.S. Supreme court decided that involuntary sterilization was legal in 1927 – she began to endorse sterilization (in addition to her first choice, contraception) as a mechanism to improve the genetics of the human race..., I thought you meant "involuntary sterilization", but after I read the rest of the sentence ...and even suggested involuntary sterilization in some situations. I'm wondering if the first "sterilization" is refering to involuntary sterilization or otherwise. Could you please clarify?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Improved the wording. She never promoted sterilization until involuntary sterilization became legal. Then she started to mention both voluntary sterilization (for anyone who wanted it) and involuntary (in some special circumstances). Noleander (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ...wanted even fit parents to limit the size of their families... "fit" should be in quotation marks or it is missing qualifier "such" since the term "fit" is initially marked by quotes per MOS:QUOTEPOV--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Put quotes around "fit". Noleander (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In She was not alone – African American academic W. E. B. Du Bois... it seems "African American academic" is redundant as it is already established in the prose who he is. Is the name normally spelled with spaces between the initials?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference is to leave "African American" modifier there, for a couple of reasons: (1) some readers may jump directly to the Eugenics section (which is definitely the most heavily-read section in the article) and not know who Du Bois is; and (2) The fact that he was African American is significant in this context, and adds nuance to the sentence. But I have no objections to removing it if you think it is for the best.
    Regarding spaces between W. E. B.. ... yes, spaces are correct. He was a special man: very sharp dresser, immaculate manners, and pronounced his last name in a unique way ("Da Boyz") when every other Du Bois in the world pronounces it as "Du Bwah". I rewrote his WP article and got it to FA status, many years ago. Noleander (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be nitpicking, but saying "contraception became legal in the U.S. (by year XYZ)" may be more informative than contraception is now legal in the U.S..--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read Two television films have portrayed Sanger's life as well as two graphic novels. I immediately wondered which films and which novels. Could you specify?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the best thing to do for those. The TV films are minor, and the two graphic novels are even more obscure. I did not add that info into the article myself. Mentioning the 2 graphic novels is almost spam, and I've thought about removing them. The identity (and URL for) the four items are available to the reader by clicking on the citation superscript numbers in that sentence. I think the choices available to us are:
    1. Keep it as is
    2. Delete all mentions of the items
    3. Move the items into the "Sources" section as full blown sources, and leave the items in the body, and use CITEREF link so the item names are blue text in the body and user can click on the blue and be taken to the Sources section.
    4. Create an "In Popular Culture" section and put them there. In fact, they were in such as section a couple of months ago, and it looked ugly & out of character for the article, so I deleted that section and added the current text into the Legacy section
    Complicating matters is the fact that both the graphic novels & one of the TV shows are very minor & spammy; but one TV show is legit. I'm not sure what to do. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldly picked an option. Tomobe03 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly prose, but since MOS issues are already tackled here: Comstock Act, diaphragm, Tucson and Margaret Sanger Award are wikilinked twice in the prose body, quite close together so only the first instance of the links should remain per MOS:OVERLINK.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Noleander (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following removal of editorializing, I'd assess the article as fairly presenting positions of advocates/supporters and critics, giving due weight to all the expressed opinions and placing them in appropriate context.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  • ...
Regarding the "Notes" section in the article, you'll notice that the article has a relatively large number of Notes, and that some of them are fairly detailed ... perhaps some background on that decision would be helpful for the GA review.
The large number of Notes is deliberate. There is a large and influential anti-abortion movement in the U.S., and they post a very large amount of Sanger-related material in social media, most of it false. Their ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion, and perhaps even birth control.
There are multiple reliable, scholarly sources that discuss the false claims (although, there is no single book yet devoted to the topic), so there is ample sourcing available to rebut the falsehoods. The question is how to present it in the article.
The primary justification for a large number of notes is that many high-visibility people repeat the falsehoods, in particular: many U.S. government officials repeat the falsehoods (usually in the context of opposing abortion). Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v. Wade and enabled each state to outlaw abortion. The Dobbs decision, and a predecessor decision (Box) both indirectly included some falsehoods about Sanger.
Since one of the roles of Wikipedia is to provide a place for people to perform fact-checking, I put more-than-average number of notes into this article to assist those users. It is a difficult balancing act: the false accusations are fringe theories (or conspiracy theories) ... as such they should not be dignified by discussion in this Sanger article. Should the WP article on Earth spend words discussing the flat-earth fringe theory? No, because in that case, fact checkers have a separate article they can go to for insight: Modern flat Earth beliefs. I think the WP policy on fringe/conspiracy theories is covered in WP:FRINGE (including WP:PROFRINGE and WP:ONEWAY).
For Sanger: there is no article dedicated to the conspiracy theories surrounding her. So, where can fact checkers go to research the false claims? At the moment, the only article is this Margaret Sanger article. My approach to this dilemma is to put information into the Notes that help fact checkers get the information they need, while leaving the body text free from contamination by fringe theories.
Even in the Notes, I avoided giving publicity or credence to the conspiracy theorists, so there are no links to the fringe theorists, except one, as an example: "A representative anti-abortion publication critical of Sanger is Catholic theologian Angela Franks' book: Franks, Angela (2005). Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility..."
Much of the same logic applies to multiple citations for a single sentence: normally one cite per sentence is sufficient (and good style) ... but for some sections (namely Eugenics, Afr-American relations, Abortion, and Attacks from Anti-Abortion movement) I included two or more cites (when appropriate) to provide multiple, useful viewpoints/angles to readers & fact-checkers.
Another, secondary, purpose of the detailed Notes is to forestall future edit wars. Misguided editors, by themselves, are not justification to add extensive Notes into an article, but the focus of past edit wars does provide guidance on the kind of details that fact-checkers will need.
Maybe some day there will be a separate WP article Conspiracy theories regarding abortion and birth control. But such an article does not exist today. -- Noleander (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with any number of notes. Casual readers will ignore them, those interested in detail will read them. I think Spinning off notes into a separate article (most likely a list would be the most suitable format) sounds like a good idea since the article is long-ish (6k words), although I don't find it excessively long read. Tomobe03 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to use the sfn template for prose references, and harvnb templates for notes references? MOS:REFERENCES explicitly referred to by GA criterion 2a advises consistency within an article. Since it says "should be consistent" (i.e. not must be consistent), I assume this solution is also acceptable and therefore no dealbreaker. It just seems an odd solution, especially since using the sfn template in the notes would remove some clutter from the notes.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale was that - ideally - the user would only have to click once to get all the information. I was trying to avoid a two clicks: once on a Note superscript [a] (to read the note); then a second click on the numerical superscript within the Note e.g. [33] to see the source. Seems user-unfriendly to require two clicks. That said, the article has some Notes that require two clicks because of <ref name="someName/> . cites.
    I'm treating the Notes & Citations as peers. The distinction between Notes & Citations I was aiming for in this article was (a) Notes are optional, and could be removed without impacting the overall article; and (b) Notes generally have some prose (tho there are a couple of Notes that do not have prose, where the Note contains a couple of less-important cites, and the Note exists simply to reduce superscript clutter in the body text).
    So, that was the rationale. I don't really have strong feelings about it one way or another. I propose this: let me first make a pass thru the Notes and add cites to them (as you have listed below) and then we can see how it looks.
    Regarding MOS:REFERENCES: I believe this article meets the intention of the "consistent" citation guideline; my impression of that guideline is that the _format_ of citations must be similar when viewed by the reader; i.e. do not mix harvard with non-harvard; and do not mix bare URLs with {{cite web}}. I thought the intention of that guideline was focusing on the appearance of the cites from the reader's point of view, but I could be wrong.
    Or, if you are referring to "references in the middle of a Note" as being not consistent, if one views the Notes as peers of the Citations (i.e. a Note is a Citation with some extra prose) then the current approach is fairly consistent (except for those Notes that contain numerical superscript cites).

Noleander (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose referencing

[edit]
  • Alexander C. Sanger is mentioned only in the infobox. He should be included in the prose if he warrants inclusion in the infobox. His relationship is also unreferenced now. Please provide a reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Removed two relatives from InfoBox that have WP articles, but are not mentioned in body of this article, because they did not play an important part in MS's life. One relative remains in the InfoBox sister Ethel Byrne. Noleander (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of "Education and expansion" is not referenced. It is not that controversial, but everything should be backed up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Added cite. Noleander (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of the "Free speech" subsection is unreferenced. I suspect that the reference used to back up the note (v) would do here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Added cite with specific dates & sources for four arrests related to free speech. Still need to resolve the global "note & reference consistency" issue. Noleander (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll perform spot-checks of the references once the prose and notes referencing issues are addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Still working on this. All footnotes ("Notes") now use the superscript approach for sources/citations that you recommended. But I'm still working on formatting, consistency, and quality. Should be ready about one day from now. Noleander (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tomobe03 - Thanks for your patience. I have finished the task of converting all the footnotes (Notes) to use the sfn superscript notation, as you suggested. The article looks a lot cleaner now, and it, I believe, conforms to the MOS "consistent cites" requirement. I'm aware there are a couple of other remaining issues you raised above (e.g. mentioning Sanger's brother or not), and I'll get to those soon. I'm heading off to sleep, but you can resume your review, any time you want. Noleander (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

MOS

[edit]
  • MOS issues have been identified in prose/notes sections above and dealt with in the meantime (only lede section remains to be reviewed/concerns addressed), but I posted those in the following subsection.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Coigney, Virginia (1969), Margaret Sanger: Rebel With a Cause, Doubleday is missing available source information such as URL available here: [1], and OCLC number available here [2]. Presently the reference is given as a plain text, which is fine, but these parameters would be nicely handled by the cite book template as used elsewhere in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed the source, because it is not utilized in the article. This is puzzling, because I have tool enabled that highlights sources that are not referenced (by any cite); that tool was not highlighting the Coigney source (yet it does/did work for other sources in the past). Not sure why the tool failed for Coigney source. Noleander (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Noleander (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference spot-checks

[edit]

...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Sanger&oldid=1272143478"