Talk:Margaret Sanger

Religion of Margaret Sanger

Regarding recent edit by IP: "Sanger called herself an Episcopalian in an interview with Mike Wallace." That is a true statement. But it is a primary source, better would be a secondary source. None of her major biographers mentions her belonging to any specific religion: My impression from reading all the biographies is that she was rather non-theistic. A secondary source that is fairly reliable is the M. Sanger Papers project, which has this to say:

As for the claim that Sanger was an atheist, one who denies the existence of god, it too is untrue. Sanger herself identified as Episcopalian in a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace. She was raised Catholic, married a Jewish man, and eventually joined her second husband, J. Noah Slee, in the Episcopalian Church. She had both of her sons baptized in the Episcopalian faith, a choice that was obviously her own because their father, William Sanger, was Jewish and, thus, would not have advocated for baptism. While it is true that told her son, Grant, that she had “outgrown the need of Church” in a letter written in 1928, she also said in the same letter that she has “no objection to [Grant] joining the church & being confirmed.

Source for the above is: Jill Grimaldi "Margaret Sanger: Closeted Atheist Marxist? Probably Not" 10 Dec 2010 https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/tag/atheist/

I'll see if I can condense that somehow, and replace the newly added "Episcopalian" sentence, and find a better section for it. Noleander (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Emphasizing what I wrote in the previous section, accepting under pending changes (which I did) merely means "not vandalism" and is not an endorsement of the edit. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I saw your comment above. You did the right thing. Noleander (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I found a mention of religion in Chesler p 245 "She [Sanger] was an atheist" ... this in the chapter on her 1922 marriage to her 2nd husband. Chesler and others hint that Sanger more-or-less adopted Episcopal church, to a small degree, after the 2nd marriage. And even then it was in a spiritual sense, not a dogmatic/religious sense. Noleander (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I completed editing the religion info. If anyone sees any issues, let me know. Noleander (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Placement of pronunciation (audio & phonetic) - First sentence not ideal location

The very first sentence of this article had both phonetic spelling and audio pronunciation included. They look really distracting in that location. The article had only the phonetic spelling for awhile, but audio was added recently, so now it is even more distracting in that location. MOS has guidance at MOS:PRONFOOTNOTE and MOS:PRONPLACEMENT which suggest moving it out of 1st sentence if "distracting".

I can find no other FA-quality biographical articles that have any pronunciation info in the lead. Perhaps if the name "Sanger" had an unexpected or bizarre pronunciation, it should be in the lead (even then: it would be better in 2nd sentence or later); but the pronunciation of "Sanger" is very straightforward. And, are we even sure how she pronounced it? For those reasons, I moved the phonetic spelling and audio pronunciation into a footnote. No information was deleted .. just moved.

The article will be on the Main Page of WP in 3 days, so it should probably be as tidy & attractive as possible between now and then. Noleander (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

And I'm not even sure the footnote is required. The MOS states " For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling; use it only for loanwords from other languages (coup d'etat), names with counterintuitive pronunciation (Leicester, Ralph Fiennes), or very unusual words (synecdoche). " (from WP:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate_use). Noleander (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Footnote is better than inline, and removal is better than footnote. There's nothing unexpected about this name's pronunciation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time I've encountered pronunciation added into an article I've done significant work on, so I'm just now learning the MOS guidelines. I agree that removing the pronunciation altogether is appropriate and consistent with the MOS. But maybe we can wait a day or so to give other editors a chance to provide input. In particular, an editor added the audio file just yesterday, and I don't want them to perceive that we are recklessly undoing their change. Noleander (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no arguments in favor of keeping the pronunciation info, I'll remove it from the article. If anyone thinks it should be restored, please discuss here on Talk page first (especially, the MOS guidance "For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling..."). Noleander (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

See also?

Jut wondering if a 'See also' section would be useful, with Marie Stopes. Stronach (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I had a sentence about Stopes in the article:

[[Marie Stopes]], a British academic whose life would parallel Sanger's life in many ways, met Sanger and began a transatlantic collaboration that would last for several years.{{sfn|Baker|2011|p=91}}{{sfn|Chesler|2007|p=139}}

I removed it during the FA review process to make the text tighter. I have no objection to it going back in. It was right after where she met Havelock Ellis.

Or a See Also section is fine... But I've always subscribed to the theory that See also section should be unneeded because all important articles should already be mentioned in the body and linked there.

I wonder if she's in one of the categories at the bottom of the article, those are a kind of See Also. Noleander (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Racism?

The footnotes feed the myth that there were "non-racist eugenicists" -- the very term meant "racial hygiene." This needs to be a whole section to avoid the entry being turned into a hagiography, which this entry is at this stage. - Special:Contributions/197.230.69.98

If you have specific changes you are suggesting for the article, please post some quotes from reliable sources (WP:RS), so we can discuss. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether there were non-racist eugenicists. But I wonder where anyone got the idea that the word eugenics means "racial hygeine." The prefix "eu-" seems to mean "good" and "gene" is related to "genesis", meaning origins. It was supposed to be about "good origins." However, I am surprised to see so little about Sanger's racism in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have specific changes you are suggesting for the article, please post some quotes from reliable sources (WP:RS), so we can discuss. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

AGREED. THEY ONLY SHOW PARTS OF HISTORY THEY WANT US TO SEE. PATHETIC 24.192.91.8 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the detailed and well-sourced section Margaret Sanger#Sanger's approach to eugenics? If Sanger were such a racist, why would Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, who was the most prominent spokesman for Black liberation of his time (and who also generally supported eugenicist ideas) support her work? NightHeron (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that having the specific facts in that area is the best thing rather than worrying about (ahistorically) characterizing them using a fluid terminology. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding details about legality of abortion into lead section?

An editor is attempting to add misleading details about the legality of abortion into the lead. This article is about a person, not a medical procedure. The legality of abortion is extremely complicated topic that varies over time and place. The only reason abortion is even mentioned in the lead to begin with is the anti-abortion movement continually publishes the false statement that Sanger supported abortion. There's already an entire section devoted to abortion in the article. Adding a word or two into the lead without context will mislead readers. If someone wants to add more information to the lead please discuss here in the talk page, first. Noleander (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading to say that abortions were "generally illegal", but it is redundant to the earlier "In the early 1900s, contraceptives, abortion, and even birth control literature were illegal in much of the U.S" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, there is some redundancy there. Tho the two sentences are a bit distinct, since the "in the early 1900s" is referring to a specific time frame, and painting the legal situation at the time Sanger was starting her activism. This is important in the lead to shed light on her motivations around 1910-1915. Later, some states started to legalize medically necessary abortions.

The problem with adding "generally illegal" is that it is misleading. The lead could just as accurately say "abortion was ....":

1. "generally illegal, but rarely prosecuted"
2. "generally legal when the mothers health was endangered"
3. "extremely common"
4. "desired by a large portion of the visitors to Sanger's clinics".

Each one of those alternatives is valid (although the validity varies over time) but they each convey a different emphasis to the reader. Rather than pick one, better to put all the nuance & details into the existing body section about Abortion.

The primary reason for the "abortions not performed" in the lead section is because the neutral, scholarly sources emphasize it. Why do they emphasize it? because when readers google "Margaret Sanger abortion" the top results are flooded with falsehoods promulgated by the anti-abortion movement that imply Sanger _did_ support abortion. Thus, the lead contains a key fact from scholarly sources that addresses a very common falsehood seen in Google search results.

If someone has reliable sources that emphasize another aspect of Sanger's views on abortion (not on abortion itself ... this article is about Sanger, not abortion) please provide quotes from the sources here in the Talk page so we can evaluate and discuss. Noleander (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)