Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Suggested Edit under "Social Activism"

I am just learning about Sanger, so I do not feel qualified to edit, however this sentence seems problematic:

"Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia."

Why is Sanger's politics attributed to her husband? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslaw (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lotuslaw, good question. That paragraph appears to be sourced to Woman of Valor, and I cannot seem to find in that book any claim that she took on her husband's politics; rather, the couple simply seemed to be in agreement with their interests in socialism. I'm going to remove that opening clause. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. I got an edit conflict. It looks like I was editing at the same time as Schazjmd. Well, anyway, here is what I was writing:

Welcome to the subject area. I think you have a healthy skepticism. There are numerous instances of conflating Sanger's beliefs with someone else's around her and vice versa.

That being said, I think this particular passage is consistent with her autobiography. The way she described it, radical politics was more her husband's scene that she got into by way of her husband. For instance: Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.W.W.’s could meet. These vehement individualists had to have an audience, preferably a small, intimate one. They really came to see Bill; I made the cocoa. I used to listen in, not at all sure my opinions would be accepted by this very superior group. When I did meekly venture something, I was quite likely to find myself on the opposite side—right in a left crowd and vice versa.

(As an aside, that last sentence always stuck out with me because I've felt that way numerous times.)

For what it is worth, I don't particularly care for the passage one way or the other. It abstracts away so many details that I'm not sure what to make of it. She "threw herself" into the radical politics of her time\place, but that meant she disagreed with some things and agreed with some things, sometimes respected the people she disagreed with, etc. etc.

FecundityBlog (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Woman of Valor addresses those early years in New York this way: "Having dabbled in Socialist politics, and even as suburbanites attended party meetings in Yonkers, the Sangers joined New York City's active Socialist Party Local 5. " "Margaret was quickly recruited for the party's women's committee, but unsure of herself and uncertain of the strength of her comrades' interest in women's issues, she deferred to her husband." "As a measure of her own diffidence in those years, however, Margaret recalled that these people really came to see her husband..." I just don't see being shy or "diffident" as any support for the implication that she derived her leftist politics from her husband, particularly after an upbringing by a freethinker father that probably influenced how she came to her political leanings (and could possibly be what attracted her to that husband).

I agree with FecundityBlog about the rest of the sentence..."threw herself into" is rather meaningless, while the sentences that follow are factual and specific. Maybe it should also go? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is "threw herself into" an accurate paraphrasing of the source (Chesler's biography)? If not, perhaps it can be replaced with "became involved in", which is more factual. NightHeron (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, I don't think so. Here are the current sentences in the article:

In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...

I quoted the Chesler biography above, and suggest this alternative which is more clearly supported by the biography:

In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. The couple became active in local socialist politics. Margaret Sanger joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World...

Thoughts? Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd Your modified version looks good to me. Just one minor editing change: replace the comma in the last sentence with "and". NightHeron (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, oh, I cut off that sentence (...) in quoting; the full sentence is She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence textile strike and the 1913 Paterson silk strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman. (with a number of wikilinks in there as well) Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd Thanks. Now it looks fine to me. NightHeron (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I see the criticism of "Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics" better now. It does make it sound like her beliefs were derived from her husband's. I think in my head I switched it to mean what wrote in her autobiography. Good catch. FecundityBlog (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"Anti-abortion activist"

MS had her objections to abortion, and wrote plenty against it, but I don't think it's right to call her an "anti-abortion activist", especially not in the lead paragraph. When she mentioned abortion, it was always in order to support legalizing contraceptives and making them available and well-known. She didn't try to strengthen laws against abortion or to prevent abortions in any way other than by making contraceptives legal, available, and well-known.

So I think the article will be better if we keep her objections to abortion in the "Views" section, not in the lead paragraph.

From time to time we have a similar debate when right-wingers try to put "eugenicist" or "supporter of eugenics" into the lead paragraph. Yes, she agreed with the core principle of eugenics (that our decisions about breeding could improve future generations' pool of heritable traits), but support for eugenics was not her primary mission. When she mentioned eugenics, or abortion, it was always as a reason for legalizing, and advertising, and promoting, birth control. Her primary mission was supporting women's right to use birth-control for whatever reasons the women wanted to use it: no matter whether for eugenic reasons, or for financial reasons, or in order to avoid the stress of giving birth too many times without having to withhold sex from their husbands, or in order to avoid having abortions, or for any other reason.

Responses, and debate, and, ultimately, consensus, are welcome! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Sanger tried to prevent abortions (and certainly back-street abortions) by making other birth-control options available. To call her an anti-abortion activist is plain incorrect. The Banner talk 10:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that she was definitely not an anti-abortion activist. Actually, I don't see that term used in the lead. The term "anti-abortion advocate" is used in the infobox. The latter term is arguably correct, but it might be WP:UNDUE to put it in the infobox for the reasons given above. I'm neutral on whether or not that should be removed from the infobox. Whether or not "anti-abortion advocate" stays in the infobox, the term "birth control activist" needs to be added there, since that was much more central to her life than anti-abortion advocacy. NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

black/Black

IP editor 72.69.127.200 has capitalized almost all uses of 'black' as an ethno-racial color label (to 'Black'). Current guideline at MOS:PEOPLELANG allows for either use, and best practice is to discuss changes between acceptable styles before making them. That said, I support 72's changes. I think the clear national ties to the US, where 'Black' is commonly supported by style guides, is reason enough for the switch. Any objections? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalise all (White/Black) or capitalise none (white/black). You might question the motives of these style guides: does anyone really think that suddenly police are going to stop murdering unarmed black men, or that housing discrimination will end over night because the New York Times started calitalising Black but not white? No. And those newspapers KNOW better - they're only jumping on the bandwagon because they think it will boost THEIR OWN image. And so they can pretend like they're all promoting social justice while really not doing a damn thing.

We have no such special interest strings tying us down, and we are not beholden to what commercial newspapers make of their practices.

Furthermore, every time you capitalise Black and don't capitalise white, you are enabling white supremacists and KKK groups, by giving them evidence of their "racism against whites" BS; don't do their recruiting for them. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1016:1F91:1572:29CC (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that capitalizing Black does not accomplish anything concrete in reducing killings of Black people by the police or anything else, and The New York Times does not deserve boundless praise for deciding to capitalize Black. However, there is a good rationale for capitalizing the word. In the U.S. most Black people share a common culture and history. White people don't. The basis for Black nationalism was to unite the Black community in the struggle against oppression. Whites as a group are not oppressed (although poor whites are often badly treated). The basis for so-called "white nationalism" is hatred of racial minorities. Your claim that capitalizing Black helps white supremacists recruit lacks credibility. Do you have any evidence for such an extraordinary claim? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

where is the actual cite for this

"In her autobiography, she justified her decision to address them by writing "Always to me any aroused group was a good group," meaning that she was willing to seek common ground with anyone who might help promote legalization and awareness of birth-control. She described the experience as "weird", and reported that she had the impression that the audience were all half-wits, and, therefore, spoke to them in the simplest possible language, as if she were talking to children." 04:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:300:6C30:45A9:CBF7:79C2 (talk)

Reference #16, pp. 366-367 MFNickster (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No Proof She Was Anti Abortion

"However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortions throughout the bulk of her professional career, declining to participate in them as a nurse."

This is not found at all in the Planned Parenthood link, and Planned Parenthood makes it repeatedly clear that she would be 100% for their mission, which includes abortion. Why this sudden attempt to rewrite her to make it sound like she opposed her own company? Page three is the most important part and it does not have her opposed to abortion. 2601:154:C480:D650:D8FE:8957:D565:4F49 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ample references and a detailed explanation are given in the main body, in the section on abortion. NightHeron (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Chesler quote

The quotation by the author of the definitive biography of Sanger has been in the article for over 4 years. I reverted the removal because Chesler's statement deals in a balanced way with a controversial aspect of Sanger, and it's an analysis by an expert on Sanger. According to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, if a substantive change in the stable version of an article is disputed, the onus is on an editor who wants the change to seek consensus for the change on the talk-page. Until a consensus is reached, the stable version should remain without the change. NightHeron (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree on both the content and procedural points. The content should be restored pending some change in consensus. In a section that is, I think, over-reliant on primary sources, the loss of this reliably sourced, secondary content is damaging to the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the quote should (continue to be) included. Modern analysis of a historical figure is important to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely should be included. NightHeron and Fffeathers give good reasons. The quote also contextualizes Sanger's ideas and actions; see Presentism. Maybe we should identify Chesler again, who is quoted numerous times but whose name is buried in the social activism section. Remember that most readers only skim through articles and would think, "Who's Chesler?" I suggest the following text, to which I've restored the word "unequivocally," which is in Chesler's book. I've made it into a simple quotation rather than using a quote template, and just for the talk page have omitted refs.

She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. Yet biographer Ellen Chesler comments, "Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since." YoPienso (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The comments are clearly a justification and don't reference any evidence except the opinion of her biographer. Further it can and should be argued that failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of your cause is racist. This is the prominent claim against known racist individuals like Donald Trump. 66.25.197.180 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As section 1.5 of the article explains, some of the leading African American activists and intellectuals of the 20th century, such as W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr., had excellent relations with Sanger and supported her work. A bit different from Donald Trump. NightHeron (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, I'm not sure the "yet" is justified, but I'd be fine with your proposal if it were just "Biographer Ellen ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That quotation absolutely belongs to the article, as it is a reliable source and brings balance to the article. Removing it makes the article non-neutral. The Banner talk 17:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Far from it, the quotation is moralization, an attempt to recontextualize the subject according to the author's world view. It has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. We can trust our readers to make their own moral determinations, we should stick with fact and ditch the opinions. Schwarzschild Point • 17:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We can trust our readers to make their own moral determinations, we should stick with fact and ditch the opinions. True, and that is just the argument here to keep the quotation. The Banner talk 17:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a shockingly dishonest take, Banner. It makes me question your objectivity on this subject at all Schwarzschild Point • 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Banner is correct. Your accusation that another editor is "shockingly dishonest" is a violation of WP:NPA and could result in sanctions. On a related subject, it turns out that your contribution page shows that before you removed the Chesler quotation a few hours ago your account had made zero edits for the previous 6 1/2 years. That seems peculiar, to say the least. NightHeron (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

IP 66.25.197.180, the biographer's opinion is fact-based; according to Harvard a publisher's blurb, the book "is acclaimed as definitive and is widely used and cited by scholars and activists alike in the fields of women's health and reproductive rights."

IP 66.25.197.180, did you check out Presentism? Students of history cannot understand why people thought and acted as they did in the past without understanding the context of the times. That's what the Chesler comment provides--context. And it doesn't fully justify Sanger, as Chesler notes her position "has haunted her ever since."

Firefangledfeathers, my reason for "Yet" is that Chesler's comment contrasts with Stoddard's support. But any editor is free to delete it if it makes it into the article. YoPienso (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The quotation is an attributed statement by a subject expert, and clearly does not violate NPOV. Chesler is doing her job as a historian, which is to evaluate Sanger in the context of her time. Many people of the early 20th century whom we generally admire made alliances with racists. For example the U.S. women's suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony signed a statement supporting the segregationists' demand for states rights "that was intended to mollify and bring Southern U.S. suffrage groups into the fold" (see Women's suffrage in the United States#Anti-black racism). Whether or not they deserve admiration despite that is a moral judgment for readers to make for themselves. NightHeron (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies to all for asserting Harvard had praised Chesler's book; they sell it, but the praise is Simon & Schuster's blurb. Nonetheless, it's true--Google Scholar shows 528 citations. The New York Times listed it in "Notable Books of the Year 1992." Women's Media Center has a biography on her; I suppose I should create one here at WP. YoPienso (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect. But I would highly appreciate it when you create the article about Chesler. The Banner talk 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to create the BLP yourself since it's doubtful I'll get around to it. YoPienso (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There is now a substantial Wikidata record for Ellen Chesler. Peaceray (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've adjusted the quote, but the Chesler ref has an odd "15" floating there. I think it's a page number, but I can't fix it. I do only simple refs, not templated ones. YoPienso (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Chesler commented on Sanger's not being a racist herself needs to be connected to the fact that she was supported by an overt racist. Therefore, I began the sentence with "Although," and reconnected it to the first clause. I also removed the phrase about Stoddard being a board member of the ABCL; that belongs in his bio, not Sanger's, or at least not in this section of Sanger's. I pasted the whole thing into the Stoddard talk page. (It wasn't a run-on sentence, btw, just long, and containing unnecessary info.) YoPienso (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the changes for several reasons. First, the fact that Stoddard was on the Board of Directors of Sanger's ABCL belongs there, because it shows that Sanger's involvement with Stoddard was deeper than just that he supported her. Sanger isn't responsible for who supported her, but she controlled the ABCL and is responsible for inviting Stoddard to be on the Board of Directors. Without that detail it's not clear why anyone would fault Sanger on the issue of racism. Second, Chesler doesn't connect her statement on racism specifically to Stoddard, and there were other questionable race-related decisions by Sanger (for example, speaking to the New Jersey Women's Auxiliary of the KKK). The wording "Although..., Chesler commented" implies that Chesler was directly responding to Sanger's connection with Stoddard. Third, there is no need to make the paragraph into one long sentence. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole section is problematic. What is racism even doing in the eugenics section? Shouldn't it be in the "Work with the African American community" section? Why is Stoddard identified as a Klansman? He was, but only among many other things. I realize these topics (African American community, eugenics, racism) overlap, but there's little cohesion in the section. It needs a bigger fix than what we've tried.

Specifically to your reversion, as it stands, we have two unrelated sentences jammed together. What's the point of the paragraph? Certainly Stoddard was a proponent of her cause, so there's no reason not to join the sentences to make the point that even though she collaborated with racists she wasn't one. YoPienso (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is divided into a section on her life and activities and a section on her views. Her work with the African American community clearly belongs where it is, in the former section. The reasons for concern about Sanger's racial views and Chesler's response to those concerns belong in the section on Sanger's views and specifically the eugenics subsection, because the eugenics movement of the time was the context for the relationship between birth control advocates and racists such as Stoddard.

I really don't understand your comment Why is Stoddard identified as a Klansman? He was, but only among many other things. He's identified as a Klansman to make it clear that Wikipedia is not referring to him as a racist by today's standards, but by the standards of any time. It's extremely relevant to point that out. NightHeron (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I propose moving the Stoddard/Chesler passage up to the second paragraph of the "Eugenics" section, where racial issues are discussed. YoPienso (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. NightHeron (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Transparency

It is undeniably fact that Margaret Sanger was a prominent American eugenics. The debate is whether or not her eugenics was her reasoning for founding planned parenthood. Many independent requests have been made to include the statement of fact the Margaret Sanger was a eugenics and each time it has been shut down, presumably out of the fear that this statement of historically accepted fact could lead a reader to come to distasteful conclusions about Margaret Sanger as whole. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors or any honest informational writer to omit facts out of fear that the facts may sway a readers opinion. In fact, it is extremely disingenuous and disgusting. It is the duty of honest editors to make all statements of fact clear, not to play to public opinion and heroify people. This article should be greatly expanded to go into depth on Margaret Sanger's beliefs on eugenics and all facts, including those that may show her founding of Planned Parenthood to be, as is with the current narrative, not racist. The addition of eugenics into this article does not have to be biased. It does however absolutely need to be included. JoIsAGod (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You're entitled to your personal opinion of Sanger, but your POV is ahistorical. In her time, most of the influential thinkers of the day were at least somewhat sympathetic to eugenics. Sanger was a moderate compared to many (for example, she was opposed to coercion). Eugenics was not what she was known for, and was not a significant part of her outlook. As you admit, the issue of identifying her as a eugenicist has been discussed repeatedly, and a consensus of Wikipedia editors agrees with the above assessment. Your edit was counter to that consensus.

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you want anyone to take you seriously, don't start out by accusing other editors of being "extremely disingenuous and disgusting". NightHeron (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron I do assume your good faith in this subject.

Here are some more facts for you to consider:

Alexis mcGill Johnson, the president of Planned Parenthood, herself has stated: "… as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood's founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people."

And I believe Planned Parenthood NY has removed Sangers from its founder's name:

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html

And a few other quotes I have posted below to show what she really has believed.

In response to your comment on "In her time, most of the influential thinkers of the day were at least somewhat sympathetic to eugenics.", I have commented below and here repeating again that she was not just showing sympathy, she took good faith actions and was impactful:

1) She invited people who owned a concentration camp in South Africa to speak on her conferences;

2) Her organization the League worked closely with American Eugenic Association, sharing offices, opinions/articles.

3) She had MA KKK high official Lothorop Stoddard to be on her board.

She was among the elite class of the day. These people together influenced people like Adolf Hitler.

These facts cannot be ignored and should made known to anyone who is interested. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

JoIsAGod, your comments also ignore that there is a lengthy section in the article specifically on Sanger and eugenics. If you have reliable sources that include information that is not addressed adequately in the article, please bring them to the talk page for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@JoIsAGod: First, as per MOS:FIRST, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Sanger is not predominantly known for being a eugenicist. Any attempt to make her known primarily for this is a clear example of tendentious editing & thus a violation of the second pillar of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

Second, you, as well as others, may derive the notion that Sanger was racist from her "Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble". December 10, 1939.. In this letter she states We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. This statement can be read one of two ways. In a negative reading, it would be and attempt to deceive African-Americans. In a positive reading, it would be in the "please don't let me be misunderstood" vein; that the benefit of offering birth control to the African-American community should be not be construed as an attempt to reduce their numbers any more than any other American. Given the fact that W. E. B. Du Bois & both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the Work with the African-American community section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly original research. Peaceray (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Eugenics and Birth Control

How do you justify this text:

She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and that poverty was hereditary.

The referenced link states:

"Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." Jogershok (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

We base what we say about her on high-quality WP:RSes cited throughout the article, which are written by experts who consider the full context rather than a single out-of-context pull-quote. They say that she opposed eugenics along racial lines, so we say the same. (In particular I feel like you may be misunderstanding the line in question - "negative eugenics" summarizes the quote you highlighted.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Eugenics should be mentioned in the very beginning of the article's lead; neutrality dispute.

Margaret Sanger is widely recognized as a eugenicist by numerous reliable sources, including Planned Parenthood themselves. One of the main things she is known for is for having racist ideologies and supporting eugenics on minority populations. The fact that people are so persistent on keeping it out of the classifications in the lead makes it quite obvious that there are people here who are wanting the article to be profoundly non-critical.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html

https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/

https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/

https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/even-removing-margaret-sangers-name-planned-parenthood-still-influenced-racist

https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-history.html

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11615086/

One of the main things Sanger is known for is EUGENICS AND POPULATION CONTROL. The "Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines" statement is also profoundly false. DocZach (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked the first three of your links. None call Sanger a eugenecist, but they do describe her support for some in the eugenics movement, as does our article. None say that this is "one of the main things Sanger is known for". She's such a prolifically covered figure that pulling together some sources (including opinion articles) about a given aspect of her biography is not challenging, and it does not follow that any such aspect must be mentioned in the first sentence. What broad overviews of Sanger's life forefront this facet? Of sources that have just a line to introduce her, how many say "eugenecist Margaret Sanger"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The definition of a eugenicist is somebody who supports eugenics. That's literally the definition of the word. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The definition of eugenicist is someone who supports eugenics. That's literally the meaning of the word. DocZach (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Your last edit, including a WP:CITEBOMB on "eugenicist", is inappropriate and WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You are blatantly violating WP:UNDUE, the rule reference you just referenced.

It explicitly states: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

You are purposely trying to keep out an important classification of who Margaret Sanger is. DocZach (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm violating UNDUE? How? You're looking to add a contentious label to the page that Firefangledfeathers pointed out to you is not supported as strongly as you claim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming that Margaret Sanger is not widely known as a eugenicist - that's a completely unfounded and inaccurate claim. A plethora of reliable sources refer to her as a supporter of the eugenics movement. You are deliberately excluding the classification of Sanger being a eugenicist to give the impression that Sanger is an "admirable figure of the reproductive movement," something else that this article claims. This isn't a pro-abortion encyclopedia, it is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia that provides all relevant information to readers. You are NOT fairly representing all significant viewpoints that WP:UNDUE requires. She is referred to as a eugenicist more times than she is referred to as an educator, but you seem to want to still include educator in the classifications within the lead.

(A comment by DocZach has been retracted by himself.) DocZach (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your willingness to make entirely speculative claims about editor motivations makes me eager to avoid discussing this further with you. If you'd like to strike those remarks, I'd be happy to pick it back up again. If you have NPOV concerns, you may want to bring them to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for review, though I'd ask that you keep your post focused on the content and not on your fellow editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm totally disengaging from this as well unless DocZach can demonstrate that they can assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I will strike the remarks, and I apologize for assuming bad faith. @Muboshgu @Firefangledfeathers DocZach (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Apology accepted.

Leading with a loaded term like "eugenicist" biases the reader against the subject rather than letting her words and actions speak for themselves. MOS:LABEL is our guidance on this, as these labels impair neutrality. I went to our page on Eugenics and into Category:Eugenicists to see how they're handled. Many biographies of eugenicists do not lead with "eugenicist". Francis Galton, our page says, coined the term "eugenics", and his lead does not refer to him as a "eugenicist". Hans Betzhold is presented as a "doctor who advocated eugenics", and he wrote a book titled "Eugenics" and advocated for castration of sex offenders. Sanger's lead does discuss the support of eugenics and the body does as well. I think it gives fair WP:WEIGHT to those issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a compromise that hopefully we can agree on:

Text in dispute: Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements. She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and did not believe that poverty was hereditary. However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool.

Proposed amendment: Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics, especially with her membership in the American Eugenics Society. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and those she saw as "racial mistakes."

Obviously, sources would be added as well. DocZach (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources you plan to use? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no rationale or reason to exclude eugenics from the first sentence of the lead. Planned Parenthood THEMSELVES disavowed and condemned Sanger, acknowledging that she was both racist and a eugenicist. There are TONS of sources that support a notable reality that Sanger was a eugenicist:

• Planned Parenthood (themselves): The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many others. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
• University of Chicago: Sanger saw birth control as a way to better the human race, to reduce reproduction of “lesser than” groups of society and to make society more even in terms of the “fit” and the “unfit”. Additionally, Sanger pushed her eugenic agenda especially in groups of race. Her experimentation with birth control types and clinics in black populations, while helpful in terms of allowing black women to pursue professional careers, led to medical biases toward black people that still persist today. https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/
• Sanger's My Way to Peace Speech: Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. - Margaret Sanger https://www.jstor.org/stable/48583690
• Sanger was a Eugenicist: Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech “My Way to Peace” (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. “The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.” Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her
• Sanger's Connections with Nazism: Margaret Sanger got in tight with the Ku Klux Klan circles, and cozied up to more like them. The following quote from the book “Killer Angel” discovers who some of the other friends in her new movement were: “In April of 1933, The [Birth Control] Review [Margaret Sanger’s magazine], published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”. It was written by Margaret’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and had earlier taken a role in the establishment in the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later in June of that same year, [The Birth Control Review] published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization”, which adamantly praised and defended The Third Reich’s pre-holocaust race purification programs.” https://www.courierherald.com/letters/hitler-the-ku-klux-klan-and-margaret-sanger/
• USA Today: Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for “the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/

DocZach (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you plan to use for your recent proposal (01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC))? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose there to be a third paragraph in the lead, which should be:

Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics. DocZach (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I responded to DocZach's initial edits here, to which DocZach did not respond. I will reiterate my comments here.

Please read & heed our MOS:LEAD guideline.

• MOS:LEADSENTENCE states The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is.
• MOS:LEADCLUTTER states Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
• The lead of MOS:LEAD itself states:

The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

• Information about Sanger's eugenist views has already been covered in the second paragraph of the article's lead. Sanger is not primarily known for her eugenist views. By attempting to shoehorn it into the lead sentence, you have given it undue attention, which is a violation of English Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please also see the Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view pillar.

I still feel that seeking to mention eugenics in the lead sentence is undue because Sanger is clearly primarily known for her efforts in birth control. While she may have held views common in the early 20th Century that have become rightfully abhorrent in light of racist, genocidal, & classist practices, she was hardly known for this until very recently, & the effect of her eugenist views is quite minor compared to Francis Galton, G. K. Chesterton, the American Eugenics Society, the British Eugenics Society, and US anti-miscegenation laws, to name a few. Sanger cannot be considered a major proponent of eugenism, so to mention it in the lead sentence is simply undue & fails our Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view pillar. Sanger's eugenist views are covered elsewhere in the lead & there is alread a five paragraph Eugenics section. This does not belong in the lead sentence nor does it require additional embellishment, unless there are significant citations to be added to the Eugenics section. Peaceray (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sanger was a major proponent of eugenics, as the plethora of WP:RS say. She is widely known for her support of eugenics, and she was a major figure in the movement - one that many of the people in the American Eugenics Society admired for what she proposed as a possible solution to their desire of keeping the race "pure." I think it's doing a disservice to readers to try and diminish the profound negative impact that Sanger's racism and ideologies have left on society, as even Planned Parenthood stopped giving away the Margaret Sanger Award and disavowed her themselves. It is one of the primary things that Sanger is known for. We cannot be cherry-picking which descriptors we like or don't like, we must follow what WP:RS says. And one of the major things Sanger is known for is eugenics. DocZach (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, her primary notability is for birth control. Although she was clearly known for eugenicism, I think much emphasis on this has been WP:RECENTISM & historical revisionism. As I have noted in the transparency section above, even some primary sources are open to interpretation. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, we do not mention eugenics in the lead sentence for Alexis Carrel, Charles Galton Darwin, Francis Galton, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Graham Bell, Marcus Garvey, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., John Harvey Kellogg, Nikola Tesla, or Victoria Woodhull. Yet some of these individuals had a much greater effect on the eugenics movement than Sanger.

The current mention of her eugenicist views in the lead & the five paragraph section on those views is sufficient. We do not need to overload the lead sentence with something that already has the necessary attention. Peaceray (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There are more sources describing Sanger as a eugenicist than there are describing her as a "sex educator," but such descriptor is still in the very beginning of the article's lead. You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion. We are to go off of the reliable sources, and based on the preponderance of reliable sources, Sanger is widely recognized as having been both a racist and eugenicist who had negative motives in her push for birth control.

I hope @Firefangledfeathers, @Muboshgu, and anyone else can find common ground and a consensus with me.

I'm not asking for us to remove all of the things she has accomplished or done, but I'm asking that we provide a fair article that acknowledges the well-known eugenics support by Margaret Sanger - and not one that buries it into a tiny sentence or later on in the article. This important fact belongs in the lead, it belongs as a descriptor, and it deserves due weight and consideration. DocZach (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Her being involved in eugenics is in the lead. I will not agree to putting it in the introductory sentence, and I agree with what Peaceray has said about why we shouldn't do that. I do not believe sources say she was racist, I have seen many that refute that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I just sent you numerous sources that describe her as racist, including Planned Parenthood themselves. DocZach (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If we are to go off of the reliable sources, and based on the preponderance of reliable sources, then you lose all credibility when you try to claim that she is not primarily known as a birth control proponent. Just have a look at what what is a WorldCat search has to offer:

• "su:Margaret Sanger". WorldCat Search Results.

Discounting primary sources, there are hundreds of items that have descriptions like "birth control advocate, "proponent of women's rights," & "social reformer, political radical, feminist." Sure there are a handful of sources whose descriptions have eugenics & racism in their item description, but you could hardly call that a preponderance.

At this point I need to ask you, DocZach, are you interested in providing a neutral view of Sanger? Because if you are discounting the incontrovertible evidence of her birth control advocacy, feminism, & family planning in favor of selectively emphasizing her eugenics & racism in an undue fashion, then I suggest that you move onto topics on which you can edit neutrally. I would like to assume good faith here, but that is hard when you assert of me that You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion. in the face of so many reliable sources that indicate exactly that. Peaceray (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peaceray I will not continue engaging with you if you attempt to assume that I am here with bad or impartial intentions. I remind you of the rule to assume good faith in discussions about articles, even if you believe "their actions are harmful." DocZach (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Peaceray is completely correct. Despite being at odds with the vast majority of reliable sources, over-emphasizing eugenics in this article is ahistorical. Sanger, like many humanitarians and progressives of her day, were attracted to notions of social engineering such as eugenics without being fully aware of the dangers that became obvious later. Her eugenics beliefs are well covered in the article, just not in the first sentence, for the reasons that have been explained to you multiple times. Despite our attempts to assume good faith, the edits you want to make here and in the abortion article strongly suggest that you're here to push a POV and not to edit neutrally. NightHeron (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have not assumed good faith, as you are now attacking my character instead of my argument. It is quite bold of you to assume I am here to push a POV, especially taking a look at your edit history on Wikipedia. However, I am not going to go down to your level and assume you are here with bad intentions, and I'd ask that you do the same for me.

This article is not neutral, it is an article that attempts to glorify and honor a person in history that was a racist eugenicist, and whose actions still affect the world negatively today. DocZach (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

PROPOSED COMPROMISE:

I want to propose a compromise. We can leave the eugenicist classification out of the first sentence of the lead and the short description. However, there should be a third paragraph in the lead with the text and sources I previously provided:

Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.

(see above for where the sources will be inserted)

I think this is fair, because there are a PLETHORA of sources that mention her support of eugenics, including Planned Parenthood themselves. And we can leave the classification out of the lead sentence in turn. DocZach (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing a compromise. If the criticisms of MS that you're proposing are included in the lead, the lead should also include some text summarizing the section "Work with the African American community" that's in the main body, especially the fact that two of the 20th century's greatest campaigners for civil rights of African Americans, Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., supported Sanger strongly. NightHeron (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, can I try to make the edit and then you can revert it if you don't agree, and we can talk about the parts we don't agree on? DocZach (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be much better if you proposed your text here, as you did above with your proposed compromise. Adding and reverting is not the best procedure. Working things out on the talk-page is much better. NightHeron (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

THIRD PARAGRAPH:

Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Despite criticism, Sanger's initiative to increase birth control access among African Americans also received positive attention - including among the African American community; one example being Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife accepting the "Sanger award" on his behalf. The Sanger award hasn't been given out since 2015. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.

-------------

OTHER CHANGES:

• Additional data to the Eugenics section.
• Change Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements to: Sanger remains a notable figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.

DocZach (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Object against the proposals You should have been properly warned by the first source (Opposition Claims About

Margaret Sanger) that there is a lot of disinformation around. Especially from opponents. The Banner talk 13:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What "first source" are you talking about exactly? Where is the source the first? DocZach (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You started this discussion with: Opposition Claims About Margaret Sanger And can you please leave my edits where I have put them? The Banner talk 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I provided a variety of sources for a reason. The purpose of providing that source is that Planned Parenthood themselves acknowledges that Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist, despite all of the things they try to do to water it down in that statement. DocZach (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what is incorrect about the proposal? DocZach (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

But you left out the historical context. And the historical context reduces the weight of your claims significantly (eugenics were popular at the time and the consequences poorly understood.) Following the populist trend does not make immediately bad. You are blowing things out of proportion, clashing with WP:UNDUE, as told by others before. The Banner talk 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree I should have included more historical context. I did so below in the amended proposal. DocZach (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The new "compromise" proposal is not what I suggested. It has no proper summary of the section in the main body about Sanger and the African American community. You're also proposing to remove positive references to her, skewing your proposal still further against any balance. Please make a good-faith effort at a real balance in your proposal. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this better?

Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of negative eugenics. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and forced sterilization, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. However, Sanger's initiative to increase birth control access among African Americans also received positive attention - including among the African American community; one example being Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife accepting the "Sanger award" on his behalf. Historians often note that eugenics was a common ideology at the time, and that Sanger wasn't herself racist, but nevertheless aligned with such ideologies to be able to further her mission. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.

And for my other change request, I believe the word "admired figure" is not only inaccurate per the preponderance of reliable sources, but also a violation of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery policy. (peacock terms) DocZach (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you still disagree w/ the amended proposal, can you propose what parts you'd want fixed? DocZach (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Best option is to drop the idea. The Banner talk 17:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. We are actively working on a compromise, and the other editors that were previously involved have yet to respond. DocZach (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with The Banner. I think the WP:DEADHORSE essay describes this situation. Peaceray (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

An essay is not a policy. And Peaceray, you haven't contributed anything of value to this discussion other than personal attacks against me. If you are not willing to engage in the discussion and find a compromise, then kindly find your way out. If you are willing to engage in the discussion without launching personal attacks, then I'd be happy to engage with you. DocZach (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, what you are doing is POV-pushing, trying to get your own personal preference in the article contrary to the sources. I advice you to read the archives of this page, especially the many times that eugenics is discussed before. The Banner talk 19:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The article for Margaret Sanger is profoundly impartial and biased in favor of her, and it is absolutely ironic for you to claim that I am the one pushing for my perspective to be put into the article, when I have given multiple reasonable compromises. Just because 4 editors (who seem to patrol this page often) want to preserve the integrity of Sanger does not mean that this article is perfectly impartial.

The entire article waters down Sanger's support of eugenics and racism. It calls her an "admired" figure in the reproductive rights movement, which is LAUGHABLE when even Planned Parenthood themselves have DISAVOWED HER. It excuses her racist and eugenic past by saying it was just a RHETORICAL TOOL? The article has NO MENTION of Sanger's connection to an associate of Hitler, it has NO MENTION of the fact that Sanger classified black people as lower class, it has NO MENTION that Sanger's book was praised by Hitler as his Bible, it has NO MENTION of Sanger's quote related to eliminating "morons and epileptics." This article omits, to the fullest extent possible, the criticism and negative aspects of Sanger's character, despite the fact that she has been DISAVOWED by the very organization that she founded. Planned Parenthood is more critical of Margaret Sanger than this entire article is, and if that doesn't say something about the neutrality of this article, then there mind as well not be any neutrality policy at all. DocZach (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That essay is not a policy, but Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" is a policy. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The opinions (some of which haven't even been provided yet) of 5 editors within 2 days of the discussion is not a "consensus of the community." DocZach (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a consensus against you. Your NPOVN thread has produced no support for your position and the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing. Accept the reality and drop the WP:STICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So your response to someone challenging the neutrality of an article and proposing compromises is to threaten to ban them from editing Wikipedia? And a consensus is 5 editors, 2 of which appeared just to launch personal attacks against me, within the time-span of only 2 days since this discussion launched? That seems to be very contradictory to the values of Wikipedia, and the entire point of "neutrality" in the first place. DocZach (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you have won. Congratulations, you have successfully threatened an editor to the point where they can't challenge an article's neutrality without fear of being banned.

It seems that many before me have been dismissed the same way I am being dismissed right now: threats of being banned for an objection to an article. What I will accept is that no matter what I do, you are going to find a way to ban me if I continue trying to discuss and propose ways to fix the article. What I will not accept is the idea that this article is in any way neutral.

Congratulations. You achieved your desired result. Not based on merits, but based on threats. DocZach (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

DocZach, you have confused my criticism of you for personal attacks, when I have pointed out here & here that you have edits that you made or have proposed would violate the Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view pillar, neutrality policy, & the MOS:LEADSENTENCE & MOS:LEADCLUTTER guidelines.

I was stating here that my feelings I would like to assume good faith here, but that is hard when you assert of me that You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion. in the face of so many reliable sources that indicate exactly that. It is hard for me to fathom how you could consider that a personal attack, when I was responding to your actions discrediting me as an editor. However, if you can demonstrate that someone has personally attacked you, you may always take it up at WP:ANI.

It is a pity that you seem unable to take advice & accept good faith here. I think that you have made positive edits elsewhere. You can also view what I think are some positive contributions that I have made to pages that you have edited here on English Wikipedia (enwiki) & especially to the files that you have uploaded on Commons. I am really interested in collaborating with editors who demonstrate that they are able to adhere to enwiki pillars, policies, & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

Driveby thoughts having seen the NPOV post: 1) The current lead statement She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and did not believe that poverty was hereditary. However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool is not adequately supported by the PBS ref used there which only addresses the negative eugenics and rhetoric bits. The text needs adjusting or the statement needs additional citations, and given that DocZach has brought up citations that specifically contradict the claim of racial neutrality, probably needs adjusting. 2) Sanger is absolutely known far more for family planning than eugenics; that she was a eugenicist did not make that her vocation or trade, and so I think putting it in the first sentence is improper, any more than we put Abraham Lincoln was a racist in his opening sentence, even if he was by modern standards. 3) To have a whole paragraph about her eugenics beliefs in the lead, the burden is on DocZach or whoever supports it to demonstrate due weight. Is her eugenics work a large part of coverage (say, for instance, chapters of biographies? Dedicated books on the subject? Etc.) Bring the proofs not in terms of "sources exist" but "sources cover it this way", since that's what should be guiding how many inches we give it. 4) Whatever ends up being said in specific verbiage, absolutely don't include the "she has been criticized"-type stuff. It's weasely fluff that weakens writing. Just say Sanger supported negative eugenics. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback. I tend to agree with what you said.

Can you provide your analysis in regards to number 3 based on the arguments I have made?

And furthermore, can you provide your analysis on my claim that calling her an admired figure is a violation of NPOV (peacock terms), and goes against the preponderance of sources? DocZach (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking to the last part first, it's not a violation of NPOV if that's a broad consensus viewpoint you can find in good sourcing. MOS:PEACOCK doesn't prohibit those terms from being used at all, it's just guidance on avoiding them, especially if unattributed, and looking for them as signs of neutrality issues. You could argue the lead should specifically state the Times said she had been lauded as a feminist icon and birth control pioneer, but I also think there's enough unequivocal phrasing in that article that stating it plainly is fine too.

As for 3, I don't think you've demonstrated due weight here, because sources don't exist in a vacuum. If I find sources that talk about a historical figure's racism, even if the story is about that aspect specifically, it has to be taken in aggregate with the wider context. A Google Search for "Margaret Sanger" + "Birth control" brings up roughly 700,000 hits on Google for me; "Margaret Sanger" + "eugenics" brings up less than one third that number. That right there starts suggesting to me that putting her advocacy for eugenics on par with her other work is disproportionate. A quick search of JSTOR and Google also brings up sources like [2] which specifically point out that her record on eugenics and race has been pushed by those seeking to discredit womens reproductive rights and Planned Parenthood specifically, which has remained true to the modern era of US politics[3]. As such, the fact Planned Parenthood themselves distances themselves from her isn't all that surprising, and their own statement shouldn't be taken as gospel, especially compared to sources that have better records of impartiality or better academic scholarship behind them (and the fact that such disavowal is very recent.) So my upshot is I think you need to do more to present a case that her record as a eugenicist has so dominated coverage of her as a topic that it thus should deserve a large portion of the lead to discuss, especially as Wikipedia strives to avoid recentism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to present a case anymore, because they said if I don't drop it, I might be restricted from editing. DocZach (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(saw this at the noticeboard) The common meaning of eugenics is a lot nastier than things she advocated which could technically be included. And so simply advocating for simply using and emphasizing the word to characterize her could be a distortion rather than a move towards NPOV, i.e. creating a POV problem, not solving one. IMO we should be covering the specifics (even in the lead) rather than pushing for emphasizing and characterizing her with a term which has a common meaning which is a lot nastier than what she actually advocated. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I need clarification on if I'm even allowed to reply or add more comments, because I've been told by some editors that I am required to drop it. DocZach (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see where they warned you regarding certain potential edits on the article page, not where they said that you aren't allowed to discuss it in talk or at the noticeboard. Could you provide a diff or point out where you were told that you couldn't discuss? But IMHO you need to ease up overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Here:

Best option is to drop the idea. - The Banner

That essay is not a policy, but Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" is a policy. - 208.87.236.202

This is clearly a consensus against you. Your NPOVN thread has produced no support for your position and the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing. Accept the reality and drop the WP:STICK. – Muboshgu

I agree with The Banner. I think the WP:DEADHORSE essay describes this situation. Peaceray DocZach (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So you take an advice as a prohibition? The Banner talk 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I took the "the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing" as a prohibition. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that was in reference to your editing the article against consensus, but I can see how that might be read as more extensively. You may freely comment here as long as you observe policy & guidelines, although you must do so within the policies & guidelines of enwiki.

My recommendation would be to address criticisms of your edits & arguments as that, instead of treating them as if they were personal attacks. Crying wolf will fail to gain you any credibility. Peaceray (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I spoke (wrote?) too harshly there, or not clearly enough. You are not under any prohibitions that I am aware of. And though I am an admin, I am clearly WP:INVOLVED in this, which means I am not going to be the one who sanctions you, if anybody does. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. DocZach (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to try my best to propose my case in a more thorough way:

1. Lead sentence: I tend to agree with the other editors in that it is unnecessary to add that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist in the lead sentence. Whilst I feel like there would be appropriate weight to do so, I recognize that it is not completely necessary.
2. Lead paragraph: I uphold my persistence that there should be a third paragraph in the lead describing Sanger's view on eugenics. I believe there is appropriate weight to do so. I recognize that Sanger is primarily known for birth control and founding Planned Parenthood, but aside from that, she is also known as a prominent eugenicist and racist, as shown from the sources I provided you. There are more results on Google showing "Margaret Sanger + eugenics" than there are showing "Margaret Sanger + sex educator." However, in the interest of compromise, I will agree with what @David Fuchs said about the negative eugenics part of the second paragraph, and would ask that the last two sentences of the second paragraph be amended to: Margaret Sanger was widely criticized for her support of negative eugenics. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger in 2021, citing her racist and eugenics past that had left a negative impact on the disabled and people of color. Therefore, a separate paragraph won't be necessary, and it would be a compromise to some of the editors' claims that there is not enough due weight to add a separate paragraph.
3. Neutral tone: I believe that it is profoundly incorrect to say "Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements." The cited reference for that claim is literally titled "Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics." An opinion of the New York Times over the status of admiration of Sanger is not reliable, and the fact that the article referenced is about Planned Parenthood themselves disavowing her is quite ironic. With the plethora of sources I have provided, and the fact that this statement is not true - even for the organization she founded, this statement should be amended to: Sanger remains a significant figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.
4. Eugenics section: Finally, there are some changes (mostly addition of more material) that I'd make here, but I believe that would be better to do at a later date so as to not prolong this discussion with adding even more proposals.

I appreciate the advice from North and Der, and I believe this proposal is completely reasonable and helps to maintain neutrality and due weight within the article. DocZach (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

At best, IMHO, an addition could be added to the tune of Opponents claim that Sanger was an eugenist. The Banner talk 12:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Opponents of what.... abortion??? If that was true, Planned Parenthood would not have conceded that Margaret Sanger was a supporter of eugenics and racial sterilization... DocZach (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

They didn't say that she herself was racist. They said that her belief in eugenics aligned her with racists (ie. she was supporting something that they did.) That's not the same thing. More importantly, though, in order to establish that more than what is currently in the article is WP:DUE, you'd need high-quality sources. Planned parenthood isn't a high-quality source in this context; and likewise, most of the other sources you've presented that emphasize this aspect are op-eds or opinion pieces. That's not enough, not when editing an article about someone who has a massive amount of high-quality coverage from reputable historians and biographers, none of whom place that weight on it. I don't think that you've successfully made the case that there were any serious problems with the text prior to your edits; the aspects you're talking about were all adequately discussed, even in the lead, just not with the degree of intensity and weight that you prefer. To convince people on that you'd have to present better arguments than the ones already in the article, and you've offered worse ones instead. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. If you have read my new proposal, you'd notice that there are no additions to the article, but rather amendments of current sentences. The sources I've already provided are high quality, and most are not opinion pieces. This article uses a lot of opinion pieces for its current text as it is. DocZach (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

IMHO the "shift" being proposed by DocZach would cause a POV problem in an area where one does not currently exist. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There already is a POV problem when you try to excuse Sanger's actions by saying it was just a rhetorical tool. DocZach (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, really it's your proposed edits that have the POV problem. The sources say that her beliefs on eugenics were aligned with those of racists. But beliefs are not actions, and the article gives examples of how her conduct contrasted with and did not follow the racist practices of her day. Perhaps that has something to do with why W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. supported her. NightHeron (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is not sufficient evidence that Martin Luther King Jr. supported Margaret Sanger. Just because his wife accepted an award on his behalf, does not mean that he supported the racist and eugenics actions of Margaret Sanger. Befriending, endorsing, and/or allying with erroneously racist groups is racism itself, and therefore it is reasonable to say that Margaret Sanger was herself a racist as well. Yet, nowhere am I asking for us to call Margaret Sanger a racist in the article. Instead, I am asking that we drop the absurd and baseless claim that her racist and eugenics actions are excused because they were just a "rhetorical tool." Even Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, the admin, agreed we should drop that point. DocZach (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any such "excused" claim in the article. Further, that sentence in your post contains implied assertions about severity in those areas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't directly state excused. What it does do is bring up as many ways to water down her support of eugenics as much as possible.

• "However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool"
• "She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors" (false)
• "she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program" (deceptive)

DocZach (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, why no mention of this?

Margaret Sanger, when talked about now is referred to as a "eugenist" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html

Even in Galton page, they list him as an "eugenist" Francis Galton.

So why is she not referred to as a eugenist? Even planned parenthood basically disavows her and condemns her.

"The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many others. Her alignment with the eugenics movement, rooted in white supremacy, is in direct opposition to our mission and belief that all people should have the right to determine their own future and decide, without coercion or judgement, whether and when to have children."

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger

I don't see how this is even a discussion, are we now claiming that planned parenthood is biased against Sanger???

"We must acknowledge the harm done, examine how we have perpetuated this harm, and ensure that we do not repeat Sanger’s mistakes."

This is coming from Sangers company she founded.

It's just odd to me of this was someone on the right, there would be no discussion and ad hominem attacks would allowed without discussion yet in this case somehow they are trying to keep it "unbiased.

the article provides vast information, but in some parts writes as if they are trying to defend Sanger when her own company does not. This is not what neutrality is. I don't mean to criticize the article because like I said it has a lot of information it just seems that the information given is more in defense without showing the opposing view. Elove444 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a whole section that discusses her views on eugenics. She was not known in her time as a eugenicist, and certainly not as someone who had a racist agenda. She was supported by the leading Black activists of the 20th century, notably Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many progressives of that period, she did not see the downside of the eugenicist hope that science, through genetics, could improve the human race. It would be inaccurate and ahistorical to label her as a eugenicist in the article's lead. This has been discussed several times before, and the consensus of editors supports the way the article handles the question. NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And following up to NightHeron, Sanger does not derive her notability from - then popular in society - eugenics but from her work in the field of birth control. The Banner talk 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron & The Banner. Her support of negative eugenics is already mentioned in the second paragraph in the lead. To give it any more prominence is WP:UNDUE because it is not something for which she is most notable. WP:NOTOPINION also applies here as well. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with Elove, and it is unfortunate that so many people are shutdown by the same people over-and-over again who claim there is a "consensus," when very clearly there isn't. DocZach (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus to change it. Perhaps you need to read WP:EDITCONSENSUS to understand why a controversial change requires a new consensus. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

March 12th change

This was up for pending changes review and I accepted it per the pending changes criteria which is basically "not vandalism". Such acceptance does not imply endorsement of the changes. I'm a bit against the change because putting this in without context of differing accepted views then and now probably presents a misleading picture. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted, but I agree that I'd have approved if I were an uninvolved pending changes reviewer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that anytime that someone starts citing a dictionary to support their conclusion we can generally assume that it is original research. I have warned the IP editor accordingly. Peaceray (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the interpretation of Sanger's quote as evidence of racism is ahistorical, because in her time "racial" was often used to refer generally to the human race and did not necessarily refer to different races of humans. For example, eugenics organizations were often called "racial betterment societies". That's clearly the context in which Sanger is speaking. NightHeron (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have shot it down, as it is not neutral. The Banner talk 19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)