Misplaced Pages

Talk:Margaret Sanger: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:40, 20 June 2024 editPeaceray (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,441 editsm →Source request: Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:59, 17 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,309,073 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 8) (bot 
(66 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=2|subtopic=Culture, sociology and psychology|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=American birth control activist and nurse (1879–1966)}}
{{Talk header|search=y|archive_age=90|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Talk header|search=y}}
{{Article history {{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
Line 15: Line 16:
|otd1date=2011-10-16|otd1oldid=455879525 |otd1date=2011-10-16|otd1oldid=455879525
|otd2date=2016-10-16|otd2oldid=744344984 |otd2date=2016-10-16|otd2oldid=744344984
|otd3date=2024-10-16|otd3oldid=1251417948
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Sanger, Margaret|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Sanger, Margaret|blp=no|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-priority=mid |politician-work-group=yes |core=yes }} {{WikiProject Biography |politician-priority=mid |politician-work-group=yes |core=yes }}
{{WikiProject Socialism |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Socialism |importance=mid}}
Line 29: Line 31:
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 7 |counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(14d)
Line 35: Line 37:
}} }}


== Member of the Nazi party and the KKK ==
== Racist ==


She was both a member of the NAZI party and the KKK. They had to remove her from the leadership position she held in 1942 because the Nazis declared war on America on December 11. She still made statements of Nazi support after the declaration of war. ] (]) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Ironic you editors dont mention she is a white supremacist ] (]) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


:Not ironic, we stick with facts. – ] (]) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC) :This is not true. – ] (]) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Oh yes, we'll just ignore ] and ] and just put those extreme things right in with no sources just because you said it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::] nice way to whitewash her utter disgust and racist white supremacist views against the black community. you realize that she once stated, "we don't want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population!" if that isn't completely racist than I don't know what will convince you. obviously, anyone who is a far-left asshole, in your opinion and who can be comfortable around a hate-group such as the KKK created by racist Democrats just simply cannot be racist, huh? it must suck to have your head constantly up your ass most of the time to be so out-of-touch and in your neoliberal bubble. ] (]) 06:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Yep, good to see how you blatantly ignore the facts to promote your own view. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC) :Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. ] <small>(])</small> 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::July of 2020 they removed her racist name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. case closed. ] (]) 06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You, as well as others, seem to derive the notion that Sanger was racist from her {{cite web |url=https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/items/show/495 |title=Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble |date=December 10, 1939}}. In this letter she states {{tq|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 ] & both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the ] section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly ] or ]. ] (]) 13:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Removing her name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood is no proof that she was a member of either the Nazi party or the KKK. ] (]) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There and a few others quotes from herself:
::::'''1939 In The Negro Project Proposal''', she wrote: "The massive negros particularly in the south still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit."
::::A few more quotes below:
::::"'to create a race of thoroughbreds' by encouraging 'more children from the fit and less from the unfit.'" -- The pivot of civilization 1922
::::"I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and the syphilitic. " -- Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Feb 1919
::::"The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." -- The Eugenic Value of Birth control Propaganda, Oct 1921
::::Sanger's racist motives: "It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation (destruction) of defective stocks -- '''those human weeds '''which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization." -- '''New York Times, April 8th 1923'''
::::"Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising streams of the unfit." ] (]) 15:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
::::All of those leaders you mentioned were not supported in black communities. My GrandMother marched with Dr King as well as organized with his party——and those were two totally different schools of thought. King was a puppet up to a certain point, slept with a Margaret Sanger look alike and finally when he wanted to fight for his people and our land, they murdered him for breaking from the script. Seeing how you hold Mrs Sanger in such a wonderful light, you would not truly be open to learning the truth. You would not even be open to researching an idea with an open mind from the answers I have read that have been stated. It would hurt your soul for your facts that can be seen two ways (that is much closer to an opinion LOL) evidently. That comment can be interpreted two ways by only two types of people. One, those who are real eyes seeing (realizing) melanated people make up the majority of abortions and two: those who are happy Melanated people make up the majority of abortions. You make your position obvious by your defense alone. Prayerfully you will be more balanced when editing pages from here on out.
::::And that’s only one racist quote, she made enough to get where she was coming from. I believe in GOD MOST HIGH, so, I pray that people who knowingly do evil, may they endure what they laid as a snare for others. And may the honest in heart, may the learn the truth in a peaceful manner. ] (]) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Do you have evidence? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|FiyaTiger}} By {{tq|evidence}}, I believe The Banner means ] from ]. Otherwise what you present seems to be a ] commentary based on ]. ] (]) 18:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


== Good article nomination? ==
::The article has lost its neutrality on this historical figure. Under the cover that influential thinkers at her time were somehow sympathetic to eugenics, a few edits to state that she supports eugenics were reverted. Yet her organization has influenced people like Adolf. I wouldn't just see her as simply sympatetic. She was the pioneer in her age, not just showing sympathetic but promoted her believes and had impactful actions.
::Please do not ignore these facts and please keep wikipedia a neutral place. Otherwise, I start to doubt the influencers in this article, their motivations. ] (]) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
:Agree. ] (]) 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Well, first of all, the Negro Project Proposal quote is "the mass ''of'' negroes", not "the massive negroes", and that Sanger later used. That link I provided there is a good read, as it talks about how Sanger is being quoted out of context for the specific purpose of discrediting her. How's your approach "neutral"? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
::::@] Thanks for the correction! So you '''are''' aware of her above statement, and to the fact that she was quoting someone else. Then does it make a difference in understanding her stand?
::::Also I read through the article briefly, the quote on the fact that she quoted from Du Bois is broken as of this reply is published:
::::"But what anti-choicers either don’t know or willfully obscure is that Sanger " ] (]) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Also interesting to read is this quote from the article ]: ''While the original plan for the Negro Project included educational outreach into black communities as well as the establishment of black-operated clinical resources, the project that was implemented deviated from this original design and was ultimately unsuccessful.<ref name=":02" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://sophia.smith.edu/making-democracy-real/the-negro-project/|title=The Negro Project – Making Democracy Real|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-04}}</ref>'' So what became the Negro Project, was not conform Sangers wishes. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
::::The quote from Du Bois was used in the proposal (https://web.archive.org/web/20180327064100/https://trustblackwomen.org/2011-05-10-03-28-12/publications-a-articles/african-americans-and-abortion-articles/26-margaret-sanger-and-the-african-american-community-) and is seen in the quote above: the proposal is not the same as the actual project). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


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


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


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.


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


:Good points. I'll work on those things. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
:When I see a lead section that has zero citations, I'm always impressed ... it looks clean, and indicates that the article _probably_ has all the lead info replicated (and expounded on) in the body. Of course, to remove the cites, all the lead info/text must be replicated & cited in the body. I guess I could remove all the cites (after ensuring info is in the body) and see what the reviewer says. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I went thru the lead, and ensured that all the lead info was also represented in the body (some was not: I had to move/duplicate it). I then moved all footnotes from the lead to the corresponding body text (if not already there). So, there are now no footnotes in the lead; but 100% of the lead info is in the body, and footnotes are there. ] (]) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== "Sexuality" section could be trimmed? ==
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger


The section ] seems a bit large, considering it was not a major aspect of Sanger's life work. All the info in there looks accurate & useful, but its large size may mislead readers into thinking it almost of equal importance as family planning, abortion, etc. But maybe I'm underestimating how much effort she put into the subject. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html


:I don't see any objections, so I think I will simply replace some of the numerous quotes there with paraphrases. Not deleting any material, simply tightening some quotes by making them encyclopedic prose. ] (]) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/


== New "Perception in the modern era" subsection under "Legacy" ==
https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/


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


== Find copy of article "America Needs a Code for Babies" in "American Weekly"? ==
https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-history.html


The Eugenics section of the article uses a source: "America Needs a Code for Babies", an article in ''American Weekly ''magazine, 27 Mar 1934. I'm trying to find copy of that article. The article is important because opponents of Sanger quote from it a lot, and the quotes contain some inflammatory proposals (however, the proposals are clearly presented as hypothetical, perhaps exaggerated, proposals meant to stimulate debate... since the article itself states: ''"All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion..."'')
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11615086/


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


The same website says'' "Typed draft article. Source: American Weekly, Mar. 27, 1934 , Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B . Because only a partial copy of the printed article was found in Sanger's papers, the editors have used the complete typed draft in its place." ''
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. ] (]) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


Im not 100% sure what that means, but it sounds like a copy of the magazine itself no longer exists anywhere, but at some point late in Sanger's life, the Library of Congress got some papers of hers, and among the papers was a typed draft of a magazine article. Indeed, the Library of Congress web site names a "America Needs a Code for Babies" paper from a Margaret Sanger collection, at https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998010.3. I suppose that is the typed draft. Did that draft paper ever get printed in a magazine?
:I 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"? ] (] / ]) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
::The definition of a eugenicist is somebody who supports eugenics. That's literally the definition of the word. ] (]) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
::The definition of eugenicist is someone who supports eugenics. That's literally the meaning of the word. ] (]) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:Your last edit, including a ] on "eugenicist", is inappropriate and ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
::You are blatantly violating ], the rule reference you just referenced.
::'''It explicitly states:''' Neutrality requires that ] articles and pages fairly represent '''''all''''' significant viewpoints that have been published by ], 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. ] (]) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm violating UNDUE? How? You're looking to add a ] to the page that Firefangledfeathers pointed out to you is not supported as strongly as you claim. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 ] 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.)'' ] (]) 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 ] for review, though I'd ask that you keep your post focused on the content and not on your fellow editors. ] (] / ]) 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah I'm totally disengaging from this as well unless DocZach can demonstrate that they can ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::I will strike the remarks, and I apologize for assuming bad faith. @] @] ] (]) 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. ] is our guidance on this, as these labels impair neutrality. I went to our page on ] and into ] to see how they're handled. Many biographies of eugenicists do not lead with "eugenicist". ], our page says, coined the term "eugenics", and his lead does not refer to him as a "eugenicist". ] 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 ] to those issues. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 ] and feminist movements. She has been criticized for supporting ]; 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 ], especially with her membership in the American Eugenics Society. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and ], proposing segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and those she saw as "racial mistakes."''
::::::::Obviously, sources would be added as well. ] (]) 01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What are the sources you plan to use? ] (] / ]) 04:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::'''<u>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:</u>'''
::::::::::* '''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 (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 Review , 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, 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/
::::::::::] (]) 11:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::}}
What sources do you plan to use for your recent proposal (01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC))? ] (] / ]) 12:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


Anyway, this article is going through a GA review, and the Eugenics section, of course, needs special scrutiny, and we need to be able to read all the referenced sources. So: Does anyone know where to find a copy of the "American Weekly" article?
:'''I propose there to be a third paragraph in the lead, which should be:'''
:''Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of ].''<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-11-27 |title=Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Why are we still celebrating her? |url=https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=America Magazine |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-09-21 |title=Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist |url=https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/ |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=Woman is a Rational Animal |language=en-US}}</ref> ''In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and ], proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor.''<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2020 |title=Front Matter |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48583690 |journal=The Independent Review |volume=25 |issue=1 |issn=1086-1653}}</ref> ''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.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hawkins |first=Kristan |title=Remove statues of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder tied to eugenics and racism |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/ |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-04-10 |title=Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, and Margaret Sanger |url=https://www.courierherald.com/letters/hitler-the-ku-klux-klan-and-margaret-sanger/ |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=Courier-Herald |language=en-US}}</ref> ''Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Planned Parenthood’s Reckoning with Margaret Sanger |url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=www.plannedparenthood.org |language=en}}</ref> ] (]) 14:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


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


:Until we can find & read a copy of the American Weekly magazine, I changed the citation in the article to mention that it is a draft manuscript. I left the quotes (from the magazine) in the footnote. After we find the article, we can change the cite back to the magazine article. ] (]) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I responded to DocZach's initial edits {{diff|User talk:DocZach|1203819674|1203493890|here}}, to which DocZach did not respond. I will reiterate my comments here.
::I posted a request for this article at ] ... with luck, they'll find it. ] (]) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::A helpful editor at ] found the article at https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/1043726343/ .. apparently it was a weekly insert; this particular source was in the "The Washington Herald".
{{Blockquote
:::Since this appears to be a legit article that did make it into print, I'll restore the cite in this MS article to name the article. ] (]) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
|text=''Please read & heed our ] guideline.''
*''] states {{tq|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is}}.''
*''] states {{tq|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 ] itself states:''
{{tqb|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.{{efn|See ].}} 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 ]. 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 ], and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.{{efn|Do not violate ] by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.}}}}
*''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 ] it into the lead sentence, you have given it ] attention, which is a violation of English Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Please also see the ] 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 ], ], the ], the ], and ], 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 ] pillar.
Sanger's eugenist views are covered elsewhere in the lead & there is alread a five paragraph ]. 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. ] (]) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

:Sanger was a major proponent of eugenics, as the plethora of ] 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 ] says. And one of the major things Sanger is known for is eugenics. ] (]) 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 ] & ]. As I have noted in the {{diff|Talk:Margaret Sanger|1042091926|1042064909|transparency section above}}, even some primary sources are open to interpretation. At the risk of ], we do not mention eugenics in the lead sentence for ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], or ]. 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. ] (]) 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 @], @], 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. ] (]) 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] I just sent you numerous sources that describe her as racist, including Planned Parenthood themselves. ] (]) 07:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::If we {{tq|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:
::::*{{cite web |title=su:Margaret Sanger |website=WorldCat Search Results |url=https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AMargaret+Sanger&orderBy=bestMatch}}
::::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 {{tq|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 ] here, but that is hard when you assert of me that {{tq|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. ] (]) 04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] 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 ] in discussions about articles, even if you believe ''"their actions are harmful."'' ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 09:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::'''<big><u>PROPOSED COMPROMISE:</u></big>'''
::::::::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 ]. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''THIRD PARAGRAPH:'''
::::::::::::''Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of ]. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and ], 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 ] and feminist movements'' to: ''Sanger remains a notable figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.''
::::::::::::] (]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

:What "first source" are you talking about exactly? Where is the source the first? ] (]) 13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::You started this discussion with: And can you please leave my edits where I have put them? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. ] (]) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Would you mind telling me what is incorrect about the proposal? ] (]) 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 ], as told by others before. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

:'''Is this better?'''
:''Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of ]. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and ], 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 ] policy. (peacock terms) ] (]) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::If you still disagree w/ the amended proposal, can you propose what parts you'd want fixed? ] (]) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Best option is to drop the idea. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. ] (]) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree with The Banner. I think the ] essay describes this situation. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. ] (]) 19:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That essay is not a policy, but ] ''is'' a policy. ] (]) 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'''." ] (]) 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 ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages, and the entire point of "neutrality" in the first place. ] (]) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::<big>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.</big>
::::::::::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. ] (]) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::DocZach, you have confused my criticism of you for personal attacks, when I have pointed out {{diff|User talk:DocZach|1203819674|1203493890|here}} & {{diff|Talk:Margaret Sanger|1204685031|1204634616|here}} that you have edits that you made or have proposed would violate the ] pillar, ] policy, & the ] & ] guidelines.
:::::::I was stating {{diff|Talk:Margaret Sanger|1204844144|1204778861|here}} that my feelings {{tq|I would like to ] here, but that is hard when you assert of me that {{!tq|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 ].
:::::::It is a pity that you seem unable to take advice & ] 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 Misplaced Pages (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. ] (]) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Notelist-talk}}
{{tref}}
:'''Driveby thoughts''' having seen the NPOV post: 1) The current lead statement {{xt|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 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 ] 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 {{xt|Sanger supported negative eugenics}}. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 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? ] (]) 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. ] 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages strives to avoid recentism. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] (]) 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 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. ] (]) 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, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Here:'''
:::''Best option is to drop the idea. - ]''
:::''That essay is not a policy, but ] is a policy. - ]''
:::''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 ]. – ]''
:::''I agree with The Banner. I think the ] essay describes this situation. ]'' ] (]) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

::::So you take an advice as a prohibition? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. ] (]) 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 ] of ].
::::::My recommendation would be to address criticisms of your edits & arguments as that, instead of treating them as if they were personal attacks. ] will fail to gain you any credibility. ] (]) 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 ] in this, which means I am not going to be the one who sanctions you, if anybody does. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. ] (]) 11:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::'''<big><u>Okay, I am going to try my best to propose my case in a more thorough way:</u></big>'''
::::::::# '''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.
::::::::# '''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 @] 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: ''<code>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.</code>'' 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.
::::::::# '''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 ." 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: ''<code>Sanger remains a significant figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.</code>''
::::::::# '''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.''' ] (]) 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''. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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... ] (]) 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 ], 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 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'''. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], the admin, agreed we should drop that point. ] (]) 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, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 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)'''
:::::] (]) 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" ].

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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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 ] because it is not something for which she is most notable. ] also applies here as well. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::There clearly is no consensus to change it. Perhaps you need to read ] to understand why a controversial change requires a new consensus. ] (]) 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:I reverted, but I agree that I'd have approved if I were an uninvolved pending changes reviewer. ] (] / ]) 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 ]. I have warned the IP editor accordingly. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:I would have shot it down, as it is not neutral. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding the mention of eugenics in second paragraph of the lead. ==

@] Mind explaining to me how I removed context? ] (]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:Your edit removed {{Tq|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.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, because that statement is false. She did not oppose eugenics along racial lines, there are numerous reliable sources that debunk that claim. ] (]) 18:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:::'''What if it said:'''
:::''Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Some theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics or hereditary poverty as a rhetorical and persuasive tool rather than a personal conviction. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism.'' ] (]) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:::The cited source, from PBS, says in part {{tq|Sanger's relationship with the eugenics movement was complex -- part strategy and part ideology. Many historians now believe that Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok, then this accounts for that context, a more NPOV, and the other context:
::::''Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Many historians theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics as a rhetorical and strategical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism.'' ] (]) 03:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Do you have any objections to this? @] ] (]) 10:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::(1) "is" is the wrong tense; it should be "has been". (2) The first sentence makes it sound like negative eugenics was MS's basic stance on eugenics. She was definitely a supporter of positive eugenics (which is closely related to family planning) and she made alliances with advocates of negative eugenics, but her views on the latter are not very clear. (3) Regarding "many historians", I don't think "many" historians have commented one way or the other, but what is clear is that this is the view of the author Ellen Chesler of the most authoritative biography of MS, namely, that MS associated with racists for tactical reasons, not because she shared their views. ] (]) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I would object to that phrasing. I leaves out the context that eugenics were rather popular in society in those years. And it shines a bad light on Sanger, while in fact she followed the popular opinion. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::''Sanger has been criticized for her support of eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.''
:::::::I tried fixing it with what you guys recommended. Any objections to this one? ^
:::::::@] @] @] ] (]) 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::'''OR:'''
::::::::: ''Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.''
::::::::] (]) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What does that add to the article, except negativity? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::How is it negativity? We aren't supposed to decide whether or not to add something based on its positivity/negativity. We are supposed to provide a fair and neutral explanation of who Sanger was using reliable sources. ] (]) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::True, that is why I took a look at your other edits. And I see it as a backdoor to saying that Sanger was a full blown eugenist. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You are just assuming that I am editing in bad faith then. I have edited a wide variety of articles on Misplaced Pages, and my goal is to make them more fair and neutral. When I was reading about who Sanger was, I saw this article as very unfair and biased, and I am attempting to find compromise to make a slight improvement to that. I ask that you ]. ] (]) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Call it what you want, but sending an article to AfD because you do not like the content sets my alarm bells off. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Once again, I advise you to follow ]. You are bringing up my deletion request (which I had retracted) of an article about a movie that involves a pedophilic relationship. My reason was because of the lack of sources, but once I saw them add more sources, I retracted my nomination. You are bringing up something completely irrelevant in this discussion, and I ask that you stop that now. ] (]) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I have no objection to the last proposed wording. ] (]) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Awesome! Glad we are working towards a compromise.
:::::::::@], what are your thoughts on the latest proposal? ] (]) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"Has been criticized" is a bit ]y. Make that more specific and I'm okay with it. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I just put that there because it's what the article currently says. ] (]) 16:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::What about, "has been criticized by some"? ] (]) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::or: "Some have criticized Sanger..." ] (]) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Existing text or your proposal, we can still do better. Who does this criticism come from? Anti-abortion activists? Anyone else? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::(1) In connection with Planned Parenthood's decision in 2020 to drop Sanger's name from the organization's headquarters, the main body of the article states: {{tq|This decision was made in response to criticisms over Sanger's promotion of eugenics.}} (2) In the 2nd paragraph of the Eugenics section, the article quotes Sanger's biographer Ellen Chesler writing that "her failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since." Neither Planned Parenthood nor Chesler is anti-abortion. ] (]) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's why I asked. Should have figured that PP disavowing her can be considered "criticism" of her. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Reliable sources state, even in their titles, that Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger. Disavow isn't a dirty word, it literally means to "deny support for." ] (]) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nvm, I thought you were saying disavow was a bad word. I misread that, sorry. Anyway, do we have any objections to me editing the last portion of the second lead paragraph to this:
:::::::::::::::::''Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics.''<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-07-28 |title=Margaret Sanger’s extreme brand of eugenics |url=https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/07/28/margaret-sangers-extreme-brand-eugenics |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=America Magazine |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-09-21 |title=Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist |url=https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/ |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=Woman is a Rational Animal |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-07-21 |title=Why Planned Parenthood Is Removing Founder Margaret Sanger’s Name From a New York City Clinic |url=https://time.com/5869743/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger/ |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=TIME |language=en}}</ref> ''Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction.''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Eugenics and Birth Control {{!}} American Experience {{!}} PBS |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-eugenics-and-birth-control/ |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=www.pbs.org |language=en}}</ref> ''In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stewart |first=Nikita |date=July 21, 2020 |title=Planned Parenthood in N.Y. disavows Margaret Sanger over Eugenics. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html |access-date=March 23, 2024 |website=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Planned Parenthood’s Reckoning with Margaret Sanger |url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=www.plannedparenthood.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s mission |url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-north-central-states/about-ppncs/media-relations/statement-about-margaret-sanger-and-planned-parenthoods-mission |access-date=2024-03-23 |website=www.plannedparenthood.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Schmidt |first=Samantha |date=2020-07-21 |title=Planned Parenthood to remove Margaret Sanger’s name from N.Y. clinic over views on eugenics |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/07/21/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-eugenics/ |access-date=2024-03-23 |work=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> ] (]) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::And also, separately, in accordance with ], I propose changing where it says "admired figure" to "relevant figure" or "prominent figure." I would certainly disagree that she is widely considered as "admired", seeing as the literal organization she founded has disavowed her. However, she was prominent and is still relevant. ] (]) 23:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
I have no objection to changing ''admired'' to ''prominent'' because that change makes the language more encyclopedic. However, Sanger is still widely admired for her tremendous role in advancing women's reproductive rights. She wasn't perfect. Nor were most of the historical personalities whom we admire. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves. ] (]) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:Ok, sounds good. I will implement it now. I appreciate you both working with me to find a compromise. ] (]) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::I have a question: there are now three citations following the "supporting eugenics" sentence, and four citations following the Planned Parenthood sentence. Everything else in the lede has one citation only. This makes it look like those sentences are more important than the others. Can we trim the citations down to one reference for each assertion? ] (]) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Sure, one moment. ] (]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I removed a few, is that better? @] ] (]) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I cut it down to one ref for the first sentence, two for the second. ] (]) 02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Short description ==

@] The current short description reads:

"American birth control activist, educator, and nurse (1..."

It gets cut off in the search bar, which is where quite a lot of people will see it. In this sense the SD is used for distinguishing the article from others with similar titles. See the guideline page on ]. They are supposed to scan very quickly and do not have to do as much as the lead sentence.

Typing in "Margaret S" into the search bar will reveal results for an actress, a politician, a film editor, a psychologist, an architect, and at the top, Margaret Sanger. These are different enough that just one of Sanger's roles in life would probably be enough to distinguish her. As she is mainly notable for activism I believe this would do the majority of the work in distinguishing this article from others. ] (]) 02:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

:How about keeping "nurse" (which was her main profession) and deleting "educator" (which was not)? ] (]) 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::For better or worse she might be less notable for providing medical care than for other roles. I usually go by what people are known for. But I agree that "educator" might be the easiest to drop. I will leave it up to your judgement. ] (]) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::She was a nurse? Yeah, Planned Parenthood was & is an educational organization, along with the health services that it provides. It should be obvious that she was an educator. ] (]) 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
:::But ''educator'' commonly implies teacher or expert on education. Someone who is known in part for informing the public about some topic is not necessarily referred to as an "educator". That term has the weakest rationale of the three. ] (]) 13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

== Source request ==

One editor is asking for independent sources that Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. A fair request, but as far I know, Sanger founded one of the predecessors of PP. Do we really need the independent source? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:The sequence of events seems to be that she founded the ] in 1921, which was the parent organization of the ] that became the ] in 1942. She also was the first president of the ] in 1953.
:*{{cite web |title=Margaret Sanger |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |date=1998-07-20 |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-Sanger |ref={{sfnref |Encyclopedia Britannica |1998}} |access-date=2024-06-20}}
:*{{cite web |title=Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) |website=PBS |date=2018-01-04 |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-margaret-sanger-1879-1966/ |ref={{sfnref |PBS |2018}} |access-date=2024-06-20}}
:*{{cite web |last=Gordon |first=Allison |title=New York’s Planned Parenthood will remove founder’s name over her views on eugenics |website=CNN |date=2020-07-22 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html |access-date=2024-06-20}}
:*{{cite web |title=Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Pioneer |website=PRB |date=2020-11-19 |url=https://www.prb.org/resources/margaret-sanger-birth-control-pioneer/ |ref={{sfnref |PRB |2020}} |access-date=2024-06-20}}
:*{{cite web |last=Michals |first=Debra |title=Margaret Sanger |website=National Women&#039;s History Museum |date=2017-08-01 |url=https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/margaret-sanger |ref={{sfnref |National Women&#039;s History Museum |2017}} |access-date=2024-06-20}}
:] (]) 17:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:59, 17 January 2025

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

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

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Sanger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Former good articleMargaret Sanger was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 21, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 16, 2011, October 16, 2016, and October 16, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government / Core
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFeminism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNursing High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York (state)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

Member of the Nazi party and the KKK

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

This is not true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh yes, we'll just ignore WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP and just put those extreme things right in with no sources just because you said it. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
July of 2020 they removed her racist name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. case closed. 2600:1015:A005:3806:191C:2FEC:644C:7859 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Removing her name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood is no proof that she was a member of either the Nazi party or the KKK. Peaceray (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

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

I've started making some minor improvements to the article. Overall it seems to be in pretty good shape. If anyone has any changes you think should be made to bring it up to GA status, let me know. Noleander (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not able to find many more improvements (appropriate for GA status), so I guess I'll nominate it for GA soon. If anyone has any comments, let me know. Noleander (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


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

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

"Sexuality" section could be trimmed?

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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


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

Thanks for helping with this article. Back in 2011 I re-wrote it, and the article was given GA status (GA1), but it gradually degraded (edit warring, etc) and lost the status in 2015. So, here I am a second time.
Agree this review may take longer than normal.
Thanks for offering to make it a positive experience! The ideal reviewer would be sensible, a good listener, have lots of WP experience, and aware of GA criteria (and how they differ from FA criteria :-) And did I mention sensible? Noleander (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


Lede

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

Yes, it is too large, I'll make it shorter. Most FA articles on important people have 3 to 4 paragraphs in lead, so I'd prefer 3 minimum. WP:LEDE indicates "250 to 400 words" is standard for FA articles; MS lead is 421 words now, so I'll try to get it to around 300-350? Noleander (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I got it down to 254 words, 3 paragraphs. It still needs some word-smithing, but I think the size is about right now.
Re: "....she was a Eugenicist member" better words for her relationship with eugenics are: adhere/adherent; subscribe/subscriber; endorse/endorser; proponent; support/supporter; advocate/advocate; or propose/proposer. The word "member" suggests there is some official club, or a single official organization. Noleander (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done. Now at 267 words, 3 paragraphs. Noleander (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Layout and structure

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

Regarding the sections in the article (not just "Planned Parenthood Era" section): The article is broken into three parts: (a) first several sections of the article (before "Views") are a chronological story of her life. (b) Within the "Views" section are the four contentious topics that deserve special focus because many readers will want to zoom in on them and get in-depth coverage. Ideally those four topics would be scattered thruout the life story, but that is not practical due to controversial nature of the 4 topics. These topic/issue subsections are not intended to hold any events or personal info. (c) After "Views" is the caboose: miscellaneous/references/legacy.
The "personal life" events (marriage, divorce) are scattered thruout the upper chronological sections, rather than concentrated in a "Personal life" section. (Ditto for all events in her life: they are in the appropriate chronological section). This is the model used in many biographical articles, such as Douglas Macarthur. I'd prefer to keep it that way. Maybe we could try something like Woodrow Wilson, where there is a "Marriage and family" section (in lieu of "personal life" section); that article also (like this MS article) has several chronological sections, followed by a topic/issue section "Race Relations" ... very much like is found in the MS article now. Unless there is a compelling reason, we should probably maintain that pattern. Noleander (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Below, you mention renaming some top-level sections (Birth Control Movement etc) ... we should probably get consensus on the overall layout (above) before acting on those. So, I'll not act on those particular suggestions (below) at this point in time. Noleander (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ditto for suggestions like "Her brother is unrelated to her death, should be moved to personal life section" ... I'll refrain from responding to that until the overall layout is finalized. Noleander (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I've been looking at FA-quality biography articles, and there seems to be a clear pattern:
  1. The articles always begin with several chronological sections presenting the complete life story
  2. The final (sub)section within the life story portion is always Death (or similar)
  3. After the life story portion of the article, some (but not all) bios will have one or more "deep dive" sections for topics/issues that are especially significant for the subject of the bio. These topic/issue sections go into detail, but generally do not internally use a chronological or event-based approach
  4. There is always a "Legacy" section at the bottom of the article, and if there are topic/issue sections, "Legacy" follows those.
  5. "Personal Life" sections do not appear in articles of historically important people, but are found in bios of living celebrities.
I think the article's current layout is consistent with this established pattern. That said, I can see some potential improvements: (a) Improve names of individual sections, e.g. add word similar to "era" to the titles of the life story sections; and (b) Perhaps promote subsections under "Views" to be top-level sections?? .. but that seems like it would lead to more confusion. Noleander (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Section specific feedback

Early life

  • Rename this to personal life, so that it can include her relationship with HG Wells here in a more structured manner.
Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Mention who Grant, Stuart and her third child are in the body itself.
  • Wikilink to Union army (so people know which side)  Done

Social activism =

  • Can rename and shorten section to Activism, there isn't any kind of activism that is not social.
 Done Noleander (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Wiki link Socialist Party of America – linked to Socialist Party of New York instead, as the original text read Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party.
  • Wiki link Comstock law (once per section is not only allowed, but helpful here)  Done
  • The paragraph about Neo-Malthusian should make it more explicit this is connected to Eugenic politics.
I'm looked into that, and it looks like Malthusians are 100% concerned with overpopulation, and do not concern themselves with the fitness of the human race. The Malthusianism article only mentions eugenics once, and that is to say that eugenics was influenced by Malthusianism (as an argument to impose sterilization/birth control) but not the other way around. I learned that neo-malthusiansm only originated around 1920 or 21, and since Sanger's encounter was in 1914-15, the word in this paragraph should be "Malthusianism" not "Neo-Malthusianism". I improved the paragraph so it now reads: "She shared the concern of Malthusians that over-population led to poverty, famine and war.". I agree that the connection between eugenics and malthusianism should be included in the article ... and the Eugenics section already talks about overpopulation as related to eugenics, so if we need any additional emphasis, it should probably be added there. Noleander (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Birth control movement

  • Missing the most important/notable claim, Today, Sanger, along with Emma Goldman and Mary Dennett, is viewed as a founder and leader of the birth control movement.
Not sure that is appropriate. The first 7 top-level sections are intended to be a chronological listing of events in her life. Retrospective statments such as "today she is viewed ..." are better in the Lede or Legacy sections (or maybe the four Topic/Issue/Views sections). But if you feel strongly about it, I have no objection. See also discussion above about overall layout/sections for this article. Noleander (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Should be renamed to Birth control, as it's not primarily about the movement, but Sanger's activism/views around it. Of course the movement is relevant, and she is an early pioneer of it.
Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Paragraph about her relationship with HG Wells should be moved to personal/early life section, and her publication should be moved to her works. It comes off odd in a section that's about birth control movements
Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

American Birth Control League

  • What does shifting from radical politics mean? Some sources I read, suggest that it means she stopped defying laws/being provocative, but it's not clear here.
 Done "Shift" in that paragraph means transisiting from solo, low-level efforts (e.g. submitting articles to socialist newpapers) to establishing large, well-funded organizations (ABCL). I'll improve I improved the wording to clarify. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The 3 paragraphs starting from Sanger invested a great deal of effort communicating with the general public. From 1916 onward seem to have nothing to do with American Birth Control League and are better placed in (social) activism section.
Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Death

  • Her brother is unrelated to her death, should be moved to personal life section
Waiting for resolution of layout discussion above at Talk:Margaret_Sanger/GA2#Layout_and_structure Noleander (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Eugenics

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

  • I will ask other editors for feedback/extra set of eyes here, as this is an important section where expertise could be invaluable
Thanks for helping on this: Eugenics is the one section that I know is not GA status yet. I've been working on it the past 2 days, and it is still not there is getting there. One thing I would tell reviewers is: that section is unique because it must be written now, in 2025, in a way that will help editors in future decades maintain it and stave-of edit wars. In other words: it should have more citations (sources) and more footnotes (with quotations and insights) than a typical WP article. Thus, a large number of cites & footnotes (and quotations) in the Eugenics section is not a reason to fail GA (provided the cites & footnotes are pertinent and reasonable). The only alternative to large footnotes (that I can see) is a statement in the Talk page about the Eugenic sources & content, perhaps pinned to the top of the Talk page; I've seen that in some articles about contentious subjects. But footnotes have the advantage that readers can see the information (not just editors) thus avoiding criticisms that the article is censored or ignoring sources. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The next change I was planning on making to the Eugenics section was to remove all Sanger quotes (I think there are 3 remaining) into footnotes; and replacing the quotes with prose equivalent, based on secondary sources. . But I'll wait on that task until you or other editors weigh in ... don't want to thrash the section. Noleander (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the Eugenics section is in fairly decent shape now ... perhaps GA quality? Before today, I do not think it was quite there. The tone is encyclopedic, sources are on-point, and primary sources are generally relegated to supplemental footnotes (leaving 2ndary sources in the citations). And it covers all the major points that sources discuss. Most importantly, the section now has a logical flow to it, whereas before it was a disjointed sequence of (valid) facts. There are a relatively large number of footnotes, but - due to the contentious nature of the section - it seems wise to keep them, so future readers & editors will have quick access to the data (vs a Talk page section), and they can resolve questions faster. Noleander (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In popular culture

  • Currently is bullet point list, while the legacy section has prose about her depictions in popular culture. Consider merging the two sections somehow
Agree "In Popular culture" (IPC) is peculiar. Initially, its content was part External Links section, but (I think) it somehow got moved into a dedicated section, and named "In Popular Culture". I don't think the IPC bullet items deserve prose ... rather than make it prose and merging with Legacy, maybe move the IPC bullets back into "External Links"? Noleander (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done. I deleted the "In Popular culture" section and moved its contents (bullets) into External Links section. Let me know if you're not comfortable with that. Noleander (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until we can find & read a copy of the American Weekly magazine, I changed the citation in the article to mention that it is a draft manuscript. I left the quotes (from the magazine) in the footnote. After we find the article, we can change the cite back to the magazine article. Noleander (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I posted a request for this article at WP:RX ... with luck, they'll find it. Noleander (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
A helpful editor at WP:RX found the article at https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/1043726343/ .. apparently it was a weekly insert; this particular source was in the "The Washington Herald".
Since this appears to be a legit article that did make it into print, I'll restore the cite in this MS article to name the article. Noleander (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Margaret Sanger: Difference between revisions Add topic