Talk:Margaret Sanger

Transparency

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

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

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

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

Here are some more facts for you to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Proof She Was Anti Abortion

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

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

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

Racist

Ironic you editors dont mention she is a white supremacist 12.186.215.34 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not ironic, we stick with facts.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu 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. 97.117.92.5 (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, good to see how you blatantly ignore the facts to promote your own view. The Banner talk 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You, as well as others, seem to derive the notion that Sanger was racist from her "Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble". December 10, 1939.. In this letter she states We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. This statement can be read one of two ways. In a negative reading, it would be and attempt to deceive African-Americans. In a positive reading, it would be in the "please don't let me be misunderstood" vein; that the benefit of offering birth control to the African-American community should be not be construed as an attempt to reduce their numbers any more than any other American. Given the fact that W. E. B. Du Bois & both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the Work with the African-American community section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly original research or guilt by association. Peaceray (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2022 (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." Freebyunderstanding (talk) 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. FiyaTiger (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have evidence? The Banner talk 14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@FiyaTiger: By evidence, I believe The Banner means verification from reliable sources. Otherwise what you present seems to be a biased commentary based on original research. Peaceray (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 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 it's actually a quote from W.E.B DuBois 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"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu 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 borrowed this quote directly from W. E. B. Du Bois." Freebyunderstanding (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Also interesting to read is this quote from the article Negro Project: 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. So what became the Negro Project, was not conform Sangers wishes. The Banner talk 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). The Banner talk 16:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Unjustified removal of Chesler quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eugenics and Birth Control

How do you justify this text:

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

The referenced link states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great, thanks. Apology accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read & heed our MOS:LEAD guideline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

References