Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 3

"Blind, deaf... dead weight of human waste" wrongly claimed "undo weight"
This quote from the Eugenics section was removed, claiming it is "undue weight". Below, I list the WP undue weight criteria and show that this does not appear to qualify as undo weight.


 * In her book The Pivot of Civilization, critical of New York spending nearly twelve million dollars on a small number of citizens including "the blind, deaf, and mute... feeble-minded and epileptic", Sanger wrote, "our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste."

The book citation template was used to link directly to p. 112 which contains the quote, with the full context readily available: http://books.google.com/books?id=DjEbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight:
 * - "The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion." Sanger's own book is a reliable source, and linking to the original enables any reader to see this quote in context.
 * - "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The source is verifiable to the utmost, it must be significant because it is not a "minority viewpoint" but Sanger's OWN viewpoint, and her opinion of the handicapped helps to explain the depth of her commitment to eugenics.
 * - "present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" Sanger is an expert on her opinion of the worth of a handicapped person
 * - even to "verifiable and sourced statements... undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." None of these apply to this quote, which is succinct and it's placement is in the appropriate section and halfway through the article.
 * - A primary undo weight consideration is the reliability of a statement, in that "Minority views [even] on pages specifically devoted to them... should not be represented as the truth." In this case, the source is unimpeachable as to the veracity of the quote, and it's relevance to the topic.

I would like to consider restoring this quote. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every quote needs a place in an article. Her opinion about eugenics is just a tiny part of all the work she has done. To right an, in my opinion, extensive section about a tiny piece of het work only cited in 1 (one) source, gives undue weight to that quote. The Banner talk 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Banner, agreed, not every quote needs a place in an article. But I don't think that's what we're discussing. Also, we're not talking about whether there should be a eugenics section in the article. There already is. And we're not talking about whether this quote should be used to write an extensive section. This is a brief section dealing with a known Sanger issue. We are talking about whether this very brief quote violates WP's "undue weight" standard. I believe those standards, as quoted above, show that it clearly does not violate them. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the section about eugenics and you will see that the book is already mentioned in the last paragraph. Citing it a second time, would make the book more important then it is. Beside of that, you link to "page 112" only links to the cover. Not to the page itself. Please, come up with more sources to show that this is significant. Just one book, an primary source (= written by the subject of this article herself) is not enough to add this point to an already controversial article (not everybody likes her work or heritage). The Banner talk 19:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the quote should not go in. Besides the points made by Banner, the quote is clearly singled-out for its inflammatory effect.  MS wrote scores of books & pamphlets, and the purpose of the WP article is to distill  them into an encyclopedic summary.  Cherry-picking specific quotes is can very easily mislead readers.  Bob:  If you want to add some material to the Eugenics section, try to find some point/idea that is not yet represented in the article, and write a prose (non-quote) sentence summaring the idea.   --Noleander (talk)`


 * Hello Banner and Noleander. Banner, by clicking on my edit or the link above, you'll see that it does go right to page 112 showing the "human waste" quote (and if you read the quote in context there, that might help you see the argument that objectively, this qoute should be included. You claimed that eugenics was a "tiny piece" of Sanger's work, but she's the second name listed in the WP eugenics article under prominent supporters, and the American Eugenics Society article, though poorly written, mentions Sanger's prominent role. Noleander, yes, she wrote scores of pamphlets and articles, but only a few books, and this quote is from one of them. I don't see why it is better for this WP article for me to explain in my words Sanger's passion for Eugenics when we have such a brief statement from her. I would still like this quote reconsidered for the article. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have tried it several times, but I only get the cover. And again: do you have independent, reliable sources that this is significant? Especially with controversial subjects Verifiability is important. The Banner talk 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source has been verified. here, here, here, here, here, . -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, your links do work. Thank you for that. But I am still waiting for the independent sources. The Banner talk 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Banner, now that we have the link matter out of the way (thanks ClaudioSantos), I think you are confused about the need for independent sources. There is no need for an independent source because this is Sanger's own book, and she's the primary authority on what motivated her eugenics efforts. So documenting the depth of her passion regarding the plight of having too many unfit people (human waste), is extremely relevant in this section. I would like to proceed now to include this very brief and relevant quote. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * She could indeed write what she wanted. But the point is: is it relevant? And that can only be determined by external sources. You have to deal with Verifiability (especially the part over self-published sources, like self-publiced books). I know that it sounds harsh, but for Wikipedia, the subject itself is seldom relevant as source. You have to prove that the citation you want to insert is not only in the book, but also that it is relevant and published in reliable, third party sources. And on top of that: if the future edit gives not undue weight to it. She can have written this ten times or more, but when nobody cared and wrote about it, it is not relevant. Sorry. The Banner talk 21:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if someone else can help explain to Banner that he is incorrect on his use of Verifiability here. I have read the Verifiability article carefully, and in no way does it indicate that this quote from Sanger should not be included to explain who she views as "unfit". But to add this, from the journal Disability Studies Quarterly, Vol 31, No 3 (2011) by Prof. Jerry O'Brien, Ph.D. in an article about American Eugenics Writings:
 * The low esteem that eugenicists held for persons who were perceived to be "unfit" was never clearer than in their depiction of such persons as "an ever increasing flood of social wastage" (Guyer, 1913, p. 34) or "refuse pieces of humanity, hardly fit to be called human beings" (cited in "Discussion on Provision …", 1888, p. 402). Of the "feeble-minded, the epileptic and the insane," George Keene (1904) said that it was here that "we appreciate, if ever, the existence of waste material" (p. 413). This "dead weight of human waste," Margaret Sanger (1922) added, was an enormous burden to society (p. 112).
 * Of all the examples Dr. O'Brien could have selected to describe the dehumanization of the handicapped by eugenicists, he chose to include this one, which, in this authoritative journal, considering WP's neutral stance guidelines, adds to the evidence that this brief quote should appear in the eugenics section of this article. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice quotes. Are they from Margaret Sanger? If not, they are completely irreleant to this article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, edits aimed "documenting the depth of her passion" must be supported by high quality secondary sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:Verifiability states that self-published sources are actually allowed when they deal about themselves: WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * 2. BobEnyart has provided a secondary reliable source that uses the Sanger's quote.
 * -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 01:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a new sub-article on the relationship between eugenics & the early birth control movement, then such an article could conceivably contain many quotes from that era about how eugenics was perceived.   But cherry picking a single inflammatory quote in a biographical article is not encyclopedic.  Editors should not be selecting a handful of quotes on their own initiative.  If you really want to improve the Eugenics section of this article, you should be asking yourself:   What do the secondary sources say about Sanger's views of eugenics?   It is okay for the article to paraphrase what the academics & historians say about Sanger's views.  --Noleander (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Texts written by Sanger are full of those sort of quotes and she was not against eugenics at all, your claim of "cherry picking" is absolutely out of context. If Sanger's comments are inflamatory for you then at any rate those are indeed her comments despite of your concern. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics. The article already says that.  The best way to write his article is as a prose summary (excluding quotes) of what her biographers say.  Including 1 or 2 quotes, out of the 10,000s of things she said, is subject to cherry-picking.  The only quotes that should be in the article are either extremely important philosophy/policy statements she made that are well documented by secondary sources; or non-controversial quotes which give substantial insight to readers about her life  in a way that prose could not. --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of controversy are you speaking around Sanger's statements? a controversy within Sanger's claims and your image of her? Indeed the quotes are not controverting nor denying the current prose but merely ilustrating it, the quotes and the prose are coherent, so what "cherry picking" or "controversy" are you speaking about? I do not understand. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿?  00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With the explanations above answering the few objections, it seems this quote should now be included in the article, especially as presented, including that it helps the reader identify who Sanger views as unfit and why she would want to eliminate them. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please support the importance of the quote with a secondary source. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongely disagree. I have asked earlier for secondary sources, I still do that. You have to proof the relevance of your cherrypicked remarks. Beside that, Wikipedia is not the place voor activism. You can fight your battle against Planned Parenthood on your hometurf, not here on Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with including this quote. It is a relevant illustration of who Sanger considered unfit and why. Secondary sources are only required to support an interpretation of a primary source. There is no interpretation of her quote that needs to be supported Nrambeck (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that you support an edit your boss wants on wikipedis. Unfortunately, I don't think you are a genuine new user, so I requested a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) towards you and Bob Enyart. I have the idea that you are at least a Meatpuppet, and maybe a sock puppet. I also have reverted your edits pending this discussion and pending the running SPI. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not explained why you claim it is a "cherry picked" quote. This quote is NOT controversial but coherent with the current prose, it does not denies the prose but exemplyfies it. Your claims about the quote are surely inflamatory and at any rate not objective. The quote does not attack planned parenthood at all, that is also an unfounded accusation. Margaret Sanger was indeed an eugenecist, and she made a lot of times those sort of affirmations about/against sick people, and the current prose recognize it. The quote just illustrate it. Citing primary sources by the own subject is not forbbiden at all by any WP policy. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A not-controversial quote? I see three people objecting to the quote, so you can safely say it is considered controversial at this article. The three people supporting the edit are you, Bob Enyart (a known anti-abortion activist) and one Nramback (quickly identified as Nathan Rambeck, somebody working for Bob Enyart). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to repeat, it could be controversial for your perception about Sanger, but it is not controversial with the current prose about Sanger beliefs on eugenics. The section clearly states Sanger "advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating", she supported the aim of "assisting the race toward the elimination of the unfit" and also the current prose states "Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded". That was what she said and believed, and if you have not even said why you say the quote is controversial, then at any rate the quote is not controversial with the current prose, it does not deny it, but the quote solely illustrate current prose. If you do not like Sangers' words and beliefs, as I do not too, that is another thing, but that is not the matter here. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿?  02:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sheer fact that we strongly disagree about inclusion, should be an indication to you that the quote is, in the context of this article, controversial. It might be in the same writing style, but I still want secondary sources that this point was a major issue worth inclusion. I agree that Sanger can write everything she wants, I agree that sometimes quotations out of het works are useful. But I have severe problems assuming AGF and NPOV in the case of the original proposer of the quote. As you can read in his own article, Mr. Enyart is, at least locally, well known anti-abortion activist with several convictions for this on his name. I agree completely with the fact that you and I strongly disagree about the ideas and work of Margaret Sanger, but at least with you I have the idea that you play a fair game. And seeing the real life reputation of mr. Enyart, I doubt strongly about his intentions of building a neutral article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Judging Is Not Just a Sin; It Is Poor Scholarship
Obviously this article fails to have a neutral POV. Here is an undocumented judgmental statement:
 * "In 1914, prompted by suffering she witnessed due to frequent pregnancies and self-induced abortions, she started a monthly newsletter,…"
 * There is no way one could know what prompted Sanger, whether it was sympathy for suffering from a humanistic heart or the devil himself who prompted Sanger. This is called the sin of judging, that is, jumping to conclusions where one cannot know the motives of the heart of a person.  No one knows what prompted Sanger.  Now of course for the rules of Wikipedia, you can go & find some secondary source that says it, though that was not done in this case.  You also could no doubt find some secondary source that gave evil motives to Sanger.  The fact is that it is invalid to make such statements whether or not there is a secondary source that claims it. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Point is that Wikipedia reflects what is written about Sanger. We did not "invent" what her prompted to action. As you can see in the section "Social activism" is was Sanger herself who claimed this reason in several speeches. I guess Sanger is still the best source to explain/claim her own motivations. So, it is not a judgement, it is a claim made by Margaret Sanger herself. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this not be included under race
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…" Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood It is questionable that this statement is ommitted while others are included. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have secondary sources that this was an important claim? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @IP24:  The best encyclopedia articles use quotes sparingly.  See WP:QUOTEFARM.  This article already has Good article status, and any changes to it should aim to make its style even more professional and encyclopedic.  MS wrote hundreds of thousands of sentences that could be quoted, but it is better for editors to summarize her points ... ideally we find what historians and biographers focus on, and paraphrase what they say.  The only quotes that should be in a biographical article are those that are extremely famous, or are representative of a key viewpoint of hers.  In any case, secondary sources which highlight the quote are necessary (but not sufficient). --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Should there be some mentions of her "Code for Babies" plea?
In this article from American Weekly March 1934, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=101807.xml Sanger pleads for quite radical societal reform: she wants the creation of a "permit for parenthood" without which no one would have the right to have a child, and she pleads for a "better distribution of babies". Isn't that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.37.92 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be notable enough for the article. The test is whether or not biographers of Sanger (or historians) comment on this topic or not. --Noleander (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Review needed
Please review the edits by Esther119. A few times a source written by Esther Katz shows up in her edits, often enough to give me a strange feeling. Are the edits reliable? Use of own work? Or nothing wrong here? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2 subjects: eugenics & child abuse
1. According to this article (unfortunately, it suffers from typos), Ms Sanger made known her parting with eugenics views in a piece that appeared in The Birth Control Review, February 1919. Since there is a whole section here on Sanger's eugenics ideas, should not a separation from those ideas be mentioned? <http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm>

2. In the 1980 TV movie about Margaret Sanger: Portrait of a Rebel: The Remarkable Mrs. Sanger, starring Bonnie Franklin <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081359/>, there was a segment about Sanger's involvement in the first case of child abuse brought in New York City. According to the film (as I remember it from 33 years ago), since there was no statute protecting children from parental abuse, the case hinged on a law for the protection of animals from abuse because the child was being treated no better than an animal. If this is based in truth, then Sanger's involvement in the protection of child from abuse should be mentioned as it is germane to this article.

[Since my memory of this film is vague, please forgive me if I have gotten any facts wrong. I did not see the Dana Delany version, Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112664/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2> or the 1999 documentary, Margaret Sanger <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261047/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>.]

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @2: Never trust a film as the story seldom reflects the truth. Unusable as source! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's that time of year (quotation discussion)
If you'd like to add a sourced inflammatory quote or fact, please read WP:UNDUE first, then describe why reliable, secondary sources give the same weight that you'd like to give it here. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One-word neutral term 'critics' quickly rejected
I just tried to change "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" to "Critics" (giving the reason --- "Removed implication of motive and substituted a more neutral term"), and within minutes it was changed back. The reason given was "In this case it is relevant to tell who are her critics."

All her critics, or just many of them? Come on now. By attributing criticisms of her eugenics and alleged racism to "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion" you're ignoring other possible reasons for the criticism unrelated to abortion. The implication is that these criticisms are trumped up charges, and need not be considered on their own merits.

I believe simply using the word 'critics' is the best and most objective description, but if others insist on emphasizing something that people already know, or would assume to be the case (that many opponents of the legalization of abortion criticize Sanger in various ways), I suggest saying, "Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion, as well as others,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.34.67.80 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is especially bizarre since she was generally anti-abortion herself. AnarchistMatt (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanger KKK photo fake
A recent editor added this photo which was subsequently removed. Just in case anyone re-adds it, be aware that it is a fake. It's part of an annual Margaret Sanger at the Ku Klux Klan Rally Art Contest encouraging Photoshoppers to "commemorate Sanger at the Klan rally in unique artistic ways." No known photos exist of Sanger at the KKK meeting (not "rally") she claims to have spoken at. MFNickster (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and Possible lies.
This article really needs to be looked over completely and possibly rewritten. It seems slightly biased and contains a flat out lie about Martin Luther King Jr. because he did not accept the Margaret Sanger Award or give an acceptance speech. He wasn't even there, yet this article claims he gave an acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.

§~TexasChickStuckInCali~§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasChickStuckInCali (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that with reliable third party sources? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He wasn't there, but he wrote an acceptance speech and his wife, Coretta Scott King, delivered it. I updated the link to the reference at PP. MFNickster (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead image
I realise this will likely need a bit of cropping but http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.23669/ is Margaret Sanger "Probably taken outside Sanger's Brownsville clinic trial at the King's County Court of Special Sessions, Jan. 30, 1917 (Source: Staff of Margaret Sanger Papers project, NYU, 2014)"- it's also a rather good photograph of her. Are there any objections to making that image the lead, moving the current lead down a bit? Alternatively, we could put it into the section on her trial.

I think Sanger deserves a featured picture, and this - and a picture of her Brooklyn Clinic I found - seem the best candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Abortion
I note with interest the recent disagreement over how to best represent Sanger's views on abortion. , since there seems to be little support for your adding the quote as it stands, perhaps you could suggest an alternative way to incorporate the information in the article if the source is reliable? Maybe, and others might be willing to discuss this so we don't run the risk of WP:3RR issues. Basie (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One does not include information by randomly inserting a quote into the lead completely out of context. This is a GA article and it needs to adhere to the standards. For example the lead only is supposed to include information that is already in the body of the article. So the way to do this would be to put it into the body of the article, and most probably not in the form of a quote. The quote is a primary source, and since we should not be using primary sources much what we should do is find out what secondary sources say about her views on abortion - then we should report it in that way. That is how articles are written, not by cherrypicking quotes and adding them willy nilly into the text.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, just thought it might pay to discuss it somewhere other than edit summaries. I like what you've done in the latest revision. Basie (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Article's Author
This article is ridiculously favourable to Sanger, and since one contributor states that an alteration he made was removed within minutes, it seems reasonable to assume that it was written by, and is being constantly monitored by, Sanger's disciples. I found it very troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.67.237 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you to. I hope that you learn this year that we are writing an encyclopaedia based on prior published sources in a neutral fashion. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image which appears when article is shared
There was a discussion on Facebook about which woman should appear on the new U.S. $10 bill. When I shared this article, the image of Sanger's eugenics article appears instead of her picture. Looks like someone has done a clever hack to highlight her controversial beliefs instead of her positive contributions. Can anyone fix it? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see a hack, just a choice of three pictures. In my case only the third one is Sanger herself. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen this happen with other Wikipedia articles (that the main image is one from far down in the article - in this case the 7th image). Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed
The new User:Chrononem is making edits to this article that in my opinion are making the article less neutral. Beside that, he is acting as an experienced user, although registered only a few days ago. To avoid an edit war, I like more eyes on this article to keep the neutrality intact. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, in fact I mentioned it earlier on Banner's talk page. I do not want to see an edit war.

Thank you, Banner. I may seem experienced but this is my first foray into Wikipedia. Years ago I worked on varrious video game wiki's so I know most of the rules; That may contribute to my apparent experience. Regaurdless, I hope you reconsider your recent edit. I believe you are not taking the time to consider the attitude words convey, how certain words should be used carefully on wikipedia due to their accusatory nature. Chrononem  &#9742;  21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You try it nicely, but after your last revert the article is now not-neutral. I leave to others to decide about that edit. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's good; and, I believe, the purpose of the active sanctions in place on the article. Chrononem   &#9742;   — Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that those sanctions where you are hammering on, also apply to you and your editwarring. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. Chrononem  &#9742;  23:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Did Planned parenthood write this article?
While Sanger did not wholly escape the racist attitudes of her time

Isn't this a little too positive? It makes it seem as if she was a victim of her racism. What? That's such a bullshit way of putting it. She was a racist, why not outright state it? Anyone who meets up with the female chapter of the KKK is a racist. Or maybe they're just 'victims'? That's portraying her as a victim that attempted but failed to do something noble. Claiming that colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated (The Pivot of Civilization - Margaret Sanger) doesn't sound like the glowing portrayal of her as a precious commodity. Can we at least make mention of SOME of her racism instead of sweeping it under the rug with you only bring it up if youre against abortion and hey it was the 1920's Hitler's racism is also excused hey 1920's

While Ted Bundy was not able to escape his insanity, poor poor Teddy

Hell, this whole article is a glowing review of Margaret.

Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics.[61][62][note 8] In spite of such attacks, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement.

in other words, many who dislike her say this, but these attacks haven't diminished her as a saint. Yes, let's reduce any controversies surrounding her to a blurb. A blurb that claims people only bring these claims up because they are opposed to abortion. Not because, you know, they're opposed to racism and eugenics. I'm just surprised at the wording and the way this entire article dismisses any valid critiques of her as coming from people that dislike abortion and women.

Did planned parenthood write this article themselves?

and for the record, I actually have nothing against eugenics and believe that if there is a valid scientific basis then it is up for discussion. I'm also totally for abortion, but that isn't the point. The point is that this is a shit article.108.41.215.105 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seems as though the main writer of this article is trying to downplay her racism. A lot of historical revisionism is going on here trying whitewash her white supremacy. I nominate you to edit it. (50.190.172.58 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)flippp)

There's need for considerable caution in editing this article as there seems to be much misinformation promulgated on both sides. E.g., Sanger is quoted above as likening "colored people" to "human weeds" and this is sourced to her book "The Pivot of Civilization" --- I can't find that quote in either the Gutenberg or Google on-line version of that book. SHJohnson (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up. Wikiquote identifies the "human weeds" quote as a misattribution.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger SHJohnson (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My sense is that the person who wrote the above criticism isn't aware of just how mainstream the idea of eugenics was at the time. It was the belief that some members of society should be encouraged to procreate and some should be discouraged. And it was not necessarily a racist belief either; for example W.E.B. Dubois was involved in the eugenics movement. He obviously did not support "white supremacy." Some aspects of the eugenics movement were openly racist and some were not. It's far too broad a brush to equate eugenics beliefs in the early 20th century with the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.194.138 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this Sanger quote here. Wikipedia is a joke source for a reason, and Orwellian recasting of racist Progressives for political points is a good reason:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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."

Margaret Sanger, "Women, Morality, and Birth Control" 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C463:210:5440:5DA6:A41D:87C1 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Gosh, we've never seen that quote before. Wonder what it means? MFNickster (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Going on a century later, and they're still straightening out that misperception. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"An iconic figure"
This not puffery but backed up with sources like these:, , , and many more. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is by definition puffery, "Iconic" is an opinion, "recognized" is not. Chrononem  &#9742;  15:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Going by the definition on Wiktionary, "1) Relating to, or having the characteristics of, an icon" or "2) Famously and distinctively representative of its type," I don't think there's any puffery implied. "Iconic" is not a term of aggrandizement. it just means "recognized as important in the field," which the sources support. Also, bias in sources is not the same thing as bias in the article. MFNickster (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is with that first definition. An icon is "A person or thing that is the best example of a certain profession or some doing." which is an opinion. "Recognized" or "recognizable" is encyclopedic while "iconic" is an aggrandized synonym.  Chrononem   &#9742;  15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, reporting an opinion from a source is different from an editorial opinion in the article. Writing that Sanger is regarded by many as iconic in the movement is hardly a controversial position, it happens to be true. MFNickster (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe specifying that she is "regarded" as iconic would have been a clever way to avoid the issue that simply calling her iconic presents, while still including your opinion. As it is I think "recognizable" is the superior option as it does not elevate her above all others in her field.
 * Chrononem  &#9742;  17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not an opinion but based on sources. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If a source said a certain president was the "best example of their profession" would we include that, outside of quotes on Wikipedia? Chrononem   &#9742;  18:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Certain presidents are iconic, e.g. Washington, Lincoln. I really don't have a problem with describing Sanger as iconic to the birth control movement; she is in fact that important to the subject, such that her name is almost synonymous with 'birth control.' That said, I'm not opposed to a more objective description. MFNickster (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for open mindedly considering my suggestion MFNickster. If The Banner is in favor maybe you could make the edit as a neutral party. Chrononem   &#9742;  02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Peacock tags
FWIW, the two sections flagged in this-current version of the article, with two {peacock} tags, clearly contains “real information”. Moreover, the flagged sections are reasonably well cited. I’m surprised such a tag even exists; it strongly smacks of being the ultimate [I DON’T LIKE IT] tag that is every bit as biased a viewpoint as the verbiage it criticizes. What sort of editors are we allowing to flit about on Wikipedia (or camp out on a particular article) slapping these tags on articles? Not even Jimbo himself wields that much judgmental clout.

If there truly were entire sections of articles that ‘promoted the subject in a subjective manner and did not impart real information,’ the entire section should be removed, taken to a dedicated discussion page, and the two edit-warring camps can then go at it—hopefully backing up their prose with genuine citations from real RSs. I'm not going to even think about removing these tags, which are an edit-warring abomination unto the eyes of the wikipedian world, as I can tell that treading here on this article is bad ‘cess. Greg L (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Though the sections are well cited they carry sentiment that should not have carried over to Wikipedia. Even a cursory glance at these sections (not to mention the talk page) should allow respectable editor to identify the phrases in question as pregnant with opinion, if you can restate the phrases in an objective manner please feel free to do so; If, as you indicated, your problem is actually with the Wikipedia manual of style and the procedure therein please feel free to comment on the relevant talk page. Chrononem   &#9742;  18:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't write anywhere in my first post that there was any problem with Wikipedia's manual of style; I didn't even mention the manual of style at all—in any context. After a better-than-cursory glance, I don't see phrases that, as you say, are “pregnant with opinion.” This seems to be a case where edit-warring editors have arrived at a lightning-rod article with more than the usual bias, which would explain using {peacock} as an {I don't like it} tag on prose that seems reasonably straightforward. I support any editor who would like to remove those tags. Greg L (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To quote you directly "I’m surprised such a tag even exists; it strongly smacks of being the ultimate [I DON’T LIKE IT] tag that is every bit as biased a viewpoint as the verbiage it criticizes." The procedure for the use of those tags can be found here. If you have strong feelings about it the talk page for the tag might be a good place to express those feelings. Chrononem  &#9742;  02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! I see now that the {peacock} tag has appropriate uses. I was merely caught off guard by how it was being misused here on this article: the ultimate {I don't like it} tag for prose that doesn't, IMHO, merit it. I support any editor who would like to remove those tags. I think I'm done here. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go, that's good progress! Now, I know you said you couldn't figure out why they were here, so if you want to see what the tags on this page are in refference to please feel free to find the relevent section on this talk page where it is being discussed. (Hint: It was the section right before this one.) Chrononem   &#9742;  12:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Abortion
I've removed the abortion section, because it was sourced almost entirely to a) primary sources and b) secondary sources that didn't support the written claims. While inclusion of the subject's own writings is not taboo in a bio article, they can't be used to support an entire "controversy" section. Secondary sources don't appear to support the claim that Sanger had any great moral problem with abortion; it looks like the cited primary sources are either part of, or describing, the rhetoric which she used to advocate contraception, rather than a description of her personal views. I've salvaged the secondary source to another section. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

care to weigh in on why you believe your interpretation of primary sources outweighs secondary source analysis? Please don't even bother to cite ridiculous things like RedState. I must remind you that POV/NPOV, which you keep mistakenly citing, is about reflecting reliable sources, not about conforming to some editor's subjective view of what would be neutral. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting material based on unreliable sources and added references to the reliable sources already in use in the article. I omitted questionable interpretations based on selective reading of the primary sources, especially when it has not been confirmed by reliable secondary sources. I believe my summary is supported by secondary sources. The reduced exposition reflects emphasis and the degree of coverage in secondary sources that span four decades. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roscelese and Jason from nyc. The text that has been repeatedly re-added to the article is not compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. In particular, the repeated restoration of the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Race" section  is an egregious misuse of a partial quote taken out of context to make unsupported assertions in Wikipedia's voice about Sanger and Planned Parenthood.  This should be deleted immediately.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about sources, please advise
Can't primary sources be used as sources when actual quotations are placed in the article? If I write, "[So-and-so] wrote [such-and-such]" in a Wiki article, am I allowed to use an online edition of the work in which So-and-so actually did write such-and-such as a source? If not, why not? Thanks, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With caution per WP:PRIMARY, yes. However, taking quotes out of context (e.g., here, and here) is not acceptable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be intent on edit warring. Since someone's removed your edit again why don't you state the actual context here and let the community decide rather than violating the 1RR on this sanctioned article. Chrononem   &#9742;  22:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not worth the time. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not, if you are unwilling to take the time to do things properly then maybe this page, or wikipedia, isn't for you. Chrononem   &#9742;  12:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"disgrace to civilization" quote
I noticed the text below removed by and restored by an IP shortly thereafter. As presented, I agree it's problematic, yet also agree it likely makes sense to include in some fashion. Here's the text, which was at the end of the Abortion section: She wrote: "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." She also wrote: "To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life."

The problematic thing I noticed was that the first quote comes from a passage in which she's talking about how dangerous abortions were. Just below that quote she says "It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow." In other words, in this context, the "disgrace" she's talking about seems more along the lines of a disgrace that there are laws which prevent access to birth control, leading to unnecessary [dangerous] abortions. Of course, we'd need a reliable secondary source for either interpretation, which is why I moved the text here rather than modify it.

The second quote does appear to be a moral objection in addition to her legal/ethical/practical objections. I moved that here too as it seems like a bad idea to include a line like that in an article about a controversial subject, citing only a primary source. I don't have a strong opinion on what the best course is and don't intend to remove the text again if this has been discussed in the past and this thread isn't useful. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The second quote invokes morality, but it's describing what she told other people in order to get them to use contraception. It's not appropriate as a description of her own views. Sanger has been the subject of copious coverage; we should be able to find a reliable secondary source describing her opinions, or at the very least, an unambiguous primary source quote from her copious writings! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Eugenics
I have removed the misinformation included about Margaret Sanger in the eugenics section, as none of the information provided has been verified by historians. This misinformation is a large part of the rhetoric promoted by those in the anti-choice movement, and investigation of her papers by historians has never supported the conclusions drawn by such groups. Comment added by Naha8 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of the cited sources do you consider to be unreliable? StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Naha8 has been banned indefinately. Chrononem   &#9742;  16:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

working women emphasis
Why is working women emphasized under Social activism? If an implication needs to be made shouldn't it be "working women" rather than vaguely suggesting it? If not should I remove the emphasis? Chrononem  &#9742;  18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange. I went ahead and just removed it. There are only a few reasons to use bold text in an article, and this isn't one of them. Furthermore, there's no indication she's talking about specifically prostitutes and it doesn't look like it's emphasized in the original, so since it's a direct quote we wouldn't want to insert our own scare quotes. Thanks for pointing it out. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't intending to suggest we use scare quotes. Just (sarcastically) that it could link to prostitute if that's what we were trying to imply. It's already surrounded by quotes I think. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Chrononem   &#9742;  12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Klu Klux Clan in Race section
I feel like Sanger's lecture to the KKK is as relevent to her racial controvercies as her affiliation with Black leaders. I suggest it be included in that section. Thoughts? Chrononem  &#9742;  19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's hardly relevant at all. Here is the entire account of her speaking to the women of the KKK... nothing about race or eugenics in there. She was there to discuss birth control. The lecture is already noted in the article, and it's fine where it is. There's really nothing to add, and any speculation or commentary on the anecdote would give it undue weight. MFNickster (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * She was also only involved in the black community to discuss birth control. Why only mention one and not the other? (aside: if she really wanted to extirminate black people with eugenics was she trying to do the same with the kkk?) Chrononem   &#9742;  19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not relevant and it gives too much weight to this lecture. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest her involvement in the black community be moved to a different section under the same logic.(define "too much weight")
 * Chrononem  &#9742;  15:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. Making things more important than they really are is in conflict with neutrality. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it would be giving it undue weight. The article presents Sanger's association with minorities as a counterargument to her disdain for them, wouldn't you either mention her association with those on the other side of the aisle in the same section (a bit cumbersome perhaps) or move her relationship with minorities to a different section, including them in her life narrative and reference both from the controversy section? Chrononem   &#9742;  22:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is enough when you keep the article neutral instead of putting every negative hiccup in it. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of neutrality that's really difficult to understand is that it includes the negative and the positive. In order to be neutral both the positive and negative aspects have to be addressed. If an editor were to overwhelmingly mention the positive, or revert only edits that add negative details, then that would indicate that the editor is not a neutral party. Every negative hiccup needs to be included among the positive ones. 02:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with including negative aspects, as long as the info is accurate and properly sourced. MFNickster (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even hiccups needs to be relevant and not blown out of proportion. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen a great deal of misinformation on the Sanger page since the release of the Planned Parenthood sting videos, which have been widely discredited by media outlets. It is a common practice for anti-choice groups to quote Mrs. Sanger out of context to suggest that she was involved in negative eugenics. This claim has never been verified by historians, and taking the full quotes in context make it clear that she did not, in fact, promote the genocide of other racial groups. User:naha8 21:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it seems Naha8 has taken issue with some easily verifiable information and gotten himself banned. Chrononem   &#9742;  14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But others have raised important points as to the substance of her speech as opposed to the prejudices of the audience. This is a bio about Sanger, not the people in the audience. I'd argue that the current inclusion is already too much and gives undue weight to a part of the story that has little relevance to her notability. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection
WP:ANI's section "Violation of 1RR on sanctioned article." pointed me to the page history here, but while I expected to see two or three users battling it out, I saw lots of reversions by lots of people. Unless I've misunderstood something here, this is an ideal candidate for page protection to prevent edit-warring. Please make suggestions here for big changes, if you want to see them enacted in the next 24 hours; just come to my talk page to request uncontroversial changes, whether typo fixes or simple factual things, or to ask me to lengthen/shorten/remove the protection. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should've gotten this protected a while ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This is politically correct article
Margaret Sanger was a racist and a eugenist! She deeply believed blacks should be eliminated. How could this possibly be overlooked in her determination to get birth control more accessible? Birth control for who? MY sources are ALL of the history around this woman, her book, "The Pivot of Civilization", which deplores the (reckless breeding), among the poor. Makes outrageous claims of mass amounts of, again, her words, below par children. The need for birth control and the need for better breeding.

Do we say Hitler ever had a virtue? No, NO, we do not. Why? He believed exactly as Sanger did, there are inferior races!

24.8.129.231 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, it's hard for me to take your comments seriously when you've gone Godwin. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It can be overlooked because there is no genuine, reliable evidence that Margaret Sanger was a racial eliminationist, nor that she was a white supremacist, although dishonest antiabortionists have a history of quote mining and dishonestly manufacturing quotes to smear her as one. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You just summed up the ongoing content dispute on this article quite well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I did ask him to "take it to the talk page..."
 * Anon, The goal here is not to record what you or Robin regard as truth but to record sourced information, whether or not we believe in it. While you might want to frame Sanger as a "racist and a eugenist" [sic] Robin would like to frame her detractors as "dishonest antiabortionists" also[sic].


 * Wikipedia can claim neither of those things to be true. The purpose of the controversies section is to allow people who have heard one argument or another to keep informed, both about the arguments and the sources that perpetuate them. Chrononem   &#9742;  02:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Far be it from me to suggest that all her detractors are dishonest. But quote miners and manufacturers of phony quotations surely are. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your terminology has made your POV clear just as Anon's has. Additionally, your assumption of bad faith is similar to Anon's assumption and makes an apt comparison. Chrononem   &#9742;  12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

← It's not "POV" to say that anti-abortionists cherry-pick or outright fabricate quotes supposedly "proving" that Sanger was out to eliminate African-Americans. It's a fact that such dishonest behavior has occurred, and has it has been repeatedly documented and debunked by independent, reliable sources. See: The attempts to link Sanger to Nazi Germany are particularly ignorant, given that Sanger was an ardent anti-Nazi and contributed money and influence to oppose Nazi Germany in the 1930s (Sanger's published works were also vilified and banned in Nazi Germany). So no, this is not an issue of two dueling POVs. It's an issue where reliable sources have identified this material as an example of particularly persistent, politically motivated dishonesty. We don't artificially "compromise" between reliable sources and partisan and misleading political rhetoric, because this is an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FactCheck.org 2011: "No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material."
 * PolitiFact 2011: we found no evidence that Sanger advocated - privately or publicly - for anything even resembling the "genocide" of blacks, or that she thought blacks are genetically inferior... Cain's claim is a ridiculous, cynical play of the race card.
 * Washington Post 2011: If you Google across the Internet, you will find many references by abortion opponents (often African-American) linking alleged statements by Sanger, eugenics and something called the "Negro Project" into a tidy package that seeks to discredit Sanger. But don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. The most damning quote by Sanger has been taken out of context. Meanwhile, a number of doctoral dissertations have closely examined the early days of Planned Parenthood and its relationship with the African American community, and found nothing to confirm these allegations.
 * Washington Post 2015: [Republican Presidential candidate Ben] Carson's campaign initially sent us a blog item with alleged quotes from Sanger&mdash;"colored people are like human weeds"&mdash;that turned out to be unverified and false.
 * I agree with . The idea that there are two sides that need equal weight is baloney we see when CNN invites a Republican and a Democratic pundit to "debate" an issue. It's artificial and harms discourse. Example: climate change, 97% of scientists agree with the consensus, and the minority view, which should be dismissed, instead gets equal weight. It seems to be the same on this page, where some are mining WP:PRIMARYSOURCES to interpret her words in a way that is WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern is that we are using primary sources (e.g. quotes from Sanger) in a way that reliable secondary sources have identified as misleading. MastCell Talk 18:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources were provided on the controversy. The text makes no synthesis, only mentions her quotes as being controversial. Chrononem   &#9742;  18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "secondary" sources suggested have been, Angela Franks' polemic Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, and an opinion piece in the Washington Times by Arina Grossu. Neither are even cited to the text in question. Using primary sources for quotes with out explanation supported by secondary sources is exactly synthesis. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just adding to 's list,


 * Been going on for a while. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice fact checking. Wikipedia was founded in 2001. Chrononem   &#9742;  14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. The source was published in 2007, and is obviously an update to the first edition from 1992 (you can tell that by reading, I dunno, the first 10 words or so). Do you have anything substantive to say about the numerous secondary sources presented here? MastCell Talk 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any grounds for discussion and compromise here? I am skeptical. It looks to me like we're going to need to head to Discretionary Sanctions, and probably to ArbCom, to get anywhere at all. (Question: since this sure looks like a gender-related controversy, does it also fall under Arbitration Enforcement for Gamergate? For Gender Gap Task Force?  If so, does AE trump DS?) I also observe that, with much attention focused on Wikipedia's handling of sexual harassment, it would be better for the project to sort this out soon and quietly, rather than have it devolve into a major mess. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)