Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 6

I have reverted the edits of NightHeron, as I think they better be discussed first
To my opinion, the edit is rather negative. So with heavy heart I have reverted and present the edit here, broken up in pieces. This for easier editing.

Social activism
Old text: Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth."

New text: Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." (It should be noted that biographer Ellen Chesler attempted unsuccessfully to find corroboration of this story. )

comments

Thank you for splitting this up because it's a lot to digest. I'd suggest:
 * Sanger ended her stories by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced ... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." )}} Fred (talk)  23:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Views 1
New section: Abortion Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights. However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right. Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT." Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed. Then as now there was evidence that in that case most women would seek to end their pregnancy by other means. In the 1930s a study conducted in Sanger's birth control clinic by Dr. Hannah Stone showed that, out of 204 women who came to the clinic and were found to be pregnant (and hence could not be given contraceptives), 190 of them apparently did not carry the fetus to term, but most likely had had either a legal ("therapeutic") or illegal ("back-alley") abortion. This study could have been interpreted -- although this was not Sanger's interpretation -- as saying that reproductive health required legal access to safe abortion as well as to contraception, and that the two are inextricably linked.

At this time several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, were calling for legalization of abortion as well as contraceptives. Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that, despite Hannah Stone's research, legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.

comments
 * Middle paragraph, 1st sentence: Today, contraceptives still fail.
 * last sentence: Although some readers have interpreted Sanger as promoting ... {I don't know if the middle is true - is there a source?} ..., it was not. Fred (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Views 2
New section: Criticism Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group." Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them, whatever she might have thought of their views or actions in other areas. In the same way, although there is little evidence that she personally held racist views (other than those that were held by most mainstream white Americans of the time), she was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer Lothrop Stoddard.

Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger ), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of civil rights leaders, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson.

Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options."

General discussion
To The Banner (and other editors). My purpose in these edits is to put some balance in the article, in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Every statement is sourced to a credible source. For example, Chesler's biography is in general favorable to Sanger (in her conclusion she says Sanger should be "venerated"), Lader was a close protege of Sanger, and two other sources were Sanger's own autobiographies. I tried to use neutral editorial wording. If you think I failed, please suggest how to make the wording better, but please don't revert. In order to preserve neutrality, I decided against including a criticism by Chesler of Sanger's reliability and personality (except to note that Chesler's biography raised doubts about the veracity of the Sadie Sacks story). The characterization of Lothrop Stoddard as a klansman and Nazi sympathizer is taken from the Wikipedia page about him. Please note that my sources are not anti-Sanger or anti-birth control or anti-abortion, and I comment that Sanger herself was probably not a racist, although some of her associates such as Stoddard clearly were. It is consistent with Wikipedia policy to provide balance in an article about a controversial person, provided that the criticism is well-sourced, and that is all I did. Of course I welcome suggestions for improving the edit, especially if you think that the wording is insufficiently neutral. NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is why I have presented your edit on this talk page instead of just reverting it. This is a page creating very wild emotions and that is why caution is applied to it. Sorry, but when "others" agree that I have been harsh or overly cautious, I will restore the info. The Banner talk 13:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost a week has passed, and no one has commented on the talk page. In the last 5 days there have been only 12 viewings of the talk page (probably mostly my own, checking to see if anyone had commented) and almost 10,000 pageviews of the Margaret Sanger article.  Please restore my edits, so that viewers of the page have the opportunity to see them and, if they want, change them or contribute to the discussion you started.  I understand that you find that my edits of a historical personality, although well-sourced and worded as neutrally as I can, nevertheless seem "rather negative".  I do not believe that that is a good reason to revert the edits.  I was only striving for balance, in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  The article about Sanger should not be hagiography, that is, just full of praise.  She wasn't a saint.  Speaking of saints, please compare with the Wikipedia article on Mother Teresa, which includes a lot about criticisms -- and in fact there's an entire article on criticism of Mother Teresa.  Thank you.NightHeron (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be true, I do not see any support for your edits. An encyclopedia is not in a hurry. The Banner talk 18:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, but this discussion is not progressing well. You reverted all my edits without giving any specific objections to any of them, and you have not explained your reasons for ignoring my defense of my edits.  Would you agree to a Third opinion WP:3O request?NightHeron (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do so. I have just notified the six involved/interested WikiProject of this discussion and the lack of attention from others to it. The Banner talk 23:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect to the source by Ann Hibner Koblitz it appears to be self published and thus IMO not suitable. That user appears to be adding refs to that author to a fair number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The book was published by a foundation of which the author is director. It's not uncommon for a nonprofit to publish material by staff and officials.  The book has been recognized as scholarly; from the author's Wikipedia page:

In 2015, Koblitz won the "Transdisciplinary Book Award" of the Arizona State University Institute for Humanities Research for her book Sex and Herbs and Birth Control: Women and Fertility Regulation Through the Ages; the award is "presented for a nonfiction work that reflects the finest contemporary humanities-based scholarship on any topic."[27]NightHeron (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: It seems to me that the added content goes against the Manual of Style Instructional and presumptuous language guideline. "It should be noted that..." is specifically discouraged by the Words to watch guideline. Other examples of editorializing are "Even today, and certainly in Sanger's time, contraceptives have often failed", and "Clearly, to her the issue of birth control took precedence, and she eagerly sought allies wherever she could find them". Additionally, WP:Criticism states, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." I would therefore support the removal of the content. Some specific facts could be added to the article if they concisely stated, neutrally phrased and not given undue weight. Scolaire (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the 3O. I apologize for not following the language guidelines, which I hadn't read at the time of the edit (which was 3 days after I opened a Wikipedia account), and also for not sourcing everything.  Below is a slightly shortened version with everything carefully sourced.  Sanger was a controversial figure, even among supporters of birth control, and none of my sources are anti-Sanger or anti-birth-control or anti-abortion.  The new "criticism" section is very short (about 3% of the article), and the new material on Sanger's views on abortion is more accurate and better sourced than the version in the lede (that she "believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided").  I'm surprised by the comment about avoiding a section on criticisms, since I've seen many such sections in Wikipedia articles (including an entire article on Criticism of Mother Teresa).  In any case, the article [[WP:Criticism] begins with the disclaimer: "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."


 * Please comment on the following revised version:


 * Views on Abortion:

Early in her career (for example, when she was editor of the journal The Woman Rebel) Sanger was a supporter of abortion rights. However, during the years of her greatest influence she opposed abortion and sharply distinguished between birth control, which she saw as a fundamental right of women, and access to abortion, which she did not see as such a right. Already in 1916 when she opened her first birth control clinic she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "DO NOT KILL, DO NOT TAKE LIFE, BUT PREVENT." Sanger's patients were told "that abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way -- it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

In this era several other prominent advocates for birth control, such as Lawrence Lader, Frederick Taussig, and William J. Robinson, saw contraception and abortion as being inextricably linked, and were calling for legalization of abortion. Sanger, however, consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.


 * Criticism:

Margaret Sanger justified her decision to speak to a Ku Klux Klan group by explaining that "to me any aroused group is a good group." She was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the klansman and Nazi sympathizer Lothrop Stoddard. Chesler comments: "Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice -- especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause -- has hounded her ever since."

Although Sanger's association with and appeals for support from prominent racists were expedient (for example, Stoddard used his influence in New York to derail an attempt by the Catholic Archdiocese to block a large speaking engagement by Sanger ), in the long run this association contributed to credibility problems for the birth control movement among the next generation of prominent African Americans, such as Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson.

Another criticism has been raised by feminist historian Ann Hibner Koblitz, who has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement. "It could be argued," Koblitz writes, "that Sanger's choice of allies and her insistance on divorcing birth control from abortion retarded progress toward women's access to a full range of reproductive options." NightHeron (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your request seems to be directed at me. Strictly speaking, it should be who comments, since he is the one that removed the content, and I was only here to offer a third opinion. But since you ask I will make a few comments:
 * All caps are always ugly. Even if the flyers were in all caps, they should be quoted in regular text. I'm not sure the sentence is needed at all, since you've already said that she used "harsh rhetoric".
 * The second paragraph is unnecessary. What other "prominent advocates" said is not directly relevant to her views. Moreover, it seems be there only to try to show that she was out of step with "good" birth control advocates, which is in the nature of original research. The last sentence only repeats what was said in the first paragraph.
 * The "Koblitz" paragraph could be moved to this section, but without either "another criticism has been raised" or "feminist historian". Simply say, "Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement."
 * The address to the KKK could, I think, go in at he end of the "Freedom of speech" section. But only as far as the "was never herself a racist" blockquote. The Dick Gregory, Amiri Baraka, and Jesse Jackson articles say nothing about their views on birth control, so the whole of the second paragraph is really undue weight.
 * Hope that helps. Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much,, that's very helpful. I'll follow those suggestions, except that in reference to the second suggestion I want to explain why that second paragraph seems necessary.  Whenever one calls attention to a historical personality expressing a view that to many modern readers seems wrong or peculiar, a historian or historically-minded person could say, "Aren't you being anachronistic?  How do you know that most others in those years didn't share those views?"  For example, suppose that someone wanted to include information in an article about Darwin that showed that he had some racist views (this example is hypothetical -- I have no intention of doing that).  Just giving quotes from him would not be sufficient -- one would have to show that there were other biologists of the time who were interested in evolution who did not share those views. NightHeron (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that this article is about Margaret Sanger, not about others. At best, you could add the opinions of others in a note, but not in the main text. The Banner talk 14:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your help.NightHeron (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm so late to this conversation . I suggested a few little word-smith-ing things above. Is there a wiki article about the Jane group in Chicago? I was reading this and it reminded me of this fascinating NPR podcast Fred (talk)  00:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Lol. She wasn't a racist she just valued the opinion of the Ku Klux Klan on the topic of aborting black babies. Does any realize how absurd that sounds and how much of a bigot it makes you if you've ever raised your voice and called someone a racist? Stonewall Jackson wasn't a racist either he actually taught slaves how to read, he just lived in a bad time. However most of Margaret Sangers fan club probably had some choice words about erasing him and every other confederate soldier from history. Margaret Sanger wasn't racist she just opened the first clinic in Harlem, then later added blacks to the staff. Donald Trump is a huge racist though, but he didn't kill millions of black babies to eliminate inferior genes from civilization. Jsin607 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Disgusting white wash
This article is a disgusting white wash of Margaret Sanger and her racial views intentionally omitting information for the sole purpose of promoting planned Parenthood. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a political tool yet every year it degrades itself further. I don't know how it is now but when I was in college it was an instant failing grade if you used Wikipedia as a source for anything. I'm sure that's changed now since academia is also a whitewashed political arm now as well. Be on notice that some day I'm going to edit this page to be more balanced to Margaret Sanger and the millions of black babies who died for her. SMH... Jsin607 (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe your concocted ideas about her racial views are intended to smear Planned Parenthood. We've been over this before on this talk page and it's surely in the archives too, but I'll present you with these links to consider.Time, Snopes, Politifact, Planned Parenthood, Family Planning Perspectives. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no objective reason not to include negative info about Sanger as long as it is accurate and supported, but you might want to consider the political objectives of who wants you to believe this about her, and why. MFNickster (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Jsin607-- then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp. margaret sanger is among the un-smearable icons of our side like obama, jfk, hillary, eric holder, van jones, etc, and any attempted mud-slinging will be wiped away and the slinger overtly and covertly silenced. just save time and go back to browsing infowars or whatever. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Democratic socialist
User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords added a section that, in my opinion, is incorrect.

In the 21st century, Sanger is regarded as an early American democratic socialist.

In fact, the section assigns her the status as "democratic socialist", many years after her dead and many after the term was invented. The source for this is a blog. According to IOnlyKnowFiveWords, a blog from a notable historian. But still it is a blog and not a reliable source.

Should the section (and the category) be removed? The Banner talk 07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ow, and IOnlyKnowFiveWords insists on this piece, having restored it several times already. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Heavy bias in this page hurts Wikipedia credibility
I as well as many others have tried editing this page to give a more balanced point of view on this topic, providing sources to both a favorable and a critical view of many aspects.

However, these edits seems to be reverted with no credible cause or reason apart that some reviewers don't like the other point of view.

In my specific example, the letter to Gamble has a quote in it: "'We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population'"

Which is immediately followed by the correct "think" and labels any person who views this as evidence to a calculated effort to reduce the black population is a "conspiracy theorist" and unequivocally wrong.

An unbiased approach would be to mention both point of views as equal: one supporting this view, and the other explaining that this was written to avoid that understanding, as the links and references supporting both point of view exists and neither have been proven true or false in an unbiased way. These are both legit opinions, but one is treated as fact and the other as a conspiracy theory.

I have tried editing it to a more balanced text, and wrote that she did support eugenics to support the other point of view. That was reverted by @britishfinance claiming I didn't link to reference of her support for eugenics. I re-edited it adding the reference for that, as well as mentioned it was already in the article as well as in the links for reference at the end of this paragraph. At the very least, I got a reason for reverting so that I could address it and fix it.

That was reverted by @the_banner - this time for no reason at all, except he didn't like it. The comment on the revert was simply "no, that is not the truth" without bothering to provide any explanation to weather that was not truth. The claim of her support for eugenics was already in the article earlier, so I cannot understand how it can be true there and not in this paragraph.

It seems there is a very heavy biased in editing this source, and seems like making any changes to remove this bias is met with a mob mentality, shutting down any view that goes against their own. This leads to hurting Wikipedia credibility as a balanced source of information.

I still think this should be addressed and changed, but I am not sure how to report or appeal these users actions, so I will put it here to a discussion.

This is the current text: "New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, conspiracy theorists have attempted to exploit the quotation 'as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will'."

It should be changed. It is biased and telling the reader what is the correct "think" rather than informing the reader.

My suggestion was: "The letter, along with other evidence of her support for eugenics provided strong evidence that led many to believe that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, while others, such as the New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that the letter would have been meant to avoid that mistaken notion."

Keeping the same references at the end.

What is the process of appealing these edits or having a civil discussion, rather than keep editing it and they keep reverting it? I see based on the talk page that I am not the only one who feels this bias exists and have been shut down by these editors.

Spetel (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Further reading on this "talk" is full of references and full on admissions of editors taking sides. quotes like "then we'll just keep reverting you until you 3RR yourself or give up. our side "owns" wp" to choosing which sources are true and which are false, I see that this is a much bigger problem than I thought. Is there a responsible adult who can shut down these heavily biased moderators who behave more like a mob than editors? Spetel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that your claim is just not in the source given. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's your original research that there is "strong evidence" of racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The comments by Cramyourspam on this talk page about "our side" are wildly outside the correct use of Wikipedia. I did not take exception with them at the time because they were so absurd I assumed they were a false flag attempt to discredit Wikipedians in general. Looking back through Cramyourspam's edit history, I see that Cramyourspam has edited the Margaret Sanger article in the past, so in retrospect I should have taken exception at the time.
 * With regard to the specific claim that Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate specific ethnic/racial groups, the only direct evidence that has been presented has been the sentence "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" from a letter she wrote to Clarence Gamble dated December 10, 1939. That letter is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. If one reads the letter in full, one can see that there it does not express a desire to eliminate the "Negro" population. Taking a sentence fragment out of context does not constitute evidence. If there is any actual evidence presented that Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate specific ethnic/racial groups, then I for one would be happy to include this information in the article page. Such evidence has yet to be presented.
 * With regard to belief in eugenics, Margaret Sanger's support for eugenics is not in question. Indeed, there is a section on this in the article. What constitutes "eugenics" beliefs varies person to person. Simply having beliefs labeled "eugenics" is not evidence that one wants to eliminate an ethnic/racial group any more than having beliefs labeled "conservative" is evidence they want to eliminate an ethnic/racial group just because someone else labeled "conservative" once said something to that effect.
 * One cannot balance an article to better include an interpretation for which there is no evidence. FecundityBlog (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Quote from letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble is wrong
While I was checking sources in the "Work with the African-American community," I noticed the block quote is incorrect. The letter of Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble of December 10, 1939 is currently part of the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College, and it can be viewed online. The actual paragraph that contains the "word to go out" line is:

The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. 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.

I'm not sure where the article is getting the first two sentences of this paragraph:

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.

It seems as though this quote is combining two different sources? Anyway, as the quote is introduced as "she [Margaret Sanger] wrote to Gamble," it should probably stick to the text from the letter.

I'll change it and cite the letter directly after the quote. However, I might wait until the latest revert war ends so my changes don't get lost in the reverts.

FecundityBlog (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ... ... or User:Ruyter will make the changes for me. I modified the citation style to letter, anyway. FecundityBlog (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Claim of membership in the KKK and Nazi Party
Margaret Sanger was given life membership in 1926 to the New Jersey woman's Auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan. She was a proud member until her death in 1966. She was also given full membership into the Nazi party on the orders of Adolf Hitler in 1937 she did not reject this membership until January of 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:65CC:2606:58EE:39D0 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to back up your claim? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Just the notes and the highlights of the Klan meeting of her speech. Where they cheered her statements that abortion be used on black babies and other undesirable races. They were so happy with her speech they gave her full life membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9C86:614F:52F:A152 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, no evidence? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the only source of info about her KKK speech was her own autobiography, in which she says she didn't even dare to mention abortion. MFNickster (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the passage to which you are referring:
 * All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.
 * My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later.
 * I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building.
 * My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, “Wait here. We will come for you.” She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.
 * After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak.
 * Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.
 * In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o’clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly the night in a hotel.
 * According to this, she did not mention abortion at this speech. If she did, she would likely have nothing but negative things to say. See her own words on abortion. My article also briefly touches on the accusations of wanting to exterminate ethnic groups, which began way back in 1917. It's both remarkable and troubling that lies spread about you a hundred years later still resurface long after you are dead. FecundityBlog (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we just had a lengthy discussion earlier this year about whether Margaret Sanger ever endorsed abortion as a method of family limitation. Any citable sources in this regard would be be greatly appreciated. FecundityBlog (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Anytime I try to post the documents they are blocked and removed by the fans of planned parenthood and other unqualified people who want to protect the image of this 40 year member of the KKK and 4 year member of the NAZI party. TRUTH is not relevant and facts are not allowed on this Margaret Sanger site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:9DF7:F3A4:5CB8:FDE5 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where and when did you try to post them? Please link the edit(s). MFNickster (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (incidentally, fact checkers at Politifact rate the claim as "false" MFNickster (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit alleging she was KKK back in October. No references were provided, even to fringe sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at the quote in her own words above. She was offered to speak to many KKK groups. She gave many speeches to Klan groups why? Because she was a 40 year member of the KKK that's WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * She said offers were extended, not that she accepted them. If you have any further documentation, please point to it now or there is no point continuing this debate. As this is a controversial article, ALL additions need to be referenced. MFNickster (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also: even if she gave more speeches, that does NOT support your assertion that she was a member of the Klan, or the Nazi Party. You need a reliable source that backs it up (and after years of searching for something like that, I highly doubt it exists). MFNickster (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Anytime I post facts they are removed by the unqualified under the claim of original research. Sanger was directly tied in to the Nazi party and given full membership along with Lothrop Stoddard in 1937. Stoddard was good friends with Heinrich Himmler who recommended to Hitler to make them full members of the Nazi Party and he did. Stoddard later met Hitler in 1940 directly. On December 11,1941 Hitler declared war on the USA. Sanger renounced her Nazi membership in January of 1942 to stay out of trouble with the US government. The name of her group was changed to plan parenthood in 1942 to distance the group from Sanger and her KKK and Nazi ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can't tell if you've edited the article since you're not logged in, but I have reviewed every edit made in the past year, and of the edits attempting to link Sanger to the Klan or Nazis, not a single one has included a source (reliable or otherwise) backing it up. So I can only conclude that you are not editing in good faith, and are merely pushing POV. Please prove me wrong! MFNickster (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What you unqualified people need to do is use the freedom of information act to get the FBI file on Sanger and read the file for yourselves. Or is that to much original research for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:CC0C:2E0A:FBD8:576 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mildly, what you need to do is provide reliable sources for your proposed additions to the article. Absent any sources, your claims re the KKK and Nazi Party will not be included in the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you mean this FBI file? Because I couldn't find any others. Again, please provide a link. There's no reason not to include such material if it's factual, but I strongly suspect the docs you're referring to, if they exist, will turn out to be bogus. MFNickster (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No you dumbass the file from the FBI way later than that one. You must request it under the freedom of information act. Do it yourself unless your just plain lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4200:C4C0:FC23:45C4:9B9B:B1C (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have been more than patient and it's clear that you are not serious about improving the article. I should have known better from past experience. Sanger had nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis. Please stop this ridiculous smear campaign. MFNickster (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouting, roaring and insulting is not going to help you at all. Just give reliable sources for your statements. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I did submit a FOIA request to the FBI for materials on Sanger and they replied that their search returned no results. I'm looking into other avenues since Ellen Chesler's book does make mention of compiled FBI documents, but I'm not expecting this to turn up anything significant. MFNickster (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Sanger supported under the counter abortions
There was a statement added to the article that Margaret Sanger supported under the counter abortions in private, while publicly condemning abortion. The only reference given for this claim was broken, so I have removed this claim.

(As an aside, when I clicked the broken reference link, it directed me to a different reference in the bibliography, and so I just spent the past half hour or so going down a wild goose chase.)

Also, the second sentence in the paragraph of the abortion section is now a sentence fragment. I'll fix that now. FecundityBlog (talk)


 * Suthec2197 reverted my edit with the commit message "Your concern is appreciated, but if you have problems with the way I cite, my suggestion is that you fix that first." For the reference of editors of this article, a controversial claim was added to the article, I attempted to verify this claim by consulting the reference for the controversial claim, the reference was broken and so I could not verify the reference, and I therefore removed the claim. From WP:WHYCITE, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article," and from WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Now that an actual reference has been provided, I will attempt to verify the reference. FecundityBlog (talk)
 * Here is a link to pages 300-301 of Chesler's book. MFNickster (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I think I see what's going on here. This is going to take a longer time to tease out than I thought. I'll check back when I have time with an itemized list. FecundityBlog (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of the pertinent claims from pp. 300-301 of Chesler:
 * In 1929, memorandum from Dr. Hannah Stone instructed physicians in what would in those days have been called the Clinical Research Bureau to refuse any patient requesting a pregnancy examination. The reference interprets this as Dr. Stone’s desire to avoid the Bureau from being associated with abortions. Already registered patients could continue to get pregnancy examinations.
 * In 1932, Margaret Sanger directed Dr. Stone to remove restrictions on pregnancy examinations for new patients and to make referrals to hospitals when therapeutic abortions were indicated by the examining physician.
 * Margaret Sanger also created a fund “to pay for the laboratory costs of these procedures.” It is not not clear if by “laboratory costs of these procedures” the reference means the costs of the pregnancy examinations, the therapeutic abortions, or both. “Laboratory costs” seems to have connotations of the former.
 * In reaction to increasing numbers of therapeutic abortions, in the early 1940s, legislation was unsuccessfully introduced to the New York State legislature to ban therapeutic abortions outright.
 * Memoranda were circulated three times throughout the Clinical Research Bureau clarifying the official position of the Bureau prohibiting physicians from prohibiting patients for abortion. The reference is not clear if this included therapeutic abortions or not. Also, the reference interprets this as evidence that abortion referral was common enough to prompt memoranda.
 * In one case in 1932, a physician referred a woman for abortion to a “Dr. Seigal” and wrote a letter to Margaret Sanger in which this was described as part of an “exceptional type of the class where you and I felt an exception could be made.” It is not clear exactly what the previous discussion between the author and Margaret Sanger included.


 * Generally, all of these claims (with the possible exception of #6) are consistent with public speeches and writings of Margaret Sanger. She condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, not therapeutic abortion, e.g., “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”


 * Furthermore, Margaret Sanger openly discussed therapeutic abortion, for instance, in this article. As she discussed, it had become routine for physicians to prescribe therapeutic abortions for many conditions, and she lived in a situation where one could openly have abortion induced in the case of, say, tuberculosis, but could not legally acquire contraception to prevent pregnancy in the first place.


 * Granted, exactly what constitutes a “therapeutic abortion” is a whole mess in and of itself, since the definition seems to vary from person to person, but whatever a therapeutic abortion is, it was not the same as what Margaret Sanger was publicly condemning.


 * With regard to the claim that Sanger “directly ordered her staff to refer women who came to her clinics asking for abortions to underground abortionists.” This is not supported by the reference:
 * The reference says women were referred to hospitals and doctors, not underground abortionists.
 * The reference says women were referred when therapeutic abortion was indicated by a physician.


 * With regard to the claim that “Several times, [Margaret Sanger] herself paid for the abortions out of her own pocket so that these women would not have to pay.” This is not supported by the reference:
 * The reference says she set up a fund for laboratory procedures, not that she paid for procedures out of pocket.
 * Also, the reference is not clear if the fund was used for therapeutic abortions, for pregnancy tests, for both.


 * With regard to the the claim that “This was while the practice was illegal and widely considered immoral.” This is not supported by the reference:
 * The reference implies that therapeutic abortions were legal in New York State at the time by the fact that there was an attempt to make them illegal in the 1940s. Therapeutic abortions were legal in many states in those days. New York State’s specific laws are probably worth looking into more.


 * I have changed the text of the article to more accurately report the facts in the reference and added additional material to give it context. FecundityBlog (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary source plus reader-interpretation in "Eugenics" section
As it now stands, the "Eugenics" section includes the following:


 * She was closely associated with one of the most influential and extreme racist[REFERENCE 124] authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the Klansman and Nazi sympathizer Lothrop Stoddard.

I have no problem with saying that she was associated with Stoddard, since that claim has a source, and I don't dispute that Stoddard was dreadfully racist. The problem is that the source for the phrase "extreme racist" (Reference 124, currently) is one of Stoddard's own books describing his beliefs. Unless he specifically states that he is an "extreme racist", isn't the editor who put this in taking his (the editor's) own inference for granted? My understanding is that if you're gonna state that Stoddard was an extreme racist, you should cite a source which says that he was an extreme racist (perhaps in other wording), not cite his own book and invite the reader to infer that he was, from reading his book. Isn't that one of the points in WP:PRIMARY?

Accordingly, I'm putting in a tag.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't think his mention is relevant here. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Would it be okay to replace it with the following referenced text? "She was closely associated with one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s and 1930s, the Klansman and Nazi sympathizer Lothrop Stoddard." NightHeron (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not a Wikipedia officer and I have no authority to make a decision like that, but, to me your book-sources look good. The only no-no is linking to an example rather than a source.  The earlier version "He was an extreme racist" supported by a link to a book by him which expresses his racism is too much like if someone were to put "The sky is blue" and try to support it by linking to a photograph of a blue sky. (Long ago, I actually saw a Wikipedia article about a famous conductor who liked to play everything very slowly, and the editor tried to source this observation with some links to audio-files of the conductor's concerts in which he took very slow tempos.  That's what's no good, and that's what I was objecting to.)


 * I do wonder, though, how "closely" she was associated with Stoddard? He was on the board of directors of the American Birth Control League (precursor of Planned Parenthood), but is that really a "close" association? Eleanor Roosevelt and Kathrine Hepburn were on the board too (!) but I don't think I'd call her association with either of them "close".  One thing about Margaret Sanger which I've thought about trying to add to the article, but it's kind of difficult to find a source for, is: she was very good at finding commonalities with many different kinds of people. She focused on areas of agreement rather than conflict.  She was a serial bridge-builder, and it was integral to her success. So she gave a lecture to the Women's Auxiliary Branch of KKK, and also worked with black activists like WEB DuBois and Adam Clayton Powell.


 * I'd also like to know, WHEN was she associated with Stoddard? A lot of people didn't realize how dangerous some of that Nazi and eugenic stuff was, until the 1930s.  Margaret Sanger was worried about the Nazis in Germany as early as 1933, the same year Hitler became Chancellor and established the Third Reich, when many people hadn't clued in yet.  See, for instance, here: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/early-warnings-how-american-journalists-reported-the-rise-of-hitler/254146/


 * Anyway, that's enough from me for now, I suppose. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is it relevant to mention this guy? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference (p. 173 of the book about Sanger by the journalist and reproductive rights advocate Lawrence Lader) describes Sanger's association with Stoddard as follows. When Sanger's planned speech in New York City was canceled, "Dr. Lothrop Stoddard" (Lader's respectful way of referring to him) used his influence to intercede on Sanger's behalf so that she could give her talk. As historians of the 1920s know, the progressives of the period (meaning those who favored women's rights and social welfare legislation) often had eugenic sympathies and saw nothing wrong with forming alliances with known racists for certain purposes. In the next sentence of the article, we quote Sanger's biographer Ellen Chesler essentially saying this in reference to Sanger. NightHeron (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It may be my shortcoming but I still fail to see the relevance of mentioning him. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And, does the fact that he stopped someone from cancelling one of her speeches, and wrote occasionally for her journal Birth Control Review, and was a member of the board of directors of the American Birth Control League, really justify calling their association a "close" association? If these three facts are the only justification, that sounds to me more like an "occasional" association.  In my vocabulary, a "close association" would mean if they had collaborated on numerous articles, or worked in the same office for a long time, or had an affair, or something like that.  Maybe this is a quibble, but I think it's a significant one, especially in view of the fake-history people slandering her as a Nazi-sympathizer or a member of KKK or a white supremacist or a proponent of forced sterilization based on race or ethnicity.  (On the other hand, maybe her association with Stoddard really was a close association and I'm just not aware of it.  Well, if you know more, please share!)


 * Thanks, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you make good points. I'm not sure of the exact dates, but her association with Stoddard seems to have been mainly or entirely in the 1920s, before Stoddard's pro-Nazi activities. However, he was definitely a Klansman during that time. How about dropping the Nazi reference in the sentence (and also "and 1930s"), and also replacing "was closely associated with" to "sought the support of"? The sentence would then read: She sought the support of one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]


 * I think having two examples of association with racists is necessary to contextualize the Chesler quote. It was more than just the decision to speak to the Women's Auxiliary of the KKK. It's important to acknowledge Sanger's association with racists and eugenicists while at the same time pointing out that, according to her biographer, she was not a racist herself. (The material elsewhere in the article about her collaboration with African American leaders also supports this point.) NightHeron (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And was Stoddard really "one of the most influential racist authors in America in the 1920s"? He was certainly very racist, but there were a lot of very very racist authors in the decades around the turn of the century, from the 1890s through the 1930s, in Britain and in USA. The culture was different from now, you know. If you read the popular books of the time-- the ones read by just about everyone who read books at all-- you can see racism which today is very shocking: Arthur Conan Doyle (inventor of Sherlock Holmes-- read, for instance, the 1926 short story "The Adventure of the Three Gables", which was later re-published in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes), Jack London (who wrote in horribly racist terms about the upcoming mega-fight between boxers Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries, urging Jeffries to "reclaim the heavyweight championship for the White race"), Hugh Lofting who wrote the original "Doctor Doolittle" books, which are just amazingly racist, even L. Frank Baum, author of the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, later re-published as The Wizard of Oz, on which the movie The Wizard of Oz is based, had called in a journal editorial for total extermination of "Indian tribes", meaning the people we now call Native Americans.  Also, watch the silent-movie comedies (and early "talkies") of Buster Keaton, WC Fields, even Charlie Chaplin, and pay attention to the (few) black characters.  People generally believed in the cliches about race the same way they believed in the cliches about "national character": passionate Italians, sensual French, stolid, rational Englishmen, morose, drunken Russians, inscrutable "Orientals", and so on.  Stoddard believed in an extreme form of racism and was influential, but I'm not sure he was "one of the most " influential.  How about, instead of calling him "one of the most influential", call him "one of the most racist"?  Also, instead of "she sought the support of", maybe "she was supported by" or "she enjoyed the support of"  Then you'd have She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman[1][2] Lothrop Stoddard.[4]


 * Hoping this is helpful, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I'll make those changes. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about the revised wording, I'm concerned that the passive "was supported by" allows for the possibility that Sanger had no ties with Stoddard and did not welcome his support. To clarify that this was not the case, would it be okay to add the following text at the end of that sentence? "who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League." Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You start to sound pushy... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "pushy," which is generally a term of insult? NightHeron (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Off course. In fact you are completely ignoring my doubts about the relevance of Stoddard. You only come with rewrites to keep him in. Without the slightest explanation why he should be mentioned. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I directly responded to your question above, and pinged you. As I said, the mention of the talk to the Women's Auxiliary of the KKK is not enough to explain why Sanger's biographer found it necessary to explain what to a modern reader would seem to be racism. We give the Chesler quote defending Sanger, and so the context is important. I'm not trying to give undue emphasis to Stoddard. For example, I'm not proposing including the fact that he wrote for Sanger's Birth Control Review and on one occasion used his influence so that her speaking engagement in New York City would not be canceled. I still don't understand your use of the word "pushy" for wanting to add a short phrase to the effect that Stoddard was on her Board of Directors. NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Banner - I guess I'm confused with your POV. You were fine with the the sentence RE: Stoddard until it was brought up in Talk to be revised??? The mention of Stoddard isn't a new insertion. Why the push back now? It appears that your sole input to this page is to get on Talk and defend Sanger's honor against attacks, which is fine, but if the inclusion of Stoddard is not relevant why have you not worked to remove it from the main page? It seems to me you are stonewalling unnecessarily - what's your suggested rewrite if Stoddard "isn't relevant"? Ckruschke (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I did not notice, sorry. But in fact, my proposal for a rewrite of that sectis to reduce it to "Sanger justified her decision to speak to a women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan group by explaining, "to me any aroused group is a good group."[123]:366–367 " The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely the four editors who are commenting on this section can all agree that Stoddard should not be given undue emphasis. But your "rewrite" removing mention of him entirely is not likely to get a consensus. He was one of only 6 people on the Board of Directors of Sanger's organization. He was certainly an associate of hers, although User:HandsomeMrToad is correct that "close associate" might be an overstatement. NightHeron (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolving inconsistent citation style
There are inconsistent citation styles that I propose to resolve. Specifically,
 * One linked shortened footnote
 * Over thirty unlinked shortened footnotes. Nearly all these shortened footnotes have corresponding citations in the Bibliography section
 * The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger volume 1 has seven distinct entries in the reference section and an entry in the Bibliography section. This one in particular is ripe for linked shortened footnotes.✅

Except for the The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger changes that should be done together, I would do this at a slow pace, maybe one a day or two at most, so that editors will have a chance to see & review each change.

Peaceray (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger as a Eugenicist
There's been some disagreements on whether or not Margaret Sanger can be labeled as a Eugenicist in the intro paragraph of the article. I believe this is an accurate label to present of her. We know from the article section, and the sources presented therein, that Sanger was a proponent of Negative Eugenics. Her standing as a significant member in the Eugenics movement in the United States means it's not inappropriate to put this label in the introductory paragraph.

The Best joke (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (COT)


 * Margaret Sanger is not noted for being an eugenicist, therefore I think it is largely inappropriate for the lead as per MOS:LEADREL due to its undue weight. I think that putting it in the lead would be pushing a point of view implying that being an eugenicist was the reason behind her advocacy of birth control, whereas it is obvious that her feminism was her first & foremost motivation. Eugenics is a small part of her story, & covering it in the body gives it the appropriate due weight. Peaceray (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an entire subsection under "Views," boldly and clearly titled "Eugenics." I don't think there's any need to go beyond that. MFNickster (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Due to several pieces of literature authored by her, I feel it would be appropriate to add the title of a eugenicist. For example, in The Birth Control Review 1921 issue, she creates a specific section called "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds a term started by a physicist by the name of Edward Kempf who was a known supporter of eugenics. She spoke at several eugenics conferences, making statements such as "the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." She even once wrote and I quote "consequences of breeding from stock lacking human vitality always will give us social problems and perpetuate institutions of charity and crime." In her speech "My Way to Peace" she talks about the compulsory sterilization of people with disabilities. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”(My Way to Peace). In her letter to Clarence Gamble, she goes as far as explaining her dealings in the African-American community “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get 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.” These are all inherently eugenics based statements. The willful neglect to include this in one of her many titles shows the POV of the authors of this page being imposed on readers. I have to agree with the section talking about the bias in this page and within the editing team. You fail to acknowledge any stance other than your own and censor those that go against your belief. As someone who is new to the Wiki community but has engaged in investigative journalism for almost 4 years now, this is unacceptable. Cwpom (talk) 09:20, 13 Aug 2019 (EST)
 * So you have no proof that she was an eugenicist but you call her a eugenicist based on some dodgy research? That fact that she speaks with or has partly the same ideas as known eugenicist, does not make her an eugenicist.
 * Conform that tradition of Wikipedia, you have to come with reliable, neutral sources that explicitly name her as an eugenicist. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ow, and we do acknowledge your point of view but we also acknowledge the fact that it an opinion based on own research, not backed up by sources. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

+
 * Ow, and we do acknowledge your point of view but we also acknowledge the fact that it an opinion based on own research, not backed up by sources. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , we don't engage in original research here. Bit I appreciate you trying to discuss this rather than edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear that she supported eugenics to some degree (not 'positive' eugenics, which she called a 'cradle competition' between classes), but that doesn't mean it should be listed under "occupation." It was not her primary avocation at any point. MFNickster (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to say this. There is an entire section under "Views" for "Eugenics," and "eugenicist" isn't a job title any more than "constitutional strict constructionalist" or "Neo-Kantian categorical imperativist" are jobs. This seems fatuous. FecundityBlog (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Banner and FecundityBlog, eugenist should not appear in the lede.Fred (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can anyone verify whether Sanger was a Neo-Kantian categorical imperativist? MFNickster (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol. I was just throwing those out as examples of things that are views, but not jobs. I have no reason to believe that Sanger was either a constitutional strict constructionalist or Neo-Kantian categorical imperativist. FecundityBlog (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, also keep an eye on Negro Project where someone is depicting Sanger as an eugenist. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , You deleted a complete section on the controversy within the eugenics scholarship on the Negro Project, not just the references to Sanger. I'd like to suggest that we restore the references to the historiographical controversy, though we can remove the references to Sanger as a eugenicist. DrBorg (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sanger was a eugenicist by definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenicistOverseer19XX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From your own userpage: I make all attempts to remove author bias and misinformation from Wikipedia to bring Wikipedia to more of a centered focus, and a neutral source for information for years to come. That leaves me with the question: why do you add bias and misinformation to this article? Sanger was not an eugenicist but just found common ground to deal with them. As it was not her main line of work, it is WP:UNDUE to put it in the first line of the article. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Martin Luther King accepts Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood
EKS321 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)While it is true that Dr. Martin Luther King accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, this should in no way imply that he endorsed her stances on Eugenics or abortion. Abortion was illegal in 1996 and Planned Parenthood was merely an institution that concentrated on family planning through the use of contraception. Dr. King was an ordained minister who supported all efforts to make families stronger, while limiting the instances of childbirth out of marriage, no matter what the race.EKS321 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean 1966 (not 1996). At that time Planned Parenthood did not do abortions. Margaret Sanger advocated for contraception, not abortion. Several African American leaders, including Martin Luther King, supported such efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy. There's no implication in the article that Martin Luther King endorsed eugenics or abortion. NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we trying to hide Margaret Sanger's beliefs about Black people?
Is this true: In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "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" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

"It seems that the Eugenic ideas from its founder have left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood's surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy." The Washington Times, May 5, 2014.

Wow. If we suppress this, then Wikipedia loses credibility. Is that what you want?

Thank you for considering including these comments,

FidesEtRatio-Community (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed to death, and the current article represents a consensus based on debate. Please read the talk page archives to get some background on it. MFNickster (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not a normal article but an opinion piece posted in a conservative newspaper. Ms. Grossu works for a Christian conservative organisation with as purpose: (name removed) is a Christian bioethics research center at (name removed) that explores the nexus of biomedicine, biotechnology, and our common humanity. (name removed) fosters a distinctly Christian conception of bioethics that is both academically rigorous and broadly accessible.. That center belongs to an an evangelical Christian university.
 * Their viewpoints are clearly more important than the truth as established by academic research over many decades. And the opinion piece contains many falsehoods. Completely unreliable source. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Banner / MFNickster: This is neither an opinion piece or by a "Christian" organization - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/5/planned-parenthood-accused-racism-employees-suppor/. Are we saying that the people WITHIN Planned Parenthood are fringe voices to be ignored too? Why are we still ignoring this issue? Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * LOL, they announced to take name down but the article claimed it was already done. See the given source. That is why I reverted it. Not to hide that she took part in a then fashionable stance long ago. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the Washington Post article is newsworthy and might merit a mention in the article. The stuff about Clarence Gamble and abortion in the black community (which has nothing to do with Sanger) is already covered and does not need to be added. MFNickster (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add that her eugenics stance was "in fashion"?
I'm not sure this edit is appropriate. Do we make similar statements about being in fashion at the time when other names are removed from buildings and institutions because of associations with racism? We don't in connection with Woodrow Wilson and Princeton's recent decision, see. It sounds like we're criticizing Planned Parenthood for planning to remove the name. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can indeed read it like that but it was mend to set the eugenics in a time-context. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Time Context"? Either you espoused eugenics and the ideal of a master race, which didn't include minorities, or you didn't. Please explain because it could appear to a third party reader that you are whitewashing the actual story. Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I love that you start canvassing straight away. But are you also willing to burn everybody at the stake who was involved in the Tomahawk chop? Context is everything. Good sourcing is also a thing. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that. Consensus building is a normal and proper editing procedure. Ckruschke (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Generally, canvassing is frowned upon. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And, I see this and this as personal attacks and clear POV. It looks like attempts to keep the article neutral are not to your liking. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my concern is not about your intentions, but rather about the way the phrasing is likely to be read, especially since the same point could be raised in opposition to removing names of most other people associated with racism. For example, the pro-slavery stance of leaders of the Confederacy in the American South was certainly "in fashion" in that region at that time. NightHeron (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me see what others think. But I think it is necessary to set things in a time-related context. Even when that is unpleasant. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that edit too, however the source supports it: edit to add: perhaps it would better with attribution to make clear it isn't WP:OR.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Chesler is already quoted in the "Eugenics" section of the article saying that Sanger was not personally a racist. No one is disputing the fact that eugenics was in fashion at that time. If Chesler's opinion is going to be quoted in opposition to changing the name, which would mean quoting her twice on the issue of Sanger's connection with racism, then for balance there should be an opinion on the other side of the name removal issue. Otherwise it will seem that Wikipedia is taking a position against Planned Parenthood on the naming. The question is not whether or not the "in fashion" phrase is correct and supported by RS (I agree that it is). The question is whether it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to put it there, supported by a Chesler quote. NightHeron (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you portray Sanger as a unique person in supporting eugenics without giving the proper circumstances and background, that is in my opinion plain POV. As making her the black sheep of her era. It is not my point that I want the info out, it is my point that the info must be fair, neutral and in context. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanger's support for eugenics is discussed at length in the eugenics section of the article. I think it's made clear there that by no means was Sanger a unique person in supporting eugenics. But if you think that needs more emphasis, by all means add a statement to the eugenics section to the effect that such views were in fashion in her time. That's the place for it. It doesn't belong in its present location, where it is likely to be read as a negative judgment about Planned Parenthood's renaming. NightHeron (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm removing that phrase. If there are further comments giving a good reason for it to be there, of course it can be put back. In its present location it looks to me like a violation of WP:NPOV, implying that Wikipedia disapproves of Plan Parenthood's renaming decision. NightHeron (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So you want to hide the background and make the article a bit more POV. Sorry to see that happen. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The extra verbiage does seem defensive to me. It adds context but it's POV context. If anything, context should be added using quotes from the cited article - Ellen Chesler is quoted saying almost the exact the same thing: "The eugenics movement had wide support at the time in both conservative and liberal circles, Ms. Chesler said, and Ms. Sanger was squarely in the latter camp." MFNickster (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)