Talk:Margaret Sanger

Racist

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

Not ironic, we stick with facts.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu nice way to whitewash her utter disgust and racist white supremacist views against the black community. you realize that she once stated, "we don't want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population!" if that isn't completely racist than I don't know what will convince you. obviously, anyone who is a far-left asshole, in your opinion and who can be comfortable around a hate-group such as the KKK created by racist Democrats just simply cannot be racist, huh? it must suck to have your head constantly up your ass most of the time to be so out-of-touch and in your neoliberal bubble. 97.117.92.5 (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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

ignore eugenics as a founder she was absolutely a racist and inspired Hitler--what a liberal motivated great revision of history to disinfom people on planned parenthoods real roots. 2600:6C58:4AF0:7280:90A2:192B:6055:26C5 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have any verfication from reliable sources to back up your allegations? Otherwise you are violating WP:FORUM. Peaceray (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

There and a few others quotes from herself:

1939 In The Negro Project Proposal, she wrote: "The massive negros particularly in the south still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit."

A few more quotes below:

"'to create a race of thoroughbreds' by encouraging 'more children from the fit and less from the unfit.'" -- The pivot of civilization 1922

"I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and the syphilitic. " -- Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Feb 1919

"The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." -- The Eugenic Value of Birth control Propaganda, Oct 1921

Sanger's racist motives: "It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation (destruction) of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization." -- New York Times, April 8th 1923

"Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising streams of the unfit." Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

All of those leaders you mentioned were not supported in black communities. My GrandMother marched with Dr King as well as organized with his party——and those were two totally different schools of thought. King was a puppet up to a certain point, slept with a Margaret Sanger look alike and finally when he wanted to fight for his people and our land, they murdered him for breaking from the script. Seeing how you hold Mrs Sanger in such a wonderful light, you would not truly be open to learning the truth. You would not even be open to researching an idea with an open mind from the answers I have read that have been stated. It would hurt your soul for your facts that can be seen two ways (that is much closer to an opinion LOL) evidently. That comment can be interpreted two ways by only two types of people. One, those who are real eyes seeing (realizing) melanated people make up the majority of abortions and two: those who are happy Melanated people make up the majority of abortions. You make your position obvious by your defense alone. Prayerfully you will be more balanced when editing pages from here on out.

And that’s only one racist quote, she made enough to get where she was coming from. I believe in GOD MOST HIGH, so, I pray that people who knowingly do evil, may they endure what they laid as a snare for others. And may the honest in heart, may the learn the truth in a peaceful manner. FiyaTiger (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The article has lost its neutrality on this historical figure. Under the cover that influential thinkers at her time were somehow sympathetic to eugenics, a few edits to state that she supports eugenics were reverted. Yet her organization has influenced people like Adolf. I wouldn't just see her as simply sympatetic. She was the pioneer in her age, not just showing sympathetic but promoted her believes and had impactful actions.

Please do not ignore these facts and please keep wikipedia a neutral place. Otherwise, I start to doubt the influencers in this article, their motivations. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Freebyunderstanding (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the Negro Project Proposal quote is "the mass of negroes", not "the massive negroes", and it's actually a quote from W.E.B DuBois that Sanger later used. That link I provided there is a good read, as it talks about how Sanger is being quoted out of context for the specific purpose of discrediting her. How's your approach "neutral"? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Thanks for the correction! So you are aware of her above statement, and to the fact that she was quoting someone else. Then does it make a difference in understanding her stand?

Also I read through the article briefly, the quote on the fact that she quoted from Du Bois is broken as of this reply is published:

"But what anti-choicers either don’t know or willfully obscure is that Sanger borrowed this quote directly from W. E. B. Du Bois." Freebyunderstanding (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Also interesting to read is this quote from the article Negro Project: While the original plan for the Negro Project included educational outreach into black communities as well as the establishment of black-operated clinical resources, the project that was implemented deviated from this original design and was ultimately unsuccessful. So what became the Negro Project, was not conform Sangers wishes. The Banner talk 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote from Du Bois was used in the proposal (https://web.archive.org/web/20180327064100/https://trustblackwomen.org/2011-05-10-03-28-12/publications-a-articles/african-americans-and-abortion-articles/26-margaret-sanger-and-the-african-american-community-) and is seen in the quote above: the proposal is not the same as the actual project). The Banner talk 16:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

References

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

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

Your edit removed Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and did not believe that poverty was hereditary. However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because that statement is false. She did not oppose eugenics along racial lines, there are numerous reliable sources that debunk that claim. DocZach (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What if it said:

Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Some theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics or hereditary poverty as a rhetorical and persuasive tool rather than a personal conviction. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism. DocZach (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The cited source, from PBS, says in part Sanger's relationship with the eugenics movement was complex -- part strategy and part ideology. Many historians now believe that Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then this accounts for that context, a more NPOV, and the other context:

Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Many historians theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics as a rhetorical and strategical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism. DocZach (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to this? @Muboshgu DocZach (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(1) "is" is the wrong tense; it should be "has been". (2) The first sentence makes it sound like negative eugenics was MS's basic stance on eugenics. She was definitely a supporter of positive eugenics (which is closely related to family planning) and she made alliances with advocates of negative eugenics, but her views on the latter are not very clear. (3) Regarding "many historians", I don't think "many" historians have commented one way or the other, but what is clear is that this is the view of the author Ellen Chesler of the most authoritative biography of MS, namely, that MS associated with racists for tactical reasons, not because she shared their views. NightHeron (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would object to that phrasing. I leaves out the context that eugenics were rather popular in society in those years. And it shines a bad light on Sanger, while in fact she followed the popular opinion. The Banner talk 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sanger has been criticized for her support of eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.

I tried fixing it with what you guys recommended. Any objections to this one? ^

@Muboshgu @The Banner @NightHeron DocZach (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

OR:

Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.

DocZach (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What does that add to the article, except negativity? The Banner talk 14:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How is it negativity? We aren't supposed to decide whether or not to add something based on its positivity/negativity. We are supposed to provide a fair and neutral explanation of who Sanger was using reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

True, that is why I took a look at your other edits. And I see it as a backdoor to saying that Sanger was a full blown eugenist. The Banner talk 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You are just assuming that I am editing in bad faith then. I have edited a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia, and my goal is to make them more fair and neutral. When I was reading about who Sanger was, I saw this article as very unfair and biased, and I am attempting to find compromise to make a slight improvement to that. I ask that you assume good faith. DocZach (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you want, but sending an article to AfD because you do not like the content sets my alarm bells off. The Banner talk 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I advise you to follow WP:GOODFAITH. You are bringing up my deletion request (which I had retracted) of an article about a movie that involves a pedophilic relationship. My reason was because of the lack of sources, but once I saw them add more sources, I retracted my nomination. You are bringing up something completely irrelevant in this discussion, and I ask that you stop that now. DocZach (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to the last proposed wording. NightHeron (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Glad we are working towards a compromise.

@Muboshgu, what are your thoughts on the latest proposal? DocZach (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Has been criticized" is a bit WP:WEASELy. Make that more specific and I'm okay with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I just put that there because it's what the article currently says. DocZach (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What about, "has been criticized by some"? DocZach (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

or: "Some have criticized Sanger..." DocZach (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Existing text or your proposal, we can still do better. Who does this criticism come from? Anti-abortion activists? Anyone else? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(1) In connection with Planned Parenthood's decision in 2020 to drop Sanger's name from the organization's headquarters, the main body of the article states: This decision was made in response to criticisms over Sanger's promotion of eugenics. (2) In the 2nd paragraph of the Eugenics section, the article quotes Sanger's biographer Ellen Chesler writing that "her failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since." Neither Planned Parenthood nor Chesler is anti-abortion. NightHeron (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I asked. Should have figured that PP disavowing her can be considered "criticism" of her. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources state, even in their titles, that Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger. Disavow isn't a dirty word, it literally means to "deny support for." DocZach (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nvm, I thought you were saying disavow was a bad word. I misread that, sorry. Anyway, do we have any objections to me editing the last portion of the second lead paragraph to this:

Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism. DocZach (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And also, separately, in accordance with WP:PEACOCK, I propose changing where it says "admired figure" to "relevant figure" or "prominent figure." I would certainly disagree that she is widely considered as "admired", seeing as the literal organization she founded has disavowed her. However, she was prominent and is still relevant. DocZach (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing admired to prominent because that change makes the language more encyclopedic. However, Sanger is still widely admired for her tremendous role in advancing women's reproductive rights. She wasn't perfect. Nor were most of the historical personalities whom we admire. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves. NightHeron (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I will implement it now. I appreciate you both working with me to find a compromise. DocZach (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a question: there are now three citations following the "supporting eugenics" sentence, and four citations following the Planned Parenthood sentence. Everything else in the lede has one citation only. This makes it look like those sentences are more important than the others. Can we trim the citations down to one reference for each assertion? Toughpigs (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, one moment. DocZach (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed a few, is that better? @Toughpigs DocZach (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I cut it down to one ref for the first sentence, two for the second. Toughpigs (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Short description

@NightHeron The current short description reads:

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

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

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

How about keeping "nurse" (which was her main profession) and deleting "educator" (which was not)? NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse she might be less notable for providing medical care than for other roles. I usually go by what people are known for. But I agree that "educator" might be the easiest to drop. I will leave it up to your judgement. Wizmut (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

She was a nurse? Yeah, Planned Parenthood was & is an educational organization, along with the health services that it provides. It should be obvious that she was an educator. Peaceray (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

But educator commonly implies teacher or expert on education. Someone who is known in part for informing the public about some topic is not necessarily referred to as an "educator". That term has the weakest rationale of the three. NightHeron (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Source request

One editor is asking for independent sources that Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. A fair request, but as far I know, Sanger founded one of the predecessors of PP. Do we really need the independent source? The Banner talk 16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The sequence of events seems to be that she founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which was the parent organization of the Birth Control Federation of America that became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. She also was the first president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1953.

• "Margaret Sanger". Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998-07-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
• "Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)". PBS. 2018-01-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
• Gordon, Allison (2020-07-22). "New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics". CNN. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
• "Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Pioneer". PRB. 2020-11-19. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
• Michals, Debra (2017-08-01). "Margaret Sanger". National Women's History Museum. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

Peaceray (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Member of the Nazi party and the KKK

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

This is not true. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, we'll just ignore WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP and just put those extreme things right in with no sources just because you said it. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Of all the things that never happened, this one never happened the most. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)