3117:, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. However, Sanger's initiative to increase birth control access among African Americans also received positive attention - including among the African American community; one example being Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife accepting the "Sanger award" on his behalf. Historians often note that eugenics was a common ideology at the time, and that Sanger wasn't herself racist, but nevertheless aligned with such ideologies to be able to further her mission. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.
1408:
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.
4173:, you'd need high-quality sources. Planned parenthood isn't a high-quality source in this context; and likewise, most of the other sources you've presented that emphasize this aspect are op-eds or opinion pieces. That's not enough, not when editing an article about someone who has a massive amount of high-quality coverage from reputable historians and biographers, none of whom place that weight on it. I don't think that you've successfully made the case that there were any serious problems with the text prior to your edits; the aspects you're talking about were all adequately discussed, even in the lead, just not with the degree of intensity and weight that you prefer. To convince people on that you'd have to present better arguments than the ones already in the article, and you've offered worse ones instead. --
2869:, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Despite criticism, Sanger's initiative to increase birth control access among African Americans also received positive attention - including among the African American community; one example being Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife accepting the "Sanger award" on his behalf. The Sanger award hasn't been given out since 2015. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.
4753:(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.
3774:. As such, the fact Planned Parenthood themselves distances themselves from her isn't all that surprising, and their own statement shouldn't be taken as gospel, especially compared to sources that have better records of impartiality or better academic scholarship behind them (and the fact that such disavowal is very recent.) So my upshot is I think you need to do more to present a case that her record as a eugenicist has so dominated coverage of her as a topic that it thus should deserve a large portion of the lead to discuss, especially as Knowledge strives to avoid recentism.
795:
711:
690:
3805:(saw this at the noticeboard) The common meaning of eugenics is a lot nastier than things she advocated which could technically be included. And so simply advocating for simply using and emphasizing the word to characterize her could be a distortion rather than a move towards NPOV, i.e. creating a POV problem, not solving one. IMO we should be covering the specifics (even in the lead) rather than pushing for emphasizing and characterizing her with a term which has a common meaning which is a lot nastier than what she actually advocated.
721:
4386:"The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many others. Her alignment with the eugenics movement, rooted in white supremacy, is in direct opposition to our mission and belief that all people should have the right to determine their own future and decide, without coercion or judgement, whether and when to have children."
2554:. There are more sources describing Sanger as a eugenicist than there are describing her as a "sex educator," but such descriptor is still in the very beginning of the article's lead. You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion. We are to go off of the reliable sources, and based on the preponderance of reliable sources, Sanger is widely recognized as having been both a racist and eugenicist who had negative motives in her push for birth control.
410:
2193:
Sterilization: An Urgent Need”. It was written by
Margaret’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s Director of Genetic Sterilization and had earlier taken a role in the establishment in the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later in June of that same year, published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization”, which adamantly praised and defended The Third Reich’s pre-holocaust race purification programs.”
2757:, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor. Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons. Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.
257:
533:
3767:, it has to be taken in aggregate with the wider context. A Google Search for "Margaret Sanger" + "Birth control" brings up roughly 700,000 hits on Google for me; "Margaret Sanger" + "eugenics" brings up less than one third that number. That right there starts suggesting to me that putting her advocacy for eugenics on par with her other work is disproportionate. A quick search of JSTOR and Google also brings up sources like
1112:
1200:
1094:
356:
1122:
1026:
1005:
471:
443:
921:
900:
931:
227:
606:
585:
2700:
aware of the dangers that became obvious later. Her eugenics beliefs are well covered in the article, just not in the first sentence, for the reasons that have been explained to you multiple times. Despite our attempts to assume good faith, the edits you want to make here and in the abortion article strongly suggest that you're here to push a POV and not to edit neutrally.
616:
401:
4092:." An opinion of the New York Times over the status of admiration of Sanger is not reliable, and the fact that the article referenced is about Planned Parenthood themselves disavowing her is quite ironic. With the plethora of sources I have provided, and the fact that this statement is not true - even for the organization she founded, this statement should be amended to:
4424:
progressives of that period, she did not see the downside of the eugenicist hope that science, through genetics, could improve the human race. It would be inaccurate and ahistorical to label her as a eugenicist in the article's lead. This has been discussed several times before, and the consensus of editors supports the way the article handles the question.
826:
4938:. 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.
4285:
racism itself, and therefore it is reasonable to say that
Margaret Sanger was herself a racist as well. Yet, nowhere am I asking for us to call Margaret Sanger a racist in the article. Instead, I am asking that we drop the absurd and baseless claim that her racist and eugenics actions are excused because they were just a "rhetorical tool." Even
1779:
sources (including opinion articles) about a given aspect of her biography is not challenging, and it does not follow that any such aspect must be mentioned in the first sentence. What broad overviews of Sanger's life forefront this facet? Of sources that have just a line to introduce her, how many say "eugenecist
Margaret Sanger"?
1710:. One of the main things she is known for is for having racist ideologies and supporting eugenics on minority populations. The fact that people are so persistent on keeping it out of the classifications in the lead makes it quite obvious that there are people here who are wanting the article to be profoundly non-critical.
481:
5075:(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.
1287:
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.
4720:
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
4582:
It should be noted that the interpretation of Sanger's quote as evidence of racism is ahistorical, because in her time "racial" was often used to refer generally to the human race and did not necessarily refer to different races of humans. For example, eugenics organizations were often called "racial
2699:
Peaceray is completely correct. Despite being at odds with the vast majority of reliable sources, over-emphasizing eugenics in this article is ahistorical. Sanger, like many humanitarians and progressives of her day, were attracted to notions of social engineering such as eugenics without being fully
1330:
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
4897:
You are just assuming that I am editing in bad faith then. I have edited a wide variety of articles on
Knowledge, 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
4826:
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
4423:
There's a whole section that discusses her views on eugenics. She was not known in her time as a eugenicist, and certainly not as someone who had a racist agenda. She was supported by the leading Black activists of the 20th century, notably Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many
4407:
the article provides vast information, but in some parts writes as if they are trying to defend Sanger when her own company does not. This is not what neutrality is. I don't mean to criticize the article because like I said it has a lot of information it just seems that the information given is more
3700:
which only addresses the negative eugenics and rhetoric bits. The text needs adjusting or the statement needs additional citations, and given that DocZach has brought up citations that specifically contradict the claim of racial neutrality, probably needs adjusting. 2) Sanger is absolutely known far
3238:
The article for
Margaret Sanger is profoundly impartial and biased in favor of her, and it is absolutely ironic for you to claim that I am the one pushing for my perspective to be put into the article, when I have given multiple reasonable compromises. Just because 4 editors (who seem to patrol this
3203:
An essay is not a policy. And Peaceray, you haven't contributed anything of value to this discussion other than personal attacks against me. If you are not willing to engage in the discussion and find a compromise, then kindly find your way out. If you are willing to engage in the discussion without
2568:
I'm not asking for us to remove all of the things she has accomplished or done, but I'm asking that we provide a fair article that acknowledges the well-known eugenics support by Margaret Sanger - and not one that buries it into a tiny sentence or later on in the article. This important fact belongs
2451:
known for her support of eugenics, and she was a major figure in the movement - one that many of the people in the American Eugenics Society admired for what she proposed as a possible solution to their desire of keeping the race "pure." I think it's doing a disservice to readers to try and diminish
1407:
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
5539:
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
5233:
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
4284:
There is not sufficient evidence that Martin Luther King Jr. supported Margaret Sanger. Just because his wife accepted an award on his behalf, does not mean that he supported the racist and eugenics actions of Margaret Sanger. Befriending, endorsing, and/or allying with erroneously racist groups is
2714:
You clearly have not assumed good faith, as you are now attacking my character instead of my argument. It is quite bold of you to assume I am here to push a POV, especially taking a look at your edit history on Knowledge. However, I am not going to go down to your level and assume you are here with
2397:
I still feel that seeking to mention eugenics in the lead sentence is undue because Sanger is clearly primarily known for her efforts in birth control. While she may have held views common in the early 20th Century that have become rightfully abhorrent in light of racist, genocidal, & classist
2204:
Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for “the gradual suppression, elimination
1499:
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
4682:
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
4269:
No, really it's your proposed edits that have the POV problem. The sources say that her beliefs on eugenics were aligned with those of racists. But beliefs are not actions, and the article gives examples of how her conduct contrasted with and did not follow the racist practices of her day. Perhaps
3351:
So your response to someone challenging the neutrality of an article and proposing compromises is to threaten to ban them from editing Knowledge? And a consensus is 5 editors, 2 of which appeared just to launch personal attacks against me, within the time-span of only 2 days since this discussion
2811:
Thanks for proposing a compromise. If the criticisms of MS that you're proposing are included in the lead, the lead should also include some text summarizing the section "Work with the African American community" that's in the main body, especially the fact that two of the 20th century's greatest
2651:
At this point I need to ask you, DocZach, are you interested in providing a neutral view of Sanger? Because if you are discounting the incontrovertible evidence of her birth control advocacy, feminism, & family planning in favor of selectively emphasizing her eugenics & racism in an undue
2180:
Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian
5203:
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.
2358:
The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a
1912:
of reliable sources refer to her as a supporter of the eugenics movement. You are deliberately excluding the classification of Sanger being a eugenicist to give the impression that Sanger is an "admirable figure of the reproductive movement," something else that this article claims. This isn't a
1778:
I checked the first three of your links. None call Sanger a eugenecist, but they do describe her support for some in the eugenics movement, as does our article. None say that this is "one of the main things Sanger is known for". She's such a prolifically covered figure that pulling together some
4520:
This was up for pending changes review and I accepted it per the pending changes criteria which is basically "not vandalism". Such acceptance does not imply endorsement of the changes. I'm a bit against the change because putting this in without context of differing accepted views then and now
3705:
was a racist in his opening sentence, even if he was by modern standards. 3) To have a whole paragraph about her eugenics beliefs in the lead, the burden is on DocZach or whoever supports it to demonstrate due weight. Is her eugenics work a large part of coverage (say, for instance, chapters of
3458:
here. I think that you have made positive edits elsewhere. You can also view what I think are some positive contributions that I have made to pages that you have edited here on English Knowledge (enwiki) & especially to the files that you have uploaded on Commons. I am really interested in
3371:
It seems that many before me have been dismissed the same way I am being dismissed right now: threats of being banned for an objection to an article. What I will accept is that no matter what I do, you are going to find a way to ban me if I continue trying to discuss and propose ways to fix the
2137:
Sanger saw birth control as a way to better the human race, to reduce reproduction of “lesser than” groups of society and to make society more even in terms of the “fit” and the “unfit”. Additionally, Sanger pushed her eugenic agenda especially in groups of race. Her experimentation with birth
3039:
But you left out the historical context. And the historical context reduces the weight of your claims significantly (eugenics were popular at the time and the consequences poorly understood.) Following the populist trend does not make immediately bad. You are blowing things out of proportion,
1286:
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.
3087:
The new "compromise" proposal is not what I suggested. It has no proper summary of the section in the main body about Sanger and the African American community. You're also proposing to remove positive references to her, skewing your proposal still further against any balance. Please make a
2643:
Discounting primary sources, there are hundreds of items that have descriptions like "birth control advocate, "proponent of women's rights," & "social reformer, political radical, feminist." Sure there are a handful of sources whose descriptions have eugenics & racism in their item
4787:
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
1411:
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.
2192:
Margaret Sanger got in tight with the Ku Klux Klan circles, and cozied up to more like them. The following quote from the book “Killer Angel” discovers who some of the other friends in her new movement were: “In April of 1933, The Review , published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic
5146:, 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.
2115:
I see no rationale or reason to exclude eugenics from the first sentence of the lead. Planned Parenthood THEMSELVES disavowed and condemned Sanger, acknowledging that she was both racist and a eugenicist. There are TONS of sources that support a notable reality that Sanger was a
1940:
Your willingness to make entirely speculative claims about editor motivations makes me eager to avoid discussing this further with you. If you'd like to strike those remarks, I'd be happy to pick it back up again. If you have NPOV concerns, you may want to bring them to the
2178:“The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.”
557:
3706:
biographies? Dedicated books on the subject? Etc.) Bring the proofs not in terms of "sources exist" but "sources cover it this way", since that's what should be guiding how many inches we give it. 4) Whatever ends up being said in specific verbiage, absolutely
3276:
by the very organization that she founded. Planned Parenthood is more critical of Margaret Sanger than this entire article is, and if that doesn't say something about the neutrality of this article, then there mind as well not be any neutrality policy at all.
3010:
I provided a variety of sources for a reason. The purpose of providing that source is that Planned Parenthood themselves acknowledges that Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist, despite all of the things they try to do to water it down in that statement.
1598:
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
4063:, but aside from that, she is also known as a prominent eugenicist and racist, as shown from the sources I provided you. There are more results on Google showing "Margaret Sanger + eugenics" than there are showing "Margaret Sanger + sex educator."
3966:
I think that was in reference to your editing the article against consensus, but I can see how that might be read as more extensively. You may freely comment here as long as you observe policy & guidelines, although you must do so within the
3446:
It is hard for me to fathom how you could consider that a personal attack, when I was responding to your actions discrediting me as an editor. However, if you can demonstrate that someone has personally attacked you, you may always take it up at
1620:
1367:, 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."
3218:
To be honest, what you are doing is POV-pushing, trying to get your own personal preference in the article contrary to the sources. I advice you to read the archives of this page, especially the many times that eugenics is discussed before.
2125:
The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many
2025:
is presented as a "doctor who advocated eugenics", and he wrote a book titled "Eugenics" and advocated for castration of sex offenders. Sanger's lead does discuss the support of eugenics and the body does as well. I think it gives fair
3840:
page, not where they said that you aren't allowed to discuss it in talk or at the noticeboard. Could you provide a diff or point out where you were told that you couldn't discuss? But IMHO you need to ease up overall. Sincerely,
5569:
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.
4187:
Welcome to the discussion. If you have read my new proposal, you'd notice that there are no additions to the article, but rather amendments of current sentences. The sources I've already provided are high quality, and most are
2587:
in the lead. I will not agree to putting it in the introductory sentence, and I agree with what Peaceray has said about why we shouldn't do that. I do not believe sources say she was racist, I have seen many that refute that.
3755:
doesn't prohibit those terms from being used at all, it's just guidance on avoiding them, especially if unattributed, and looking for them as signs of neutrality issues. You could argue the lead should specifically state the
3770:
which specifically point out that her record on eugenics and race has been pushed by those seeking to discredit womens reproductive rights and Planned Parenthood specifically, which has remained true to the modern era of US
2535:
The current mention of her eugenicist views in the lead & the five paragraph section on those views is sufficient. We do not need to overload the lead sentence with something that already has the necessary attention.
5602:
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.
4864:
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.
4074:
Margaret Sanger was widely criticized for her support of negative eugenics. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger in 2021, citing her racist and eugenics past that had left a negative impact on the disabled and people of
4048:
with the other editors in that it is unnecessary to add that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist in the lead sentence. Whilst I feel like there would be appropriate weight to do so, I recognize that it is not completely
2172:(1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability.
153:
5831:
547:
1382:
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 --
3271:
of Sanger's quote related to eliminating "morons and epileptics." This article omits, to the fullest extent possible, the criticism and negative aspects of Sanger's character, despite the fact that she has been
2764:
I think this is fair, because there are a PLETHORA of sources that mention her support of eugenics, including Planned Parenthood themselves. And we can leave the classification out of the lead sentence in turn.
4767:
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.
1621:
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-
5627:
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?
2452:
the profound negative impact that Sanger's racism and ideologies have left on society, as even Planned Parenthood stopped giving away the Margaret Sanger Award and disavowed her themselves. It is one of the
3693:
She has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics; Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and did not believe that poverty was hereditary. However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical
2285:
Sanger was also associated with racist causes, including her advancement of the "Negro Project," where she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally and outlined her support for the elimination of "defective" persons.
5531:
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
3883:
This is clearly a consensus against you. Your NPOVN thread has produced no support for your position and the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing. Accept the reality and drop the
3332:
This is clearly a consensus against you. Your NPOVN thread has produced no support for your position and the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing. Accept the reality and drop the
2840:
It would be much better if you proposed your text here, as you did above with your proposed compromise. Adding and reverting is not the best procedure. Working things out on the talk-page is much better.
1573:
1543:
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"?
4103:
Finally, there are some changes (mostly addition of more material) that I'd make here, but I believe that would be better to do at a later date so as to not prolong this discussion with adding even more
2153:
Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to
4403:
It's just odd to me of this was someone on the right, there would be no discussion and ad hominem attacks would allowed without discussion yet in this case somehow they are trying to keep it "unbiased.
5462:
1328:
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.
5826:
2138:
control types and clinics in black populations, while helpful in terms of allowing black women to pursue professional careers, led to medical biases toward black people that still persist today.
4169:
her with racists (ie. she was supporting something that they did.) That's not the same thing. More importantly, though, in order to establish that more than what is currently in the article is
2718:
This article is not neutral, it is an article that attempts to glorify and honor a person in history that was a racist eugenicist, and whose actions still affect the world negatively today.
3701:
more for family planning than eugenics; that she was a eugenicist did not make that her vocation or trade, and so I think putting it in the first sentence is improper, any more than we put
4055:
I uphold my persistence that there should be a third paragraph in the lead describing Sanger's view on eugenics. I believe there is appropriate weight to do so. I recognize that Sanger is
3763:
As for 3, I don't think you've demonstrated due weight here, because sources don't exist in a vacuum. If I find sources that talk about a historical figure's racism, even if the story is
4480:
I fully agree with Elove, and it is unfortunate that so many people are shutdown by the same people over-and-over again who claim there is a "consensus," when very clearly there isn't.
2373:
Information about Sanger's eugenist views has already been covered in the second paragraph of the article's lead. Sanger is not primarily known for her eugenist views. By attempting to
816:
5881:
2745:
classification out of the first sentence of the lead and the short description. However, there should be a third paragraph in the lead with the text and sources I previously provided:
777:
767:
542:
453:
1921:
requires. She is referred to as a eugenicist more times than she is referred to as an educator, but you seem to want to still include educator in the classifications within the lead.
1379:"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
5584:
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.
5117:
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:
2626:
then you lose all credibility when you try to claim that she is not primarily known as a birth control proponent. Just have a look at what what is a WorldCat search has to offer:
5941:
1172:
339:
5896:
3367:
I suppose you have won. Congratulations, you have successfully threatened an editor to the point where they can't challenge an article's neutrality without fear of being banned.
5886:
5836:
4078:
Therefore, a separate paragraph won't be necessary, and it would be a compromise to some of the editors' claims that there is not enough due weight to add a separate paragraph.
3760:
said she had been lauded as a feminist icon and birth control pioneer, but I also think there's enough unequivocal phrasing in that article that stating it plainly is fine too.
5811:
268:
4700:
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.
3772:
4147:
Opponents of what.... abortion??? If that was true, Planned Parenthood would not have conceded that Margaret Sanger was a supporter of eugenics and racial sterilization...
2987:
1714:
872:
218:
147:
1178:
882:
743:
5103:
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."
5906:
5876:
4458:
I agree with NightHeron & The Banner. Her support of negative eugenics is already mentioned in the second paragraph in the lead. To give it any more prominence is
566:
457:
2428:. This does not belong in the lead sentence nor does it require additional embellishment, unless there are significant citations to be added to the Eugenics section.
4110:
I appreciate the advice from North and Der, and I believe this proposal is completely reasonable and helps to maintain neutrality and due weight within the article.
3121:
And for my other change request, I believe the word "admired figure" is not only inaccurate per the preponderance of reliable sources, but also a violation of the
2288:
Following public pressure, in 2021, Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger, acknowledging her racist and discriminatory beliefs and her support for eugenics.
1668:
5438:
4440:
And following up to NightHeron, Sanger does not derive her notability from - then popular in society - eugenics but from her work in the field of birth control.
4389:
3665:
3499:
2128:
1719:
4303:
I don't see any such "excused" claim in the article. Further, that sentence in your post contains implied assertions about severity in those areas. Sincerely,
5891:
5071:(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:
3536:
2183:
5901:
5338:
3561:
2415:
2140:
1729:
1215:
734:
695:
2363:. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is
1503:
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.
5801:
5660:
2061:; 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.
1942:
1148:
848:
3616:
2207:
1739:
5936:
5916:
5866:
5851:
5841:
4646:
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.
3996:
I spoke (wrote?) too harshly there, or not clearly enough. You are not under any prohibitions that I am aware of. And though I am an admin, I am clearly
2342:
Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
977:
672:
662:
79:
1335:& both Coretta & Martin Luther King Jr. supported her, I believe the latter is the correct reading. I would suggest that you carefully read the
3243:
The entire article waters down Sanger's support of eugenics and racism. It calls her an "admired" figure in the reproductive rights movement, which is
5931:
5816:
5796:
4547:
2474:
I disagree. Again, her primary notability is for birth control. Although she was clearly known for eugenicism, I think much emphasis on this has been
2255:
2104:
1954:
1788:
1267:
1066:
987:
5656:
3122:
1076:
4662:
Yes, because that statement is false. She did not oppose eugenics along racial lines, there are numerous reliable sources that debunk that claim.
3978:
My recommendation would be to address criticisms of your edits & arguments as that, instead of treating them as if they were personal attacks.
2181:
dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.
2005:
Leading with a loaded term like "eugenicist" biases the reader against the subject rather than letting her words and actions speak for themselves.
5871:
5856:
5806:
2418:, to name a few. Sanger cannot be considered a major proponent of eugenism, so to mention it in the lead sentence is simply undue & fails our
1376:"I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and the syphilitic. " -- Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Feb 1919
499:
414:
44:
5124:
Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction.
3822:
I need clarification on if I'm even allowed to reply or add more comments, because I've been told by some editors that I am required to drop it.
4071:
said about the negative eugenics part of the second paragraph, and would ask that the last two sentences of the second paragraph be amended to:
839:
800:
5921:
2073:, especially with her membership in the American Eugenics Society. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and
1135:
1099:
2205:
and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
85:
2678:
I will not continue engaging with you if you attempt to assume that I am here with bad or impartial intentions. I remind you of the rule to
1373:"'to create a race of thoroughbreds' by encouraging 'more children from the fit and less from the unfit.'" -- The pivot of civilization 1922
3876:
3301:
1566:
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?
638:
503:
1715:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf
5861:
5821:
5652:
1252:
953:
283:
5911:
5313:
1042:
507:
278:
5926:
4397:"We must acknowledge the harm done, examine how we have perpetuated this harm, and ensure that we do not repeat Sanger’s mistakes."
1569:
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:
1500:
simply sympatetic. She was the pioneer in her age, not just showing sympathetic but promoted her believes and had impactful actions.
1288:
5057:
Existing text or your proposal, we can still do better. Who does this criticism come from? Anti-abortion activists? Anyone else? –
3751:
Speaking to the last part first, it's not a violation of NPOV if that's a broad consensus viewpoint you can find in good sourcing.
3352:
launched? That seems to be very contradictory to the values of Knowledge, and the entire point of "neutrality" in the first place.
498:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1913:
pro-abortion encyclopedia, it is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia that provides all relevant information to readers. You are
1908:
You are claiming that Margaret Sanger is not widely known as a eugenicist - that's a completely unfounded and inaccurate claim. A
1540:
1393:"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."
5846:
5487:
4879:
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.
2826:
Ok, can I try to make the edit and then you can revert it if you don't agree, and we can talk about the parts we don't agree on?
2812:
campaigners for civil rights of African Americans, Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., supported Sanger strongly.
368:
2398:
practices, she was hardly known for this until very recently, & the effect of her eugenist views is quite minor compared to
5791:
5786:
5413:
4371:
4089:
3785:
I don't think I'm allowed to present a case anymore, because they said if I don't drop it, I might be restricted from editing.
3512:
3171:
I disagree. We are actively working on a compromise, and the other editors that were previously involved have yet to respond.
2489:
2360:
1724:
629:
590:
494:
448:
378:
374:
274:
99:
30:
4390:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
2129:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
1720:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
168:
2169:
1860:
944:
905:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
104:
20:
4556:
I think that anytime that someone starts citing a dictionary to support their conclusion we can generally assume that it is
135:
2184:
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her
1744:
5648:
4543:
2251:
2141:
https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/
2100:
1950:
1784:
1730:
https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/
1581:
1524:
1508:
1398:
1033:
1010:
74:
5388:
3872:
3697:
3294:
1234:
1207:
423:
5706:
5686:
3459:
collaborating with editors who demonstrate that they are able to adhere to enwiki pillars, policies, & guidelines.
2208:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/
1740:
https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/even-removing-margaret-sangers-name-planned-parenthood-still-influenced-racist
847:
and related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
4899:
65:
3640:
2195:
2176:
A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps.
4230:
IMHO the "shift" being proposed by DocZach would cause a POV problem in an area where one does not currently exist.
4394:
I don't see how this is even a discussion, are we now claiming that planned parenthood is biased against Sanger???
3314:
The opinions (some of which haven't even been provided yet) of 5 editors within 2 days of the discussion is not a "
2457:
2456:
that Sanger is known for. We cannot be cherry-picking which descriptors we like or don't like, we must follow what
2444:
1230:
226:
185:
5540:
notable for activism I believe this would do the majority of the work in distinguishing this article from others.
4916:
Call it what you want, but sending an article to AfD because you do not like the content sets my alarm bells off.
2630:
256:
2517:
2407:
129:
5744:
815:
794:
237:
4539:
4383:
So why is she not referred to as a eugenist? Even planned parenthood basically disavows her and condemns her.
3305:
3114:
2866:
2754:
2558:
2411:
2279:
2247:
2096:
2077:, proposing segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and those she saw as "racial mistakes."
2074:
1986:
1946:
1797:
The definition of a eugenicist is somebody who supports eugenics. That's literally the definition of the word.
1780:
320:
1577:
1520:
1504:
1394:
1339:
section. I believe that to promulgate the view that Sanger was racist without supporting citations is plainly
1256:
4495:
3239:
page often) want to preserve the integrity of Sanger does not mean that this article is perfectly impartial.
1870:
1127:
125:
109:
3062:
Thank you, I agree I should have included more historical context. I did so below in the amended proposal.
2330:
The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is
273:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
2479:
1945:
for review, though I'd ask that you keep your post focused on the content and not on your fellow editors.
1222:
726:
2424:
pillar. Sanger's eugenist views are covered elsewhere in the lead & there is alread a five paragraph
1811:
The definition of eugenicist is someone who supports eugenics. That's literally the meaning of the word.
1233:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
4413:
2509:
2497:
1292:
429:
5724:
5219:
Ok, sounds good. I will implement it now. I appreciate you both working with me to find a compromise.
5089:
That's why I asked. Should have figured that PP disavowing her can be considered "criticism" of her. –
2606:
I just sent you numerous sources that describe her as racist, including Planned Parenthood themselves.
175:
4323:. What it does do is bring up as many ways to water down her support of eugenics as much as possible.
1331:
construed as an attempt to reduce their numbers any more than any other American. Given the fact that
355:
5635:
5608:
5560:
5209:
5080:
4967:
4923:
4886:
4853:
4775:
4758:
4608:
4588:
4463:
4447:
4429:
4275:
4136:
3937:
3226:
3160:
3093:
3051:
2999:
2959:
2846:
2817:
2705:
2364:
2014:
1894:
to the page that Firefangledfeathers pointed out to you is not supported as strongly as you claim. –
1630:
1608:
1433:
1308:
3710:
include the "she has been criticized"-type stuff. It's weasely fluff that weakens writing. Just say
2174:“The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”
1683:
1446:
1413:
720:
710:
689:
400:
5555:
How about keeping "nurse" (which was her main profession) and deleting "educator" (which was not)?
5284:
5239:
4935:
4528:
4409:
4310:
4237:
4178:
3897:
3848:
3812:
3186:
2887:
2652:
fashion, then I suggest that you move onto topics on which you can edit neutrally. I would like to
2521:
2505:
2475:
2054:
2021:, our page says, coined the term "eugenics", and his lead does not refer to him as a "eugenicist".
1417:
1344:
1226:
161:
55:
1147:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1041:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
952:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
742:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
637:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
5767:
5589:
5094:
5062:
5006:
4707:
4653:
4565:
4538:
I reverted, but I agree that I'd have approved if I were an uninvolved pending changes reviewer.
4503:
4471:
4005:
3997:
3987:
3464:
3342:
3194:
2665:
2593:
2541:
2433:
2035:
1972:
1899:
1840:
1828:
1549:
1476:
1352:
1274:
242:
70:
5364:"Why Planned Parenthood Is Removing Founder Margaret Sanger's Name From a New York City Clinic"
5363:
4247:
There already is a POV problem when you try to excuse Sanger's actions by saying it was just a
4095:
Sanger remains a significant figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.
3375:
Congratulations. You achieved your desired result. Not based on merits, but based on threats.
2532:. Yet some of these individuals had a much greater effect on the eugenics movement than Sanger.
5495:
5270:
5253:
5224:
5151:
5143:
5133:
5127:
In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.
5108:
5048:
5034:
5020:
4988:
4943:
4907:
4870:
4837:
4811:
4744:
4727:
4689:
4667:
4634:
4485:
4347:
4294:
4256:
4197:
4152:
4116:
4086:"Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements."
4023:
3957:
3909:
3827:
3790:
3742:
3598:
3380:
3357:
3323:
3282:
3209:
3176:
3144:
3130:
3110:
3067:
3030:
3016:
2977:
2904:
2862:
2831:
2770:
2750:
2723:
2690:
2679:
2611:
2574:
2529:
2465:
2294:
2272:
2218:
2086:
2070:
2058:
1993:
1931:
1881:
1816:
1802:
1768:
51:
5536:. They are supposed to scan very quickly and do not have to do as much as the lead sentence.
5488:"Planned Parenthood to remove Margaret Sanger's name from N.Y. clinic over views on eugenics"
3395:
DocZach, you have confused my criticism of you for personal attacks, when I have pointed out
2374:
1734:
1702:
Eugenics should be mentioned in the very beginning of the article's lead; neutrality dispute.
141:
5575:
5545:
4998:
4372:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html
4329:"She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors"
4286:
4068:
3775:
3715:
3418:
3139:
If you still disagree w/ the amended proposal, can you propose what parts you'd want fixed?
2403:
2325:
2027:
1963:
Yeah I'm totally disengaging from this as well unless DocZach can demonstrate that they can
1876:
You are purposely trying to keep out an important classification of who Margaret Sanger is.
1725:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html
1332:
1144:
844:
621:
486:
239:
4270:
that has something to do with why W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. supported her.
3617:"Remove statues of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder tied to eugenics and racism"
2894:
Sanger remains a notable figure in the American reproductive rights and feminist movements.
2017:
to see how they're handled. Many biographies of eugenicists do not lead with "eugenicist".
5630:
5604:
5556:
5533:
5522:
5205:
5076:
4963:
4918:
4881:
4848:
4804:
4800:
4770:
4754:
4603:
4584:
4459:
4442:
4425:
4271:
4192:
opinion pieces. This article uses a lot of opinion pieces for its current text as it is.
4131:
3932:
3885:
3864:
3702:
3422:
3334:
3221:
3155:
3089:
3046:
3041:
2994:
2954:
2842:
2813:
2701:
2624:
are to go off of the reliable sources, and based on the preponderance of reliable sources,
2425:
2378:
2337:
1918:
1850:
1832:
1625:
1603:
1428:
1336:
1303:
936:
739:
24:
3442:
You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion.
2658:
You claim that her primary notability is for birth control, but that's just your opinion.
2246:
What sources do you plan to use for your recent proposal (01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC))?
4000:
in this, which means I am not going to be the one who sanctions you, if anybody does. –
3730:
Can you provide your analysis in regards to number 3 based on the arguments I have made?
1745:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-history.html
5667:
5280:
5263:
5235:
4377:
4241:
4174:
3816:
3737:
is a violation of NPOV (peacock terms), and goes against the preponderance of sources?
3720:
3414:
3097:
2965:
2569:
in the lead, it belongs as a descriptor, and it deserves due weight and consideration.
2501:
2437:
2399:
2382:
2259:
2018:
1772:
1763:. The "Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines" statement is also profoundly false.
1623:) and is seen in the quote above: the proposal is not the same as the actual project).
831:
532:
5780:
5763:
5707:"New York's Planned Parenthood will remove founder's name over her views on eugenics"
5585:
5090:
5073:
This decision was made in response to criticisms over Sanger's promotion of eugenics.
5058:
5002:
4980:
4796:
4737:
4703:
4649:
4626:
4561:
4499:
4467:
4170:
4015:
4001:
3983:
3901:
3889:
3460:
3455:
3448:
3437:
3408:
3338:
3190:
2675:
2661:
2653:
2603:
2589:
2562:
2537:
2513:
2493:
2429:
2419:
2386:
2282:, proposing the segregation and sterilization of the disabled, unfortunate, and poor.
2031:
2022:
1982:
1968:
1964:
1895:
1836:
1593:
1559:
1545:
1472:
1464:
1348:
1283:
1270:
3372:
article. What I will not accept is the idea that this article is in any way neutral.
1199:
5266:
5249:
5220:
5147:
5129:
5104:
5044:
5030:
5016:
4984:
4939:
4903:
4866:
4833:
4807:
4740:
4723:
4685:
4663:
4630:
4557:
4481:
4343:
4290:
4252:
4193:
4148:
4112:
4019:
3968:
3953:
3905:
3823:
3786:
3738:
3441:
3376:
3353:
3319:
3278:
3205:
3172:
3140:
3126:
3063:
3026:
3012:
2973:
2900:
2827:
2766:
2719:
2686:
2607:
2570:
2525:
2461:
2290:
2214:
2082:
1989:
1927:
1877:
1812:
1798:
1764:
1706:
Margaret Sanger is widely recognized as a eugenicist by numerous reliable sources,
1468:
1460:
1340:
4335:"she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program"
2972:
What "first source" are you talking about exactly? Where is the source the first?
2196:
https://www.courierherald.com/letters/hitler-the-ku-klux-klan-and-margaret-sanger/
2009:
is our guidance on this, as these labels impair neutrality. I went to our page on
1319:
You, as well as others, seem to derive the notion that Sanger was racist from her
3711:
3692:
2367:, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
5571:
5541:
5121:
Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics.
3979:
3752:
1456:
1387:
which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization." --
4792:
I tried fixing it with what you guys recommended. Any objections to this one? ^
4583:
betterment societies". That's clearly the context in which Sanger is speaking.
3733:
And furthermore, can you provide your analysis on my claim that calling her an
1321:
1111:
1093:
470:
442:
3515:
by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.
3113:. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and
2865:. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and
2753:. In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and
1572:"But what anti-choicers either don’t know or willfully obscure is that Sanger
1301:
Yep, good to see how you blatantly ignore the facts to promote your own view.
1140:
1117:
926:
821:
716:
611:
556:
476:
5498:
3601:
4716:
Ok, then this accounts for that context, a more NPOV, and the other context:
2278:
In her My Way to Peace speech, Sanger outlined her support for eugenics and
2006:
1891:
1749:
1025:
1004:
634:
362:
3768:
2952:) that there is a lot of disinformation around. Especially from opponents.
920:
899:
241:
4035:
Okay, I am going to try my best to propose my case in a more thorough way:
3727:
Thank you. I appreciate your feedback. I tend to agree with what you said.
2349:
2316:
2010:
1211:
949:
5771:
5641:
5612:
5593:
5579:
5564:
5549:
5288:
5274:
5257:
5243:
5228:
5213:
5155:
5137:
5112:
5098:
5084:
5066:
5052:
5038:
5024:
5010:
4992:
4971:
4947:
4929:
4911:
4892:
4874:
4859:
4841:
4815:
4781:
4762:
4748:
4731:
4711:
4693:
4671:
4657:
4638:
4614:
4592:
4569:
4551:
4532:
4507:
4489:
4475:
4453:
4433:
4417:
4351:
4314:
4298:
4279:
4260:
4201:
4182:
4156:
4142:
4120:
4027:
4009:
3991:
3961:
3943:
3913:
3852:
3831:
3794:
3780:
3746:
3586:
3468:
3384:
3361:
3346:
3327:
3309:
3286:
3232:
3213:
3198:
3180:
3166:
3148:
3134:
3071:
3057:
3034:
3020:
3005:
2981:
2908:
2850:
2835:
2821:
2774:
2727:
2709:
2694:
2669:
2615:
2597:
2578:
2545:
2469:
2298:
2222:
2159:
2108:
2090:
2039:
1997:
1976:
1958:
1935:
1903:
1885:
1844:
1820:
1806:
1792:
1636:
1614:
1585:
1553:
1528:
1512:
1480:
1439:
1421:
1402:
1356:
1314:
1296:
1278:
1260:
615:
605:
584:
4165:
say that she herself was racist. They said that her belief in eugenics
3263:
of the fact that Sanger classified black people as lower class, it has
2488:, even some primary sources are open to interpretation. At the risk of
2310:, to which DocZach did not respond. I will reiterate my comments here.
1038:
4370:
Margaret Sanger, when talked about now is referred to as a "eugenist"
5279:
I cut it down to one ref for the first sentence, two for the second.
5015:
I just put that there because it's what the article currently says.
4494:
There clearly is no consensus to change it. Perhaps you need to read
3972:
3836:
I see where they warned you regarding certain potential edits on the
3537:"Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Why are we still celebrating her?"
3407:
that you have edits that you made or have proposed would violate the
2266:
I propose there to be a third paragraph in the lead, which should be:
1873:, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
2660:
in the face of so many reliable sources that indicate exactly that.
1981:
I will strike the remarks, and I apologize for assuming bad faith. @
5414:"Planned Parenthood in N.Y. disavows Margaret Sanger over Eugenics"
4498:
to understand why a controversial change requires a new consensus.
3950:"the next place we go may be to get sanctions against your editing"
3444:
in the face of so many reliable sources that indicate exactly that.
2460:
says. And one of the major things Sanger is known for is eugenics.
506:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
5463:"Statement about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's mission"
4621:
Regarding the mention of eugenics in second paragraph of the lead.
4090:"Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics
3873:
Knowledge:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"
3295:
Knowledge:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"
3204:
launching personal attacks, then I'd be happy to engage with you.
1601:
So what became the Negro Project, was not conform Sangers wishes.
1535:
Well, first of all, the Negro Project Proposal quote is "the mass
3251:. It excuses her racist and eugenic past by saying it was just a
2565:, and anyone else can find common ground and a consensus with me.
3025:
Would you mind telling me what is incorrect about the proposal?
2045:
I'd like to propose a compromise that hopefully we can agree on:
2057:
and feminist movements. She has been criticized for supporting
4326:"However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool"
3267:
that Sanger's book was praised by Hitler as his Bible, it has
3088:
good-faith effort at a real balance in your proposal. Thanks.
1194:
394:
243:
15:
5528:"American birth control activist, educator, and nurse (1..."
2443:
Sanger was a major proponent of eugenics, as the plethora of
3109:
Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of
2861:
Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of
2749:
Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of
2271:
Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of
2069:
Sanger has been widely criticized for her public support of
555:
531:
277:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
5832:
Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
5339:"Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist"
4462:
because it is not something for which she is most notable.
3562:"Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist"
1251:
Ironic you editors dont mention she is a white supremacist
2943:
You should have been properly warned by the first source (
1735:
https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/
1221:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
4125:
At best, IMHO, an addition could be added to the tune of
3691:
having seen the NPOV post: 1) The current lead statement
3259:
of Sanger's connection to an associate of Hitler, it has
2992:
And can you please leave my edits where I have put them?
5647:
The sequence of events seems to be that she founded the
5389:"Eugenics and Birth Control | American Experience | PBS"
2715:
bad intentions, and I'd ask that you do the same for me.
2168:
Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech
1592:
Also interesting to read is this quote from the article
1210:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
1139:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
4366:
Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, why no mention of this?
4088:
The cited reference for that claim is literally titled
3500:
meta:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read
3454:
It is a pity that you seem unable to take advice &
3430:
3403:
3397:
2484:
2381:
attention, which is a violation of English Knowledge's
2306:
332:
313:
4846:
What does that add to the article, except negativity?
2492:, we do not mention eugenics in the lead sentence for
160:
5439:"Planned Parenthood's Reckoning with Margaret Sanger"
4376:
Even in Galton page, they list him as an "eugenist"
3666:"Planned Parenthood's Reckoning with Margaret Sanger"
1925:(A comment by DocZach has been retracted by himself.)
361:
Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge's
5827:
C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
5234:
citations down to one reference for each assertion?
1917:
fairly representing all significant viewpoints that
1037:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
948:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
843:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
738:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
633:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
287:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
2682:in discussions about articles, even if you believe
1869:significant viewpoints that have been published by
1574:
borrowed this quote directly from W. E. B. Du Bois.
5651:in 1921, which was the parent organization of the
5001:. Make that more specific and I'm okay with it. –
4976:Awesome! Glad we are working towards a compromise.
4962:I have no objection to the last proposed wording.
3440:here, but that is hard when you assert of me that
2761:(see above for where the sources will be inserted)
2656:here, but that is hard when you assert of me that
1890:I'm violating UNDUE? How? You're looking to add a
1177:This article has not yet received a rating on the
5659:in 1942. She also was the first president of the
4983:, what are your thoughts on the latest proposal?
4601:I would have shot it down, as it is not neutral.
4400:This is coming from Sangers company she founded.
4084:I believe that it is profoundly incorrect to say
4018:Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification.
3410:Knowledge is written from a neutral point of view
2886:Sanger remains an admired figure in the American
2741:I want to propose a compromise. We can leave the
2421:Knowledge is written from a neutral point of view
2388:Knowledge is written from a neutral point of view
2053:Sanger remains an admired figure in the American
1619:The quote from Du Bois was used in the proposal (
3123:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery
1322:"Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble"
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
4289:, the admin, agreed we should drop that point.
3641:"Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, and Margaret Sanger"
2312:
5882:Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
4629:Mind explaining to me how I removed context?
4408:in defense without showing the opposing view.
2644:description, but you could hardly call that a
5314:"Margaret Sanger's extreme brand of eugenics"
4061:birth control and founding Planned Parenthood
3247:when even Planned Parenthood themselves have
2377:it into the lead sentence, you have given it
2356:
174:
8:
5942:Unknown-importance New York (state) articles
752:Knowledge:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
5887:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
5837:Politics and government work group articles
5661:International Planned Parenthood Federation
5029:What about, "has been criticized by some"?
4898:slight improvement to that. I ask that you
4560:. I have warned the IP editor accordingly.
4127:Opponents claim that Sanger was an eugenist
2081:Obviously, sources would be added as well.
1943:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
1684:"The Negro Project – Making Democracy Real"
1463:. Otherwise what you present seems to be a
1361:There and a few others quotes from herself:
755:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
5812:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in People
1088:
999:
894:
789:
684:
579:
437:
292:
251:
5142:And also, separately, in accordance with
4698:The cited source, from PBS, says in part
1853:, the rule reference you just referenced.
1750:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11615086/
1701:
1539:negroes", not "the massive negroes", and
269:Social sciences and society good articles
5897:High-importance Women's History articles
5725:"Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Pioneer"
5657:Planned Parenthood Federation of America
4521:probably presents a misleading picture.
3930:So you take an advice as a prohibition?
2881:Additional data to the Eugenics section.
1337:Work with the African-American community
564:This article is listed on the project's
5877:C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
5305:
3982:will fail to gain you any credibility.
3528:
3491:
2989:Opposition Claims About Margaret Sanger
2304:I responded to DocZach's initial edits
1708:including Planned Parenthood themselves
1667:was invoked but never defined (see the
1653:
1541:it's actually a quote from W.E.B DuBois
1090:
1001:
896:
791:
686:
581:
439:
398:
5072:
4699:
4645:
4065:However, in the interest of compromise
3435:
3409:
2657:
2645:
2623:
2420:
2387:
2341:
2329:
2095:What are the sources you plan to use?
1831:on "eugenicist", is inappropriate and
1452:
1327:
1157:Knowledge:WikiProject New York (state)
543:the politics and government work group
5525:The current short description reads:
5043:or: "Some have criticized Sanger..."
4736:Do you have any objections to this? @
3896:I agree with The Banner. I think the
3185:I agree with The Banner. I think the
2160:https://www.jstor.org/stable/48583690
1160:Template:WikiProject New York (state)
857:Knowledge:WikiProject Women's History
7:
5907:WikiProject Women's History articles
5742:
4319:It obviously doesn't directly state
1863:articles and pages fairly represent
1133:This article is within the scope of
1031:This article is within the scope of
942:This article is within the scope of
860:Template:WikiProject Women's History
837:This article is within the scope of
732:This article is within the scope of
627:This article is within the scope of
492:This article is within the scope of
5902:All WikiProject Women-related pages
5653:Birth Control Federation of America
4934:Once again, I advise you to follow
3863:Best option is to drop the idea. -
3696:is not adequately supported by the
1659:
428:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
5802:Knowledge vital articles in People
5262:I removed a few, is that better? @
3712:Sanger supported negative eugenics
2986:You started this discussion with:
1562:Thanks for the correction! So you
1365:1939 In The Negro Project Proposal
735:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
5937:C-Class New York (state) articles
5917:High-importance Feminism articles
5867:Mid-importance socialism articles
5852:Top-importance biography articles
5842:C-Class biography (core) articles
5412:Stewart, Nikita (July 21, 2020).
3153:Best option is to drop the idea.
2189:Sanger's Connections with Nazism:
5932:High-importance Nursing articles
5892:C-Class Women's History articles
5817:C-Class vital articles in People
5797:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
5486:Schmidt, Samantha (2020-07-21).
5195:I have no objection to changing
3900:essay describes this situation.
3871:That essay is not a policy, but
3293:That essay is not a policy, but
3189:essay describes this situation.
2122:Planned Parenthood (themselves):
2002:Great, thanks. Apology accepted.
1266:Not ironic, we stick with facts.
1198:
1120:
1110:
1092:
1024:
1003:
929:
919:
898:
824:
814:
793:
719:
709:
688:
614:
604:
583:
479:
469:
441:
408:
399:
354:
255:
225:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
5749:National Women's History Museum
4997:"Has been criticized" is a bit
2583:Her being involved in eugenics
2359:clear, accessible style with a
1761:EUGENICS AND POPULATION CONTROL
1757:main things Sanger is known for
1071:This article has been rated as
982:This article has been rated as
877:This article has been rated as
772:This article has been rated as
758:Sexology and sexuality articles
667:This article has been rated as
647:Knowledge:WikiProject Socialism
516:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
5872:WikiProject Socialism articles
5857:WikiProject Biography articles
5807:C-Class level-4 vital articles
5705:Gordon, Allison (2020-07-22).
3765:about that aspect specifically
1389:New York Times, April 8th 1923
962:Knowledge:WikiProject Feminism
650:Template:WikiProject Socialism
519:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
5922:WikiProject Feminism articles
5743:Michals, Debra (2017-08-01).
5687:"Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)"
5649:American Birth Control League
1455:, I believe The Banner means
1235:contentious topics procedures
1151:and see a list of open tasks.
1051:Knowledge:WikiProject Nursing
1045:and see a list of open tasks.
965:Template:WikiProject Feminism
956:and see a list of open tasks.
851:and see a list of open tasks.
746:and see a list of open tasks.
641:and see a list of open tasks.
540:This article is supported by
42:Put new text under old text.
4352:22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4315:19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4299:16:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4280:16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4261:14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4242:14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4202:14:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4183:14:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4157:12:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4143:12:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4121:11:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4028:11:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4010:23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3992:23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3962:23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3944:23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3914:23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3853:22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3832:22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3817:22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3795:22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3781:21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3747:21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3721:20:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3469:19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3385:19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3362:19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3347:19:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3328:19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3310:19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3287:19:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3233:19:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3214:19:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3199:19:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3181:17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3167:17:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3149:15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3135:14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3098:14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3072:15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3058:15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3044:, as told by others before.
3035:14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3021:14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3006:14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2982:13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2966:13:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2941:Object against the proposals
2909:11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2851:11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2836:10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2822:10:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2775:10:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2728:09:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2710:09:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2695:07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2684:"their actions are harmful."
2670:04:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2616:07:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2598:00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2579:23:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2546:20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2470:19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2438:18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2385:policy. Please also see the
2299:14:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2260:12:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2223:11:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2109:04:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2091:01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2040:00:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1998:00:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1977:00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1959:00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1936:00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
1904:23:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1886:04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1849:You are blatantly violating
1845:04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1827:Your last edit, including a
1821:04:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1807:04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1793:04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1773:03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
1637:16:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1615:16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1586:16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1554:15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1529:15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1513:15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1481:18:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
1440:14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
1422:14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
1403:15:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
1326:. In this letter she states
1136:WikiProject New York (state)
1054:Template:WikiProject Nursing
504:contribute to the discussion
4466:also applies here as well.
2315:Please read & heed our
840:WikiProject Women's History
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
5958:
5862:C-Class socialism articles
5822:C-Class biography articles
5343:Woman is a Rational Animal
5289:02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5275:01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5258:01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5244:01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5229:00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5214:00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5156:23:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5138:23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5113:23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5099:18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5085:17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5067:17:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5053:16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5039:16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5025:16:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5011:16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4993:16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4972:14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4948:00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
4930:00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
4912:23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4893:23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4875:16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4860:14:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4842:12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4816:12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4782:10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4763:10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4749:10:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4732:03:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
4712:20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4694:18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4672:18:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4658:18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4639:18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4615:19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4593:16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4570:16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4552:16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4533:16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4508:21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4490:18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
4067:, I will agree with what @
3566:Woman is a Rational Animal
3316:consensus of the community
2485:transparency section above
2416:US anti-miscegenation laws
1179:project's importance scale
1077:project's importance scale
988:project's importance scale
883:project's importance scale
778:project's importance scale
673:project's importance scale
281:. Editors may also seek a
5912:C-Class Feminism articles
5772:17:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
5642:16:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
5467:www.plannedparenthood.org
5443:www.plannedparenthood.org
4476:18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4454:13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4434:13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4418:12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4287:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3969:policies & guidelines
3777:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3717:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3670:www.plannedparenthood.org
2518:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
2482:. As I have noted in the
2408:American Eugenics Society
1859:Neutrality requires that
1357:13:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1315:08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1297:06:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1279:17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
1261:17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
1237:before editing this page.
1176:
1163:New York (state) articles
1105:
1070:
1019:
981:
914:
876:
809:
771:
704:
666:
599:
563:
539:
464:
436:
385:
340:Good article reassessment
295:
291:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
5927:C-Class Nursing articles
5613:13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
5594:04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
5580:02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
5565:02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
5550:02:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
3513:WP:Neutral point of view
3125:policy. (peacock terms)
2490:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
2412:British Eugenics Society
2165:Sanger was a Eugenicist:
1370:A few more quotes below:
1231:normal editorial process
863:Women's History articles
5847:Core biography articles
5672:Encyclopedia Britannica
2945:Opposition Claims About
2635:WorldCat Search Results
1218:as a contentious topic.
1128:New York (state) portal
454:Politics and Government
5792:C-Class vital articles
5787:Delisted good articles
3591:The Independent Review
2890:and feminist movements
2480:historical revisionism
2395:
2369:
2134:University of Chicago:
1426:Do you have evidence?
1227:standards of behaviour
749:Sexology and sexuality
727:Human sexuality portal
696:Sexology and sexuality
560:
536:
75:avoid personal attacks
2510:Alexander Graham Bell
2498:Charles Galton Darwin
2361:neutral point of view
1857:It explicitly states:
630:WikiProject Socialism
559:
535:
495:WikiProject Biography
415:level-4 vital article
388:Delisted good article
275:good article criteria
219:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
4827:eugenics and racism.
3115:forced sterilization
2867:forced sterilization
2755:forced sterilization
2735:PROPOSED COMPROMISE:
2631:"su:Margaret Sanger"
2280:forced sterilization
2075:forced sterilization
2015:Category:Eugenicists
1663:The named reference
1467:commentary based on
1345:guilt by association
1324:. December 10, 1939.
1223:purpose of Knowledge
945:WikiProject Feminism
321:Good article nominee
105:No original research
4540:Firefangledfeathers
2888:reproductive rights
2559:Firefangledfeathers
2522:John Harvey Kellogg
2506:John Maynard Keynes
2248:Firefangledfeathers
2097:Firefangledfeathers
2066:Proposed amendment:
2055:reproductive rights
2030:to those issues. –
1987:Firefangledfeathers
1947:Firefangledfeathers
1781:Firefangledfeathers
1578:Freebyunderstanding
1521:Freebyunderstanding
1505:Freebyunderstanding
1395:Freebyunderstanding
1034:WikiProject Nursing
5534:short descriptions
5418:The New York Times
5248:Sure, one moment.
4644:Your edit removed
3952:as a prohibition.
3698:PBS ref used there
3615:Hawkins, Kristan.
3417:policy, & the
3255:? The article has
1385:those human weeds
1208:contentious topics
653:socialism articles
561:
537:
522:biography articles
424:content assessment
296:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
5745:"Margaret Sanger"
5668:"Margaret Sanger"
5517:Short description
4900:assume good faith
4558:original research
4516:March 12th change
4101:Eugenics section:
3456:accept good faith
3438:assume good faith
3434:that my feelings
3111:negative eugenics
2863:negative eugenics
2751:negative eugenics
2680:assume good faith
2654:assume good faith
2552:strongly disagree
2530:Victoria Woodhull
2273:negative eugenics
2170:“My Way to Peace”
2157:- Margaret Sanger
2071:negative eugenics
2059:negative eugenics
1965:assume good faith
1892:contentious label
1469:original research
1341:original research
1242:
1241:
1214:, which has been
1193:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1082:
998:
997:
994:
993:
968:Feminism articles
893:
892:
889:
888:
788:
787:
784:
783:
683:
682:
679:
678:
578:
577:
574:
573:
393:
392:
349:
348:
250:
249:
66:Assume good faith
43:
5949:
5758:
5756:
5755:
5739:
5737:
5736:
5720:
5718:
5717:
5701:
5699:
5698:
5682:
5680:
5679:
5655:that became the
5640:
5633:
5509:
5508:
5506:
5505:
5483:
5477:
5476:
5474:
5473:
5459:
5453:
5452:
5450:
5449:
5435:
5429:
5428:
5426:
5424:
5409:
5403:
5402:
5400:
5399:
5385:
5379:
5378:
5376:
5375:
5360:
5354:
5353:
5351:
5350:
5335:
5329:
5328:
5326:
5325:
5318:America Magazine
5310:
4928:
4921:
4891:
4884:
4858:
4851:
4780:
4773:
4677:What if it said:
4613:
4606:
4496:WP:EDITCONSENSUS
4452:
4445:
4141:
4134:
4096:
4076:
3942:
3935:
3778:
3718:
3713:
3695:
3689:Driveby thoughts
3680:
3679:
3677:
3676:
3662:
3656:
3655:
3653:
3652:
3637:
3631:
3630:
3628:
3627:
3612:
3606:
3605:
3583:
3577:
3576:
3574:
3573:
3558:
3552:
3551:
3549:
3548:
3541:America Magazine
3533:
3516:
3509:
3503:
3496:
3443:
3436:I would like to
3433:
3419:MOS:LEADSENTENCE
3406:
3400:
3231:
3224:
3165:
3158:
3056:
3049:
3004:
2997:
2964:
2957:
2856:THIRD PARAGRAPH:
2638:
2487:
2426:Eugenics section
2404:G. K. Chesterton
2326:MOS:LEADSENTENCE
2309:
2050:Text in dispute:
1871:reliable sources
1694:
1693:
1691:
1690:
1680:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1666:
1658:
1635:
1628:
1613:
1606:
1461:reliable sources
1450:
1438:
1431:
1333:W. E. B. Du Bois
1325:
1313:
1306:
1202:
1195:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1154:New York (state)
1130:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1114:
1107:
1106:
1100:New York (state)
1096:
1089:
1059:
1058:
1057:Nursing articles
1055:
1052:
1049:
1028:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1007:
1000:
970:
969:
966:
963:
960:
939:
934:
933:
932:
923:
916:
915:
910:
902:
895:
865:
864:
861:
858:
855:
834:
829:
828:
827:
818:
811:
810:
805:
797:
790:
760:
759:
756:
753:
750:
729:
724:
723:
713:
706:
705:
700:
692:
685:
655:
654:
651:
648:
645:
624:
622:Socialism portal
619:
618:
608:
601:
600:
595:
587:
580:
567:core biographies
524:
523:
520:
517:
514:
500:join the project
489:
487:Biography portal
484:
483:
482:
473:
466:
465:
460:
445:
438:
421:
412:
411:
404:
403:
395:
386:Current status:
379:October 16, 2016
375:October 16, 2011
358:
335:
316:
314:October 17, 2011
293:
259:
252:
244:
230:
229:
220:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
5957:
5956:
5952:
5951:
5950:
5948:
5947:
5946:
5777:
5776:
5753:
5751:
5734:
5732:
5723:
5715:
5713:
5704:
5696:
5694:
5685:
5677:
5675:
5666:
5631:
5629:
5625:
5519:
5514:
5513:
5512:
5503:
5501:
5492:Washington Post
5485:
5484:
5480:
5471:
5469:
5461:
5460:
5456:
5447:
5445:
5437:
5436:
5432:
5422:
5420:
5411:
5410:
5406:
5397:
5395:
5387:
5386:
5382:
5373:
5371:
5362:
5361:
5357:
5348:
5346:
5337:
5336:
5332:
5323:
5321:
5312:
5311:
5307:
4919:
4917:
4882:
4880:
4849:
4847:
4771:
4769:
4623:
4604:
4602:
4518:
4443:
4441:
4368:
4249:rhetorical tool
4132:
4130:
4094:
4073:
4057:primarily known
4053:Lead paragraph:
4037:
3933:
3931:
3875:is a policy. -
3776:
3716:
3703:Abraham Lincoln
3685:
3684:
3683:
3674:
3672:
3664:
3663:
3659:
3650:
3648:
3639:
3638:
3634:
3625:
3623:
3614:
3613:
3609:
3585:
3584:
3580:
3571:
3569:
3560:
3559:
3555:
3546:
3544:
3535:
3534:
3530:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3511:Do not violate
3510:
3506:
3497:
3493:
3429:
3423:MOS:LEADCLUTTER
3402:
3396:
3368:
3253:RHETORICAL TOOL
3222:
3220:
3156:
3154:
3104:Is this better?
3047:
3045:
2995:
2993:
2955:
2953:
2950:Margaret Sanger
2737:
2629:
2483:
2338:MOS:LEADCLUTTER
2305:
2148:My Way to Peace
1704:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1664:
1662:
1660:
1655:
1626:
1624:
1604:
1602:
1444:
1429:
1427:
1320:
1304:
1302:
1249:
1225:, any expected
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1126:
1121:
1119:
1073:High-importance
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1014:High‑importance
1013:
984:High-importance
967:
964:
961:
958:
957:
937:Feminism portal
935:
930:
928:
909:High‑importance
908:
879:High-importance
862:
859:
856:
854:Women's History
853:
852:
845:Women's history
830:
825:
823:
804:High‑importance
803:
801:Women's History
757:
754:
751:
748:
747:
740:human sexuality
725:
718:
698:
652:
649:
646:
643:
642:
620:
613:
593:
521:
518:
515:
512:
511:
485:
480:
478:
451:
422:on Knowledge's
419:
409:
333:August 21, 2015
331:
312:
265:was one of the
263:Margaret Sanger
246:
245:
240:
217:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
25:Margaret Sanger
12:
11:
5:
5955:
5953:
5945:
5944:
5939:
5934:
5929:
5924:
5919:
5914:
5909:
5904:
5899:
5894:
5889:
5884:
5879:
5874:
5869:
5864:
5859:
5854:
5849:
5844:
5839:
5834:
5829:
5824:
5819:
5814:
5809:
5804:
5799:
5794:
5789:
5779:
5778:
5775:
5774:
5761:
5760:
5759:
5740:
5721:
5702:
5683:
5624:
5623:Source request
5621:
5620:
5619:
5618:
5617:
5616:
5615:
5582:
5518:
5515:
5511:
5510:
5478:
5454:
5430:
5404:
5380:
5355:
5330:
5304:
5303:
5299:
5298:
5297:
5296:
5295:
5294:
5293:
5292:
5291:
5260:
5193:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5189:
5188:
5187:
5186:
5185:
5184:
5183:
5182:
5181:
5180:
5179:
5178:
5177:
5176:
5175:
5174:
5173:
5172:
5171:
5170:
5169:
5168:
5167:
5166:
5165:
5164:
5163:
5162:
5161:
5160:
5159:
5158:
5118:
5027:
4977:
4960:
4959:
4958:
4957:
4956:
4955:
4954:
4953:
4952:
4951:
4950:
4877:
4831:
4830:
4829:
4793:
4790:
4765:
4717:
4696:
4679:
4622:
4619:
4618:
4617:
4599:
4598:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4575:
4574:
4573:
4572:
4517:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4511:
4510:
4478:
4456:
4437:
4436:
4378:Francis Galton
4367:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4361:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4341:
4340:
4339:
4333:
4327:
4264:
4263:
4229:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4223:
4222:
4221:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4210:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4206:
4205:
4204:
4107:
4106:
4105:
4098:
4079:
4050:
4042:Lead sentence:
4033:
3994:
3976:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3893:
3880:
3877:208.87.236.202
3868:
3860:
3804:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3761:
3735:admired figure
3731:
3728:
3724:
3723:
3682:
3681:
3657:
3645:Courier-Herald
3632:
3607:
3587:"Front Matter"
3578:
3553:
3527:
3526:
3522:
3518:
3517:
3504:
3490:
3489:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3472:
3471:
3452:
3428:I was stating
3426:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3373:
3369:
3366:
3364:
3302:208.87.236.202
3291:
3290:
3289:
3241:
3119:
3106:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3040:clashing with
2948:
2947:
2936:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2882:
2877:OTHER CHANGES:
2874:
2871:
2858:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2762:
2759:
2746:
2739:
2733:
2716:
2649:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2566:
2555:
2533:
2502:Francis Galton
2454:primary things
2400:Francis Galton
2394:
2393:
2355:
2354:
2352:itself states:
2345:
2334:
2302:
2301:
2268:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2198:
2186:
2162:
2143:
2131:
2079:
2063:
2047:
2019:Francis Galton
2003:
1979:
1922:
1874:
1854:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1809:
1754:
1713:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1695:
1675:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1570:
1567:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1501:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1409:
1405:
1391:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1362:
1317:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1203:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1149:the discussion
1132:
1131:
1115:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1069:
1063:
1062:
1060:
1043:the discussion
1029:
1017:
1016:
1008:
996:
995:
992:
991:
980:
974:
973:
971:
954:the discussion
941:
940:
924:
912:
911:
903:
891:
890:
887:
886:
875:
869:
868:
866:
849:the discussion
836:
835:
832:History portal
819:
807:
806:
798:
786:
785:
782:
781:
774:Mid-importance
770:
764:
763:
761:
744:the discussion
731:
730:
714:
702:
701:
699:Mid‑importance
693:
681:
680:
677:
676:
669:Mid-importance
665:
659:
658:
656:
639:the discussion
626:
625:
609:
597:
596:
594:Mid‑importance
588:
576:
575:
572:
571:
562:
552:
551:
548:Mid-importance
538:
528:
527:
525:
491:
490:
474:
462:
461:
446:
434:
433:
427:
405:
391:
390:
383:
382:
369:On this day...
359:
351:
350:
347:
346:
343:
336:
328:
327:
324:
317:
309:
308:
305:
302:
298:
297:
289:
288:
260:
248:
247:
238:
236:
235:
232:
231:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5954:
5943:
5940:
5938:
5935:
5933:
5930:
5928:
5925:
5923:
5920:
5918:
5915:
5913:
5910:
5908:
5905:
5903:
5900:
5898:
5895:
5893:
5890:
5888:
5885:
5883:
5880:
5878:
5875:
5873:
5870:
5868:
5865:
5863:
5860:
5858:
5855:
5853:
5850:
5848:
5845:
5843:
5840:
5838:
5835:
5833:
5830:
5828:
5825:
5823:
5820:
5818:
5815:
5813:
5810:
5808:
5805:
5803:
5800:
5798:
5795:
5793:
5790:
5788:
5785:
5784:
5782:
5773:
5769:
5765:
5762:
5750:
5746:
5741:
5730:
5726:
5722:
5712:
5708:
5703:
5692:
5688:
5684:
5673:
5669:
5665:
5664:
5662:
5658:
5654:
5650:
5646:
5645:
5644:
5643:
5639:
5638:
5634:
5622:
5614:
5610:
5606:
5601:
5597:
5596:
5595:
5591:
5587:
5583:
5581:
5577:
5573:
5568:
5567:
5566:
5562:
5558:
5554:
5553:
5552:
5551:
5547:
5543:
5537:
5535:
5529:
5526:
5524:
5516:
5500:
5497:
5493:
5489:
5482:
5479:
5468:
5464:
5458:
5455:
5444:
5440:
5434:
5431:
5419:
5415:
5408:
5405:
5394:
5390:
5384:
5381:
5369:
5365:
5359:
5356:
5344:
5340:
5334:
5331:
5319:
5315:
5309:
5306:
5302:
5290:
5286:
5282:
5278:
5277:
5276:
5272:
5268:
5265:
5261:
5259:
5255:
5251:
5247:
5246:
5245:
5241:
5237:
5232:
5231:
5230:
5226:
5222:
5218:
5217:
5216:
5215:
5211:
5207:
5202:
5198:
5157:
5153:
5149:
5145:
5141:
5140:
5139:
5135:
5131:
5128:
5125:
5122:
5119:
5116:
5115:
5114:
5110:
5106:
5102:
5101:
5100:
5096:
5092:
5088:
5087:
5086:
5082:
5078:
5074:
5070:
5069:
5068:
5064:
5060:
5056:
5055:
5054:
5050:
5046:
5042:
5041:
5040:
5036:
5032:
5028:
5026:
5022:
5018:
5014:
5013:
5012:
5008:
5004:
5000:
4996:
4995:
4994:
4990:
4986:
4982:
4978:
4975:
4974:
4973:
4969:
4965:
4961:
4949:
4945:
4941:
4937:
4933:
4932:
4931:
4927:
4926:
4922:
4915:
4914:
4913:
4909:
4905:
4901:
4896:
4895:
4894:
4890:
4889:
4885:
4878:
4876:
4872:
4868:
4863:
4862:
4861:
4857:
4856:
4852:
4845:
4844:
4843:
4839:
4835:
4832:
4828:
4824:
4823:
4822:
4819:
4818:
4817:
4813:
4809:
4806:
4802:
4798:
4794:
4791:
4789:
4785:
4784:
4783:
4779:
4778:
4774:
4766:
4764:
4760:
4756:
4752:
4751:
4750:
4746:
4742:
4739:
4735:
4734:
4733:
4729:
4725:
4722:
4718:
4715:
4714:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4701:
4697:
4695:
4691:
4687:
4684:
4680:
4678:
4675:
4674:
4673:
4669:
4665:
4661:
4660:
4659:
4655:
4651:
4647:
4643:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4636:
4632:
4628:
4620:
4616:
4612:
4611:
4607:
4600:
4594:
4590:
4586:
4581:
4580:
4579:
4578:
4577:
4576:
4571:
4567:
4563:
4559:
4555:
4554:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4541:
4537:
4536:
4535:
4534:
4530:
4526:
4525:
4515:
4509:
4505:
4501:
4497:
4493:
4492:
4491:
4487:
4483:
4479:
4477:
4473:
4469:
4465:
4464:WP:NOTOPINION
4461:
4457:
4455:
4451:
4450:
4446:
4439:
4438:
4435:
4431:
4427:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4415:
4411:
4405:
4401:
4398:
4395:
4392:
4391:
4387:
4384:
4381:
4379:
4374:
4373:
4365:
4353:
4349:
4345:
4342:
4338:
4334:
4332:
4328:
4325:
4324:
4322:
4318:
4317:
4316:
4312:
4308:
4307:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4296:
4292:
4288:
4283:
4282:
4281:
4277:
4273:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4262:
4258:
4254:
4250:
4246:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4234:
4203:
4199:
4195:
4191:
4186:
4185:
4184:
4180:
4176:
4172:
4168:
4164:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4154:
4150:
4146:
4145:
4144:
4140:
4139:
4135:
4128:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4111:
4108:
4102:
4099:
4097:
4091:
4087:
4083:
4082:Neutral tone:
4080:
4077:
4070:
4066:
4062:
4058:
4054:
4051:
4047:
4043:
4040:
4039:
4038:
4036:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4025:
4021:
4017:
4013:
4012:
4011:
4007:
4003:
3999:
3995:
3993:
3989:
3985:
3981:
3977:
3974:
3970:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3959:
3955:
3951:
3947:
3946:
3945:
3941:
3940:
3936:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3915:
3911:
3907:
3904:
3903:
3899:
3894:
3892:
3891:
3887:
3881:
3879:
3878:
3874:
3869:
3867:
3866:
3861:
3859:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3850:
3846:
3845:
3839:
3835:
3834:
3833:
3829:
3825:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3814:
3810:
3809:
3796:
3792:
3788:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3779:
3773:
3769:
3766:
3762:
3759:
3754:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3732:
3729:
3726:
3725:
3722:
3719:
3709:
3704:
3699:
3690:
3687:
3686:
3671:
3667:
3661:
3658:
3646:
3642:
3636:
3633:
3622:
3618:
3611:
3608:
3603:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3582:
3579:
3567:
3563:
3557:
3554:
3542:
3538:
3532:
3529:
3525:
3514:
3508:
3505:
3501:
3495:
3492:
3488:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3457:
3453:
3450:
3445:
3439:
3432:
3427:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3411:
3405:
3399:
3394:
3386:
3382:
3378:
3374:
3370:
3365:
3363:
3359:
3355:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3325:
3321:
3317:
3313:
3312:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3299:
3296:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3280:
3275:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3249:DISAVOWED HER
3246:
3242:
3240:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3230:
3229:
3225:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3211:
3207:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3196:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3164:
3163:
3159:
3152:
3151:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3118:
3116:
3112:
3107:
3105:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3073:
3069:
3065:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3055:
3054:
3050:
3043:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3023:
3022:
3018:
3014:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3003:
3002:
2998:
2991:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2971:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2963:
2962:
2958:
2946:
2942:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2889:
2883:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2875:
2873:-------------
2872:
2870:
2868:
2864:
2859:
2857:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2763:
2760:
2758:
2756:
2752:
2747:
2744:
2740:
2738:
2736:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2650:
2647:
2646:preponderance
2642:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2627:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2567:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2553:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2514:Marcus Garvey
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2494:Alexis Carrel
2491:
2486:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2422:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2392:
2390:
2389:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2371:
2370:
2368:
2366:
2362:
2353:
2351:
2346:
2344:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2333:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2318:
2311:
2308:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2289:
2286:
2283:
2281:
2276:
2274:
2269:
2267:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2213:
2209:
2206:
2202:
2199:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2187:
2185:
2182:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2166:
2163:
2161:
2158:
2155:
2151:
2149:
2144:
2142:
2139:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2127:
2123:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2078:
2076:
2072:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2060:
2056:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2024:
2023:Hans Betzhold
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1923:
1920:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1711:
1709:
1685:
1679:
1676:
1670:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1600:
1599:unsuccessful.
1595:
1594:Negro Project
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1448:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1410:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1323:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:12.186.215.34
1246:
1244:
1238:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1180:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1129:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1002:
989:
985:
979:
976:
975:
972:
955:
951:
947:
946:
938:
927:
925:
922:
918:
917:
913:
907:
904:
901:
897:
884:
880:
874:
871:
870:
867:
850:
846:
842:
841:
833:
822:
820:
817:
813:
812:
808:
802:
799:
796:
792:
779:
775:
769:
766:
765:
762:
745:
741:
737:
736:
728:
722:
717:
715:
712:
708:
707:
703:
697:
694:
691:
687:
674:
670:
664:
661:
660:
657:
640:
636:
632:
631:
623:
617:
612:
610:
607:
603:
602:
598:
592:
589:
586:
582:
569:
568:
558:
554:
553:
549:
546:(assessed as
545:
544:
534:
530:
529:
526:
509:
508:documentation
505:
501:
497:
496:
488:
477:
475:
472:
468:
467:
463:
459:
455:
450:
447:
444:
440:
435:
431:
425:
417:
416:
406:
402:
397:
396:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
370:
364:
360:
357:
353:
352:
344:
342:
341:
337:
334:
330:
329:
325:
323:
322:
318:
315:
311:
310:
306:
303:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
285:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
264:
261:
258:
254:
253:
234:
233:
228:
224:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
5752:. Retrieved
5748:
5733:. Retrieved
5731:. 2020-11-19
5728:
5714:. Retrieved
5710:
5695:. Retrieved
5693:. 2018-01-04
5690:
5676:. Retrieved
5674:. 1998-07-20
5671:
5636:
5626:
5599:
5538:
5530:
5527:
5520:
5502:. Retrieved
5491:
5481:
5470:. Retrieved
5466:
5457:
5446:. Retrieved
5442:
5433:
5421:. Retrieved
5417:
5407:
5396:. Retrieved
5392:
5383:
5372:. Retrieved
5370:. 2020-07-21
5367:
5358:
5347:. Retrieved
5345:. 2022-09-21
5342:
5333:
5322:. Retrieved
5320:. 2020-07-28
5317:
5308:
5300:
5200:
5196:
5194:
5126:
5123:
5120:
4936:WP:GOODFAITH
4924:
4887:
4854:
4825:
4820:
4786:
4776:
4719:
4681:
4676:
4624:
4609:
4523:
4522:
4519:
4448:
4406:
4402:
4399:
4396:
4393:
4388:
4385:
4382:
4375:
4369:
4336:
4330:
4320:
4305:
4304:
4248:
4232:
4231:
4228:
4189:
4166:
4162:
4137:
4126:
4109:
4100:
4093:
4085:
4081:
4072:
4064:
4060:
4056:
4052:
4045:
4041:
4034:
4032:
3949:
3938:
3898:WP:DEADHORSE
3895:
3882:
3870:
3862:
3857:
3843:
3842:
3837:
3807:
3806:
3803:
3764:
3757:
3734:
3707:
3688:
3673:. Retrieved
3669:
3660:
3649:. Retrieved
3647:. 2019-04-10
3644:
3635:
3624:. Retrieved
3620:
3610:
3594:
3590:
3581:
3570:. Retrieved
3568:. 2022-09-21
3565:
3556:
3545:. Retrieved
3543:. 2017-11-27
3540:
3531:
3523:
3507:
3494:
3486:
3315:
3297:
3273:
3268:
3264:
3260:
3256:
3252:
3248:
3244:
3237:
3227:
3187:WP:DEADHORSE
3161:
3108:
3103:
3086:
3052:
3000:
2988:
2960:
2951:
2949:
2944:
2940:
2935:
2893:
2885:
2876:
2860:
2855:
2748:
2742:
2734:
2732:
2683:
2634:
2584:
2551:
2526:Nikola Tesla
2476:WP:RECENTISM
2453:
2448:
2447:say. She is
2396:
2372:
2357:
2348:The lead of
2347:
2336:
2324:
2314:
2313:
2303:
2287:
2284:
2277:
2270:
2265:
2245:
2203:
2200:
2191:
2188:
2177:
2173:
2167:
2164:
2156:
2152:
2147:
2145:
2136:
2133:
2124:
2121:
2114:
2113:
2068:
2065:
2052:
2049:
2044:
1924:
1914:
1909:
1865:
1864:
1856:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1733:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1687:. Retrieved
1678:
1661:Cite error:
1656:
1648:
1631:
1609:
1597:
1563:
1536:
1457:verification
1434:
1388:
1384:
1364:
1309:
1250:
1243:
1220:
1205:
1134:
1072:
1032:
983:
943:
878:
838:
773:
733:
668:
628:
565:
541:
493:
430:WikiProjects
413:
387:
366:
338:
319:
284:reassessment
282:
267:
266:
262:
222:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
5393:www.pbs.org
4683:and racism.
4337:(deceptive)
4069:David Fuchs
3998:WP:INVOLVED
3980:Crying wolf
3948:I took the
3753:MOS:PEACOCK
3597:(1). 2020.
3425:guidelines.
2116:eugenicist:
1829:WP:CITEBOMB
1755:One of the
1289:97.117.92.5
279:renominated
148:free images
31:not a forum
5781:Categories
5754:2024-06-20
5735:2024-06-20
5716:2024-06-20
5697:2024-06-20
5678:2024-06-20
5632:The Banner
5605:NightHeron
5557:NightHeron
5523:NightHeron
5504:2024-03-23
5472:2024-03-23
5448:2024-03-23
5398:2024-03-23
5374:2024-03-23
5349:2024-03-23
5324:2024-03-23
5301:References
5206:NightHeron
5144:WP:PEACOCK
5077:NightHeron
4999:WP:WEASELy
4964:NightHeron
4920:The Banner
4883:The Banner
4850:The Banner
4805:NightHeron
4801:The Banner
4772:The Banner
4755:NightHeron
4605:The Banner
4585:NightHeron
4444:The Banner
4426:NightHeron
4272:NightHeron
4133:The Banner
4104:proposals.
4049:necessary.
4044:I tend to
3934:The Banner
3865:The Banner
3675:2024-02-07
3651:2024-02-07
3626:2024-02-07
3572:2024-02-07
3547:2024-02-07
3524:References
3415:neutrality
3300:a policy.
3269:NO MENTION
3265:NO MENTION
3261:NO MENTION
3257:NO MENTION
3223:The Banner
3157:The Banner
3090:NightHeron
3048:The Banner
2996:The Banner
2956:The Banner
2843:NightHeron
2814:NightHeron
2743:eugenicist
2702:NightHeron
2383:neutrality
2319:guideline.
2201:USA Today:
2154:offspring.
1689:2019-10-04
1649:References
1627:The Banner
1605:The Banner
1430:The Banner
1305:The Banner
1216:designated
1141:U.S. state
373:column on
5663:in 1953.
5499:0190-8286
5423:March 23,
5281:Toughpigs
5264:Toughpigs
5236:Toughpigs
5201:prominent
4524:North8000
4306:North8000
4233:North8000
4175:Aquillion
3844:North8000
3808:North8000
3621:USA TODAY
3602:1086-1653
3274:DISAVOWED
3245:LAUGHABLE
2146:Sanger's
2028:WP:WEIGHT
2013:and into
2007:MOS:LABEL
1861:mainspace
1669:help page
1447:FiyaTiger
1414:FiyaTiger
1284:@Muboshgu
1229:, or any
644:Socialism
635:socialism
591:Socialism
513:Biography
449:Biography
418:is rated
363:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
5764:Peaceray
5600:educator
5586:Peaceray
5091:Muboshgu
5059:Muboshgu
5003:Muboshgu
4981:Muboshgu
4797:Muboshgu
4738:Muboshgu
4704:Muboshgu
4650:Muboshgu
4627:Muboshgu
4562:Peaceray
4548:contribs
4500:Peaceray
4468:Peaceray
4460:WP:UNDUE
4410:Elove444
4016:Muboshgu
4002:Muboshgu
3984:Peaceray
3902:Peaceray
3890:Muboshgu
3886:WP:STICK
3771:politics
3461:Peaceray
3413:pillar,
3339:Muboshgu
3335:WP:STICK
3191:Peaceray
3042:WP:UNDUE
2676:Peaceray
2662:Peaceray
2604:Muboshgu
2590:Muboshgu
2563:Muboshgu
2557:I hope @
2538:Peaceray
2430:Peaceray
2375:shoehorn
2350:MOS:LEAD
2317:MOS:LEAD
2256:contribs
2105:contribs
2032:Muboshgu
2011:Eugenics
1983:Muboshgu
1969:Muboshgu
1955:contribs
1919:WP:UNDUE
1910:plethora
1896:Muboshgu
1851:WP:UNDUE
1837:Muboshgu
1833:WP:UNDUE
1789:contribs
1560:Muboshgu
1546:Muboshgu
1473:Peaceray
1453:evidence
1349:Peaceray
1271:Muboshgu
1212:abortion
1145:New York
959:Feminism
950:Feminism
906:Feminism
345:Delisted
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
5267:DocZach
5250:DocZach
5221:DocZach
5197:admired
5148:DocZach
5130:DocZach
5105:DocZach
5045:DocZach
5031:DocZach
5017:DocZach
4985:DocZach
4940:DocZach
4904:DocZach
4867:DocZach
4834:DocZach
4808:DocZach
4788:racism.
4741:DocZach
4724:DocZach
4721:racism.
4686:DocZach
4664:DocZach
4631:DocZach
4482:DocZach
4344:DocZach
4331:(false)
4321:excused
4291:DocZach
4253:DocZach
4194:DocZach
4167:aligned
4149:DocZach
4113:DocZach
4020:DocZach
3954:DocZach
3906:DocZach
3838:article
3824:DocZach
3787:DocZach
3739:DocZach
3377:DocZach
3354:DocZach
3320:DocZach
3279:DocZach
3206:DocZach
3173:DocZach
3141:DocZach
3127:DocZach
3064:DocZach
3027:DocZach
3013:DocZach
2974:DocZach
2901:DocZach
2884:Change
2828:DocZach
2767:DocZach
2720:DocZach
2687:DocZach
2608:DocZach
2571:DocZach
2462:DocZach
2391:pillar.
2365:notable
2340:states
2328:states
2291:DocZach
2215:DocZach
2150:Speech:
2126:others.
2083:DocZach
1990:DocZach
1928:DocZach
1878:DocZach
1813:DocZach
1799:DocZach
1765:DocZach
1519:Agree.
1075:on the
1048:Nursing
1039:Nursing
1011:Nursing
986:on the
881:on the
776:on the
671:on the
420:C-class
365:in the
304:Process
223:14Â days
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
5572:Wizmut
5542:Wizmut
4171:WP:DUE
4163:didn't
4075:color.
3973:enwiki
3449:WP:ANI
3421:&
3401:&
2622:If we
2478:&
2449:widely
2414:, and
2410:, the
2406:, the
1465:biased
1247:Racist
426:scale.
377:, and
326:Listed
307:Result
126:Google
4161:They
4046:agree
3858:Here:
3758:Times
3708:don't
3487:Notes
2528:, or
2458:WP:RS
2445:WP:RS
2379:undue
1459:from
570:page.
407:This
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
5768:talk
5637:talk
5609:talk
5598:But
5590:talk
5576:talk
5561:talk
5546:talk
5496:ISSN
5425:2024
5368:TIME
5285:talk
5271:talk
5254:talk
5240:talk
5225:talk
5210:talk
5152:talk
5134:talk
5109:talk
5095:talk
5081:talk
5063:talk
5049:talk
5035:talk
5021:talk
5007:talk
4989:talk
4968:talk
4944:talk
4925:talk
4908:talk
4888:talk
4871:talk
4855:talk
4838:talk
4812:talk
4777:talk
4759:talk
4745:talk
4728:talk
4708:talk
4690:talk
4668:talk
4654:talk
4635:talk
4610:talk
4589:talk
4566:talk
4544:talk
4529:talk
4504:talk
4486:talk
4472:talk
4449:talk
4430:talk
4414:talk
4348:talk
4311:talk
4295:talk
4276:talk
4257:talk
4238:talk
4198:talk
4179:talk
4153:talk
4138:talk
4117:talk
4059:for
4024:talk
4006:talk
3988:talk
3958:talk
3939:talk
3910:talk
3888:. –
3849:talk
3828:talk
3813:talk
3791:talk
3743:talk
3694:tool
3599:ISSN
3498:See
3465:talk
3431:here
3404:here
3398:here
3381:talk
3358:talk
3343:talk
3337:. –
3324:talk
3306:talk
3283:talk
3228:talk
3210:talk
3195:talk
3177:talk
3162:talk
3145:talk
3131:talk
3094:talk
3068:talk
3053:talk
3031:talk
3017:talk
3001:talk
2978:talk
2961:talk
2905:talk
2892:to:
2847:talk
2832:talk
2818:talk
2771:talk
2724:talk
2706:talk
2691:talk
2666:talk
2612:talk
2594:talk
2575:talk
2542:talk
2466:talk
2434:talk
2307:here
2295:talk
2252:talk
2219:talk
2101:talk
2087:talk
2036:talk
1994:talk
1973:talk
1967:. –
1951:talk
1932:talk
1900:talk
1882:talk
1841:talk
1835:. –
1817:talk
1803:talk
1785:talk
1769:talk
1632:talk
1610:talk
1582:talk
1550:talk
1525:talk
1509:talk
1477:talk
1435:talk
1418:talk
1399:talk
1353:talk
1310:talk
1293:talk
1275:talk
1257:talk
1206:The
1067:High
978:High
873:High
502:and
458:Core
301:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
5729:PRB
5711:CNN
5691:PBS
5199:to
4821:OR:
4190:not
3971:of
3318:."
2561:, @
1915:NOT
1866:all
1759:is
1665::02
1564:are
1451:By
1343:or
1173:???
1143:of
768:Mid
663:Mid
176:TWL
5783::
5770:)
5747:.
5727:.
5709:.
5689:.
5670:.
5611:)
5592:)
5578:)
5563:)
5548:)
5494:.
5490:.
5465:.
5441:.
5416:.
5391:.
5366:.
5341:.
5316:.
5287:)
5273:)
5256:)
5242:)
5227:)
5212:)
5154:)
5136:)
5111:)
5097:)
5083:)
5065:)
5051:)
5037:)
5023:)
5009:)
4991:)
4970:)
4946:)
4910:)
4902:.
4873:)
4840:)
4814:)
4761:)
4747:)
4730:)
4710:)
4702:–
4692:)
4670:)
4656:)
4648:–
4637:)
4591:)
4568:)
4550:)
4546:/
4531:)
4506:)
4488:)
4474:)
4432:)
4416:)
4380:.
4350:)
4313:)
4297:)
4278:)
4259:)
4251:.
4240:)
4200:)
4181:)
4155:)
4129:.
4119:)
4026:)
4008:)
3990:)
3960:)
3912:)
3851:)
3830:)
3815:)
3793:)
3745:)
3714:.
3668:.
3643:.
3619:.
3595:25
3593:.
3589:.
3564:.
3539:.
3467:)
3383:)
3360:)
3345:)
3326:)
3308:)
3298:is
3285:)
3212:)
3197:)
3179:)
3147:)
3133:)
3096:)
3070:)
3033:)
3019:)
2980:)
2907:)
2849:)
2834:)
2820:)
2773:)
2726:)
2708:)
2693:)
2668:)
2633:.
2614:)
2596:)
2588:–
2585:is
2577:)
2550:I
2544:)
2524:,
2520:,
2516:,
2512:,
2508:,
2504:,
2500:,
2496:,
2468:)
2436:)
2402:,
2297:)
2258:)
2254:/
2221:)
2107:)
2103:/
2089:)
2038:)
1996:)
1975:)
1957:)
1953:/
1934:)
1902:)
1884:)
1843:)
1819:)
1805:)
1791:)
1787:/
1771:)
1671:).
1596::
1584:)
1576:"
1552:)
1544:–
1537:of
1527:)
1511:)
1479:)
1471:.
1420:)
1401:)
1355:)
1347:.
1295:)
1277:)
1269:–
1259:)
550:).
456:/
452::
221::
213:,
209:,
205:,
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
5766:(
5757:.
5738:.
5719:.
5700:.
5681:.
5607:(
5588:(
5574:(
5559:(
5544:(
5521:@
5507:.
5475:.
5451:.
5427:.
5401:.
5377:.
5352:.
5327:.
5283:(
5269:(
5252:(
5238:(
5223:(
5208:(
5150:(
5132:(
5107:(
5093:(
5079:(
5061:(
5047:(
5033:(
5019:(
5005:(
4987:(
4979:@
4966:(
4942:(
4906:(
4869:(
4836:(
4810:(
4803:@
4799:@
4795:@
4757:(
4743:(
4726:(
4706:(
4688:(
4666:(
4652:(
4633:(
4625:@
4587:(
4564:(
4542:(
4527:(
4502:(
4484:(
4470:(
4428:(
4412:(
4346:(
4309:(
4293:(
4274:(
4255:(
4236:(
4196:(
4177:(
4151:(
4115:(
4022:(
4014:@
4004:(
3986:(
3975:.
3956:(
3908:(
3847:(
3826:(
3811:(
3789:(
3741:(
3678:.
3654:.
3629:.
3604:.
3575:.
3550:.
3502:.
3463:(
3451:.
3379:(
3356:(
3341:(
3322:(
3304:(
3281:(
3208:(
3193:(
3175:(
3143:(
3129:(
3092:(
3066:(
3029:(
3015:(
2976:(
2903:(
2845:(
2830:(
2816:(
2769:(
2722:(
2704:(
2689:(
2674:@
2664:(
2648:.
2637:.
2610:(
2602:@
2592:(
2573:(
2540:(
2464:(
2432:(
2332:.
2293:(
2275:.
2250:(
2217:(
2099:(
2085:(
2034:(
1992:(
1985:@
1971:(
1949:(
1930:(
1898:(
1880:(
1839:(
1815:(
1801:(
1783:(
1767:(
1692:.
1580:(
1558:@
1548:(
1523:(
1507:(
1475:(
1449::
1445:@
1416:(
1397:(
1351:(
1291:(
1273:(
1255:(
1181:.
1079:.
990:.
885:.
780:.
675:.
510:.
432::
381:.
371:"
367:"
215:7
211:6
207:5
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.