576:“Racism, then as now, is not a Southern problem. Indeed, the tendency to project it exclusively upon the South has been a device of Northern racism. In 1939 the Birth Control Federation of America, responding to the cooperativeness of Southern state public-health officials, designed a ‘Negro Project,’ arguing that Southern poverty was a major national problem and one which could be ameliorated through birth-rate reduction. This project was a microcosm of the elitist birth-control programs whose design eliminated the possibility of popular, grass roots involvement in birth control as a cause. ‘The mass of Negros,’ argued the project proposal, ‘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 proportion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.’ Despite the pretense of concern with the unfit among Negros, this statement was immediately followed by a chart showing the over-all increase of the black as opposed to the white population. The eugenic disguise fell off to reveal overt white supremacy.’ Public health statistics,’ the proposal went on, ‘merely hint at the primitive state of civilization in which most Negros in the South live” (p. 332).
483:
the the appropriate place for this, because the point is despite her racism, in today's society it appears to be ignored due to the political situation wherein the group that she was most racist against finds itself in the quandry of being aligned with planned parenthood. 4. You cannot call a source dubious and so be it. The orignial source is the personal letter in the
Collection - but more importantly, it has been reviewed and discussed in a secondary, independent source, and is so cited. I gave the Google snippet, which is clear to anyone. Yes, I have a hard copy of the book. It is available to anyone for .99 to $ 4.99 via alibris or abebooks. There is no wikipedia requirement that the reader be able to see the entire content of a source *online* - the source (which I will add author and isbn, in addition to the title) is given, so the reader can either go to the library or purchase their own copy if they want to read the entire book. 5. Again, the google source is a secondary source. Finally, your directive to discuss before proposed changes violates WP:Bold, especially because the material is secondary sources and independent.
4337:"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." -- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization , 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
356:
Sanger's views, and ignoring them will just encourage people to believe she Hitler. For example, this article repeatedly makes claims like "well sure Sanger believed some people were innately better than others and that the "feeble-minded" (whatever that means) and degenerate should be forcibly prevented from reproducing etc. etc., but many people believed that at the time so what does it matter?" It does matter because 1. many people also admired Hitler (sorry to keep bringing him into it), that doesn't make it excusable, especially since 2. Sanger's views on reproduction continue to be extremely influential and relevant, so they deserve to be considered from all angles. Anyway the point is sure we should try to keep things objective and steer clear of alarmism, but if we ignore the issues we'll only do a lot more harm than good. (
4689:. I also removed my reference to Upton Sinclair and Sanger's other friends being socialists. The only two things I restored were the reference to Margaret Sanger calling for the murder of Rockefeller, again with a more appropriate source this time, Chesler, and Sanger's quote about the negative effects of masturbation on young girls, but I didn't restore her other comments on that topic because you seemed to think the sexuality section was to long and detailed. Is it ok now. And with regards to why Sanger changed her stance on the Rockefellers, she became less socialistic and more friendly to business in her outlook as she became older. Perhaps we could work that into the article. --
4575:
very least, the background info shows an upbringing that may have influenced her later. That is OK. Then the section goes on to talk of her father's conversion to atheism and activism. This implies that
Margaret Sanger was influenced by her father's conversion to such things. That is OK, too. In fact, the entire first section of Early Life can be read as stating this: mom, the devote Catholic, died of 50 from...cervical cancer (note: this is UNRELATED medically to 18 pregnancies, but those without an MD will assume the opposite); dad, the Catholic, saw the light and converted to social activism and atheism. Sanger then went to work and saw the light, too.
649:
control from Sanger's perspective, particularly as it relates to her leaving the far left, joining with the socialists until the eugenics movement was discredited, and then realigning with the far left without abandoning her racist views, then they would leave this entry without having much of a clue – was that was the intent of the political revisionism behind how this entry was written? So, if you are requesting I swap out the WP:WeaselWords for her actual views, I can do that. Furthermore, the length of the section is immaterial. WP:NOTPAPER prevails that if the notoriety warrants, space is not an object.
1340:"In a 1916 edition of Family Limitation, Sanger wrote,'Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called abortion.' However, she also advised women to douche with boric acid and to take quinine in order to prevent the implantation of an ovum in the uterus (Sanger may not have realized that fertilization always occurs before implantation). She wrote further, "No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."
905:. Be as specific as possible: provide page numbers, URLs, specific quotations, names of publishers, year of publication, and so on. In theory, of course, some helpful WikiGnome could come along and fix up a sloppily-formatted reference that you added. In practice, though, the less work you put into the article, and the worse the result, the more likely it is that someone will revert it. By demonstrably putting in real work to improve the quality of the page, you can reduce the suspicion that you are only here to make trouble, rather than helping out the project.
3954:"Europe had a much more liberal view of contraception than the United States" do have cites; tidying up the presentation so that there are fewer short paragraphs; and tidying up logical flow - in the Birth control movement section for example we end one paragraph in 1917 then start the next in 1916 and end the section by going back to 1913. It's not always possible to ensure a perfect chronological flow, nor to keep all matters neatly grouped, but it's something to keep an eye on, and attempt to avoid such toing and froing. Well done.
858:. Blackgenocide.org is an unashamedly partisan site (starting from the very domain name!) full of illiterate misspellings and punctuation problems, providing no references to primary sources, with no reputation for accuracy that I know of, signed with a @yahoo.com email address and a P.O. Box. It might be relevant to link it from an article on Clenard Childress, if he's notable enough for a Knowledge article, but it's not relevant to the Margaret Sanger article. It's what we call a
974:
stem from ignorance — whether racial groups, religious groups, political groups, or nations. I think the most effective way to fight these problems is by providing universal access to all human knowledge, a project for which
Knowledge is currently an enormously important and effective implement. That's why I started contributing to Knowledge in 2001, why I've been editing occasionally ever since, why I helped out with Wikimania last year, and why I'm writing you this message.
284:
arrangement would taint Sanger's description. How the reader perceives her should be based on the facts about her, not what others with beliefs that follow under the same label have done that are different from her. Frankly, I think the beliefs of other negative eugenics proponents should be moved off of the article entirely and possibly onto a separate article about negative eugenics, as their severity I think detracts from the article about
Margaret Sanger. --
1839:"In 1938, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau re-merged with the ABCL and the merged organization was named the Birth Control Federation of America. In 1942 the name was changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Sanger served as the first President. From 1952 to 1959 she served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation; at the time it was the largest private international "family planning" organization."
31:
879:. Since Sanger actually did advocate mandatory sterilization of the "feeble-minded," a policy which was adopted for quite some time in the US and quite controversial, it should not be difficult to find reliable third-party sources to back this up; Amazon has at least two biographies of her, and numerous articles about her have been published in periodicals over the years. If absolutely necessary, you can fall back on
2709:
2666:
4269:
AFAIK, Sanger never advocated killing anyone. Also, they make some historical errors like claiming that her "Plan for Peace" had the same goals as the Nazis and that she wrote "in reference to the Nazi eugenics plan 'The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.'" In fact, she wrote that in 1921 before Hitler came to power or wrote
1566:"In June 1928, Margaret Higgins Sanger resigned as president of the American Birth Control League, founding the National Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control and splitting the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau from the League. In 1939 the two were reconciled and merged to form the Birth Control Federation of America. In 1942 the name was changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America."
920:, you're going to piss people off, which makes them (a) less able to consider your edits fairly, (b) less able to contribute fairly themselves, and (c) likely to believe that you're just here to make trouble, rather than wanting to make a real contribution. Successful collaboration in a Wiki depends on a body of people who aren't overly pissed off, because pissed-off edits are almost always bad edits.
561:“Sager, too, had always argued the “racial” values of birth control, but as time progressed she gave less attention to feminists arguments and more to eugenic ones…More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control, she wrote in 1919. In Women and the New Race, published in 1920, she put together statistics…in a manner certain to stimulate racist fears” (p. 281).
2850:
2806:
2697:
2870:
2781:
2758:
2746:
2725:
567:“In 1929, Harvard eugenist Edward East wrote to Sanger…‘it would be a very interesting thing…if..Perhaps, without embarrassing questions, would it be possible to make a judgment as to whether the person more or less pure black, mulatto, quadroon, etc.’ Sanger agreed, anticipating no difficulties, “as already colored patients coming to our Clinic have been willing to talk” (p. 286-287).
2834:
2630:
3097:
detail and context is frustrating, and the writing at this point is at starter level, and not something one expects at GA level. As the meaning is conveyed, I would be inclined to make a note of it as something to improve if everything else were OK and still list, but combined with the other faults I'm seeing, this is another reason inhibiting listing. It's fairly borderline.
1189:. Assuming they're genuine quotes, it's unclear to me why the content of that section is as it is. I can see that the IP has got a POV to push - no doubt about that - but even so, those quotes and the sub-section don't sit comfortably together. (Fyi - to try to evidence my neutrality - I'm British, never heard of this woman before, and stumbled across this page by chance!).
558:
issue of 1976). The citation in the text you deleted is found on pages 332-33 in the 1976 version. I give various quotes leading up to this to set the context. At the conclusion of the snippit, Gordon gives the footnote 120 (p. 455), which is: "Sanger to
Clarence Gamble, October 19, 3919, in Sanger, Smith" which is the first reference I indicated in the text you deleted.
1367:
interfere with the development of a fertilized ovum. The only explanation I can think of is that it was not known at that time that fertilization occurs before implantation. Therefore the word 'however' makes perfect sense; the sentence it introduces does not contradict the previous sentence, but the previous sets of sentences taken together. Consider these statements:
1141:"Very unfavorable light" is part of it. They're cherrypicked quotes chosen to emphasize a facet of Sanger that's already discussed, at a length consensus agrees is adequate, on the page. They're also mixed up with a bunch of original POV diatribe. They're not an attempt to improve the page, but essentially an attack. I have no problem with your question, though.
2249:
Margaret Sanger and note that you could do the same with many intellectuals and speakers of the period. I'll add a template to the section. We've already gotten rid of the the really long quotes from the eugenics sub-section because they seemed especially problematic but we should cleanup the rest of the philosophy section in to be less reliant on quotes. -
3360:- I scrutinized the entire article, and validated the sources and checked the text against the sources for accuracy (most of them: I do not have access to some sources). I made several changes to improve accuracy, and removed a few statements that were not sufficiently sourced. I think the article is now ready for another pass of the review process. --
2498:
2092:
can find a way of clearly and concisely summarizing her relationship with eugenics in a way that is neutral and not confusing, then I'd strongly consider supporting it. In general you should probably avoid quotes altogether here. The argument that a topic which occupies an entire section of the article ought to get mention in the lede has merit. -
3151:
the lead to be addressed to met the relevant guidelines, and for inline citations to be found to support the various challengeable statements and opinions present in the article. I have done some tags to help indicate where the citations are most needed. This is not exhaustive, and attention should be paid to where in-line citations are needed..
3924:
3871:
3821:
3759:
3596:
3547:
3477:
3421:
3353:
3272:
3121:
3071:
3018:
2963:
2916:
3676:
there are such guidelines for images and external links. Another problem is that a sentence may contain two facts, one from one source and the other from a second source: and eliminating one source would not be good in that situation. That said, I have no objection to cutting them back to one source per footnote if you prefer. --
2027:
other partial elements of her grounds, which are currently mentioned in the lead ("for women to more equal footing" and "prevent abortions") should be deleted also. Metal.lunch: the lead is giving the false impression that Sanger grounds were solely those mentioned currently in the lead while the own body shows another thing. --
3319:
see the GA process as being one that improves the quality of articles on
Knowledge, and as long as that is happening, then I'm quite content. While I have not been impressed with the quality of this article so far, I have been impressed by your work ethic, and willingness to push this through to GA listing.
4664:
introduces extensive redundancies. I don't think it's very useful to the reader to go into great detail about the
Rockefellers (and it leaves the reader wondering why the Rockefellers were so supportive of Sanger's work if she supposedly advocated their assassination?) The sourcing is dubious in some
4649:
seems a bit heavy-handed and polemical on the one hand; it's sort of beating the reader over the head that she was a socialist who associated with socialist socialists to do socialist stuff, etc. Sinclair's defining characteristic was not that he was a "socialist", but that he was a muckraking author
4473:
Sorry, at the moment the article is completely locked, due to an editwar going on. But even as a registered user, you better come up with a draft before making changes. Opinions are, to put it mildly, very varied among the followers of the article. Writing drafts and discuss them beforehand, prevents
4047:
Brechbill123: the KKK information is already mentioned above in the article no need to duplicate it. Likewise, the Negro
Project is already mentioned. Also, the article has a separate "Eugenics" section: so any material on eugenics should go in that section, not other sections. Also: the article
3953:
There has been some very impressive work done on this article. It serves as a readable, useful and well cited overview of an important and interesting birth control activist. There is ongoing work to do, however this now meets GA criteria. Examples of ongoing work are ensuring that statements such as
3796:
Do we need the list of recipients of the
Margaret Sanger Awards? I think it's appropriate to mention that there is an award named after her, and to gain some idea of the importance or respect of the award, though am not sure of the value of naming celebrity recipients. It feels like the importance is
3318:
I'll be happy to give more time. I'm inclined to keep reviews open as long as there is positive progress being made, and there appears to be a chance of reaching a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. I'm frequently nagged by
Wizardman for keeping reviews open for well over a month, though I
2584:
I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am
2101:
I would not object to a minor mention in the lead, something like "..., and a supporter of negative eugenics..." or something like that. But to place it in the 1st sentence would not be appropriate, since most biographers do not emphasize it to that degree. Maybe in a latter paragraph in the lead?
2022:
DawnBards: Incidental? Sanger advocated for birth control on that grounds and terms in a lot of articles, some of them published at the Eugenics Review journal. Certainly these were not the unique arguments she used, but my edit is not claiming that. There is a section of five paragraphs in the body,
1548:
My understanding is that MS founded the Birth Control League, but then resigned from that leadership, and a few years later, it merged with some other organizations to form Planned Parenthod. Sanger then became a director of the International Planned Parenthood. I'm no expert on those details, and I
1383:
Is that clear? She denounced abortion, but then she recommended something that was, by her own definition, abortion. I can only infer that she did not know that it was by her definition abortion. I understand that we are not supposed to make any rational inferences of our own, however simple, but I'm
1346:
My questions are (1) why bother including "Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called abortion", that seems like a ho-hum definition of a term. (2) The word "however" makes no sense, since the next sentence does not contradict the prior. (3) "(Sanger may not have
927:
controversial edits. There are lots and lots of places where you can contribute without participating in edit wars. If you don't do that, then other editors will, again, come to believe that you're just here to make trouble, not to make Knowledge better, and most or all of your edits will eventually
842:
Hi. I see that some of your edits to this page have been reverted and that you've been temporarily blocked from editing. Although your change comments suggest that you think this was "censorship of significant minority views" based on another editor's "preferences", I think the reversions were more a
557:
In any case, the quotes below are from 'Woman's body, woman's right: A social history of birth control in America' by Linda Gordon (NY: Grossman Publishers, 1976, ISBN: 0670778176). The page numbers are slightly off, because the Google snipit refers to the 1974 originial issue; what I have is the 2n
553:
I'm happy to be your typist, but I'm confused. Your comments above appear to indicate THIS has been discuss previously; how could that be if noone until now made reference to THIS point? Furthermore, what would have been the basis of your delete because according to your view the secondeary source is
4574:
The fact that Sanger's parents were both Catholics, and one a "devote Catholic" implies that such a background as a child somehow makes Margaret Sanger more "objective" regarding her views on birth control. Sort of a "I've lived my life on both sides now" sense of authenticity to her views. At the
4268:
On a cursory examination, it looks like more guilt by association. Hitler was inspired by American eugenicists, ergo Sanger is like Hitler. Claiming that only her "methodology" differed from the Nazis may be accurate if you consider only the distinction between killing people and not killing people.
4120:
An editor has added a rather contentious claim, sourced to a purported academic publication by Nova Science Press. A bit of Google searching reveals a large number of people claiming that this is a vanity press or academic publishing "scam", that it solicits publications via mass email, and that it
4084:
I notice the very first sentence starts with a four word name: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee. I've reviewed the sources, and I've only found that in a couple of obscure places. None (zero) of the biographies of Sanger use that 4-word name anywhere. Nor can I find it in the online resources of the
3675:
Hmm. That is a tough call. I guess the multiple cites are useful if readers are interested in a particular fact (e.g. Sanger's divorce) and they want to read as much about it as possible, or see how the various biographers treated it. Is there a WP guideline that limits footnote quantity? I know
2335:
Pursuant to the above discussion, and to eliminate the "Primary sources" tag, I searched for 2ndary sources that discuss those quotes. There were 4 quotes: I could not find any 2ndary source that discussed two of them, so I removed those two quotes. The other two quotes (both on masturbation) did
2248:
I couldn't agree more, stick to secondary sources. The language of social sciences in the 19teens and 1920s was so different from now that its very easy to cherry-pick some quotes and make the subject sound like an alien. I've seen several sources already which remark on this particular problem with
2091:
I'm not opposed to including any mention of eugenics in the lead per se. I object to the language that you have attempted to add. We don't use language like that anymore so its unclear what it means when you say things like "dysgenic" and "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". If you
1820:
says they are optional in the Lead. I think it looks cleaner and more professional without footnotes. 100% of the material in the Lead is supposed to be in the body of the article, so any footnotes can be down there, and already there are quite a few. If you have more sources on how Sanger was the
648:
Your comments appear to me to be WP:Own, so I "caution" (you "warn" an editor preemptively? WP:GoodFaith?) you there. As for the existing section, again, it is a superb job of cover up, misdirect, downplay, reinterpret, etc. If someone came to this encyclopedia to find out about the origins of birth
482:
1. I don't see THIS point in the archives. Please indicate where you think THIS point has been discussed. 2. This is not "piling on" - I don't see this point discussed anywhere, except to perhaps hide her record or reinterpret her record, but not actually discuss her record. 3. Legacy seems to me to
450:
been discussed many times on this talk page, and the result is to avoid "piling on" numerous, pointed quotes; (2) the points your sources are making are already amply covered in the "Eugenics and euthanasia" section; (3) the section you are editing is "Legacy" which - by definition - should discuss
4547:
Good debate on this topic, just wanted to add that the sections on Eugenics and Race would benefit from links to work on feminist scholars about how race and eugenicism factored into the first-wave movement, as a strategy to obtain women rights - rather than a goal in itself. That would add needed
4406:
I showed this entry to my graduate students during our discussion of Ellen Chesler's biography last night. There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, especially in the sections on eugenics and race. We would like to edit these sections but the entry is locked. Please advise as to how to
3846:
The sentence "Inspired by this milieu, she started writing a series of articles about sexual hygiene entitled "What Every Mother Should Know" and "What Every Girl Should Know" for the socialist magazine New York Call", has four cites, which of them support the view that Sanger was "Inspired by this
3657:
Do we need multiple cites in the first place? If the material in the sentence can be supported by one source that is enough. If you are using books which would otherwise not get cited in the article, and which you feel are of value, it is acceptable to have a short "further reading" section. I know
1479:
Thanks for the link, and for taking the time to discuss. What do you think of the section in the article entitled "Eugenics and euthanasia"? Do you think it covers the topic of Sanger's views on Eugenics accurately? Is there some particular aspect of her views that you think is not yet included
871:
This description fits blackgenocide.org to a T: blackgenocide.org has no reputation for checking the facts and no editorial oversight; it's a website expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (specifically, it equates the legality of abortion to genocide, and attempts to link it to
847:
mentioned, other parts of the current article implicitly deny it, e.g., "She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth," which is a false description of her views, at least in 1921. But the quality of your edits was so poor that restoring
283:
From a reporting perspective, the initial paragraph was dangerously arranged describing other negative eugenics proponents' beliefs that Sanger did not share before Sanger's own beliefs. This article is about Sanger, not negative eugenics, so her beliefs should have been first; I felt the original
4585:
ADD this sentence: "Son of German-Jewish immigrants, William Sanger was an architect with an interest in radical politics. After a few years of unsatisfying suburban domesticity in Yonkers and then in Hastings-on-Hudson, William Sanger and his family moved to New York City, where he introduced his
3719:
I tried this suggestion (multiple sources in a single paragraph) in footnotes #1, #2, and #4, so we could see what it looks like. I think this may be a good approach: I'm looking at several hardback scholarly books at this moment, and it is common for them to include multiple sources within one
3209:
of cites that matters, but if they are appropriately supporting the sort of information that people may rely on and be embarrassed if they got wrong. I thought I'd check a few dates that are uncited, and note that the article says: "In 1923, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation
3150:
I've not yet checked sources for accuracy, neutral POV, coverage, etc; the article doesn't meet the basic criteria for presentation and formatting. I'm putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow some copy-editing to take place to improve presentation, for the formatting of the sections and
1747:
First: Clearly, Jesanj reverted without read the source, that is disruptive. Editors should firstly read the sources to verify. "Eventual" is what ONE of the sources says, but the other which was cited in the article does NOT say "eventual" but simple says: "founder of Planned Parenthood". Why are
1375:
1) Abortion is the wrong way (Sanger); 2) Interfering with the development of a fertilized egg is abortion (Sanger); 3) Preventing implantation interferes with the development of a fertilized egg (modern medical science); therefore, if all these premises are true: 4) Preventing implantation is
1366:
You're right that it may be confusing to some people, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer. The facts that are at odds are 1) Sanger abhorred abortion, which she defined as attempting to interfere with the development of a fertilized ovum, and 2) Sanger recommended something that we now know to
1216:
It's the same old smears by means of out-of-context quotation. If the user has any substantial criticism to contribute that covers the significance of these quotes in context, then it would be acceptable. Otherwise the hit-and-run approach of copying and pasting quotes from pro-life sites violates
1125:
Some edits of the above (which puts the subject in very unfavourable light) have been made by the above user and reverted by users PHGustaff and White Shadows on the basis of not NPOV and Undue. I have no axe to grind in this and am just curious. I'd like to know exactly what is the reason for the
204:
Opponents of Sanger have often laid the charge of antisemitism against her, given the fact that she was a supporter of eugenics and was rumored of have anti-semitic admirers in Nazi Germany. However this charge of anti-semitism seems misguided at best, since Sanger's husband William has apparently
3299:
Thanks for finding those mistakes. I'll fix them. That material dates from before my time on this article (not to say I have not made my fair share of errors :-). FYI: I'll be on Wikibreak from Oct 5 to Oct 12, so I'll be unable to reply to any questions or make any edits. Not to imply that
3096:
Prose is just about adequate in conveying information, but is not enjoyable to read. It does not flow. It reads like a series of disjointed notes. We have a series of very short sentences, and sometimes very short paragraphs - "Sanger was arrested eight times." is an entire paragraph. The lack of
2026:
Jesanj: if other elements of her philosophy are not included in the lead yet, then it is not a reasonable reason to delete the elements ("prevent dysgenic borns" and "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit") that I am including in the lead. Otherwise, following your own argument, the
1464:
Also, I myself checked the book out of the Denver Public Library before I ever believed that the quote was real. I've scanned it myself also. I'm familiar with the standards at the other links you've provided. This quote however is extraordinary and provides insight into this important historical
973:
However, to me, all of these issues shrink into insignificance next to the issue of access to accurate information. I think genocide, mandatory sterilization, racism, and other human-rights abuses only exist because of ignorance. I think the petty power struggles among groups of people, likewise,
866:
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
4578:
The fact is that this section includes two alleged influencial people in Margaret Sanger's life (influencial because why otherwise bother with the details of mom and dad) but omits the details of another potential influencial individual, William Sanger, Margaret's first husband. Considering the
1982:
is due. Her philosophy also included socialism, some views on masturbation, and an affinity for freedom of speech. And the sentence you wrote was also undue on its own, in my opinion, because the article says "from being born into a disadvantaged life" which comes off as exculpatory. And yet the
1582:
I guess one of the key questions is: who all was on the board of directors of the Birth Control Federation of America when it evolved into Planned Parenthood? How many, if any, of those are considered "founders"? Would it be more accurate to just say Sanger was the "first president of Planned
355:
I completely agree. There are many many people out there claiming Sanger was a racist. If that's not true then there should be an explanation of why that's not true. Doubtless many of those arguments take things out of context and so on, but the truth is there ARE troubling aspects to some of
303:
If this were the article on Adolf Hitler and someone inserted mollifying language like "Early in writings, , like many in the early 20th Century, sometimes entertained thoughts on human development that could be considered archaic," it would get deleted immediately. Why is it tolerated in this
2368:
This article has been nominated for Good Article status (see the notice at the top of the talk page). If anyone wants to start the review process, that would be great. Only persons who have not "significantly contributed" to the article can initiate the review, otherwise I would initiate it.
908:
Of course, this applies to every edit you make; you should take care that it's formatted correctly, without spelling and punctuation errors, and so on. But your edits didn't have those problems; they just had carelessly-formatted references (which also happened to be to questionable sources, as
374:
How about stating the obvious. Hitler was directly responsible for killing over 11 million Europeans because he believed they were racially inferior to Germans and were occupying space and using resources that could be used by Germans. Sanger never killed anybody. There is significantly more
122:
I'd be curious as to whether Sanger actually ever adopted the surname Slee. I'm not going to remove the addition now, but I believe it'd be prudent to provide some more instances of her using that name before keeping the change. The title of this section was misleading. I missed your intent and
1379:
Yet Sanger recommended preventing implantation. Then either she recommended something that she thought was the wrong way, or she was incapable of making the simplest rational inferences, or she was unaware of the third premise. I think the most likely thing is that she was unaware of the third
430:
Two citations (both easily obtainable) were given pertaining to a direct quote. It should not be reverted without some explanation. I checked the archives before putting the material in, and if this matter was previously discussed I must have missed it. Please do not revert referenced material
4502:
IP: Night of the Big Wind's advice is good. A couple of other options available are (1) create an account (register) in WP and edit under the account; or (2) Post a note here on the Talk page summarizing what the inaccuracies are, and another editor is likely to research it and resolve the
514:
Finally, for now, I have read a number of your contributions, where you seem to champion criticisms of minorities (especially Jews and Judaism, Israel, etc.) and on more than one occasion your criticisms have overcome AfD nominations due to the principle that criticisms should not be hidden,
4363:
It seems every couple of days someone comes in and inserts a strong pov edit about Sanger's views on race or eugenics. It'd be easier if this page was permanently semi-protected. Where can we go to request that? I also sort of think that all "controversial" pages should be semi-protected.
205:
Jewish himself. Also, Sanger had many friends in the birth control and socialist movement who were secular Jews. It would be interesting if the article could clear up this issue, since it is a bit strange that Sanger be alleged of having been anti-semitic and pro-semitic at the same time.
789:
There's no cite to suggest who these people might be, and "kind of obnoxious" isn't exactly informative or encyclopedic. If this is about something that happened recently, remember that Sanger has been dead for a long time, and has little influence on PP's current day-to-day activities.
3384:
Thanks for giving me a nudge. I had this marked down as a long hold and pushed it to the back of my schedule. I will take a closer look as soon as I have some more time. I note that quite a few images have been added to the article. Images can be very helpful to the reader in gaining an
2336:
have one, rather minor, 2ndary source, so I provided that 2ndary source as a footnote, and moved the two quotes into the footnote. Also, since that topic is only mentioned by one 2ndary source, it is probably not important enough to mention in the lead, so I removed it from the lead. --
1384:
not sure how else to state the facts. Well, OK, I'll just state them and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. If you know of any source that says when it was discovered that fertilization occurs before implantation, that would seem to be relevant. 03:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
455:
society ... your material has nothing to do with legacy; and (4) your source for that quote is dubious. Do you have a hardcopy of that book? Can you provide the entire surrounding text (here on the Talk page) so we can see the context of the quote? and (5) it is more significant what
681:. Also, the section is too quote-heavy, and since we are striving for an encyclopedic presentation, quotes should account for no more than, say, half the content in a section. So if you are going to improve that section, try to replace some of the quotes with encyclopedic prose. See
947:
Uncontroversial edits are a lot easier than controversial edits. You don't have to defend them from reversion, they're much easier because you can afford to be quite a bit sloppier in referencing them, and they're more fun, because people don't launch personal attacks on you for them.
689:. As for the Legacy section, a quick glance shows that all the content discusses awards etc she received after she died (or retired). If you feel that some material in that seciton is not relevant to her legacy, identify it here, and we can discuss moving it into another section. --
3242:. I'm disconcerted that two statements I pick on to check both appear to be incorrect and misleading. This does sometimes happen even in the best of articles, but it's worth checking through the article again to ensure that dates and facts are correct and are appropriately cited.
872:
racism); and it relies heavily on personal opinions. Also, as far as I can tell, it cites no primary sources itself, even in cases where it purports to quote others, which would serve to conceal any falsehoods it may or may not be propagating in support of its extremist views.
4613:
requirement. You (or another editor ... I dont have time this month) must find and read an unbiased biography of Sanger (or a comparable good-quality source) and use that as the foundation for the material. It is not sufficient to rely on elasticbeanstalk's assertion that
611:"As Sanger noted, in a private letter, '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 their more rebelious members'," which is the text I put in that you deleted.
515:
concealed, reinterpreted, censored, etc. I believe the current material is consistent with that editing style. I'm not saying this to edit to make a point; I'm saying this to agree what you have held elsewhere that the notion of legitimate, sourced, criticism is appropriate.
2007:
I'm gonna have to pile on here. I think that not only is it undue, but such a statement would have to have context for the reader to understand. It reads as a confusing hit and run when included in the lead. The article is better without the addition you are proposing. -
993:
So I share what I take to be your interest in improving the accuracy of this article, even if it casts someone I admire in a bad light. I encourage you to try again, but do a better job next time. Your passion for the subject can be harnessed to do good instead of ill.
977:
So I deplore things that decrease the quality of Knowledge in order to serve some lower purpose, such as birth control, anti-abortionism, or some other political struggle. I think you'll find that most Wikipedians feel the same way. People will rarely revert your edits
2179:
a reliable secondary source (biographer, etc) quoted MS in their (the secondary source's) discussion of the topic. Otherwise, the set of quotes are dependent on mortal editors picking-and-choosing, which is not a good recipe when sensitive subject material is involved.
1351:
and is prohibited unless you have a source that says that. Finally, could you please provide some text from the cited source that justifies what you are aiming for here? Why dont you propose your new text here and lets work on it before putting it in the article?
2384:
Although in general supportive of the idea, I am also very cautious. As a controversial article, with already a few POV-pushers on top of it, it could be very risky out of a neutrality point of view to set this process in motion. How can we avoid <humor mode on:
3385:
understanding, and of bringing a topic to life, and also of making an article look more attractive, so aiding readability. Some thought should be given to the layout, the appearance, the amount, and the educational value of the images. Relevant guidelines are
3931:- I moved "coined" into the first paragraph. Of the remaining 8 uses of "birth control": I was able to change one to the synonym "contraception". Two are in proper names. That leaves five ... but I do not think any of the remaining five can be changed. --
2460:
policy. In theory, there is no problem with adding more detail (that is supported by good sources), but at the same time the other sections in the article should also be beefed up so the level of detail stays proportional to its relevance to MS's career.
4429:
The article is indeed locked for unregistered users. But because the article is controversial, the best way is to write a draft and publish it here on the talkpage. We can then discuss the draft and apply the beneficial parts onto the article. Your draft
4215:
I don't know anything about the Journal, whether it's a "vanity press" publication or not. You can find the full text of the article online if you Google the authors' names. If you want to examine their credentials, here are the web pages of two of them.
1890:(non biased) that describe her as a "eugenicist"? Even if you can, how prevalent is that characterization relative to other descriptors that major biographers and com mentors use? If that characterization is used by a minority, it would violate
887:, and continued to publish her opinions widely throughout her life. However, be very careful that your edits don't quote her out of context, or they are likely to be reverted, particularly since you already have a black mark on your record here.
175:
As to the second one, I have yet to find any evidence that she ever labeled any religious or ethnic group "dysgenic" as a whole. It would be great if you could do some research to track down the original sources of these quotes. George Grant's
3204:
An impressive amount of work has been done on the article. I'll take a closer look in the next few days. Inline cites appear much more often, though there are some dates and positions given for Sanger that might be questioned. It's never the
916:. If you snark in your change comments that other editors are "censoring" your "significant minority views" (as if that's relevant on a matter of amply verifiable fact such as Sanger's views on eugenics!) and add a sarcastic "sorry, but",
1306:
Ocanter: you inserted some new wording in the article. Could you explain it more? It may be okay, but I don't quite understand it. Also, could you supply some text from the cited source, which would justify the new wording? Thanks.
843:
result of the style of your edits than of their content. In fact, I wish I could revert the reversion, since your edit discusses an important aspect of Sanger's views that is underemphasized in the article as it stands — although it
570:“Clinics encountered difficulties in teaching …women to use birth control properly. Some such women were unteachable, Sanger and several other birth control leaders agreed…For these women, sterilization was recommended” ( p. 287).
170:
I would take those quotes with a grain of salt, if I were you. I have seen them promulgated by anti-Sanger sites, but they never seem to give a primary source. I know for a fact that the first quote does not appear in any issue of
4548:
context to her views. See: Weinbaum, Alys Eve. "Writing Feminist Genealogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Racial Nationalism, and the Reproduction of Maternalist Feminism." Feminist Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer, 2001): pp. 271-302.
3896:"birth control" is mentioned nine times in the lead. Probably not possible given the subject matter, but could this be reduced? And, at the same time, could that she coined the term itself be put into the first paragraph per
3642:
Would it be more acceptable to have multiple footnotes (separate numbers)? The goal of the bullets was simple to make the prose look cleaner: a single is cleaner than . But either way is fine by me: I have no preference.
1458:
Noleander, thanks for asking for the source. I'm not sure what was unclear about the book title and page number, but at this Google Books link you can see the passage on the page cited in their scan of the original work.
966:, but I deplore some of her views, including her advocacy of mandatory sterilization of certain people (in her case, the "feeble-minded", rather than any ethnic group). I'm no Sanger scholar, although I've read some of
2225:
This is a really good point - I think there have been instances here of quote mining and cherry-picking in an effort to emphasize particular points of view, and using only secondary, reliable sources would mitigate it.
401:
I'm in favor of a historical focus. Cover the controversies during her lifetime and afterward by documenting them with news sources and authors. Balance is sometimes difficult to achieve, so it's best to avoid giving
145:
Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than
2151:
I know 1920s thinking is odd compared to contemporary values, but consider this: how are we protecting the philosophy section from a selection bias of emphasizing what people find interesting now? There are lots of
4187:
4579:"Early Life" section here is supposed to educate us on "influences" (devote Catholic with 18 pregnancies dies of cervical cancer; Catholic father become atheist social activist), I propose the following addition:
1549:
may well be wrong, but in any case, the lead - if its going to talk about that - needs to reflect the facts accurately. Also, the Section in the body of the article must be consistent with what the lead says. --
633:
policy. Regarding the "Legacy" section: unless you can find some secondary source that specifically discusses the Negro Project's racism/eugenics in a "legacy" context, it doesn't belong in the Legacy section.
2475:
I added that she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and a Planned Parenthood worshiper reverted my edit even though she is listed on the American Eugenics Society article here on wikipedia. Congrats.
4327:
The purpose of Knowledge is not to present a sanitized version of the facts. We must trust that users are capable of forming their own opinions taking into account historical context and views of the time.
3766:- Okay, I found a good middle ground: I eliminated the bullets, but kept the multiple sources in each footnote. Each is separated by a line break, so it looks clean. Let me know if it is not acceptable. --
1126:
reverts. If the edits (which appear to be quotes of Sanger) are verifiable, it's not clear to me why they shouldn't be included. I have limited knowledge of Sanger so my question may be way off base. Thanks.
629:. That section already has extensive content, but you are welcome to improve that section if you like. But be warned that it is already rather large, and any additional material would probably violate the
1033:
Haha! Yeah, that is kind of a problem with that. A person would have to be pretty motivated to read the whole thing, although maybe an editing block would be adequate motivation for some people. Sorry.
867:
Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.
579:
As to her lagacy, it can be stated conclusively that African American women have far more abortions than any other ethnicity in the US, e.g., , which is something that needs to be added to that section.
1510:. The only problem with contradictory material would be if it were not explained properly, and caused readers to get confused. But in this case, the context and source of the material is clear. --
1185:
I'm not going to get involved in this (or post again) but I have to say that the quotes that the IP wanted to put in (I'm ignoring the diatribe) are of a different order to the way it's presented in
460:
sources say about the subject rather than her own primary quotes (because the former show academic interest, and have been filtered by research). Please discuss your proposed changes to the article
1273:
564:“The racism and virulence of her eugenic rhetoric grew most extreme in the early 1930s. In 1932 she recommended the sterilization or segregation by sex of “the whole dysgenic population” (p. 282.
2585:
always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative.
838:
It might be useful to other people who want to edit this page, but who are tempted to do so in an unproductive manner, or who are wondering why they got blocked after making unproductive edits.
625:
Okay, so the material you are trying to add to the article is that some of Sanger's policies were racist, because they targeted blacks. But that is precisely the scope of the existing section
4586:
wife Margaret to the bohemian world of radical artists and activists. They both joined the local Socialist Party and participated in such radical events as the 1913 Paterson Strike Pageant."
4085:
Margaret Sanger Papers Project. The sources use "Margaret Sanger" 99% of the time, and "Margaret Higgens Sanger" 1% of the time. I propose to change it to "Margaret Higgens Sanger". --
1484:? Do you think the section would be more encyclopedic if some of the quotes were removed and replaced with narrative paraphrasing (and perhaps the quotes included in footnotes)? Thanks. --
663:
Also, I note you did not respond to how you have interpreted the Legacy section as being relevant today, when the bulk of what is currently in that section pertains to 1939 and 1957? Hmmmm?
1529:
Claudio: Generally, the encyclopedia should use prose (narrative) and quotes should be used sparingly. What quote do you want to insert, and why is it better as a quote than as prose? --
1408:
Its not particularly clear but this is complicated by the fact that this was a radically different topic the nearly hundred years ago that pamphlet was written. The solution is to rely on
990:
are by people with strong political views, and many of them have questionable motives — but they will revert them if your edits make the article worse instead of better, as in this case.
224:
for that matter. It is probably better to stick to the facts, rather than attempt to preemptively address every potential spurious attack from anti-Sanger editors (with whom lies the
3603:
Sources added to that footnote. That was intended to just be a clarifying Note distinguishing the separation from the divorce ... the details and sources were in the article body. --
3304:, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wonders if I got offended and left in a huff :-) After Oct 13, I'll be able to resume work on this. We'll get it there eventually. --
1912:
Well, but the lead should reflect which is already stated in the "eugenics" section: Sanger advocated for birth control as a means to assist "the race toward the elimination of the
4188:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/No-NOVA-Science-Publishers-is-3425349.S.39527615?qid=5c7a3812-61ac-4811-8261-e536dd0616b0&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_3425349
4121:
lacks a reliable peer-review process (or possibly any peer-review process at all). Given the contentious nature of the claim, which seems to say that Sanger objected only to the
783:
1 negative aspect of Margaret Sanger's legacy was the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College, which consisted of Sean Bryan and Emily Kaminsky, who were kind of obnoxious.
1709:
when it isn't yet in the article's body. Maybe the legacy section should say something like: "Sanger founded ABCL, which became PP in 1942 and PP considers Sanger its founder."
529:
And what does the 2ndary source say about this quote? Can you type here what the author of the secondary source says about the quote (the text before and after the quote)? --
3428:- I've reviewed the MOS illustration guidelines, and - based on those guidelines - removed an image, and improved a few captions. The pictures should now be satisfactory. --
4128:
I have reverted this insertion for the time being. Any thoughts on this subject? I think at minimum this source should not be referenced prior to some discussion at RSN.
1661:
by Lawrence Balter, which at page 527 states about Sanger: "Sanger, Margaret ... The founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America". Thre is also this other source:
486:
So, I will leave it up to other editors to suggest where in this article might be a better place than "legacy" - but if hearing none, I will restore the original material.
2405:
I dunno. More eyes on any article is always a good thing. I presume that the GA reviewers would focus on layout, grammar, readability, and the like, not POV issues. --
3509:, which is unlikely. The licence tag says the author died more than 70 years ago, but without knowing who the author is, that may not be true. It may be possible to use
4714:
I found this source that says Margaret Sanger had a husband at age 18 prior to William Sanger but don't know if that's true. Should this info be added to the article?
4161:
I will list a few below, but there seem to be rather a lot of them. Of course, none of these is itself a reliable source, or I wouldn't have even posted this question.
3214:
says it was formed in 1929, and she served as Chairman until 1932 when the organisation was incorporated and she was named president. What is the relationship between
4125:
employed by the Nazis in committing atrocities, and not the justifications for them, I would think we would prefer a well-known and well-regarded academic publisher.
2503:
2536:
221:
928:
be reverted and you will probably get banned permanently. Your choice of username is going to make this an uphill battle for you; it strongly suggests that it's a
3453:. The source is not clear (given only as "Library of Congress"), and the licensing tag is relying on publication, though no publication date or source is given.
143:
The article should maybe explain what were Sanger's views on christianity and capitalism. I found a quote which seems to indicate that she was hostile to both :
4594:
My email is sajbarnes@comcast.net if anyone wants to let me know the result of my request (I cannot seem to log in today). Stephen A. Barnes, MD, JD Houston
757:
I tried to add info about her negative legacy, the Planned Parenthood chapter at Carthage College that included Sean Bryan, but the material was removed. Why?
4331:
After all, Sanger herself said " the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics”
1506:
Ocanter: you deleted material from a source, writing in your edit summary "Contradicts MS's autobiography". But contradictory material is acceptable. See
4246:
I was thinking more of the publication and review process, but I do also notice that they seem to be psychologists, not historians/political scientists/etc.
2526:
1954:
It was an incidental part of her beliefs, not the major part, and it's not what she's mainly known for. Featuring eugenics in the lead give it undue weight.
1600:
Sanger is commonly known as founder of Planned Parenthood, that is supported by the sources. Then I will change the lead and restore the deleted sources. --
835:, who got blocked for 24 hours after making a small number of bad edits to this page. (In my view, the block was probably not quite justified, but almost.)
3690:...another solution would be to keep the information in the footnote, but lay it out as a paragraph rather than bullets. So the footnote might look like:
608:
No, you aren't missing anything. Sanger's mention, cited on p. 332-3, is the google snipit, which was already provided. Did you want me to retype that too?
4175:
1460:
2660:
500:
Furthermore, your legacy argument is inconsistent with the material in that section on 1939 and 1957, because it certainly isn't about "today's" society.
4591:
I believe that my request is fair, accurate as per references, and appropriately adds to the influential people in Margaret Sanger's formative years.
2301:
Well, but to be fair the article is not solely based on primary sources. But if you still think that it deserves the tag, then I will not complaint. --
1480:
in the article? Why did you pick that particular quote for inclusion in the article? What do you think about that section's use of quotes, vis-a-vis
2888:
There are long sections mixed with very short sub-sections, and there are some short paragraphs. This inhibits flow, and gives a poor appearance. See
3128:- Prose has been improved substantially. Not my strong suit. Any remaining issues should be specifically identified and I/we can work on them. --
4303:) for this statement"Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but " doesn't state Sanger believed such.
4380:
153:
She also felt that "dysgenic races" should include "Fundamentalists and Catholics" in addition to "blacks, Hispanics, (and) American Indians."
4315:. Describing a view on race as "archaic" is clearly a point of view. It doesn't matter if this is the language used in the citation or not. --
2994:
Surprisingly insecure inline citation for a GA nomination. The weak presentation, and weak citation is already giving me cause for concern.
2508:
2023:
so a single phrase in the lead summarizing it is not undue weight. Undue lack of weight is not mentioning those grounds at all in the lead.
2456:
Brechbill: The article already has a rather large section on Eugenics. Increasing that section to get much larger would run afoul of the
2437:
4732:
That source looks totally biased and unreliable to me. It is better to look for information about the marriage in a more reliable source.
1871:
I see no reason to hide this important aspect of Sanger's ideology, unless the purpose of this article is to eulogize Sanger. Discussion?
4555:
4414:
4251:
4205:
4133:
4105:
3450:
1106:
817:
764:
738:
382:
1782:
Noleander: I do agree with the last (current) version you have edited. I will just add the sources ot if you prefer do it yourself. --
4595:
2608:
1292:
1276:
in June) which declared "the danger to the community of the unsegregated feeble-minded woman," and called for action "without delay."
704:
357:
4344:
1821:"founder" of PP, and was the first president, I'd recommend putting those down in the body where the creation of PP is described. --
4646:
4536:
2828:
929:
3658:
that I have been tempted at times to use multiple cites purely because a source was interesting and I wanted to make use of it!
4440:
4149:
2531:
2393:
104:
Mrs Slee chatting to JP about her theory that women in starving developing countries should have no more babies for 10 years."
4661:
4247:
4201:
4167:
4129:
4101:
2719:
2575:
917:
81:
76:
71:
59:
4582:
AFTER this sentence: "In 1902, Margaret Higgins married architect William Sanger, and the couple settled in New York City."
1705:
The section "legacy" would be the best place to establish this type of material before repeatedly attempting to change the
573:“In attracting professionals, the ABCL had to overcome the taint of radicalism that clung to Sanger for decades” (p. 293).
4673:, and while I agree it can always be improved, it might be useful to go a bit slower and take a bit more care in editing.
1400:
932:. When the block on your account expires, you might consider switching to a new account name, and maybe linking to it on
851:
You can almost certainly achieve the balance you seek. Here are four suggestions for improving your edits in the future:
236:
3742:
but it seems to be addressing the situation where an editor goes crazy and includes 10 or 20 sources for a given fact. --
1665:
by James Stuart Olson, which at page 224, also claims: "Margaret Sanger, the eventual founder of Planned Parenthood". --
3502:
347:
320:
4176:
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/beware-nova-publishers-and-frank-or-nadya-columbus-president-and-editor-in-chief/
3078:- Lead is now a summary of entire article. Specific aspects of lead may still need work, if reviewer so determines. --
3739:
2172:
1348:
594:
I'm sorry ... I dont see any mention of Sanger on page 332 of the text you provide above. Am I missing something? --
4609:
I have no objection to material of that nature. However, the wyatt.elasticbeanstalk.com web site does not meet the
890:
Verifiable accuracy using reliable sources is a fundamental aspect of the NPOV pillar that your username refers to.
4619:
4435:
4144:
2388:
1887:
1432:
1257:
2. confusing a call for sterilization of the profoundly retarded in this 1933 article with a call for euthenasia
677:
As I said, feel free to improve the Eugenics section. But the length cannot grow much longer, or else it violates
38:
101:"Mrs Margaret Slee, President of America's planned Parenthood Federation is interviewed by Pathe's John Parsons.
2640:
1635:
It does look like PP itself on its web site describes her as the founder, but the other source does not: it says
260:
252:
3900:'s suggestion that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences".
116:
2554:
2441:
2258:
It should be noticed that even the "early life" section is cited with an autobiography made by Sanger self. --
2195:
1417:
1097:
1056:
1020:
933:
832:
1431:
BobEnyart: I just reverted some material you added. Could you provide the source you are reading from? See
4669:
Also, many of the recent edits have introduced extensive typographical errors and duplicated text. This is a
4559:
4418:
4048:
is up for GA nomination (see above) so please discuss any major changes to the article here first, thanks. --
3211:
1731:
Claudio, there is a difference between being the founder of something and the eventual founder of something.
821:
2683:
2319:
2276:
2074:
2045:
1938:
1800:
1766:
1683:
1618:
1254:
1. Apparently later activities of an author after his article was published in Planned Parenthood and on
1110:
937:
768:
742:
708:
386:
361:
4348:
3227:
4599:
4463:
3446:
2800:
2550:
1637:" the American Birth Control League (which became, in 1942, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America)"
1288:
403:
107:
What is the consensus that her name in the opening paragraph be amended to Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee?--
1983:"dysgenic" (we should have a common explanation for that term) sentence, is even uncited in the article.
3997:
3513:
1166:
1076:
982:
because they are in the service of some political struggle — probably the vast majority of the edits to
4459:
1284:
4738:
4551:
4532:
4524:
4480:
4410:
4369:
4340:
4320:
4277:
4221:
3735:
2433:
1388:
1280:
1230:
1102:
941:
813:
760:
734:
411:
378:
335:
308:
189:
47:
17:
331:
I signed this, as is obvious. Why is it saying I didn't sign? Madler 13:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
4627:
4508:
4388:
4090:
4067:
4053:
4037:
4013:
3977:
3936:
3883:
3833:
3771:
3747:
3725:
3710:
3681:
3648:
3608:
3559:
3489:
3433:
3365:
3341:
3309:
3301:
3284:
3174:
3133:
3083:
3030:
2975:
2928:
2466:
2410:
2374:
2341:
2293:
2250:
2231:
2185:
2117:
2107:
2093:
2009:
1959:
1903:
1846:
1826:
1648:
1588:
1573:
1554:
1534:
1515:
1489:
1481:
1470:
1448:
1413:
1409:
1357:
1312:
1066:
1052:
1016:
694:
639:
599:
534:
473:
289:
4062:
How about this: can you list here the material you want to add that is not yet in the article? --
3720:
footnote "paragraph". They seem to use semicolons to separate the sources within the footnote. --
2156:
in the section. Currently citations 19 through 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 and 36 are primary sources.
1465:
figure. Once you've verified the source, would you consider restoring the suggested edit? Thanks!
901:, use one of the citation templates, such as {{cite}}; you can find its proper usage described at
3963:
3909:
3856:
3806:
3667:
3630:
3581:
3532:
3462:
3406:
3394:
3328:
3279:
Those two issues have been fixed. Still need to inspect the rest of the article for accuracy. --
3251:
3192:
3160:
3106:
3056:
3003:
2950:
2901:
2594:
2569:
2303:
2260:
2220:
2058:
2029:
1922:
1784:
1750:
1667:
1602:
1146:
795:
664:
650:
612:
580:
516:
501:
487:
432:
264:
1322:
You're right, it was unclear the way I worded it before. Tell me if you think it's clearer now.
4458:
I am a registered user, and it appears locked period; not just locked for unregistered users. (
4723:
4694:
3705:
That way all the information is still there for the readers, but the ugly bullets are gone. --
2153:
1876:
1396:
1327:
1194:
1131:
983:
880:
233:
128:
112:
810:
Another questionable source: item #36; please list its source, or at least its page number.
3992:
2820:
2691:
2648:
2203:
2161:
2130:
1988:
1736:
1714:
1161:
1071:
1039:
1001:
668:
654:
616:
584:
520:
505:
491:
436:
343:
316:
268:
4733:
4528:
4475:
4365:
4316:
4273:
4217:
4168:
http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/05/nova-publishers-legitimate-or-bogus.html
3390:
2612:
2457:
1920:" children from being born. It was part of Sanger's arguments, grounds and philosophy. --
1891:
1507:
1440:
1436:
1226:
1222:
1186:
913:
682:
678:
630:
626:
407:
225:
185:
1376:
abortion (Barbara 2,3) and 5) Preventing implantation is the wrong way (Barbara 4,1) yet
4685:
I took out the Angela Franks reference and replaced it with a reference Ellen Chesler's
4183:
3972:
Thank for your help ... both the review and your contributions to the article itself. --
149:
4623:
4504:
4384:
4312:
4293:
4086:
4063:
4049:
4033:
4009:
3973:
3932:
3897:
3879:
3829:
3767:
3743:
3721:
3706:
3677:
3644:
3604:
3555:
3485:
3429:
3361:
3337:
3305:
3280:
3170:
3129:
3079:
3044:
3026:
2971:
2938:
2924:
2889:
2771:
2644:
2462:
2406:
2370:
2337:
2227:
2181:
2103:
1955:
1899:
1895:
1842:
1822:
1817:
1706:
1644:
1584:
1569:
1550:
1530:
1511:
1485:
1466:
1444:
1353:
1308:
1265:
1218:
1012:
690:
635:
595:
530:
469:
285:
154:
95:
4745:
4727:
4709:
4698:
4679:
4631:
4603:
4563:
4540:
4512:
4487:
4467:
4447:
4422:
4392:
4373:
4352:
4324:
4281:
4255:
4225:
4209:
4179:
4156:
4137:
4109:
4094:
4071:
4057:
4041:
4017:
4003:
3981:
3966:
3940:
3912:
3887:
3859:
3837:
3809:
3775:
3751:
3729:
3714:
3685:
3670:
3652:
3633:
3612:
3584:
3563:
3535:
3493:
3465:
3437:
3409:
3369:
3345:
3331:
3313:
3288:
3254:
3195:
3178:
3163:
3137:
3109:
3087:
3059:
3034:
3006:
2979:
2953:
2932:
2904:
2597:
2579:
2470:
2445:
2414:
2400:
2378:
2345:
2330:
2296:
2287:
2253:
2235:
2207:
2189:
2165:
2134:
2120:
2111:
2096:
2085:
2012:
1992:
1963:
1949:
1907:
1880:
1850:
1830:
1811:
1777:
1740:
1718:
1694:
1652:
1629:
1592:
1577:
1558:
1538:
1519:
1493:
1474:
1452:
1421:
1361:
1331:
1316:
1234:
1198:
1172:
1150:
1135:
1114:
1080:
1060:
1043:
1024:
1005:
825:
799:
772:
746:
712:
698:
672:
658:
643:
620:
603:
588:
538:
524:
509:
495:
477:
440:
415:
390:
365:
293:
272:
240:
214:
193:
164:
132:
4762:
4705:
4675:
3956:
3902:
3849:
3799:
3660:
3623:
3574:
3525:
3519:
if the photograph was published anonymously. Do you have access to the source text -
3455:
3399:
3321:
3244:
3185:
3153:
3099:
3049:
2996:
2943:
2894:
2844:
2656:
2652:
2587:
2565:
1142:
963:
902:
876:
859:
791:
465:
210:
160:
4622:. The source you use must be identified in a footnote to any new material added. --
4719:
4690:
4670:
4610:
4434:
be sourced. We will be looking forward for your draft and welcome you on Knowledge!
4230:
1872:
1392:
1323:
1190:
1127:
229:
124:
108:
4191:
4171:
2937:
There are six paragraphs in the lead, two of which consist of only two sentences.
1639:... which is not the same as saying she is the founder of PP. Better would be a
4715:
3025:- Inline cites have been provided for all statements likely to be challenged. --
2199:
2157:
2126:
1984:
1732:
1710:
1035:
997:
987:
339:
312:
151:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4334:
It is relevant that Margaret Sanger in The Pivot of Civilization (1922) wrote;
2292:
I've just moved the primary sources tag to the article head for this reason. -
1412:
which consider her writing in context and do the interpretion that experts do.
1347:
realized that fertilization always occurs before implantation)." appears to be
4300:
4008:
Thanks. It was not easy, but I learned a lot. Silk Tork was a big help. --
3386:
4080:
Full name in lead: Margaret Higgins Sanger Slee vs. Margaret Higgens Sanger?
4618:
read the original source: the editor adding the material must read it. See
4032:
Brechbill123: what is the material you are trying to add to this article? --
3698:
24^ Engelman, p 252 (date of divorce); Chesler, p 52 (date of separation).
2427:"Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint..."
1917:
955:
4703:
Thanks for working on it; I think your recent edits are a big improvement.
2557:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1816:
My personal preference is that Lead paragraphs should not have footnotes.
1643:(PP is a primary source) unbiased source which says she is the founder. --
4309:"Although Sanger's views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint,"
3797:
being generated by the list of celebrities, rather than the award itself.
2430:
Why excuse her? Because whitewashing her image is important politically?
4100:
It sounds like the sources overwhelmingly support that change. Be bold?
3554:- I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --
3484:- I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --
1011:
I can't believe I'm saying this due to my habit of making long posts but
959:
256:
206:
156:
1657:
I do not know what source is you talking about. I inserted this source:
685:. If you have lots of quotes you want to add, consider putting them in
259:. If you want to read the Sanger's ideas, the complete text of her book
3043:
The lead section does not give an adequate summary of the article. See
703:
I agree with Noleander. And questioning his faith is not constructive.
94:
Of interest is this downloadable Pathe News item (downloadable free at
3238:
were separate publications until 1937 when they became amalgamated as
2175:, in other words, no quotes from MS herself could be in that section
729:
4195:
3393:. Consideration should also be given to the size and helpfulness of
2923:- Section and paragraph sizes are now more uniform and readable. --
4235:
883:; Sanger made her opinions at one point in her life quite clear in
1837:
I changed the text in the body of the article to read as follows:
3738:. It recommends the bullet approach. There is also a WP essay
958:. In the US system of racism, I'm "white", although I'm about 5%
951:
I guess I should disclose where I'm coming from on these issues.
1269:
1093:
What Every Girl Should Know was available in Yiddish in 1916 too
220:
I don't see any mention of anti-semitism in this article, or of
1336:
Sorry, I still dont understand. The new text you added reads:
940:. (Linking is not mandatory, but it might be a good idea; see
123:
others possibly did too. Silence doesn't always mean consent.
25:
3506:
1439:
on the use of quotes in articles (generally discouraged) and
1274:
Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy
2843:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
1467:
Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart
1159:
The material is just copied verbatim from other websites.
2171:
That is a good question. The best rule to follow would be
856:
back up your assertions with references to reliable sources
3169:
Okay, I (and perhaps others) will work on those areas. --
4311:
I removed the above because it represents a violation of
2827:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
1048:
No need to apologize, you didn't force me to read it. :P
1979:
1564:
Here is a quote from the Birth Control League article:
247:
The Pivot of Civilization was writen by Margaret Sanger
4734:
4476:
3336:
Sounds good. The end of October should be do-able. --
3302:
I'm the only editor that can work on the GA nomination
686:
4665:
cases (e.g. Angela Frank's book, which is a polemic).
4184:
http://ask.metafilter.com/177104/publisher-reputation
3878:- Reworded to more accurately reflect the sources. --
1659:
Parenthood in America: an encyclopedia. N-Z, Volume 1
848:
them would make the article worse instead of better.
2386:
an invasion of the barbarians<humor mode off: -->
1525:
Quotes should be avoided unless absolutely necessary
96:
https://www.britishpathe.com/thumbnails.php?id=61182
4787:
Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook
4654:- Sanger is criticized today predominantly by anti-
4180:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=26097.0
2970:- Was not aware of the four paragraph guideline. --
4658:activists, not by people who oppose birth control.
1443:(avoiding over-emphasis on contentious issues). --
1051:Who knows maybe somebody will find it informative.
954:Depending on your definitions, I'm probably not a
806:Suggestions for how to edit this page productively
299:Eugenics and Racial Views Treated with Kid Gloves?
3572:Footnote 1, regarding the divorce, is unsourced.
2706:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
4772:Rüdin, "Eugenics Sterlization: An Urgent Need",
3828:- Removed overly detailed list of recipients. --
3505:- this also needs checking. The author given is
1260:April, 1933, the Planned Parenthood publication
446:I reverted because (1) the nature of your edits
251:The article has nothing about the Sanger's book
4192:http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/nova-publishers/
4172:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112742
3990:Congratulations. It couldn't have been easy.
3240:The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News
3216:The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News
554:"dubious" if you are unfamilier with the book?
304:article? Madler 05:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
4642:I'd like to discuss a couple of recent edits:
4474:you falling straight in to boiling hot water.
4716:http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt
1894:policy to put it in the lead paragraph. See
184:(St. Paul, MN, "Radio Replies," 1945, p.72).
180:attributes the first one to David Goldstein,
8:
897:Instead of just making an , use <ref: -->
4301:http://www.openisbn.com/preview/0801486122/
3621:Why are there bullet-point multiple cites?
3218:founded in 1917, and the two publications,
962:. I admire Sanger's courage, and I support
2486:
3449:- could you check the usage of this with
2941:recommends no more than four paragraphs.
406:to any particular aspect of the article.
426:On reverting material related to racisim
4755:
3734:Aha! I found a WP guideline on this:
3210:for Birth Control (NCFLBC)...", while
2517:
2489:
1187:Margaret Sanger#Eugenics and euthanasia
627:Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia
90:Should Sanger's Full Name Include Slee?
89:
4381:Knowledge:Requests for page protection
1098:לייענען אָנליין בייַ ייִדיש בוך צענטער
1065:Don't critique what you didn't read...
375:evidence that Hitler was a racist.
279:3.2 Eugenics and euthanasia rearranged
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2364:Good article review: initiator needed
2147:Philosophy section and selection bias
7:
4399:this entry has numerous inaccuracies
2125:I agree with this sort of approach.
3451:Knowledge:Media copyright questions
1568:I cannot vouch for its accuracy. --
1251:This text seems an smear based on
3695:23^ Baker, p 63; Chesler, p 152.
3521:Havelock Ellis philosopher of love
2833:
2778:Fair representation without bias:
2629:
1663:Historical dictionary of the 1950s
895:use good style in your references.
730:http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
24:
4650:and journalist. The edit is also
4196:http://blog.jfitzsimons.org/?p=69
3922:
3869:
3819:
3757:
3594:
3545:
3475:
3419:
3351:
3270:
3119:
3069:
3016:
2961:
2914:
2868:
2848:
2832:
2804:
2779:
2756:
2744:
2723:
2707:
2695:
2664:
2628:
29:
4299:The source provided (available
2869:
2780:
2757:
2745:
2724:
2056:01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC) --
909:described in the first point.)
4746:11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2598:16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
2580:16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
2471:21:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
2415:14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
2401:13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
747:19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
713:22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
4488:23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
4468:23:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1235:04:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
1201:00:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
1199:00:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
1173:00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
1151:00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
1136:00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
899:, and inside the <ref: -->
831:I just left this message for
826:06:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
451:the impact of the subject in
366:23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
294:08:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
4325:18:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
4018:21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
4004:21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3982:21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3967:21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3941:16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3913:16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3888:16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3860:16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3838:16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3810:15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3776:19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3752:17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3730:16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3715:16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3686:16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3671:16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3653:15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3634:15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3613:16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3585:15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3564:16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3536:15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3503:File:Havelock Ellis 30yo.JPG
3494:16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3466:15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3438:01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
3410:21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
2849:
2805:
2708:
2696:
2665:
2446:17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
1268:(who became a member of the
1121:Edits by User 66.183.126.253
1081:07:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
117:05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4282:04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
4256:23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4226:23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4210:22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4157:22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4138:21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4110:21:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4095:03:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
4072:23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
4058:23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
4042:23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
3740:Knowledge:Citation overkill
3370:13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
3346:00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
3332:23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
3314:23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
3289:00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
3255:23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
3196:07:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3179:23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
3164:22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
3138:21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3110:22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
3088:21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3060:21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
3035:21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3007:21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
2980:23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2954:22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
2933:21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
2905:21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
2379:22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2346:22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2331:20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2297:20:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2288:20:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2254:19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2236:19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2208:19:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2198:to the philosophy section?
2190:19:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2166:18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2135:02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2121:02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2112:02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2097:02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2086:01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
2013:01:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1993:01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1964:00:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1950:00:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1908:23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1881:23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1851:19:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1831:18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1812:18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1778:18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1741:18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1719:18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1695:18:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1653:18:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1630:18:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1593:18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1578:18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1559:18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1539:19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
1520:14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1422:03:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1115:15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
1061:21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1044:20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1025:19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1006:17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
936:to avoid the appearance of
273:21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
139:Christianity and capitalism
4806:
4632:12:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
4604:09:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
4541:15:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
4513:22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
4448:22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
4423:19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
2116:That sounds reasonable. -
1494:23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1475:23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1453:15:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
241:10:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
215:14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
194:04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
165:04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
133:04:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
4728:22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
4710:18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
4699:09:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
4680:20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
4564:07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
4393:19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
4374:18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
4359:Permenant semi-protection
4248:Factchecker atyourservice
4202:Factchecker atyourservice
4130:Factchecker atyourservice
4116:"Nova Science Publishers"
4102:Factchecker atyourservice
2824:to illustrate the topic?
1435:. Also, please refer to
1362:13:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
1332:00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
1317:22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
968:The Pivot of Civilization
930:WP:single-purpose account
885:The Pivot of Civilization
833:User:Neutral_POV_Enforcer
800:04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
773:03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
753:Carthage College Scandal?
699:20:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
673:20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
659:20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
644:18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
621:18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
604:17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
589:17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
539:14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
525:14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
510:14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
496:14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
478:13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
464:before making them. See
441:13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
416:01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
261:The Pivot of Civilization
253:The Pivot of Civilization
4353:19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
3232:The Birth Control Review
3220:The Birth Control Review
2555:Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1
2196:Template:Primary_sources
1748:not you reading well?--
1544:Lead text: founder of ??
4570:Life/Early Life Section
2622:reasonably well written
2452:More eugenics material?
1978:I'm also not persuaded
391:00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
4776:April 1932, p. 102-104
3447:File:SangerAndSon.tiff
3236:The Birth Control News
3224:The Birth Control News
1264:printed an article by
4774:Birth Control Review,
4437:Night of the Big Wind
4146:Night of the Big Wind
2738:broad in its coverage
2692:References to sources
2390:Night of the Big Wind
1302:Implantation wording?
1036:Kragen Javier Sitaker
998:Kragen Javier Sitaker
228:for such charges). /
42:of past discussions.
2720:No original research
2173:WP:Secondary sources
1349:WP:original research
1298:2009-12-07T01:01:16
1262:Birth Control Review
431:without explanation.
18:Talk:Margaret Sanger
4620:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
2829:fair use rationales
1888:WP:Reliable sources
1433:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
923:Fourth, don't make
860:questionable source
263:is in this site: .
3226:launched in 1937?
2743:A. Major aspects:
2679:factually accurate
2627:A. Prose quality:
1916:" and to prevent "
1886:Can you find some
875:Instead, look for
4785:O'Conner, Karen,
4554:comment added by
4544:
4527:comment added by
4413:comment added by
4343:comment added by
4292:Race section and
2845:suitable captions
2545:
2544:
2436:comment added by
2224:
1867:Eugenics in lead?
1427:Source for quotes
1410:secondary sources
1405:
1391:comment added by
1297:
1283:comment added by
1105:comment added by
984:Armenian genocide
914:assume good faith
816:comment added by
763:comment added by
737:comment added by
381:comment added by
352:
338:comment added by
325:
311:comment added by
255:, writen by this
239:
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4797:
4790:
4783:
4777:
4770:
4764:
4760:
4736:
4566:
4543:
4521:
4478:
4438:
4425:
4379:That is done at
4355:
4236:Leonard A. Jason
4147:
4143:Sources please!
4000:
3995:
3959:
3930:
3926:
3925:
3905:
3877:
3873:
3872:
3852:
3827:
3823:
3822:
3802:
3765:
3761:
3760:
3663:
3626:
3602:
3598:
3597:
3577:
3553:
3549:
3548:
3528:
3518:
3512:
3483:
3479:
3478:
3458:
3427:
3423:
3422:
3402:
3359:
3355:
3354:
3324:
3278:
3274:
3273:
3247:
3188:
3156:
3127:
3123:
3122:
3102:
3077:
3073:
3072:
3052:
3024:
3020:
3019:
2999:
2969:
2965:
2964:
2946:
2922:
2918:
2917:
2897:
2872:
2871:
2852:
2851:
2836:
2835:
2808:
2807:
2783:
2782:
2760:
2759:
2748:
2747:
2727:
2726:
2711:
2710:
2699:
2698:
2668:
2667:
2632:
2631:
2590:
2499:Copyvio detector
2487:
2448:
2391:
2329:
2327:
2317:
2286:
2284:
2274:
2218:
2084:
2082:
2072:
2055:
2053:
2043:
1948:
1946:
1936:
1810:
1808:
1798:
1776:
1774:
1764:
1693:
1691:
1681:
1628:
1626:
1616:
1502:Deleting source?
1404:
1385:
1296:
1277:
1169:
1164:
1117:
1079:
1074:
938:WP:sock puppetry
877:reliable sources
828:
779:Your edit said:
775:
749:
549:Secondary source
393:
351:
332:
324:
305:
232:
173:The Woman Rebel.
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4805:
4804:
4800:
4799:
4798:
4796:
4795:
4794:
4793:
4784:
4780:
4771:
4767:
4761:
4757:
4743:
4640:
4572:
4549:
4522:
4520:Okay, thanks.
4485:
4445:
4436:
4408:
4401:
4361:
4338:
4297:
4231:Nancy J. Bothne
4154:
4145:
4118:
4082:
4030:
3998:
3993:
3957:
3951:
3923:
3921:
3903:
3870:
3868:
3850:
3820:
3818:
3800:
3758:
3756:
3661:
3624:
3595:
3593:
3575:
3546:
3544:
3526:
3516:
3510:
3476:
3474:
3456:
3420:
3418:
3400:
3352:
3350:
3322:
3271:
3269:
3245:
3230:indicates that
3186:
3154:
3148:
3120:
3118:
3100:
3070:
3068:
3050:
3017:
3015:
2997:
2962:
2960:
2944:
2915:
2913:
2895:
2885:
2643:compliance for
2605:
2588:
2549:This review is
2541:
2513:
2485:
2454:
2431:
2425:
2398:
2389:
2366:
2320:
2304:
2302:
2277:
2261:
2259:
2154:primary sources
2149:
2075:
2059:
2057:
2046:
2030:
2028:
1939:
1923:
1921:
1869:
1801:
1785:
1783:
1767:
1751:
1749:
1684:
1668:
1666:
1619:
1603:
1601:
1583:Parenthood"? --
1546:
1527:
1504:
1429:
1386:
1304:
1278:
1249:
1167:
1162:
1123:
1100:
1095:
1075:
1070:
881:primary sources
811:
808:
758:
755:
732:
551:
428:
376:
333:
306:
301:
281:
249:
226:burden of proof
202:
141:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4803:
4801:
4792:
4791:
4778:
4765:
4754:
4753:
4752:
4751:
4750:
4749:
4748:
4739:
4712:
4687:Woman of Valor
4667:
4666:
4659:
4639:
4636:
4635:
4634:
4571:
4568:
4518:
4517:
4516:
4515:
4497:
4496:
4495:
4494:
4493:
4492:
4491:
4490:
4481:
4451:
4450:
4441:
4400:
4397:
4396:
4395:
4360:
4357:
4310:
4306:
4296:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4287:
4286:
4285:
4284:
4261:
4260:
4259:
4258:
4241:
4240:
4239:
4238:
4233:
4198:
4194:
4190:
4186:
4182:
4178:
4174:
4170:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4150:
4117:
4114:
4113:
4112:
4081:
4078:
4077:
4076:
4075:
4074:
4029:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4023:
4022:
4021:
4020:
3985:
3984:
3950:
3947:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3943:
3916:
3915:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3890:
3863:
3862:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3813:
3812:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3779:
3778:
3703:
3702:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3696:
3637:
3636:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3615:
3588:
3587:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3539:
3538:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3469:
3468:
3443:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3413:
3412:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3258:
3257:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3147:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3113:
3112:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3063:
3062:
3040:
3039:
3038:
3037:
3010:
3009:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2908:
2907:
2884:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2867:Pass or Fail:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2841:
2840:
2839:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2653:words to watch
2637:
2636:
2635:
2604:
2601:
2560:
2559:
2543:
2542:
2540:
2539:
2534:
2529:
2523:
2520:
2519:
2515:
2514:
2512:
2511:
2509:External links
2506:
2501:
2495:
2492:
2491:
2484:
2481:
2479:
2453:
2450:
2438:205.232.191.16
2424:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2394:
2365:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2294:Metal lunchbox
2251:Metal lunchbox
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2118:Metal lunchbox
2094:Metal lunchbox
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2010:Metal lunchbox
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1545:
1542:
1526:
1523:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1462:
1428:
1425:
1414:Metal.lunchbox
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1303:
1300:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1154:
1153:
1122:
1119:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1053:Wikiposter0123
1049:
1028:
1027:
1017:Wikiposter0123
934:your user page
869:
868:
841:
807:
804:
803:
802:
787:
786:
785:
754:
751:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
661:
609:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
512:
498:
484:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
372:
371:
370:
369:
353:
300:
297:
280:
277:
248:
245:
244:
243:
201:
198:
197:
196:
140:
137:
136:
135:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4802:
4788:
4782:
4779:
4775:
4769:
4766:
4763:
4759:
4756:
4747:
4744:
4742:
4737:
4731:
4730:
4729:
4725:
4721:
4717:
4713:
4711:
4708:
4707:
4702:
4701:
4700:
4696:
4692:
4688:
4684:
4683:
4682:
4681:
4678:
4677:
4672:
4663:
4660:
4657:
4653:
4648:
4645:
4644:
4643:
4637:
4633:
4629:
4625:
4621:
4617:
4612:
4608:
4607:
4606:
4605:
4601:
4597:
4592:
4589:
4587:
4583:
4580:
4576:
4569:
4567:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4556:75.118.55.198
4553:
4545:
4542:
4538:
4534:
4530:
4526:
4514:
4510:
4506:
4503:problems. --
4501:
4500:
4499:
4498:
4489:
4486:
4484:
4479:
4472:
4471:
4469:
4465:
4461:
4457:
4456:
4455:
4454:
4453:
4452:
4449:
4446:
4444:
4439:
4433:
4428:
4427:
4426:
4424:
4420:
4416:
4415:149.152.31.39
4412:
4404:
4398:
4394:
4390:
4386:
4382:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4375:
4371:
4367:
4358:
4356:
4354:
4350:
4346:
4342:
4335:
4332:
4329:
4326:
4322:
4318:
4314:
4307:
4304:
4302:
4295:
4291:
4283:
4279:
4275:
4272:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4257:
4253:
4249:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4242:
4237:
4234:
4232:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4223:
4219:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4207:
4203:
4199:
4197:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4181:
4177:
4173:
4169:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4155:
4153:
4148:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4135:
4131:
4126:
4124:
4115:
4111:
4107:
4103:
4099:
4098:
4097:
4096:
4092:
4088:
4079:
4073:
4069:
4065:
4061:
4060:
4059:
4055:
4051:
4046:
4045:
4044:
4043:
4039:
4035:
4027:
4019:
4015:
4011:
4007:
4006:
4005:
4002:
4001:
3996:
3989:
3988:
3987:
3986:
3983:
3979:
3975:
3971:
3970:
3969:
3968:
3965:
3964:
3961:
3960:
3948:
3942:
3938:
3934:
3929:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3914:
3911:
3910:
3907:
3906:
3899:
3895:
3894:
3889:
3885:
3881:
3876:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3861:
3858:
3857:
3854:
3853:
3845:
3844:
3839:
3835:
3831:
3826:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3811:
3808:
3807:
3804:
3803:
3795:
3794:
3777:
3773:
3769:
3764:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3749:
3745:
3741:
3737:
3736:WP:CITEBUNDLE
3733:
3732:
3731:
3727:
3723:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3712:
3708:
3704:
3697:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3683:
3679:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3669:
3668:
3665:
3664:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3650:
3646:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3635:
3632:
3631:
3628:
3627:
3620:
3619:
3614:
3610:
3606:
3601:
3592:
3591:
3590:
3589:
3586:
3583:
3582:
3579:
3578:
3571:
3570:
3565:
3561:
3557:
3552:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3537:
3534:
3533:
3530:
3529:
3522:
3515:
3508:
3504:
3501:
3500:
3495:
3491:
3487:
3482:
3473:
3472:
3471:
3470:
3467:
3464:
3463:
3460:
3459:
3452:
3448:
3445:
3444:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3426:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3411:
3408:
3407:
3404:
3403:
3396:
3392:
3388:
3383:
3382:
3371:
3367:
3363:
3358:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3343:
3339:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3330:
3329:
3326:
3325:
3317:
3316:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3298:
3290:
3286:
3282:
3277:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3256:
3253:
3252:
3249:
3248:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3208:
3203:
3202:
3197:
3194:
3193:
3190:
3189:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3162:
3161:
3158:
3157:
3145:
3139:
3135:
3131:
3126:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3111:
3108:
3107:
3104:
3103:
3095:
3094:
3089:
3085:
3081:
3076:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3061:
3058:
3057:
3054:
3053:
3046:
3042:
3041:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3023:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3008:
3005:
3004:
3001:
3000:
2993:
2992:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2968:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2952:
2951:
2948:
2947:
2940:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2930:
2926:
2921:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2906:
2903:
2902:
2899:
2898:
2891:
2887:
2886:
2882:
2874:
2873:
2866:
2865:
2863:
2860:
2854:
2853:
2846:
2842:
2838:
2837:
2830:
2826:
2825:
2823:
2822:
2816:
2810:
2809:
2802:
2798:
2797:
2795:
2791:
2785:
2784:
2777:
2776:
2774:
2773:
2768:
2762:
2761:
2754:
2750:
2749:
2742:
2741:
2739:
2735:
2729:
2728:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2712:
2705:
2701:
2700:
2693:
2689:
2688:
2686:
2685:
2680:
2676:
2670:
2669:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2633:
2626:
2625:
2623:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2614:
2611:review – see
2610:
2602:
2600:
2599:
2596:
2595:
2592:
2591:
2582:
2581:
2577:
2574:
2571:
2567:
2564:
2558:
2556:
2552:
2547:
2546:
2538:
2535:
2533:
2530:
2528:
2525:
2524:
2522:
2521:
2516:
2510:
2507:
2505:
2502:
2500:
2497:
2496:
2494:
2493:
2488:
2482:
2480:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2459:
2451:
2449:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2428:
2422:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2399:
2397:
2392:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2363:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2326:
2325:
2318:
2315:
2314:
2309:
2308:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2295:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2283:
2282:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2266:
2265:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2252:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2222:
2221:edit conflict
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2146:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2119:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2095:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2081:
2080:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2064:
2063:
2054:
2052:
2051:
2044:
2041:
2040:
2035:
2034:
2024:
2014:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1981:
1980:your sentence
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1945:
1944:
1937:
1934:
1933:
1928:
1927:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1866:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1807:
1806:
1799:
1796:
1795:
1790:
1789:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1755:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1696:
1692:
1690:
1689:
1682:
1679:
1678:
1673:
1672:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1627:
1625:
1624:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1524:
1522:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1501:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1381:
1377:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1301:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1246:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1120:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:75.87.135.149
1104:
1099:
1092:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
989:
985:
981:
975:
971:
969:
965:
964:birth control
961:
957:
952:
949:
945:
943:
942:WP:CLEANSTART
939:
935:
931:
926:
921:
919:
915:
910:
906:
904:
903:Template:Cite
900:</ref: -->
898:</ref: -->
896:
891:
888:
886:
882:
878:
873:
865:
864:
863:
861:
857:
852:
849:
846:
839:
836:
834:
829:
827:
823:
819:
818:76.181.25.251
815:
805:
801:
797:
793:
788:
784:
781:
780:
778:
777:
776:
774:
770:
766:
765:99.162.63.211
762:
752:
750:
748:
744:
740:
739:15.219.153.74
736:
731:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
660:
656:
652:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
555:
548:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
513:
511:
507:
503:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
468:. Thanks. --
467:
463:
459:
454:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
425:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
392:
388:
384:
383:76.180.61.194
380:
367:
363:
359:
354:
349:
345:
341:
337:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
298:
296:
295:
291:
287:
278:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
246:
242:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:kitten-eating
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
174:
169:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
150:
147:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
120:
119:
118:
114:
110:
105:
102:
99:
97:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4786:
4781:
4773:
4768:
4758:
4740:
4704:
4686:
4674:
4671:Good Article
4668:
4655:
4651:
4641:
4638:Recent edits
4615:
4596:76.31.203.30
4593:
4590:
4588:
4584:
4581:
4577:
4573:
4550:— Preceding
4546:
4523:— Preceding
4519:
4482:
4460:EnochBethany
4442:
4431:
4409:— Preceding
4405:
4402:
4362:
4339:— Preceding
4336:
4333:
4330:
4308:
4305:
4298:
4270:
4200:
4166:
4151:
4127:
4122:
4119:
4083:
4031:
4028:New material
3991:
3962:
3955:
3952:
3927:
3908:
3901:
3874:
3855:
3848:
3824:
3805:
3798:
3762:
3666:
3659:
3629:
3622:
3599:
3580:
3573:
3550:
3531:
3524:
3520:
3514:Anonymous-EU
3480:
3461:
3454:
3424:
3405:
3398:
3356:
3327:
3320:
3275:
3250:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3206:
3191:
3184:
3159:
3152:
3149:
3124:
3105:
3098:
3074:
3055:
3048:
3021:
3002:
2995:
2966:
2949:
2942:
2919:
2900:
2893:
2861:
2818:
2793:
2770:
2755:B. Focused:
2737:
2682:
2678:
2621:
2615:for criteria
2607:
2606:
2593:
2586:
2583:
2572:
2562:
2561:
2548:
2537:Instructions
2478:
2474:
2455:
2432:— Preceding
2429:
2426:
2423:Whitewashing
2395:
2367:
2323:
2322:
2312:
2311:
2306:
2305:
2280:
2279:
2269:
2268:
2263:
2262:
2176:
2150:
2078:
2077:
2067:
2066:
2061:
2060:
2049:
2048:
2038:
2037:
2032:
2031:
2025:
2021:
1942:
1941:
1931:
1930:
1925:
1924:
1913:
1870:
1838:
1804:
1803:
1793:
1792:
1787:
1786:
1770:
1769:
1759:
1758:
1753:
1752:
1687:
1686:
1676:
1675:
1670:
1669:
1662:
1658:
1640:
1636:
1622:
1621:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1565:
1547:
1528:
1505:
1482:WP:LONGQUOTE
1430:
1407:
1387:— Preceding
1382:
1378:
1374:
1339:
1305:
1285:64.105.0.102
1279:— Preceding
1261:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1247:Removed text
1160:
1124:
1096:
1067:WP:CRITICISM
996:
992:
979:
976:
972:
967:
953:
950:
946:
924:
922:
911:
907:
894:
892:
889:
884:
874:
870:
855:
853:
850:
844:
840:
837:
830:
809:
782:
756:
727:
705:67.50.81.195
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
556:
552:
461:
457:
452:
447:
429:
404:undue weight
373:
358:93.41.194.42
302:
282:
250:
203:
200:Antisemitism
182:Suicide Bent
181:
178:Killer Angel
177:
172:
144:
142:
109:User:Brenont
106:
103:
100:
93:
65:
43:
37:
4345:65.205.26.5
4271:Mein Kampf.
4123:methodology
3994:Will Beback
3395:WP:Captions
3228:This source
3212:this source
2551:transcluded
1266:Ernst Rüdin
1163:Will Beback
1101:—Preceding
988:Scientology
812:—Preceding
759:—Preceding
733:—Preceding
377:—Preceding
334:—Preceding
307:—Preceding
36:This is an
4735:The Banner
4529:Hmprescott
4477:The Banner
4407:proceed.
4366:Harizotoh9
4317:Harizotoh9
4274:MFNickster
4218:MFNickster
3387:MOS:IMAGES
2684:verifiable
2504:Authorship
2490:GA toolbox
1227:MFNickster
918:as you did
728:Check it:
687:WikiQuotes
408:MFNickster
186:MFNickster
146:Capitalism
4662:This edit
4624:Noleander
4505:Noleander
4385:Noleander
4087:Noleander
4064:Noleander
4050:Noleander
4034:Noleander
4010:Noleander
3974:Noleander
3933:Noleander
3880:Noleander
3847:milieu"?
3830:Noleander
3768:Noleander
3744:Noleander
3722:Noleander
3707:Noleander
3678:Noleander
3645:Noleander
3605:Noleander
3556:Noleander
3507:this user
3486:Noleander
3430:Noleander
3362:Noleander
3338:Noleander
3306:Noleander
3281:Noleander
3171:Noleander
3130:Noleander
3080:Noleander
3027:Noleander
2972:Noleander
2925:Noleander
2801:edit wars
2603:Tick list
2563:Reviewer:
2527:Templates
2518:Reviewing
2483:GA Review
2463:Noleander
2407:Noleander
2371:Noleander
2338:Noleander
2228:Dawn Bard
2182:Noleander
2104:Noleander
1956:Dawn Bard
1900:Noleander
1843:Noleander
1823:Noleander
1645:Noleander
1641:secondary
1585:Noleander
1570:Noleander
1551:Noleander
1531:Noleander
1512:Noleander
1486:Noleander
1445:Noleander
1380:premise.
1354:Noleander
1309:Noleander
956:Christian
691:Noleander
636:Noleander
596:Noleander
531:Noleander
470:Noleander
458:secondary
286:Chibiabos
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
4789:, p 743.
4706:MastCell
4676:MastCell
4656:abortion
4552:unsigned
4537:contribs
4525:unsigned
4411:unsigned
4341:unsigned
3958:SilkTork
3904:SilkTork
3851:SilkTork
3801:SilkTork
3662:SilkTork
3625:SilkTork
3576:SilkTork
3527:SilkTork
3457:SilkTork
3401:SilkTork
3391:WP:LAYIM
3323:SilkTork
3246:SilkTork
3187:SilkTork
3155:SilkTork
3101:SilkTork
3051:SilkTork
2998:SilkTork
2945:SilkTork
2896:SilkTork
2883:Comments
2819:contain
2817:Does it
2613:WP:WIAGA
2589:SilkTork
2576:contribs
2566:SilkTork
2532:Criteria
2458:WP:Undue
2434:unsigned
1918:dysgenic
1892:WP:Undue
1508:WP:Truth
1441:WP:Undue
1437:WP:Quote
1401:contribs
1389:unsigned
1293:contribs
1281:unsigned
1223:WP:Undue
1143:PhGustaf
1103:unsigned
960:Cherokee
893:Second,
814:unsigned
792:PhGustaf
761:unsigned
735:unsigned
683:WP:quote
679:WP:Undue
631:WP:Undue
379:unsigned
348:contribs
336:unsigned
321:contribs
309:unsigned
257:eugenist
4720:RJR3333
4691:RJR3333
4403:Hello,
4313:WP:NPOV
4294:WP:NPOV
3898:WP:LEAD
3146:On hold
3045:WP:Lead
2939:WP:Lead
2890:WP:BODY
2862:Overall
2803:, etc:
2772:neutral
2657:fiction
1896:WP:Lead
1873:Ocanter
1818:WP:Lead
1707:WP:LEAD
1393:Ocanter
1324:Ocanter
1219:WP:NPOV
1191:DeCausa
1128:DeCausa
1013:WP:TLDR
912:Third,
854:First,
275:agre22
125:Ando228
39:archive
3207:amount
3183:Cool.
2821:images
2794:stable
2792:Is it
2769:Is it
2736:Is it
2677:Is it
2659:, and
2649:layout
2620:Is it
2310:laudio
2267:laudio
2200:Jesanj
2177:unless
2158:Jesanj
2127:Jesanj
2065:laudio
2036:laudio
1985:Jesanj
1929:laudio
1791:laudio
1757:laudio
1733:Jesanj
1711:Jesanj
1674:laudio
1609:laudio
1077:Orator
665:Edstat
651:Edstat
613:Edstat
581:Edstat
517:Edstat
502:Edstat
488:Edstat
466:WP:BRD
453:todays
433:Edstat
340:Madler
313:Madler
265:Agre22
4652:wrong
4611:WP:RS
2661:lists
2553:from
2316:antos
2273:antos
2071:antos
2042:antos
1935:antos
1914:unfit
1797:antos
1763:antos
1680:antos
1615:antos
1270:Nazis
1072:Novus
16:<
4741:talk
4724:talk
4695:talk
4647:This
4628:talk
4616:they
4600:talk
4560:talk
4533:talk
4509:talk
4483:talk
4464:talk
4443:talk
4432:must
4419:talk
4389:talk
4383:. --
4370:talk
4349:talk
4321:talk
4278:talk
4252:talk
4222:talk
4206:talk
4152:talk
4134:talk
4106:talk
4091:talk
4068:talk
4054:talk
4038:talk
4014:talk
3999:talk
3978:talk
3949:Pass
3937:talk
3928:Done
3884:talk
3875:Done
3834:talk
3825:Done
3772:talk
3763:Done
3748:talk
3726:talk
3711:talk
3682:talk
3649:talk
3609:talk
3600:Done
3560:talk
3551:Done
3523:- ?
3490:talk
3481:Done
3434:talk
3425:Done
3389:and
3366:talk
3357:Done
3342:talk
3310:talk
3285:talk
3276:Done
3234:and
3222:and
3175:talk
3134:talk
3125:Done
3084:talk
3075:Done
3031:talk
3022:Done
2976:talk
2967:Done
2929:talk
2920:Done
2681:and
2645:lead
2570:talk
2467:talk
2442:talk
2411:talk
2396:talk
2375:talk
2342:talk
2232:talk
2204:talk
2194:Add
2186:talk
2162:talk
2131:talk
2108:talk
1989:talk
1960:talk
1904:talk
1898:. --
1877:talk
1847:talk
1827:talk
1737:talk
1715:talk
1649:talk
1589:talk
1574:talk
1555:talk
1535:talk
1516:talk
1490:talk
1471:talk
1449:talk
1418:talk
1397:talk
1358:talk
1328:talk
1313:talk
1289:talk
1231:talk
1221:and
1195:talk
1168:talk
1147:talk
1132:talk
1111:talk
1057:talk
1040:talk
1021:talk
1002:talk
980:just
925:only
822:talk
796:talk
769:talk
743:talk
709:talk
695:talk
669:talk
655:talk
640:talk
617:talk
600:talk
585:talk
535:talk
521:talk
506:talk
492:talk
474:talk
462:here
437:talk
412:talk
387:talk
362:talk
344:talk
317:talk
290:talk
269:talk
211:talk
190:talk
161:talk
129:talk
113:talk
98:):
2799:No
2718:C.
2690:A.
2641:MoS
2639:B.
2387:??
2385:-->
986:or
944:.)
448:has
230:edg
207:ADM
157:ADM
4726:)
4718:--
4697:)
4630:)
4602:)
4562:)
4539:)
4535:•
4511:)
4470:)
4466:)
4421:)
4391:)
4372:)
4364:--
4351:)
4323:)
4280:)
4254:)
4224:)
4208:)
4136:)
4108:)
4093:)
4070:)
4056:)
4040:)
4016:)
3980:)
3939:)
3886:)
3836:)
3774:)
3750:)
3728:)
3713:)
3684:)
3651:)
3643:--
3611:)
3562:)
3517:}}
3511:{{
3492:)
3436:)
3397:.
3368:)
3344:)
3312:)
3287:)
3177:)
3136:)
3086:)
3047:.
3033:)
2978:)
2931:)
2892:.
2864::
2847::
2831::
2796:?
2775:?
2740:?
2722::
2694::
2687:?
2663::
2655:,
2651:,
2647:,
2624:?
2609:GA
2578:)
2469:)
2461:--
2444:)
2413:)
2377:)
2369:--
2344:)
2234:)
2206:)
2188:)
2180:--
2164:)
2133:)
2110:)
2102:--
1991:)
1962:)
1906:)
1879:)
1849:)
1841:--
1829:)
1739:)
1717:)
1651:)
1591:)
1576:)
1557:)
1537:)
1518:)
1492:)
1473:)
1451:)
1420:)
1403:)
1399:•
1360:)
1352:--
1330:)
1315:)
1307:--
1295:)
1291:•
1272:'
1233:)
1225:.
1197:)
1149:)
1134:)
1113:)
1069:--
1059:)
1042:)
1023:)
1004:)
970:.
862::
845:is
824:)
798:)
771:)
745:)
711:)
697:)
671:)
657:)
642:)
634:--
619:)
602:)
587:)
537:)
523:)
508:)
494:)
476:)
439:)
414:)
389:)
364:)
350:)
346:•
323:)
319:•
292:)
271:)
213:)
192:)
163:)
148:.
131:)
115:)
4722:(
4693:(
4626:(
4598:(
4558:(
4531:(
4507:(
4462:(
4417:(
4387:(
4368:(
4347:(
4319:(
4276:(
4250:(
4220:(
4204:(
4132:(
4104:(
4089:(
4066:(
4052:(
4036:(
4012:(
3976:(
3935:(
3882:(
3832:(
3770:(
3746:(
3724:(
3709:(
3680:(
3647:(
3607:(
3558:(
3488:(
3432:(
3364:(
3340:(
3308:(
3283:(
3173:(
3132:(
3082:(
3029:(
2974:(
2927:(
2573:·
2568:(
2465:(
2440:(
2409:(
2373:(
2340:(
2324:?
2321:¿
2313:S
2307:C
2281:?
2278:¿
2270:S
2264:C
2230:(
2223:)
2219:(
2202:(
2184:(
2160:(
2129:(
2106:(
2079:?
2076:¿
2068:S
2062:C
2050:?
2047:¿
2039:S
2033:C
1987:(
1958:(
1943:?
1940:¿
1932:S
1926:C
1902:(
1875:(
1845:(
1825:(
1805:?
1802:¿
1794:S
1788:C
1771:?
1768:¿
1760:S
1754:C
1735:(
1713:(
1688:?
1685:¿
1677:S
1671:C
1647:(
1623:?
1620:¿
1612:S
1606:C
1587:(
1572:(
1553:(
1533:(
1514:(
1488:(
1469:(
1447:(
1416:(
1395:(
1356:(
1326:(
1311:(
1287:(
1229:(
1193:(
1145:(
1130:(
1109:(
1055:(
1038:(
1019:(
1015:.
1000:(
820:(
794:(
767:(
741:(
707:(
693:(
667:(
653:(
638:(
615:(
598:(
583:(
533:(
519:(
504:(
490:(
472:(
435:(
410:(
385:(
368:)
360:(
342:(
315:(
288:(
267:(
237:☭
234:☺
209:(
188:(
159:(
127:(
111:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.