Talk:Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Noleander (talk) at 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: American birth control activist and nurse (1879–1966)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Sanger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 14 days

Margaret Sanger was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 21, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 16, 2011, October 16, 2016, and October 16, 2024.

Current status: Delisted good article

Biography: Politics and Government / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism High‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nursing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state)

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Member of the Nazi party and the KKK

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

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

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

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

July of 2020 they removed her racist name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. case closed. 2600:1015:A005:3806:191C:2FEC:644C:7859 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing her name from the headquarters of Planned Parenthood is no proof that she was a member of either the Nazi party or the KKK. Peaceray (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another reverted edit

@The Banner There is no "POV pushing" in modifying the language to be more encyclopedic. "Thought" is the encyclopedic equivalent of "felt", attributing claims is the correct way of wording Wikipedia articles, etc. Please explain your reasoning for these reverts. Anotherperson123 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner Anotherperson123 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did see it. And if you want an explanation, I give you the same as in the summary: subtle POV-pushing. Minor edits that just change the meaning of the text to be a bit more negative. The Banner talk 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just fail to see how changing "felt" to "thought" and attributing a claim could be seen as making an article negative in tone. "Felt" is informal language. A claim is a claim. Claims are attributed. These are standard corrections. Anotherperson123 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "felt" -> "thought" is an uncontroversial minor-edit improvement, but pairing that with changing "common" to "more common" with no explanation certainly feels to me like subtle POV pushing -- a feeling that is intensified by acting as if the uncontroversial part of the edit is the point of contention, while omitting any reference to the more substantial change. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not pair those together in the same edit. He paired them together in a revert. It seems that what I have mentioned is not controversial. Do either of you object to putting the standard corrections in the article? Anotherperson123 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "common" with "more common" is obviously not a "standard correction" (whatever that means), and it's transparently in line with the previous edit attempting to muddy the waters about the prevalence of unsafe procedures at times / places where they are criminalized -- prevalence backed up by the cited sources. This isn't just correcting random typos or unclear language, it's a pattern of subtly changing the article to reflect a POV (and in particular a POV that is contradicted by the article's sources).

Whether that pattern is occasionally leavened with uncontroversial edits is not really relevant, except insofar as it increases the chances that one of the uncontroversial edits gets reverted as collateral damage, giving you the opportunity to focus on litigating that rather than the substantive unsupported edits. So to be explicit and hopefully close this out -- I don't object to the edit that I described as "an uncontroversial minor-edit improvement". ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "common" to "more common" change was made as part of a different set of edits. That fragment was simply accidentally not reverted by an earlier editor. Those edits are being discussed in a different section. I did not intend to make this section about that part of the revert. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another standard correction was changing "This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race." to "She said this would lead to a betterment of society and the human race." Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That pair of sentences was a bit of a mess -- I tried to clear it up without repeating "She said" again, but no strong feelings there. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't analyzed the whole edit. But in this usage IMO "thought" usually means "they were wrong" E.G. the common meaning of "He thought it wasn't going to rain" means "he was wrong, it rained" and the comon meaning of "he thought they were going to attack from the east" means "they didn't attack from the east, he was wrong. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder on pending changes review

This article has pending changes protection. I recently accepted a pending changes item. Just as a reminder that merely means "not vandalism" and does not mean general acceptance of or support of the edit. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination?

This article was a GA article in 2011. That lasted for four years, but it got de-listed in 2015 due to edit-waring. It was not de-listed due to failing GA criteria (other than the edit-warring criterion). Currently, the overall quality of the article looks pretty decent these days, so I was thinking of making a pass thru the article and - if it is suitable - doing a GA nomination. I don't doubt that vandals will come along and attack this article forever, but that is no reason to avoid GA status (see Heckler's veto) Any objections? Noleander (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started making some minor improvements to the article. Overall it seems to be in pretty good shape. If anyone has any changes you think should be made to bring it up to GA status, let me know. Noleander (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find many more improvements (appropriate for GA status), so I guess I'll nominate it for GA soon. If anyone has any comments, let me know. Noleander (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do a lot of GA reviews and took a closer look here. I think it looks pretty good. One thing that caught my eye. The lead should be a summary of the article. Regarding her position on abortion, it is summarized (and heavily sourced/cited) in the lead but I see only scattered mentions of it in the article, and don't see those same cites in the article. Any cites/source that are in the lead should also be in the article (and usually don't need to be in the lead). To me this is a bit of a red flag that either there is material in the lead that is not in the article or that the citing/sourcing is missing from wherever it is in the article. Especially for those reading it in current times, IMO coverage of this topic in the body of the article should be strengthened up a bit, with solid sourcing, and any sourcing/cites that are in the lead should be in the body. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'll work on those things. Noleander (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a lead section that has zero citations, I'm always impressed ... it looks clean, and indicates that the article _probably_ has all the lead info replicated (and expounded on) in the body. Of course, to remove the cites, all the lead info/text must be replicated & cited in the body. I guess I could remove all the cites (after ensuring info is in the body) and see what the reviewer says. Noleander (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went thru the lead, and ensured that all the lead info was also represented in the body (some was not: I had to move/duplicate it). I then moved all footnotes from the lead to the corresponding body text (if not already there). So, there are now no footnotes in the lead; but 100% of the lead info is in the body, and footnotes are there. Noleander (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexuality" section could be trimmed?

The section Margaret_Sanger#Sexuality seems a bit large, considering it was not a major aspect of Sanger's life work. All the info in there looks accurate & useful, but its large size may mislead readers into thinking it almost of equal importance as family planning, abortion, etc. But maybe I'm underestimating how much effort she put into the subject. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any objections, so I think I will simply replace some of the numerous quotes there with paraphrases. Not deleting any material, simply tightening some quotes by making them encyclopedic prose. Noleander (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]