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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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)
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]
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]
@Peaceray The sentence says that the commonality of "unsafe abortions" was "because" abortion was illegal, while this is disputed, so I removed the phrase which causes this claim to be made. It's also a strange claim to just throw out there in the lead of the Margaret Sanger article. Anotherperson123 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you disputing that abortion was illegal at the time? I think that there is sufficient coverage in the article that one of Sanger's intents was to promote birth control so that the only appropriate use for abortion would be therapeutic. She clearly was frustrated by women who did not want a child then seeking abortions that were clearly a danger to those very women. The very reason that there was such danger to these abortions was due to their ubiquitous illegibility, which prevented trained medical personnel from legally performing them.
@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]
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 Bannertalk03:02, 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]
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]
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]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
