Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Sanger/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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

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

Your edit removed Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines and did not believe that poverty was hereditary. However, she would appeal to both ideas as a rhetorical tool. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because that statement is false. She did not oppose eugenics along racial lines, there are numerous reliable sources that debunk that claim. DocZach (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
What if it said:
Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Some theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics or hereditary poverty as a rhetorical and persuasive tool rather than a personal conviction. Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism. DocZach (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The cited source, from PBS, says in part Sanger's relationship with the eugenics movement was complex -- part strategy and part ideology. Many historians now believe that Sanger opposed eugenics along racial lines. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, then this accounts for that context, a more NPOV, and the other context:
Sanger is criticized for having been a supporter of negative eugenics. Many historians theorize that she only appealed to ideas of racial eugenics as a rhetorical and strategical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger for her past record with eugenics and racism. DocZach (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any objections to this? @Muboshgu DocZach (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(1) "is" is the wrong tense; it should be "has been". (2) The first sentence makes it sound like negative eugenics was MS's basic stance on eugenics. She was definitely a supporter of positive eugenics (which is closely related to family planning) and she made alliances with advocates of negative eugenics, but her views on the latter are not very clear. (3) Regarding "many historians", I don't think "many" historians have commented one way or the other, but what is clear is that this is the view of the author Ellen Chesler of the most authoritative biography of MS, namely, that MS associated with racists for tactical reasons, not because she shared their views. NightHeron (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I would object to that phrasing. I leaves out the context that eugenics were rather popular in society in those years. And it shines a bad light on Sanger, while in fact she followed the popular opinion. The Banner talk 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Sanger has been criticized for her support of eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.
I tried fixing it with what you guys recommended. Any objections to this one? ^
@Muboshgu @The Banner @NightHeron DocZach (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
OR:
Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics. Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction. In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.
DocZach (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What does that add to the article, except negativity? The Banner talk 14:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
How is it negativity? We aren't supposed to decide whether or not to add something based on its positivity/negativity. We are supposed to provide a fair and neutral explanation of who Sanger was using reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
True, that is why I took a look at your other edits. And I see it as a backdoor to saying that Sanger was a full blown eugenist. The Banner talk 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You are just assuming that I am editing in bad faith then. I have edited a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia, and my goal is to make them more fair and neutral. When I was reading about who Sanger was, I saw this article as very unfair and biased, and I am attempting to find compromise to make a slight improvement to that. I ask that you assume good faith. DocZach (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Call it what you want, but sending an article to AfD because you do not like the content sets my alarm bells off. The Banner talk 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Once again, I advise you to follow WP:GOODFAITH. You are bringing up my deletion request (which I had retracted) of an article about a movie that involves a pedophilic relationship. My reason was because of the lack of sources, but once I saw them add more sources, I retracted my nomination. You are bringing up something completely irrelevant in this discussion, and I ask that you stop that now. DocZach (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to the last proposed wording. NightHeron (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Awesome! Glad we are working towards a compromise.
@Muboshgu, what are your thoughts on the latest proposal? DocZach (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Has been criticized" is a bit WP:WEASELy. Make that more specific and I'm okay with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I just put that there because it's what the article currently says. DocZach (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What about, "has been criticized by some"? DocZach (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
or: "Some have criticized Sanger..." DocZach (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Existing text or your proposal, we can still do better. Who does this criticism come from? Anti-abortion activists? Anyone else? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(1) In connection with Planned Parenthood's decision in 2020 to drop Sanger's name from the organization's headquarters, the main body of the article states: This decision was made in response to criticisms over Sanger's promotion of eugenics. (2) In the 2nd paragraph of the Eugenics section, the article quotes Sanger's biographer Ellen Chesler writing that "her failure to repudiate prejudice unequivocally—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since." Neither Planned Parenthood nor Chesler is anti-abortion. NightHeron (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
That's why I asked. Should have figured that PP disavowing her can be considered "criticism" of her. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources state, even in their titles, that Planned Parenthood disavowed Margaret Sanger. Disavow isn't a dirty word, it literally means to "deny support for." DocZach (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nvm, I thought you were saying disavow was a bad word. I misread that, sorry. Anyway, do we have any objections to me editing the last portion of the second lead paragraph to this:
Sanger has been criticized for supporting eugenics, including negative eugenics.[1][2][3] Some historians believe her support of negative eugenics, a popular stance at that time, was a rhetorical tool rather than a personal conviction.[4] In 2020, Planned Parenthood disavowed Sanger, citing her past record with eugenics and racism.[5][6][7][8] DocZach (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
And also, separately, in accordance with WP:PEACOCK, I propose changing where it says "admired figure" to "relevant figure" or "prominent figure." I would certainly disagree that she is widely considered as "admired", seeing as the literal organization she founded has disavowed her. However, she was prominent and is still relevant. DocZach (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Ok, sounds good. I will implement it now. I appreciate you both working with me to find a compromise. DocZach (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I have a question: there are now three citations following the "supporting eugenics" sentence, and four citations following the Planned Parenthood sentence. Everything else in the lede has one citation only. This makes it look like those sentences are more important than the others. Can we trim the citations down to one reference for each assertion? Toughpigs (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, one moment. DocZach (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I removed a few, is that better? @Toughpigs DocZach (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I cut it down to one ref for the first sentence, two for the second. Toughpigs (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Margaret Sanger's extreme brand of eugenics". America Magazine. 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  2. ^ "Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist". Woman is a Rational Animal. 2022-09-21. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  3. ^ "Why Planned Parenthood Is Removing Founder Margaret Sanger's Name From a New York City Clinic". TIME. 2020-07-21. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  4. ^ "Eugenics and Birth Control | American Experience | PBS". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  5. ^ Stewart, Nikita (July 21, 2020). "Planned Parenthood in N.Y. disavows Margaret Sanger over Eugenics". The New York Times. Retrieved March 23, 2024.
  6. ^ "Planned Parenthood's Reckoning with Margaret Sanger". www.plannedparenthood.org. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  7. ^ "Statement about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's mission". www.plannedparenthood.org. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  8. ^ Schmidt, Samantha (2020-07-21). "Planned Parenthood to remove Margaret Sanger's name from N.Y. clinic over views on eugenics". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-03-23.

Short description

@NightHeron The current short description reads:

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

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

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

How about keeping "nurse" (which was her main profession) and deleting "educator" (which was not)? NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
For better or worse she might be less notable for providing medical care than for other roles. I usually go by what people are known for. But I agree that "educator" might be the easiest to drop. I will leave it up to your judgement. Wizmut (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
She was a nurse? Yeah, Planned Parenthood was & is an educational organization, along with the health services that it provides. It should be obvious that she was an educator. Peaceray (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
But educator commonly implies teacher or expert on education. Someone who is known in part for informing the public about some topic is not necessarily referred to as an "educator". That term has the weakest rationale of the three. NightHeron (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Sanger/Archive_8&oldid=1259122468"