Talk:Margaret Sanger

message: Margaret Sanger, when talked about now is referred to as a "eugenist" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html 
Even in Galton page, they list him as an 
"eugenist" Francis Galton.
So why is she not referred to as a eugenist? Even planned parenthood basically disavows her and condemns her. 
"The difficult truth is that Margaret Sanger’s racist alliances and belief in eugenics have caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, and many others. Her alignment with the eugenics movement, rooted in white supremacy, is in direct opposition to our mission and belief that all people should have the right to determine their own future and decide, without coercion or judgement, whether and when to have children."
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/planned-parenthoods-reckoning-with-margaret-sanger
I don't see how this is even a discussion, are we now claiming that planned parenthood is biased against Sanger???
"We must acknowledge the harm done, examine how we have perpetuated this harm, and ensure that we do not repeat Sanger’s mistakes."
This is coming from Sangers company she founded.
It's just odd to me of this was someone on the right, there would be no discussion and ad hominem attacks would allowed without discussion yet in this case somehow they are trying to keep it "unbiased.
the article provides vast information, but in some parts writes as if they are trying to defend Sanger when her own company does not. This is not what neutrality is. I don't mean to criticize the article because like I said it has a lot of information it just seems that the information given is more in defense without showing the opposing view. Elove444 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section that discusses her views on eugenics. She was not known in her time as a eugenicist, and certainly not as someone who had a racist agenda. She was supported by the leading Black activists of the 20th century, notably Dr. W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many progressives of that period, she did not see the downside of the eugenicist hope that science, through genetics, could improve the human race. It would be inaccurate and ahistorical to label her as a eugenicist in the article's lead. This has been discussed several times before, and the consensus of editors supports the way the article handles the question. NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: And following up to NightHeron, Sanger does not derive her notability from - then popular in society - eugenics but from her work in the field of birth control. The Banner talk 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with NightHeron & The Banner. Her support of negative eugenics is already mentioned in the second paragraph in the lead. To give it any more prominence is WP:UNDUE because it is not something for which she is most notable. WP:NOTOPINION also applies here as well. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with Elove, and it is unfortunate that so many people are shutdown by the same people over-and-over again who claim there is a "consensus," when very clearly there isn't. DocZach (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There clearly is no consensus to change it. Perhaps you need to read WP:EDITCONSENSUS to understand why a controversial change requires a new consensus. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I reverted, but I agree that I'd have approved if I were an uninvolved pending changes reviewer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anytime that someone starts citing a dictionary to support their conclusion we can generally assume that it is original research. I have warned the IP editor accordingly. Peaceray (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the interpretation of Sanger's quote as evidence of racism is ahistorical, because in her time "racial" was often used to refer generally to the human race and did not necessarily refer to different races of humans. For example, eugenics organizations were often called "racial betterment societies". That's clearly the context in which Sanger is speaking. NightHeron (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I would have shot it down, as it is not neutral. The Banner talk 19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, why no mention of this? 

message: This was up for pending changes review and I accepted it per the pending changes criteria which is basically "not vandalism".  Such acceptance does not imply endorsement of the changes. I'm a bit against the change because putting this in without context of differing accepted views then and now probably presents a misleading picture. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted, but I agree that I'd have approved if I were an uninvolved pending changes reviewer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anytime that someone starts citing a dictionary to support their conclusion we can generally assume that it is original research. I have warned the IP editor accordingly. Peaceray (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the interpretation of Sanger's quote as evidence of racism is ahistorical, because in her time "racial" was often used to refer generally to the human race and did not necessarily refer to different races of humans. For example, eugenics organizations were often called "racial betterment societies". That's clearly the context in which Sanger is speaking. NightHeron (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I would have shot it down, as it is not neutral. The Banner talk 19:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: March 12th change

message: @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)
replies: text: How about keeping "nurse" (which was her main profession) and deleting "educator" (which was not)? NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Short description