Talk:Phyllis Schlafly/Archive 1

Archive 1

First comments

I have just received an email, apparently from 148.63.145.182, questioning the description of three of the arguments the articles describes Schlafly as making against the ERA: "unisex bathrooms", "an end to automatic maternal custody in the case of divorce", and "the weakening of punishments for sex crimes committed towards women." I've not yet had the chance to consult any offline scholarly sources on the matter, but some quick Google searches appear to turn up enough to preserve the descriptions for now, at least on the bathrooms and divorce issues:

1. Bathrooms: Boston Globe column, Encarta article
2. Divorce: Georgetown Law paper, Schlafly Report, 1986

I'm still looking for more sources on the sex crimes/rape issue -- the argument was definitely made by the Stop ERA movement, which Schlafly led, I just haven't immediately found anything connecting it to her personally.

RadicalSubversiv E 29 June 2005 07:29 (UTC)

It is silly to argue this point, when primary sources are so easily available. The above "Schlafly Report" summarizes her arguments against ERA. If you want to be fair, then just quote or paraphrase that document. Instead, you've skipped a couple of the biggest arguments, and included a couple that she never made. Perhaps you are confusing financial support with custody. These are quite different issues. Your sources do not say she used the "automatic maternal custody" argument.

Seeing as how the primary sources on Schlafly's ERA arguments consist not just of one of her newsletters, but probably thousands of pages of legislative testimony and news reports, most of them over twenty years old, they're actually not so easily available. As it happens, that newsletter specifically says "ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, abortion, homosexual laws, sex crimes, private and public schools, prison regulations, and insurance" (emphasis added). RadicalSubversiv E 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly was saying that child custody and sex crimes should be under the jurisdiction of the states, not Congress. She was not saying whether those laws should be stronger or weaker or anything else.

My guess is that you are too young to remember ERA, and that you don't understand why anyone would oppose it.

If you are going to characterize her arguments, then you should look at what she actually said, not what you imagine her arguments to be.

Your point about Congress and legislative authority is well-taken -- I should've been reading more closely. I'll continue looking for more info and direct citations, but right now I think there's good cause to keep at least the bathrooms and divorce issues pending further investigation. Incidentally, your edit also removes a perfectly accurate sentence describing feminists vilification of Schlafly.

Ad hominem arguments are not particularly helpful here. As it happens, I've studied the history of the modern American right enough to be moderately familiar with the ERA debate. On my bookshelf is sitting Matthews and De Hart's Sex, Gender, and the Politics of the ERA, which is very good but unfortunately doesn't quote from Schlafly very much (it's focused primarily on the ratification battle in NC). I recall Mansbridge's Why We Lost the ERA to be pretty interesting, but I don't have it handy.

Finally, please sign your posts on talk pages.

RadicalSubversiv E 1 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

I am sure you have studied ERA history. But people are just not good at presenting arguments with which they disagree. I suggest that you just stick to what she says.

I removed the other sentence because I don't think that it is accurate either. I've heard many feminists vilify Phyllis Schlafly for many different reasons, but never for being "weak and subservient". I don't object to a statement that she was vilified, as long as it accurately describes the vilification.

Some other things are not quite right either. I wouldn't say that she advocated Kennedy's impeachment, although it has occasionally been reported that way. I would say that she suggested impeachment, or maybe that she advocated impeachment hearings.

Schlafly 2 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

I continue to believe that several of the arguments we've been discussing were actually made, but I don't have the time or resources to do further research at the moment. However, your latest edit also removed description of several arguments which you have not contested here, and which almost certainly were made (same-sex marriage, in particular). I have restored these; please do not remove them again w/o explaining your rationale. RadicalSubversiv E 3 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

I wish that you would stop inserting an inaccurate list of arguments. You've got the wrong arguments, the wrong emphasis, the wrong order, etc. The errors are compounded when you refer to "most of these claims". It suggests that you have a complete or representative list of arguments. You don't. I don't think that it is true that most of her claims were contested. Some were contested but most were not.

I put in the link to the page with the actual arguments. Schlafly 4 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

Sorry, this simply doesn't cut it. Unless you're prepared to specifically deny that Schlafly made the arguments you're trying to remove (as opposed to the ones I've already agreed to remove pending further investigation), you don't get to remove them just because you don't like the "emphasis." I have added an accuracy dispute tag and posted a Request for comment seeking input from others. RadicalSubversiv E 4 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Response to RfC: I am an eyewitness, I recall hearing Phyllis Schlafly speak on numerous occassion regarding the subject. This language,

arguing that it would require

clearly is a recycled extrapolation of Schlafly's vilifiers from the period. Schlafly is a lawyer, and always made clear that given the appropriate legistlation or court ruling ERA could lead too, such and such. As stated, the article clearly is in error. Further, the research is faulty & in error, which I noticed prima facia. The ERA amendment expired in 1980, as any living citizen of that time knew; Congress unconstitutionally pretended to extend the goal line another 3 years, but no one, Supreme Court included, took them seriously. Ultimately, the extension proved to the electorate that proponents didn't care about the established rules of the Constitution to achieve their aims, and was a doubly embarassing defeat when no State Legislatures even voted on the measure after 1980.Nobs01 5 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

P.S. Somebody forgot to insert this into the ERA article (of course).

On December 23, 1981, U.S. District Court ruled, in Idaho v. Freeman that the ERA Time Extension was unconstitutional. When the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was dismissed as "moot" on October 4, 1982. Nobs01 5 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

I have no objections to the "could lead to" language, which matches my recollection of the material I've read. The 1980 v. 1982 issue should probably be explained, perhaps in a footnote. RadicalSubversiv E 5 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Yes it needs some explaination, but the ERA article itself prior to yesterday had two paragraphs on the subject, and nowhere was there a hint that those two paragraphs were moot. Nobs01 5 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

I still object to the list of arguments. It puts "unisex bathrooms" first, as if that were the most important argument. I don't think that she even made the argument, and if she did, it would have been only after making about 20 other arguments. If the entry is going to list her arguments, then it should list them as she made the arguments. She usually made the military draft argument first.

I also deny that ERA proponents contested most of her claims. They usually conceded that ERA would make girls subject to the military draft. Not only is the sentence on ERA proponents wrong, it doesn't even belong. Arguments for ERA can be found elsewhere. If you want to put that sentence back in, then please supply some documentation to support it.

I don't know why you took out the list to her actual arguments. If it is so important to summarize her arguments, then why not put in a link that tells the full story? Schlafly 6 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

I don't really care what order the list is in, but the text makes no representation concerning which arguments she stressed most (the unisex bathrooms got a lot of press, which I could grab citations for pretty easily if I were anywhere near a university library). The purpose of including the sentence regarding ERA proponents is to ensure that the reader realizes that most of those on the other side of the debate didn't accept the notion that the ERA would have that effect at all.

Feel free to add the link as an external link in the appropriate section, or as a citation (surround it by brackets). Wikipedia Style (see WP:MOS) is generally not to incorporate external links into the text of the article. Regardless, I very much dispute the notion that a single newsletter article, published several years after the ERA debate was effectively over, constitutes "the whole story."

RadicalSubversiv E 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Schlafly often spoke of protections women recieved because of their sex under the law, child custody and child support being some of the most obvious. ERA would have radically and constitutionally mandated the way courts view family law, and these arguements had a profound effect. I don't see any reference to the special protections women have (and still have), draft registration being another one of the most obvious today. Nobs01 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

There's no mention of the child custody and child support issue because User:Schlafly claimed that she never made such arguments and removed mention of them, and I opted to assume good faith until I found specific citations to the contrary. RadicalSubversiv E 6 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Child custody and child support may seem like obvious issues to talk about, but Phyllis Schlafly hardly ever talked about them. Her newsletter article about ERA may not be "the whole story" on ERA, but it does accurately describe the arguments that she made. This Wiki entry is about the arguments that she made, so I think that it is an authoritative source.

Some of her arguments were disputed, and some were not. I don't think that anyone disputed her claim that the ERA would end the female exemption from the military draft. Some did dispute whether ERA would have any effect on same-sex marriage, but she was ultimately proved correct. Schlafly 6 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

The ERA debate ran for several years, and Schlafly was easily the most visible and effective opponent. A single newsletter article, especially one written years after the fact, is not the final word on every argument she ever made on the subject.

The wording merely stated that proponents disputed "most" of the arguments that she made, which is accurate -- I think the draft issue is pretty much the only point on which she wasn't challenged. Whether she was correct about same-sex marriage or not is a totally moot point, as ERA didn't pass.

RadicalSubversiv E 6 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

I distinctly recall arguements among feminists refuting the draft issue, somehow speaking out of both sides of their mouth that women would still recieve special protections under the law that the law now gives, which Schlafly laid as the basis would disappear. Nobs01 6 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

I remember hearing some feminists argue that after Vietnam, the USA wasn't going to fight any more wars. But other feminists seem to very much want women to be drafted if men were. They wanted women fully integrated into all segments of society, including the military. But anyway, it seems unnecessary to characterize the arguments of unnamed feminists. This is an article about Phyllis Schlafly. Even without explicitly saying so, the reader is likely to assume that some people disagreed with her. Schlafly 6 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

NPOV requires a neutral presentation of all points of view on a subject -- in this case, that requires at least giving some mention of the fact that others found the brunt of her arguments completely counterfactual. If you aren't willing to pay even the most cursory respect to Wikipedia's policies, don't edit here. RadicalSubversiv E 6 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

I am just correcting inaccuracies. No one found her arguments "completely counterfactual". Sure, some people disagreed with her opinions, but isn't that always the case? Do you go around to other biographical entries and add statements like, "his political opponents disagreed with him." That would be silly. If there is really reason to say that there was some disagreement, then say it in a neutral way and say what the disagreement was. But you want to just imply that she was wrong, without saying what she was wrong about. That is not a NPOV. Schlafly 7 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Removal of claims

I've just removed some of the material just added by an anonymous editor. The basic problem is that nothing cited in the text which actually supports these claims. Finding a bunch of close Supreme Court cases does not demonstrate that the ERA would have changed their outcome. Also, "State courts have interpreted state equivalents of ERA as requiring government funding of abortions and also gay marriage" is a highly incendiary statement to be making without citation -- the only decision I know of is the MA gay marriage case. There's definitely a need for more citations in this article, but let's please start with citing what Schlafly said, not constructing hyperbolic and hypothetical legal scenarios after-the-fact. RadicalSubversiv E 17:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Radicalsubversive is becoming a vandal here, removing completely correct statements just because of his own ignorance. Here is a UCLA law professor blog that said in 2003 and 2005 that Phyllis Schlafly's claims about homosexual marriage were hotly disputed at the time, but ultimately proven correct by various court decisions around the country.

Radicalsubversive thought that it was important to say that P.S.'s claims were disputed. If so, then it is more important to say whether those claims were correct or not, in those cases where we now have the answer. In fact, some of her claims (like those regarding the military draft) were not disputed, and some (like same-sex marriage) were disputed. When you tell the reader of a dispute, it is best to tell the outcome (if known).

For the record, I am related to P.S., but I do not know who made the anonymous changes. It was not me. Schlafly 03:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That is true regarding homosexual marriage, it was treated as a Non sequitur, and evidence that she was crazy by her opponents. Rather, it appears, more prophetic. Nobs01 18:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Recently I heard a quote from a homosexual activist that sexual activity and the sexual act "has no gender". Here is the full quote,

"Sex is sex. Sex has no gender."

You are obviously both entitled to your opinions on the matter -- what you are not entitled to do is insert them into Wikipedia articles as fact, especially when such speculation is totally unsourced. The "outcome" is not "known," because ERA did not pass. RadicalSubversiv E 19:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the paragraph back in. It is factual and you have sources. If you have some dispute about the accuracy, then please state just what the dispute is. Schlafly 20:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That single court case, which has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion, does nothing to justify the blanket (POV) claims it is cited in support of -- and the whole matter has next-to-nothing to do with Schlafly. This is not the place for random editorializing about the ERA. RadicalSubversiv E 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Many more court cases can be added, if you like. You wanted info about the correctness of Phyllis Schlafly's ERA arguments, and someone has been kind enough to insert the info. I think that you are just a little unhappy about the evidence. Schlafly 16:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said I wanted info about the correctness of her arguments, just whether she made them. And I certainly did not ask for the article to make summary judgements about hypothetical legal scenarios, which is an obvious violation of our neutral point of view policy, which you appear never to have read. RadicalSubversiv E 17:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The user Radicalsubversive repeatedly put in the sentence, "ERA proponents equally vigorously contested most of these claims." The statement was wrong and misleading. Someone was kind enough to actually submit some info about the validity of some of those claims. Radicalsubversive is the one who enters inaccurate text, and violates the NPOV.

I hope that Radicalsubversive will stop vandalizing this web page. Schlafly 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I said that her opponents contested most of her claims. This is true, and has nothing to do with whether we should include biased and inaccurate speculation as to the accuracy of those claims based on irrelevant court cases more than twenty years after the fact. Please stop accusing me of vandalism, and start obeying Wikipedia editorial policies. RadicalSubversiv E 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No it is not true that opponents contested most of her claims. I challenge you to document that. You are the one who refuses to adopt a neutral point of view. You want to put in a completely unsubstantiated statement that implies that her claims were wrong. Someone has inserted evidence that her claims were right. A neutral point of view would allow whatever good evidence there is for or against the accuracy of her claims.

You are just a vandal because you delete accurate info that you just don't like. If you think that it is wrong, then explain why it is wrong. You have been given documentation on why it is correct and why it is relevant. You need to read those Wikipedia editorial policies. Schlafly 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement "ERA proponents equally vigorously contested most of these claims" is accurate, is extensively documented in newspapers of the time, in television and radio reports at the time, and in books written since, and is neutral. It is not a statement about which side was correct; it is an accurate report that Phyllis Schlafly's claims about the potential impacts of the ERA were contested. -- Lisasmall 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of her anti-ERA claims were indeed contested; I question the word "most". Her anti-ERA claims are listed here: [1]. I do not think that you can find documentation that "most" of these claims were "vigorously contested". Therefore, I am changing "most" to "some". Schlafly 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John Schlafly

I'm just curious...is there a reason why John Schlafly and his outing doesn't appear on this page? It seems rather significant but his only mention that I can find is in that "6 children" line at the end.--TheGrza 09:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a critic of Phyllis Schlafly, but she never made a career of attacking gay people, and the sexual orientation of her son does not seem to be a big element in her career, unless you think she was an antigay crusader, which she was not.--Cberlet 16:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just re-read the page, and there is a NPOV and short mention of John already in the text.--Cberlet 16:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. I will say that her son's sexual orientation is important because she has campaigned against gay rights and has campaigned vigourously for "traditional family values" and groups that champion them, groups that often reject homosexuality as deviant and a choice.--TheGrza 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

When has Schlafly "campaigned" against gay rights? Generic "traditional family values" of course includes that in a laundry list, but I don't think it is fair to say she has "campaigned" against gay rights.--Cberlet 12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only did she campaign against gay rights, she still does. For one example, just check out the Eagle Forum site. [2] (Schafly founded Eagle Forum and is its president). Quoting from the description of her radio broadcasts (I'll put emphasis in to make it really easy to spot):

Currently, Eagle Forum broadcasts discuss:

• teaching fundamentals in schools,
• parents' rights in education,
• keeping America's defense strong,
• stopping abortion,
• battling the gay and feminist agendas,
• cleaning up the arts,
• protecting freedom against government snooping,
• exposing the lies of radical liberals,
• and exalting faith and prayer as the true answer to America's moral crisis of values.

I don't think it's fair to say she hasn't campaigned against gay rights. Does the fact that she pushes multiple issues mean that none of them really "count"? I'm not clear on the reasoning. --Tabor 08:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

When I first read the article today, John Schlafly's outing wasn't in there, and it should be. Having a gay director, son of the founder, of an organization which agitates against civil rights for homosexuals (including the right to marry) continues to be a major issue for Phyllis Schlafly and for the Eagle Forum. In a NPOV note in the text, I put in there what major press sources have said, and what is common knowledge: the controversy about John does not end because other children of conservative politicians continue to come out and be forced out, and every time they do, Phyllis & John Schlafly are back in the public eye regarding the seeming hypocrisy of his position at Eagle Forum, and Eagle Forum's positions on people like him. The information is accurate, verifiable, appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion, and germane to Schlafly's article. It is sourced in detail in the edit summary for the change I made a few moments ago. -- Lisasmall 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: There is no "right" to marry. The US Constitution does not mention marriage, as the Framers did not see it as a matter for the Federal government to deal with. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Correcting false insertions

User:FeloniousMonk has inserted a number of false and biased statements, and gives only the justification: "Read WP:AUTO, you shouldn't be editing this article. Also, content has a source" The WP:AUTO article recommends against the subject of article inserting puffery about himself. The article is not about me, and I did not insert anything about myself. WP:AUTO also suggests that it is appropriate for an article subject to revert vandalism or to correct facts. I was removing false statements, and I was entirely consistent with WP:AUTO. If you think that the statements are true, then tell me how they can be verified. Eg, just what is the "elite Catholic girls' school that stressed Christian anti-Communism"? How did it stress Christian anti-Communism, whatever that is? I sign my edits with my real name. Roger 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The material has a source (maybe you should read what you are deleting). And since it has a source it can be verified - consult the source. WP:AUTO applies to people that you are too close to be objective - it's impossible to be objective about one's own parents. It definitely applies to you.

I have no idea what you mean by "I sign my edits with my real name". Is that somehow connected to the rest of your post, or is that just part of your signature? I'm puzzled. Guettarda 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a plea for immunity from the strictures of WP:AUTO via a claim of transparency in editing. •Jim62sch• 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I say that I am complying with the letter and the spirit of WP:AUTO. I am not inserting puffery or removing legitimate negative information or anything like that. But do you really believe that there was elite Catholic girls' school that stressed Christian anti-Communism in the 1930s?

Admittedly, I am not neutral. But neither is a statement that Schlafly is a "one-woman propagandist for the far-right" or that she made it more difficult for any women to forge a career in the paid labor force. Just how has she ever made it more difficult for anyone to forge a career? This stuff is inappropriate in anyone's biography. Any political figure could be described as a propagandist. It doesn't inform; it is just name-calling. Go ahead and describe her views, if you want, but don't just quote some name-calling from someone who hates her. Roger 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk in a WP vandal who continues to put false information in this article, and refuses to address the matter on this discussion page. If anyone disagrees, please say so here. Roger 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Schlafly for 24 hours for his war over this issue, including calling FM a vandal. Be aware that he will be unable to respond here until the 24 hours is up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my original comment - why do you believe that Ehrenreich isn't a reliable source? What evidence do you have for this? Guettarda 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Roger Schlafly

Roger, I'd ask you to refrain from editing this article directly. WP:AUTO is a good guideline, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." There's a clear conflict of interest.

Having said that, if there is false information in the article, then Wikipedia needs to fix it ASAP. Therefore, please do use this talk page to explain what exactly it is you believe to be false, and why. Further, you were removing sourced paragraphs; you should therefore also explain why the source does not support the assertion, or why the source should not be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, or why the interpretation of the source is conjectural. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I followed that WP:AUTO policy. I did not write an article about myself, or my mom. The AUTO policy says: "it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; ... you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself".

I simply removed some false and biased statements about my mom. I also started a discussion on the Talk page, in case anyone disagreed with me. No one disagreed, but FeloniousMonk kept re-inserting the false statements anyway. His only excuse was to say that I should not be editing the page. It is unclear whether he thinks that the statements are true or false.

Yes, I do think that it is vandalism for FeloniousMonk to repeatedly insert false statements into a WP page when (1) he appears to know nothing about the subject matter, (2) he refuses to engage in the discussion on the Talk page, and (3) he is motivated purely by some personal issue with me.

If there is some WP policy against me identifying myself and correcting errors on my mom's biography page, then show me the policy. If there is such a policy, then I'll ask someone else to make the changes anonymously. Anyone who reads this can also make the edits. Roger 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO says "This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." There's also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

It's false to say that no one but FM has disagreed with you. In reality, no one has agreed with you. You have claimed that there are problems with material attributed to Ehrenreich. As I asked before - do you believe that the material attributed to Ehrenreich misrepresents what Ehrenreich actually said, or do you believe that Ehrenreich is inaccurate? Guettarda 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When WP:AUTO says "This applies", the "This" refers to "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved." I did not write the article about Phyllis Schlafly. I waited for others to write the article. I merely removed false statements, as WP:AUTO says that I should do. I complied with WP policy, and improved the article.

Of the statements that I removed, no one here has argued that they are correct. No one here has argued that the source is reliable. No one besides me appears to even know anything about the subject matter.

User:FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua^?!?, and Matt Crypto all seem to have some personal issue with me. (•Jim62sch•'s comment was neutral.) What would anyone say if an anonymous user made the same changes? Roger 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you persuade an "anonymous user" to remove these sourced statements without explanation, then they will also be reverted. How about you do what you've been asked to do several times, and argue the case for your changes. Is that so hard? — Matt Crypto 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When it appears that everyone is out to get you, it's worth stopping for a moment and wondering if, just maybe, you are the one who is mistaken.

As I asked before - do you believe that the material attributed to Ehrenreich misrepresents what Ehrenreich actually said, or do you believe that Ehrenreich is inaccurate? Ehrenreich is a respectable author and journalist - the onus is on you to support your claim that she is a liar who hates your mother. Guettarda 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Ehrenreich is accurately quoted (that's a question, not my assumption), there seems to be an error here in attribution. The statements are referenced to Ehrenreich as fact: wouldn't they better be attributed as the author's opinion, if in fact, the statements are actually in the book? Sandy (Talk) 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is just the opinion of a detractor. It would make more sense to put Ehrenreich's opinions on her own page. Roger 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence to support your assertion that Ehrenreich is wrong. Guettarda 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger, please provide some evidence to support your assertion that Ehrenreich is wrong. Guettarda 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know anything about the subject matter? Her opinion is just an opinion, at best. See the discussion here. [[3]] Roger 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you have no support for your claims. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to support the claim that Ehrenreich's opinion is just Ehrenreich's opinion. Roger

Yes, but at this point it's a notable opinion with a source, which is more than you can claim for your opinion that Ehrenreich is inaccurate. The question put to you was provide some evidence to support your assertion that Ehrenreich is wrong. You have yet to do so, so Ehrenreich's opinion is fine. FeloniousMonk 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate concerns raised by Schlafly

"Sheltered by her husband Fred Schlafly's ample income and assisted by a part-time housekeeper, the woman who would insist that "she had no intention of following in her mother's footsteps and becoming -- even voluntarily -- a career woman" (Ehrenreich 153) ironically developed a new career as a one-woman propagandist for the far-right, consequently making it more difficult for any women to forge a career in the paid labor force (Ehrenreich 153)." seems to me have issues. First, we need to make clear what is being attributed to Ehenreich directly here. Second, "ironically", "propagandist" are both not NPOV. I would suggest at minimum removing ironically and replacing propaganist with "spokesperson" JoshuaZ 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. — Matt Crypto 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is additional discussion over at [[4]]. At best, these are opinions presented as fact, and do not belong. Roger 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This garbage has no place here and I'm deleting it.Shield2 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Republican candidates deemed not suitable by author Phyllis Schlafly. Concord Monitor ^ | February 22, 2007 | WALTER ALARKON

Conservative author Phyllis Schlafly urged New Hampshire Republican activists to test the conservative bona fides of the 2008 presidential candidates, especially those of the three Republicans leading in polls.

"New Hampshire is the front line of the presidential race, and as I go about and talk to the conservative movement, they're in disarray," said Schlafly, who led opposition to the failed Equal Rights Amendment more than 25 years ago. "They don't know what to do, who to back. We're told by the media that we have a choice of one of three, (Sen. John) McCain or (former New York mayor Rudy) Giuliani or (former Massachusetts governor Mitt) Romney. Each one of them is capable of raising $100 million. I'm not happy of being told that at all. I don't think that any of the three are acceptable."

She spoke yesterday at Newick's Restaurant in Merrimack before about 50 people, including members of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the National Right to Life Committee and staffers of Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign. She told them to ask hard questions of each candidate so that each would commit himself. But she made clear that she thought that McCain, Romney and Giuliani lacked credibility on issues important to her - immigration, gay marriage and abortion.

She disagreed with McCain's choice to co-sponsor legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy that would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Instead, she supported building a fence and fortifying the border patrol on the country's southern border.

Romney didn't impress her when she saw him speak in Missouri.

"Mitt Romney's very handsome, very attractive, a wonderful speaker with a wonderful resume," but he didn't focus on conservative issues, she said.

Instead, he focused on his turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics, she said.

As for Giuliani, Schlafly said his standing at the top of polls won't last. "The polls also say that people don't know that he's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anti-gun," she said. "I think those polls will change when people find out."

McCain, Giuliani and Romney are the top three candidates in the latest poll of likely Republican primary voters by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Schlafly, 82, visited New Hampshire to stump for issues she has long supported. Yesterday, she urged state legislators to fight the repeal of the parental-notification abortion law at a press conference in Concord. Schlafly, reviled by feminists for opposing the constitutional amendment calling for equal rights for both sexes, also spoke to a women's studies class at Southern New Hampshire University. Tuesday, she met with Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican candidate from California also visiting the state. Schlafly has backed iconoclastic candidates before, including Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes and Ronald Reagan.

Her books include The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Feminist Fantasies and A Choice, Not an Echo, which criticized the Republican Eastern establishment and was distributed by Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. She is the founder of the Eagle Forum, a St. Louis-based conservative volunteer group, and has fought for a pro-life plank to be included in the national GOP platform since 1984.

Those who attended Schlafly's speech echoed her call to confront candidates and to make sure voters listen to everyone running, not just the poll leaders. Larry R. Holmgren 01:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fathers' Rights Movement

Phyllis Schlafly has challenged the best interests of the child standard as higly subjective and based on the prejudices of custody evaluators.

Should this position be mentioned in the article?

Michael H 34 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

National Defense

Phyllis Schlafly wrote five books on National Defense (one which sold two million copies) and was best known before ERA for her work on this, what's more when she was first approached about debating ERA she turned it down because she was only interested in National Defense. What's more one fourth of Feminist Fantasies is dedicated to Military Policy on women, shouldn't this be mentioned? 216.201.33.20 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad jokes and deleted nonsense from the family section...

On Andrew Schlafly: "...She has numerous grandchildren over the great expanse of the United States, a testiment to manifest destiny itself. But above all is the up and coming Andrew Schlafly, literally and figuratively (he is six feet nine inches). This distinguished scholar, noted for his precocious talents in what might be deemed "useless" fields, is a student at Harvard and a giant among men. His intellectual capacities are quickly eclipsing an American nation marked by a dearth of towering titans (the most obvious explanation stemming from the proliferation of big men being lost to basketball). "I've always stood erect in real life and the issues that plague the American conscience." You might have seen him on such noteworthy programs including C-SPAN 2, commenting on the deterioration of ethical values in a materialist society. He has many catch phrases attributed to his name, chief among them being, "What Insolence! This is a den of iniquities and a fashion faux pas!" Look for his book, "Walking Tall, Standing Firm" at your local Barnes and Noble next to Anthony Robbins' "The Giant Within". Way to go, Andrew!"129.215.76.40 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Steinem

I'd suggest Gloria Steinem ought to be referenced as "Feminist" rather than "Journalist", not sure if that would be adequately NPOV, but you wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh a "Journalist" in the context of criticizing Bill Clinton, for example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Furthermore, the references do not actually say that Steinem accused her of hypocrisy, so I will just delete the paragraph. The closest is where Steinem accuses unspecified "right-wing media shills" of being hypocritical. [5] Roger 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Then you should rewrite Wikipedia article on Mrs. Steinem. And speaking of NPOV, it's not a good point Schlafly, since you're Phyllis' son, aren't you?

Back to the citation, let's read Steinem's own words: I think that that’s hypocritical because there are right-wing women who are pursuing their professional career and not staying home. I think they’re using it as a target of opportunity. Phyllis Schlafly doesn't stay home.

I believe it's accurate to say that Steinem made her point. —DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In that quote, Steinem is not accusing the "right-wing women" of hypocrisy. She is attacking some "right-wing media shills" who criticized Howard Dean's wife without similarly criticizing the right-wing women. The Steinem sentence is not neutral, and is not even correct, according to the cited sources. Please remove it. Roger 04:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right... up to a point. Note that Steinem makes a direct mention of your mother, so what do you make of it?

Second, if Steinem is neutral or not, I'm sorry, but the NPOV rule applies only to editors. It would be absurd to demand neutrality from every source on the net.

Finally, you're forgetting the second source which supports the section: TIME magazine. —DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 05:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Steinem mentions Phyllis Schlafly, but does not accuse her of hypocrisy. Howard Dean's wife is mentioned in the same way, and she is not accused of hypocrisy either. I said that "The Steinem sentence is not neutral, and is not even correct". The complaint is about the sentence. No one cares whether Steinem herself is neutral or not. Finally, the Time article does not even mention either Steinem or hypocrisy. So there is no support for the sentence. Please remove it. Roger 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I won't try to make you understand something so simple. Besides, if you check the article's History, I originally wrote that your mother's role as full-time political activist and advocate for the full-time housekeeper has been paradoxical, which indeed is, as TIME magazine and the Steinem quote suggest. Somebody else (user 70.20.82.9) changed it to hypocritical role. —DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has repeatedly and maliciously edited the [Phyllis Schlafly] article with false and derogatory allegations. In his latest,[6] he replaced an actual quote from Gloria Steinem with a mischaracterization; he also embellished a Schlafly quote with a mischaracterization of that quote. He does not explain himself on the Talk page. All of his edits are contrary to WP policy. Roger 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the malicious edits. FeloniousMonk and Tmtoulouse can express their opinions here on the Talk page. Roger 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article, you have an obvious conflict of interest and are moving against the consensus of editors. Gain a new consensus on the talk page do not edit the article. Tmtoulouse 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the housekeeper is a proper addition to the article. We can discuss the text, but simply deleting it is not acceptable.--Cberlet 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Steinem did not say anything about any housekeeper. Please stick to what she actually said. Roger 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The link to the Steinem article is broken. I removed it and the bit she said and put a citation by Pia de Solenni. And Roger, you were wrong all the time. | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Her self-contradictory role

Regarding the recent edits, how would you define Phyllis Schlafly's role: self-contradictory? paradoxical? Or a suppression of the word would suffice?

Seriously, how do you pretend to illustrate the point of the sources? If we built articles like this, Wikipedia would be nothing more than a very simplified encyclopedia. | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 04:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is irrelevant. I was just correcting the text to match the quotes. Roger (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's face facts. Several editors on this page are acting like children. Cut it out. If this silliness keeps up I will ask that the page be locked until you find a compromise or go away. Grow up.--Cberlet (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, several of the editors are Phyllis Schlafly's children... -R. fiend (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I saw Phyllis just a few weeks ago in DC. I was under the impression that you were supposed to be adults. Perhaps I was wrong. I'll ask her next time I see her. Meanwhile, at least act like adults.--Cberlet 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Authority on national defense

As the co-author of several books on national defense, why is there an objection to calling Schlafly an authority on the subject? I don't agree with what she has to say about national defense or much else, but to deny that she is an authority when there is a cite seems petty.--Cberlet (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I back up this statement, I would also make a point that Phyllis Schlafly is not necassarily a self-appointed authority either. According to the slip cover of one of her books on National Defense, she was the only woman INVITED by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify on the Nuclear Test Ban of 1963. I have also read that she was (although I may be wrong) on Ronald Reagans Defense Advisory Board, although I can't find a source. She has also stated that in the late sixties she was invited as part of a small group to tour NORAD in Colorado.

At any rate the majority of her writings, 5 books on National Defense, 1/4 of her book Feminist Fantesies, and occaisionally her Phyllis Schlafly Report newsletter focus on National Defense, and Nuclear Strategy, how women in the military, and how International treaties, will impact this.

The subject even comes up in her debate (posted on her website) entitled "ERA is their a future" when she discusses both the draft and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Agree or disagree it can not be denied that she is something of an authority, and has been for nearly 40 years. 216.201.12.156 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reputable Published Sources

On a contentious page like this, it is best to avoid marginal web sources, no matter what their political orientation.--Cberlet (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Original

Levels (color and contrast) adjusted

I hope you don't mind, but I replaced the image originally in the article (top right), with a color and contrast adjusted image (bottom right). TableManners^C·U·T 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• That looks great, thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

The source cited for "She and her Eagle Forum have been accused of censorship fights against Nobel-prize winning author John Steinbeck and photographer Robert Mapplethorpe" does not look particularly compelling. I suggest we remove it pending a better source, per WP:BLP.

(As an aside, I don't think it's particularly appropriate for Roger Schlafly to edit war on a page where he has a clear conflict of interest). — Matt Crypto 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the source is not a RS, and I too would strongly advocate Roger Schlafly move to the talk pages of articles about his family members. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that people agree with the content of my edits. I followed WP procedures in making the edits, but FeloniousMonk blocked me for it anyway. Roger (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not follow proper procedure at all you should have brought your concerns to the talk page to discuss them rather than doing clearly pov edits on an article you have no business editing at all. Your edits were also non-encyclopedic and completely a wp:point. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or why I should discuss my concerns with you. You are the one who put false and unsourced allegations in the article. Please stop. I will continue to edit the article unless there is some WP policy against it. As of now, there is not. Roger (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is the Conflict of Interest policy, which applies to you and makes your participation on this talk page imperative, and your actual editing quite precarious. If you want to preserve your access to this (and related) article(s), as well as to editing Wikipedia at all, be very careful. As to your attitude toward other editors, be very careful and treat them with respect. You are obligated to collaborate with all editors, including editors with whom you disagree. If you can't get used to that, then the door is right over there.... -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

@Roger: If you have concerns regarding this biography, you can place a note explaining these atWP:BLP/N. Edit-warring is never a good thing, and less so when editing with a conflict of interest. If you must, use WP:BRD, and do not revert other editors, rather, ask for help: Asking for help is one of the best ways to address issues related to BLPs in which you have an interest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" and more liberal weaselling

I find myself wondering whether or not the entire last half of the "criticism" section is a phenomenal joke, or whether some immature, liberal, one-man hate-machine got his rocks off repeating some of the most childishly vile examples of publically-acceptable political hate speech thinkable. Articulating a desire to "knock" a political enemy "into the next time zone" with one's car is not "criticism" by any means. Is it supposed to make Mrs. Schlafly look bad, then, that some overemotionally-vested radical imbeciles said they'd like to see her physically harmed?

Indeed, I further wonder if the author of these paragraphs isn't some "mischevious" troublemaker himself, taking glee in reporting the manifest irony of a hysterical rabble-rouser suggesting that a woman with whom she disagrees ideologically is irrational while implying that the woman deserves to be "hit in the mouth."

I submit that the entire paragraph be eliminated from the article; such a humorous polemic has no place outside of disreputable, malignant(?) corners of the web such as Penny-Arcade.com or thedailykos, and certainly has no conservapedic basis.--75.148.171.69 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.171.69 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but this well-thought-out rebuttal *must* be in violation of some wikipedia policy somehwere! I'm aware that wikipedia subscribes quite intensely to a nepotistic in-group philosophy, but just because you have a real name and all I have is an IP address certainly doesn't exclude you from the usual rigourous decision-making process here; you may note upon reexamination of our exchange that, while I listed my exact reasoning for proposing the removal of the nonencyclopaedic content, your response was stangely devoid of *any* logical rationalisation *whatsoever* of the continued presence of the offending paragraph.

It seems rather clear from your previous exchanges with others on this talk page that you are quite personally involved with the notion that Mrs. Schlafly is underserving of any sort of objective "fair shake" here on wikipedia. By my estimation, your palpable dislike of the woman makes you unqualified to claim unbiased observance, and for that reason, I cannot accept your response as final. I therefore request that an unbiased moderator weigh in on the subject, and again I would like to make my point: outrageous unsubstantative insults are *not* criticism by any means. It is one thing to say, "This woman is a hypocrite; she practices not what she preaches," or, "This woman is a right harridan, as she's full of hateful speech." It is quite another thing altogether to say "I want to punch the woman!"

In perspective, I'd like the moderator to keep in mind that there are polemicists on the right side of the fence who are constantly bandying about with contumely of the highest degree -- Ann Coulter comes most immediately to mind. I don't believe anyone takes Ms. Coulter's most scandalous philippics as valid criticisms by any means: in this vein, a statement such as "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building" could never be seen as a valid "criticism" of the New York Times rather than a peurile expression of her clear antipathy towards the Times. Likewise, a radical making an equivalently infantile statement of desire for an opponent to come to physical harm cannot, under any definition of the word, be construed as a "criticism."--75.148.171.69 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article gives her more of a fair shake than she deserves all ready. Your melodramatic hyperbole aside, the article includes sourced criticisms and thats not going to change to fit your whims. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You've managed to really talk yourself into a corner with this one: as per wikipedia NPOV policy, everyone (even Che Guevara!) "deserves" a "fair shake" in its entirety. Your peculiar insistence that Ms. Schafly has gotten here "more of a fair shake than she deserves" makes lucid your dismissal of NPOV policy in regards to this article.

Furthermore, your attempt at ad hominem discredit is just rubbish; no-one is being hyperbolic -- the analogy to Ms. Coulter's statements is quite grounded in logical analysis -- much less melodramatic -- are you certain you even know what that word means? -- and no-one is asking that the sourced criticisms be removed from the article. I am all for the inclusion of valid criticisms; I never petitioned that the first two paragraphs, which are comprised of criticisms that actually fall under the dictionary definition, be removed. I am only asking that the final paragraph, which is completely devoid of criticisms of Ms. Schlafly or her beliefs, be removed from the section in her article entitled "Criticisms;" I should imagine an understanding of astrophysics unnecessary to grasping the rationale behind such a simple request.

As no moderator has chosen to respond to my earlier appeal, I will allow a few more days for the external resolution of this problem. In the absence of moderator decision, I will take it upon myself to remove the offending paragraph. "I would hit the bitch with my car, man," is not a criticism. Would you care to make a section called "Phyllis Schlafly: Vicious Personal Attacks Upon" into which you might add the polemical refuse, be my guest; be simply aware that the aforementioned personal attacks are misplaced under the heading "Criticism."

I would like to emphasise here that I am no great friend of the Schlafly family; Andrew in particular has drawn my ire on a number of occasions for what I perceive to be his contribution to the Neanderthal retrostyling of popular conservatism. I do believe, however, that it is a highly unprofessional embarrassment to wikipedia that a clearly ideologically-based pair of insults is labelled as "criticism" of an individual in his or her biographical entry. Not for Phyllis, then, but for the public integrity of wikipedia, should her article be corrected.--75.148.171.69 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Any whole sale removal of sourced material will be reverted on sight. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Tmtoulouse is severely biased, and should not be editing this article. Roger (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, coming from the one editor on this article that has a clear unequivocal conflict of interest and bias who refuses to abide by wikipedia rules that means a lot. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Message for all the above parties

After hoplessly trying to read the details of the above arguement and near-edit warring on the article, I would suggest that all the parties involved 75.148.171.69, Tmtoulouse, Schlafly, Rodger - and anyone else involved, to go to arbitration to get this whole issue resolved. It has now gotten personal and in now effecting the quality of this article.

I hope both sides would consider the following:

• P. Schlafly is a public person and has made many sourced statements that can be quoted - even if we don't like it.
• that P. Schlafly over the course of her life has created alot of anger with many people and that anger can/could have been shown in this article a POV that we may not agree with.
• that some parties could feel victimized from some of the postitions and statements of P. Schlafly which may indanger their NPOV of the article.
• that some parties are critizing a persons mother and as a result the opposing side is defending her.
• that the blood relatives who are defending P. Schlafly in this article should understand that *may not* have a NPOV and should think carefully their responce and not blanket all of Wikipedia as the same position.
• that it has been noble of some of the parties to admit that they are blood relatives of P. Schlafly and that they should be respected for their honesty towards the subject - even though they may be strongly disagreed with.
• that quoting someone that is threatening violence against someones' mother is going to get a predictable responce. Could another quote be used that makes the point across with reverting to such suggested violence?

I describe the above because I see alot of emotional responces on both sides that are not productive and actually hurting the article. I would suggest that all parties go to arbitration. I wish you luck - Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I, as an admin, have put this page a few days ago. I think that it is time for me to point out something that at least some of the editors seem to have forgotten. The subject is a person. She has relatives. We should extend them much the same courtesy as we would her if she was editing this article. See more specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. GRBerry 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Courtesy was extended, but shoved back in our face repeatedly. A flagrant violator of multiple wikipedia rules and guidelines who is personally antagonistic to fellow editors does not just get a green light because he is editing (once again against wikipedia rules) his mother's article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

-- All the more reason to bring this whole issue to arbitration. All the white noise of "flagrant violator" and other related name calling - even if it's true - should be go through the arbitration process and get it settled there. I have heard very little sound rational responces these past few days and has been more of a forum for near-personal attacks and near-edit waring than anything constructive. The only way Wikipedia works is if there is negociating - even if you don't like what the other side stands for. I agree with GRBerry, Biographies of living persons do apply here also. I strongly urge that everyone go to arbitration - its not going to get settled here, or on the article. I would hope to hear 75.148.171.69, Schlafly, or Rodger if they are open to arbitration. I wish you all luck. Dinkytown (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is ready for arbitration, but I haven't been watching it long enough to be certain. There are earlier steps in dispute resolution which might be worth trying, possibly even trying again. GRBerry 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Disruptive editors with a huge COI like Roger Schlafly are often simply blocked or topic banned, rather than creating more melodrama by using a very disruptive process like the ArbCom process. Such measures as topic banning are less disruptive and solve the problem quite nicely. That gives the blocked/banned editor time to edit other articles and show that they are really interested in creating a good encyclopedia, rather than to just violate policies while promoting and defending their own and their family's interests. A user RFC would be a good place to start. -- Fyslee / talk 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I am not familure with the details of the process, but whatever works as far a sound resolution is the end result. Dinkytown (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, is it usual to have a criticism section on a person's article? It seems to me like the more appropriate place for criticism such as this would be on articles about movements that she is/was involved in, such as "STOP ERA." There is a valid point to be made in that presenting criticism of her ideas on a biographical page about her presents undue bias. I hesitate to post this now because the school IP I'm editing from is a repeat vandal, but I hope my point will still be considered. 204.107.82.201 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sourced criticism of highly controversial and polemic individuals is appropriate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But usually it's integrated in the article. Controversy or criticism sections are discouraged. Oren0 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Template

Honestly, Phyllis has spent her entire life making controversial remarks, and frankly, being quite spiteful towards those who oppose her views. The 'criticism template' is pointless; to think that she is not capable of arousing controversy is to be removed from reality. There will be always criticism on her persona and her work. We should decide about the template, because neutrality for the sake of pleasing some, er, parts involved, is not wise. --Crapunzel (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is better if criticism is integrated into the article instead of standing in a section on its own. Thus the flag to do so. GRBerry 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very subjective. There are so many articles with "Criticism" sections. But I understand, from a wikipedian point of view. --Crapunzel (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

• Several critics of Schlafly argue she sometimes veers off into conspiracy theories about secret elites and global governance.
  • [ref]Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press, p. 202
  • [ref]Drake Bennett, “The Amero Conspiracy,” Boston Globe, November 25, 2007, [7].[ref]

Why was this material deleted? An editor deleted it with the comment,

• well-sourced is not enough - needs to comply with other wiki policy [8]

However that user didn't say which policy this material violates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not actually say that Phyllis Schlafly veers off into conspiracy theories. Roger (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the cited texts make that claim quite clearly. We can expand the paragraph with the actual quotes if you prefer.--Cberlet (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The text I removed had been previously removed by someone else. It suffers from a number of wiki policy problems. Off the top of my head, there are weasil words, there's undue weight, there's a general tone of POV, there's the feeling that someone really hates Phyllis Schlafly and is using this page as a soapbox to get others to hate her as well, the cited Boston Globe article is just an opinion piece that mentions Schlafly once and ties her to Jerome Corsi of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" fame and people still use Wikipedia to defend Kerry on that and this smells like one of those instances, and I'll bet others can find more wiki policy reasons why the removed material is just, plain not wiki worthy. Dare I say it "veers off into conspiracy theories"?

And I agree with Roger's comment as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk, an admin if I am not mistaken, just restored the material basically saying it is well sourced, just like Will Beback. Likely he is unaware of the conversation on this page. And I am not going to revert him now so as to avoid getting on his radar screen. But his restoring the material does not moot this discussion. His saying it is well sourced still fails to address the other wiki policies as we are discussing here. And if I am not mistaken, his status as an admin gives him no special status or weight over any nonadmin when it comes to editing articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has a personal dislike for Phyllis Schlafly, and should not be taken as the last word on the subject.

The cited article only says that she helped create a web site on the North American Union. Some people say that the NAU is a conspiracy theory, but there is a difference of opinion on that. If you want to insert something helpful to the reader, maybe you could insert a pointer to the supposedly conspiratorial NAU web site, and to the NAU controversy. As it is, the paragraph is just worthless criticism that is not backed up by anything. Roger (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The staff writer for the Globe calls fears about a North American Union a conspiracy theory and names Schlafly:

• "Alarmed at the fact that the United States had entered into the arrangement without explicit congressional approval, and by what they saw as a lack of public detail about the meetings, a few conservative activists became convinced that the SPP was the first step in a secret plan to dissolve the three nations into one continental unit. Their suspicions were further inflamed....[and a] fully realized theory was born. In the fall of 2006, Phyllis Schlafly, along with the conservative author Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips, founder of an organization called the Conservative Caucus, started a website dedicated to quashing the coming North American 'Socialist mega-state.'"

P. 202, Right-Wing Populism in America: "A Choice Not and Echo mainstreamed the conspiracist idea that the shadowy elites behind Wall Street capitalism also propped up Moscow communism;" see also Scher, Cold War on the Home Front, Forster and Epstein, Danger on the Right.--Cberlet (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One author? Come on. What's the popular song: "That Don't Impress Me Much." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Other sources:
  • She composed "A Choice Not an Echo," a short book that sold well over 3 million copies and, according to [Elizabeth] Kolbert, "mixed fact, sensational accusations, commonsensical truths, and elaborate conspiracy theories into a compelling but evidently bogus narrative." [9]
  • Washington University is giving Phyllis Schlafly an honorary doctorate. Let me run that by you again. Washington University, the distinguished 155-year-old seat of higher learning in St. Louis, is giving an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly--archfoe of the Equal Rights Amendment, the United Nations, Darwinism and other newfangled notions, and the promoter of innumerable crackpot far-right conspiracy theories who called the Bomb "a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God." [10]
  • When I see people like Joseph Farah, Phyllis Schlafly and Lou Dobbs promoting a laughable conspiracy theory about as credible as the ones about the Illuminati and the Trilateral commission, it disturbs me to see them damaging their reputations when we may need their influence on issues like illegal immigration over the next couple of years. [11]
  • The $64,000 question was posed by a Fox News reporter, Bret Baier. He asked all three heads of state, "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?" Their response was positively sensational. None of the three denied that SPP is leading to a North American Union. The White House transcript of the news conference allows us to assume that the elites of the three countries are, indeed, moving toward North American integration. Bush insulted the questioner and those who want an answer by accusing them of believing in a "conspiracy." Bush twice said he was "amused" by such speculation, but as Queen Victoria famously said, "We are not amused."... U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins supported his boss with an interview in an Ottawa newspaper. He ridiculed "conspiracy theories" and used another cheap debating tactic: setting up a straw man that is easy to knock down. [12] (Apparently even Pres. Bush regards some of the subject's positions as "conspiracy threories".)
  • In the 1980s and early 1990s, military schools, like the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the Citadel came under attack for their all-male policies. Schlafly came to their defense, and since her big crusade, the draft, was a thing of the past, she used conspiracy theories to make her case. [13]
  • Forget conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, black helicopters, Sept. 11, 2001. This is the big one. We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatán to the Yukon. This "SuperCorridor" would allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.... Commentators fulminate against the four-football-fields-wide behemoth as a threat to private property, national security and "a major lifeline of the plan to merge the United States into a North American Community," as conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly wrote. [14]
  • For Old Rightists, such as Phyllis Cchlafly, the New World Order conspiracy occupies the central ideologial place previously held by anticommunism. [15]
  • The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. ...A fully realized theory was born. In the fall of 2006, Phyllis Schlafly, along with the conservative author Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips, founder of an organization called the Conservative Caucus, started a website dedicated to quashing the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."[16]
• And so on. This material is the result of a few minutes on Google. Based on this material I'd say we underplay the subject's involvement in such theories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. But that does not address the other problems, like it sounds like someone has a serious axe to grind. And so on. It's just plain not encyclopedic as presented. 50 sources for something not encyclopedic does not make it encyclopedic. It does, however, go to show how easily people think that if you hear something often enough, it must be true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that in several instances I made edits to this entry to remove unfair and uncited criticisms. I do not have an axe to gind if you are referring to me. I have praised Phyllis Schlafly as a skilled and intelligent organizer, interviewed her, and once even shook her hand and told her how impressed I was with her orgnizing abilities.--Cberlet (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV requires that we inclde all significant points of view. As shown by the sources above, the view thatthe subject promotes conspiracy theories is significant. Can you suggest other wording that won't make it sound like an axe is being ground? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to Terrawatt: It is not true to suggest that a book published by a scholarly publisher is not appropriate as a source under BLP. Please desist from Wikistalking. Please do not bring outside text disputes here in the form of a revenge edit, especially when you know that the issue has been discussed on other pages. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that you should, in your revert, charge Wikistalking in your edit summary, should you? That term is tossed around far too much, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this has become the topic of a lively discussion off-site [17]. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Anti-Gorgias, user:Terrawatt, user:Leatherstocking. I sense a theme. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TINC. But wait -- User:Cberlet, User:Will Beback, User:FeloniousMonk, that may be an exception. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I sense I stepped into the middle of a turf war. I'm going to bow out for now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok to link to stuff that flagrantly breaks WP:BLP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Sometimes, maybe, it depends. For example, if it the primary website of the subject of the article, we normally would link regardless, though some exceptions have been made. If it is a reliable source used in the article, we'd keep the link in the citation. Beyond that, it gets a bit more iffy. See WP:EL for general guidance. GRBerry 18:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign. I meant the link above from Anti-Gorgia, which leads to some stuff we'd never allow in an article. Doug Weller (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Because Wikipedia is governed fundamentally by consensus, it can be important to know if opinions are being solicited, and helpful to link so other discussions, whether they be here, on that site or any other forum, on IRC (though that can't be linked...), on the foundation hosted mailing list, et cetera. That site has the advantage of being open, while private emails to a few selected editors are kept secret. It isn't a big deal, we obviously wouldn't use it as a source in the article, but knowing where editors might be coming from and what biased information they might have been given is actively useful. More generally speaking; WP:BLP is for our content, WP:EL is for external links in articles (with BLP governing the text anchoring the links), and BLP & pure pragmatism governs the content of talk space. Don't worry about it. GRBerry 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

phyllis schlafly is also affiliated with the "cardinal mindszenty foundation" the sole purpose of which is to fight communism. The president of which is Eleanor Schlafly. Both the cardinal mindszenty foundation and the eagle forum occupy the same small building in clayton missouri. Instead of spreading the gospel their entire agenda is to enforce people to live according to their values and manipulate government policy world wide. What a bunch of pious hypocrites.

The eagle forum is nothing more than a "protestant branch", white wash, of the cardinal mindszenty foundation because evangelicals would not be interested in supporting a roman catholic organization. Those old gals are pretty shrewd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.223.145 (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)