Talk:Susan B. Anthony List/Archive 1

Promotion

This article, as it currently exists, reads like something written BY the leaders of the organization in question, TO PROMOTE the aims of organization in question. Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken out a large section which I thought violated WP:NOTADVOCATE, as it promoted the organization's aims rather than summarized them in an encyclopedic fashion. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability

This group was discussed in the LA times on Sunday May 3rd 2009 pg. A10, Headline: Abortion Foes May Target High Court Pick. As such, I am removing the non-notable tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.215.133 (talk • contribs)

Please read the tag before you remove it. It clearly states "by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic". This article currently doesn't meet the notability guidelines because it doesn't cite multiple sources that are independent from the organization. In fact, it only cites ONE source, and that source IS the organization. Please add the LA Times reference to the article, and a couple more references, and then feel free to remove the notability tag. The tag isn't necessarily saying this topic isn't notable (if that was the case, the article would likely be deleted). It is saying that the way the article is currently written is not in line with our guidelines for establishing notability (via citing multiple, non-trivial sources that are independent from the subject). Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

It's hard to call it non-partisan when it donated more than 98% of its 2008 funds to Republicans and 0% to democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.php?cmte=C00332296&cycle=2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.94.20 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A better reference must be found, one which describes them as being partisan rather than relying on the reader to add things up and make the leap. After finding such a ref, we can describe in the article how the work is effectively partisan. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The group is happy to support pro-life Democrats when there are any. They rallied behind Bart Stupak for months and were going to support him in his primary until he lied. They supported a pro-life Democrat in the WV primary where they took down Alan Mollohan. They are non-partisan, there are just really no real pro-life Democrats. BS24 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous edit

Someone continues to make an edit making bogus and unreferenced assumptions that early feminists were secular, and a garbage sentence that says "Many were Unitarians, agnostics or even atheists which may be in contrast to much of the membership of the SBA list who are probably more likely to be religious in nature." Why do people like User:Andrew c bicker over whether it's a PAC or not, then let garbage like this stand? BS24 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute about Anthony's views

I restored my latest article work, and I would like to break it down bit by bit so that each of my improvements can be discussed on its own. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"The name of the organization stems from the belief that suffragist Susan B. Anthony was pro-life" or "The name of the organization stems from the belief by its founders that suffragist Susan B. Anthony was pro-life." The belief must be assigned to those who believe it, and not left open. If stated "The belief" by itself, then readers may assume that the belief is standard fare and not a very recent stance unaccepted by scholars of Anthony's life and times. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a widely held belief by many in the pro-life movement. It's not an idea the founders came up with. BS24 (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a widely ridiculed belief in the scholarly community. If we say "The belief" and leave it unsaid who believes it, then the belief is given credence. If the founders did not come up with the idea, put that bit in the article, crediting those who did come up with it. Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon, editor of the Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony, wrote that she saw the belief arise in 1989, but she does not name the originator. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's "widely ridiculed" doesn't mean it's true or untrue. A pro-life editorial in her newspaper which she had to have approved or at least seen before it was published regardless of the author is pretty convincing to me and a lot of other people. BS24 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing 1870 and now. Then, there was no concept of "pro-life" as it exists today. In her day, Anthony did not like abortion, she did not like women having too many children, she wished that women were able to choose exactly when to have babies, and she was against legislation that limited women's freedom. Gordon says "She never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life" and "she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term." The term "pro-life" includes both of these concepts about which Anthony was perfectly silent. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to "The name of the organization stems from the belief by its founders that suffragist Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion." BS24 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That works. However, everybody who studies Anthony agrees she did not like abortion, so the SBA List founders are shown in your version to hold a belief that is not at all unusual—they don't stand out. The word oppose is perhaps one key; the degree of Anthony's opposition to abortion is subject to recent debate. Some say she was primarily silent on the subject, that it did not come close to being a main goal in her life, but others hang a very large argument on the very few bits which seem to indicate her position, bits from two private letters, a speech about drunkenness and prostitution, and an anonymous, God-is-my-law essay in her paper. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

After further consideration, I no longer think that your version works. I think that it is a whitewash of Dannenfelser's position which is clearly stated in the title of her Washington Post article "Susan B. Anthony: Pro-Life Feminist" and in the SBA List page "Early Suffragists" where it begins: "Although she is most well-known for helping women obtain the right to vote, it is often untold in history that he [sic] namesake of the Susan B. Anthony List was pro-life." I think that the phrase "pro-life" should be returned to the article so that the proponents of that idea can be named. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the term "pro-life" is so well referenced as Dannenfelser's position, I am restoring it to the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Editorial vs essay

The published bit about abortion was not an editorial; it was an essay. Editorials at The Revolution came from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and she never signed 'A'. This was a letter received by the newspaper, one which was either signed 'A' or was accompanied by a request not to print the name. Later in the paragraph, Schiff calls it an essay, supported by this ref. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pro-choicers vs academic history experts

The people who are most vocal about the co-opting of Anthony's legacy are ones who have devoted their lives to study of her or of feminist issues of that time. The SBAM ref calls these people "academic history experts", so the term is referenced. Not all of these people are pro-choice—some are pro-life, and others simply fight against the rewriting of Anthony's history to make her 99.5% suffrage/abolition/temperance work pale in comparison to her 0.5% work in other areas. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course that website calls them "experts", it's a biased source. You did the same thing here and you were rebuked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BS24 (talk • contribs)

Heh heh... I remember that one now. I do not feel very "rebuked" by that editor, who worked on the article for ten days to fill it with POV. The version that is there now is "academic history experts". Your version here of "pro-choicers" is wrongly making the dispute be between the two sides in the abortion debate but instead it is between abortion foes and Anthony scholars—not a polarity of abortion. The dispute is between people who want to use Anthony's legendary image to promote a cause she never promoted and people who wish to return her legacy to one of being a tireless fighter for women's suffrage. Only pro-lifers cast the argument as being between pro-life and pro-choice. At any rate, my wording is referenced, so don't remove it. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove she wasn't pro-life? Until you can, stop trying to do it. BS24 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, your reference about SBAM vs SBABM characterizes the dispute as being between pro-lifers on the one hand, and a combination of pro-choice people and historians (having unstated abortion positions) on the other. That article does not see the dispute as a simple black-and-white polarity... it's more complicated. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC) This edit by BS24 returns the "pro-choicers" moniker, a poorly thought-out move, especially as there was no further discussion here from BS24, a mark of edit warring. There is no source for that term applied to the angry Anthony scholars, and there is a good reason to avoid characterizing the debate as a simple polarity between anti-abortion and pro-abortion people. The SBAM website declaration and the SBAM vs SBABM news item both say that it is more complex. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't resolve the "academic history experts" issue. Just because a pro-choice website says they are doesn't mean they are. If I started a website and called myself an academic history expert, would that make me one? I'll go ahead and do that, and then say Anthony was an ardent pro-life activist and cite my website as proof that I'm an expert on the matter. If you can come up with a better term than pro-choicers that isn't biased, I'd be happy to keep it. Current revision BS24 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole SBA List organization is biased, and its opponents are biased the other way. There are no terms in use in the abortion debate which are not loaded with meaning, and seen as biased by one side at least. The thing is, is I did not make up the "ridiculous" term "academic history experts", I just found it and used it, cited. We can easily say "longtime Anthony scholars", or other suitable phrases. We cannot ignore the complexity, though, and tell the reader it is a simple black/white polarity. Your "some historians" does not satisfy. The historians are specific ones: longtime Anthony scholars, experts on Anthony, academic researchers in women's suffrage. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some historians" is the term used by this citation, a third-party reputable news source with no advocacy ties. BS24 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some historians" is wimpy. I beefed it up by naming one of the most highly considered ones, Ann D. Gordon. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortifacients alone, or abortifacients plus other patent medicines

Rodger Streitmatter argues very effectively, pointing to other examples from the the 1860s and 1870s, that Anthony's refusal to accept abortifacients advertisements in The Revolution was more about their alcohol content than their supposed effects. Many of the supposed abortifacients did not give the user the desired results, the same as other patent medicines. Anthony banned them because they contained a high percentage of alcohol and because they were generally bad for people. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation says nothing about "alcohol-laden" medicines. BS24 (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Reading from page 40 of Streitmatter's Voices of revolution: the dissident press in America, on the topic of The Revolution: "Unlike other editors of the day, Stanton refused to accept advertisements for patent medicines—she called them "quack remedies"—because she believed that the unregulated elixirs contained so much alcohol they were dangerous." There it is. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That citation wasn't there when I wrote that. BS24 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Streitmatter doesn't specifically mention abortifacients, and doesn't say she refused to advertise them simply because of their alcohol content. For now, we should go with the news story that clearly explains the problem. BS24 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Streitmatter says specifically that "quack remedies" were not accepted as advertisements because of the alcohol level. Ann D. Gordon says that "The paper didn't accept any 'patented medicine' advertisements—both Anthony and Stanton were homeopathic patients—they opposed a lot of medicines because of the use of alcohol and morphine." At any rate, the decision not take on patent medicines was one that rested with Parker Pillsbury and Elizabeth Cady Stanton as co-editors, and Anthony as owner. The three wrote on their newspaper masthead, "no quack or immoral advertisements will be admitted". Feminists for Life writes that "quack advertisements" meant "patent medicines". In the same article, FFL quotes Pilsbury as saying "quack medicine vendors, however rich, proud, and pretentious, foeticides and infanticides, should be classed together and regarded with shuddering horror by the whole human race." I see Pilsbury classifying patent medicine vendors with abortifacients as being two equal horrors to be avoided. So what we have are sources that tie patent medicines together with abortifacients, one that says the patent medicines were forbidden because of the alcohol, and one that says both were bad because of several reasons including the greed of the sellers and the bad effects of the product. It is a complex issue not solely devoted to abortion. Pilsbury, Stanton and Anthony did not adopt their policy just because of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Never signed 'A'" vs "not known to sign 'A'"

The article sentence in which this phrase appears is one which states the position of Anthony scholars, and does not need to be reduced in impact or neutralized changing "never" to "not known". The scholar Ann D. Gordon, a history research professor at Rutgers and the editor of the six-volume set entitled Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, says she occasionally signed "S.B.A." but never "A." Lynn Sherr, author of Failure Is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words, agrees. If any human alive can state categorically how Susan B. Anthony signed her manuscripts, taking into account a lifetime's worth of notes and essays, it would be Gordon. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How does anyone know she never used "A."? You can't say that about a person who died 104 years ago. We don't have every writing she ever made, and we can't ask her. BS24 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You and I don't know, do we? But Ann Dexter Gordon, PhD says "no data exists that Anthony ... ever used that shorthand for herself". She would not say so if she was not certain. Gordon's "no data exists" that she "ever used" does not equal your "not known to sign 'A'", which can imply a situation where somebody has little idea, and has yet to do the research. The research is thorough and exhaustive, and its prime editor has spoken. Much better would be "known to have not signed 'A' on any other note" or similar. It is known, not "not known".

Really, this is ridiculous. There are 14,000 documents by Stanton and Anthony that Gordon has been working with, and none are signed "A", unless you count the essay printed in The Revolution, the one that quotes Scripture and appeals to God in ways that Anthony never did in any of her works, against her "known beliefs". (Anthony was not very devout, to put it mildly.) How much more clear can the case be? Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if the only other one signed "A." was something out of character, doesn't it make sense that she might have written them but didn't want people to know she did? 14,000 is a lot but we simply don't have a record of everything she ever wrote. Current revision BS24 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that idea fails Occam's razor—the simplest explanation, the explanation with the fewest new assumptions. Anthony was not trying to hide herself during an episode of writing out of character for the first time in her life. If you knew her work, which you must not, then you would know she was fearless in her writing, and very often wrote things which made people mad. She was not one to hide behind a rock and take potshots—she stood out in the open and declared herself. She did not quote Scripture (like the anonymous author did) because she did not believe in it. I wonder if you know that Anthony is listed as an atheist by Atheists.org? Historians are less quick to put the label of "atheist" on Anthony, but it is a close call. In her prime suffrage years, she respected people who were religious, and yet defended people who were not, including Ernestine Rose who was attacked as an atheist. Anthony made as little reference to God as was possible for someone in her position—as Horace Greeley advised her, those like her "who have outgrown the church" should remain cautious of it.

In 1883, Anthony wrote of a dirt poor peasant mother she saw in Killarney that had "six ragged, dirty children": "the evidences were that 'God' was about to add a No. 7 to her flock. What a dreadful creature their God must be to keep sending hungry mouths while he withholds the bread to fill them!" She used the term "their God" rather than just "God" and she put 'God' in quotes. This is typical of Anthony's private letter writing style. Whatever faith she had in God was not expressed the way the anonymous essay writer "A" did, with his or her frequent calls to God and holiness. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you accept the idea that she was an atheist, with little to no proof, yet you resoundingly reject the idea that she was pro-life, which is entirely plausible, considering what she said, what her newspaper did, and what her friend Elizabeth Cady Stanton did? BS24 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I say I think she is an atheist? No, she was something a little more respectful of God than that. When religion came up, she played her cards close to the chest. I will not defend those who count her as an atheist, but that one webpage I linked to does not contain the only interesting clues about her caution in religion. As far as being "pro-life" the concept does not apply to her. It is a modern concept. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On that note, see this edit. BS24 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have an issue with the statement "none of the 14,000 documents the project has examined were written by Anthony and signed 'A.'" How would the people running the project know that a document signed A. was or wasn't Anthony if it was signed A.? As in, how can they know whether or not she ever used that signature if that signature doesn't provide any clues as to whose it is? Hope that makes sense. BS24 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your point. The 14,000 documents include all the existing copies of The Revolution, all the existing lectures and pamphlets, a wealth of business minutes and masses of letters Anthony sent and received. Ann D. Gordon says that, of all the Susan B. Anthony authored texts, none are signed "A", though some are signed "S.B.A." Gordon does not count the essay under discussion, the one published in 1869 in The Revolution, because she sees from its style and tone that it cannot be Anthony's hand. Anthony was never that holy and preachy. I hope this addresses your concern. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How would she know whether Anthony signed it if it was simply signed A.? You would know she wrote something if it was signed Susan B. Anthony, but you wouldn't know if she wrote something if it was signed A. Is that clearer? It's hard to explain. BS24 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the article says

• The piece was signed simply "A". Ann D. Gordon, director of The Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Papers Project at Rutgers University, says there is no proof she wrote that piece, and that none of the 14,000 documents the project has examined were written by Anthony and signed "A.", though she was known to sign "S.B.A." and was affectionately referred to as "Miss A." by others.

What would you like change in there? Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We can keep it as is until/unless I can come up with something better. BS24 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see this edit. BS24 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life politicians, or pro-life females

The "About SBA List" page says that the group was put together "to advance the role of pro-life women in the political process", but it also says at this "Electing" page that they promote both male and female pro-lifers, but not female over male pro-lifers. The point is that they promote both male and female politicians if they are pro-life, and if the contest meets some conditions. They promote:

• Pro-life women candidates (running against anybody except another pro-life woman)
• Pro-life men running against pro-choice women candidates

To me, this adds up to our needing to say in the first sentence that SBA List "seeks to advance pro-life politicians", not "seeks to advance pro-life women". Outside the SBA List, another observer has characterized the group as "a political action committee ... that works to boost anti-choice candidates for state and federal office"—no sex specified. I say we take out the word "women" from the lead sentence. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, why does it even matter? The group's mission statement is to advance pro-life women in politics, and the male policy is included in the article. Plus, the Electing page you linked above says women are their top priority. You just want to make them look bad. It's really tiresome. BS24 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Current revision BS24 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I want this article to be accurate—there is no need for me to make them look bad. Their mission statement (which you did not cite) and what they actually do may differ, as with any organization.

Your solution, "seeks to advance pro-life politicians, primarily women", works for me. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from "Social Purity" 1870s

I have removed this irrelevant quote from a paragraph discussing patent medicines and abortifacients not being accepted at The Revolution:

"However, in an 1898 speech, Anthony said, "The work of woman is not to lessen the severity or the certainty of the penalty for violation of the moral law, but to prevent this violation by the removal of the causes which lead to it." Harper, Ida (1898). Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony.

This bit is from "Social Purity", a lecture Anthony gave repeatedly from the 1870s onward; it developed from one about "Social Evil" delivered on her West Coast tour in 1871 and from another called "Relations of Woman to the Temperance Cause" in 1874. In Chicago on March 14, 1875 she first delivered it as "Social Purity" (using portions of both previous lectures) but that presentation was not fully documented in print. At another presentation a month later in St. Louis on April 12, a full transcript was captured and printed. Further deliveries of it occurred in Rochester in October 1875, Boston in 1876 and later, with changes made to it through the years. The speech was anti-alcohol and anti-prostitution, couched as man's-inhumanity-against-woman. There is nothing about The Revolution in it, as the newspaper had by that time been sold to a wealthy patent medicine heir leaving Anthony $10,000 in debt. The speech has no bearing on the paragraph.

If an editor here intends that excerpts from the speech should appear in this article as proof of something or another regarding abortion, I will resist it. The speech discusses a lot of social ills under the umbrella of alcohol abuse, including prostitution and man's alcohol-fueled lust for female companionship, both of which result in unwanted babies, babies killed at birth and left lying in vacant lots, and abortions. The speech is not about abortion, it is about banning prostitution, about alcohol abuse, and about the need for women to be able to defend themselves against men's unwanted attentions—that defense pinned on the hopes of female suffrage. She was trying to promote the idea that, if women had the vote, they could change society enough to be able to stop the abuse of alcohol, change men's morals and avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Mary Krane Derr calls an extract from "Social Purity" "more explicit" in the mention of abortion, by which she means more explicit than nothing at all—the word "abortion" actually appears, a great rarity for Anthony. She fails to describe the point of the speech being about the observed ravages of prostitution and alcohol, and the supposed benefits of suffrage. A more scholarly summary and overview is provided by Estelle B. Freedman from Stanford University, who characterizes the whole speech as being about "chastity before and fidelity during marriage", about how drunkenness led to the sexual abuse of women, and about how prostitution could be remedied by achieving wage equality between the sexes subsequent to women winning the vote. Freedman, a very thorough scholar, does not summarize the speech as being about abortion. Not only does the bit not belong here, it is already covered at the Susan B. Anthony page. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The comma

I have placed a comma in this sentence:

• "The group only endorses pro-life female candidates, or pro-life male candidates running against pro-choice female candidates."

The comma was placed to show that pro-life female candidates are not lumped together with pro-life male candidates to oppose female pro-choice candidates. If the sentence was presented with that comma ("The group only endorses pro-life female candidates or pro-life male candidates running against pro-choice female candidates") then you can see how easily it can be confused. That no-comma version can be misunderstood as meaning the SBA List only opposes female pro-choicers, no matter which pro-life sex is running against them, which is incorrect. The group actually endorses pro-life female candidates against pro-choice males, too. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed slightly to "The group endorses pro-life female candidates, and pro-life male candidates running against pro-choice female candidates." Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for explaining. BS24 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony "Museum"

Regarding this edit, the "museum" does not exist. The website "Susan B. Anthony Museum" is simply a website started by pro-choicers in opposition to the anti-Restellism exhibits in the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum. The SBAM is not a physical museum and cannot have "directors". BS24 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can a website have directors? Possibly. What's your proposed wording? Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this: "A website started by pro-choice opponents of the museum says that 'it is impossible to know where the early feminists would stand in the context of the modern day abortion debate.'" ? BS24 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not likin' it. Where do you get "pro-choice" in relation to the website's founders? I would like this term to be perfectly accurate or not used. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the SBA Museum discussed in this article? Does the SBA List operate, direct or own the museum? Cloonmore (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SBA Museum is independent of SBA List, in opposition to the co-opting of Anthony's legacy. SBA Museum holds some very pertinent sources, ones that are not online elsewhere, especially ones in which researcher Ann D. Gordon is quoted in interviews with local papers. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a museum; it's a blog. It appears to be the blog of an angry individual in No. Adams, MA. It does not "hold" any pertinent sources, it merely links to alleged stories in local media that are behind firewalls on the original media websites. This person's blog is unacceptable as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH Cloonmore (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On contentious issues such as these, we should avoid indirect sources such as the local papers. It's an opposition blog. If I start a website to criticize Keith Olbermann, and ask some random professor to say something negative about him, and call the professor a "media expert", does that make him one? I'm not questioning Gordon's credibility (though I do doubt it), I'm simply saying a site such as this is far from a reliable source. BS24 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by indirect sources? Your example falls down completely when it is realized that Lusignan quoted newspaper articles that were already published. She did not "ask some random professor" to perform for the local reporters. Gordon's credibility as an Anthony researcher is unimpeachable, and her professional gravitas is conferred upon any minor local newspaper that interviews her and prints the results. She is notable all by herself, and anything that is published coming from her is worthy of being quoted. The Gordon quotes in the article are all perfectly valid, and I do not care whether they are referenced to an online source where everybody who is interested can click to see them, or to an opaque newspaper website which does not show past articles. If need be, I will reconfigure the references so that Gordon's words are shown to originate from the local paper, and I will provide the SBAM website link URL so people can see the quoted words. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal misses wide. It implicitly assumes that Lustignan's blog is a reliable source when in fact it is not. It's a pro-choice protest blog. Reconfiguring the references don't address the problem. Cite reliable sources. Cloonmore (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, for all you know, the website is just making up quotes and attributing them to a newspaper. I'm not saying I think they are, I'm just saying you wouldn't know it if they did. Find the direct source of the quotes. BS24 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget my earlier proposal which went against "say where you got it", where it says "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one. For example, a webpage may provide information that the page's author attributes to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your source is the webpage, not the book. No problem, I'd rather keep the SBAM reference as it stands. The concern at "say where you got it" is that the website may have misinterpreted the original source. At the SBAM history page, the link used in this article, Lusignan does not attempt to interpret Lynn Sherr, Ann D. Gordon and Allison Stevens: she quotes them directly. A direct quote is not a misinterpretation. The quotes meet the standards of WP:Verifiability in that they are attributed to published news articles. That it is difficult to access the news articles at The North Adams Transcript is not a reason to remove them, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Per WP:REDFLAG, we see that the quotes are acceptable in that they are not "surprising" or "out of character" for Gordon, Sherr, Derr, etc. At WP:RS#Quotations, we see that "Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't." Lusignan cites the original source in all cases. The guideline continues: "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration." Anybody willing to pay for access to the archives of The North Adams Transcript will be able to corroborate the source. Finally, Lusignan's website is a reliable source for information about herself, but is not considered a reliable source for uncited opinions presented as facts. What is quoted in this article are not Lusignan's uncited opinions but cited quotations of others. We are on solid ground with this source as it is used. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph

"Stacy Schiff points out that abortion in the 19th century was a far different issue than it is now, with abortion a very dangerous and unpredictable procedure—she says 'the terms do not translate'."

Abortion is still a very dangerous and unpredictable procedure:

• The Center for Disease Control found 377 maternal deaths caused by legal abortion from 1972-2002 ([1])
• The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute says (1 2) abortion increases the risk of breast cancer
• Women who abort have are 65% more likely to develop clinical depression than women who deliver their child[ren] and are 60% more likely to miscarry future pregancies (both under page 4 here)
• etc., I could go on. BS24 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that Schiff's point is that it was far more dangerous and unpredictable back then than it is now. At any rate, we are not debating Schiff's position, we are reporting it. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The way it is written now does not directly quote the "dangerous and unpredictable" phrase but seems to report it as if it is fact. Perhaps we could change it to "an even more dangerous and unpredictable procedure than it is today." I removed it while we figure it out. BS24 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm... abortion is not "dangerous and unpredictable" when performed in legal, clinical settings in developed countries (can't say the same about unsafe abortion). But more to the point, Schiff is trying to say that we cannot possibly know what Anthony would think of today's situation. The bottom line is that we cannot possibly know what Anthony would make of today’s debate. Unwanted pregnancy was for her bundled up with a different set of issues, of which only one truly mattered: rescuing women from “the Dead Sea of disfranchisement.” In the 19th century, abortion often was life-threatening, contraception primitive, and a woman as little in control of her reproductive life as of her political one. The terms do not translate, one reason time travel is a risky proposition. While I don't mind at all having the sentence that was previously in this article regarding the concepts not translating, I think we should also add Schiff's main thesis regarding how "we cannot possibly know"... -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly 400 maternal deaths caused by abortion in legal, clinical settings in the U.S. over 30 years is not "dangerous and unpredictable"? Increased risk of breast cancer and depression and more (see above) is not "dangerous and unpredictable"? And the reasons for opposition to the slaughter of unborn women do not change over time. BS24 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I focused on something you said that has nothing to do with this article. I'm not here to debate abortion with you (I only commented due to my participation in the construction and talk page discussion associated with Abortion#Health_risks). I would suggest restoring "Schiff points out that abortion in the 19th century was a far different issue than it is now, with abortion a very dangerous and unpredictable procedure—she says "the terms do not translate"." and perhaps revising it a bit, to make it more concise, and to add her conclusion that we cannot possibly know Anthony's view on today's situation. If we attribute all this to Schiff, and not state anything which is Schiff's editorial opinion as fact, I see no problem here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like Schiff concludes that "we cannot possibly know what Anthony would make of today’s debate", and states that the practice of abortion in the 19th "do[es] not translate" to the modern practice, citing a lack of contraception, and the often life-threatening nature of the 19th century procedure. hmm... that is more verbose than what we had. but it's just a first draft suggestion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the Schiff conclusion, "The bottom line is that we cannot possibly know what Anthony would make of today's debate." Thanks for that, Andrew C. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some contraceptives that act as abortifacients so that doesn't work. Is the Schiff essay even relevant? The question is not whether she would oppose abortion today, it's that she opposed it back then. BS24 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. The point is that her stance back then (which was not a public one, nor a major one in her life) either relates perfectly to the issues today, or relates not at all. The point is that the SBA List (and others) are trying to make a connection where precious little connective material exists. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Feminism series

Does this article qualify for the Feminism series sidebar as with Feminists for Life? I have no idea how the series thing works. BS24 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sweeter even"

I will be removing the quote "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them". Not only is the context short of factual information (it is Anthony writing to Willard about a witty rejoinder she made to an important publisher) but the supposed abortion content is absolutely knocked flat by FFL's Mary Krane Derr and Rutger's Ann D. Gordon. The bit is not in the least about abortion, it is about crusty old estate law and a man's last will.

The only way that this bit can be used is if somebody can be found to comment upon its misuse by SBA List, FFL and their colleagues in their aim to tie abortion comments to Anthony. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, if you would look at the citation, you would see it comes from a book by Frances Willard. And even if it's not about abortion, does it not show that she believed the unborn have at least some degree of humanity and aren't just "balls of tissue" which pro-abortion dolts with no education in science seem to believe? BS24 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are putting forth a novel synthesis of the material. Does the source relate this to abortion? If not, we cannot assume that a view regarding the "unborn" can be translated to mean anything else. Also, your polemic language doesn't really help either and could be on the verge of incivility.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad that it "borders on incivility", because it's true. I would accuse Binksternet of the same, as he has repeatedly engaged in WP:HOUNDING, on Keith Fimian, Alice Paul, Dede Scozzafava, Karen Clark Sheard, none of which he had ever edited before. He goes to every article I have edited and undermines me. His edits at those pages may be legitimate, but it's impossible to deny that he has engaged in WP:STALK. BS24 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User conduct should not be brought up on article talk pages. Your above post has nothing to do with this section, which is the "Sweeter..." quote. If you have an issue with another editor, please seek another venue. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Wikihounding by User:Binksternet. BS24 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-abortion dolts with no education in science"? Not cool, and not civil. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Frances Willard was not walking with Susan B. Anthony when Anthony made the "Sweeter even" retort to a prominent publisher who said she should have children of her own, so where did Willard get that bit to put in her book? She got it from a letter that Anthony wrote to her, the letter being available on microfilm today. No other witness but Anthony has related the anecdote as an original first-person experience—all versions of it come from her letter to Willard.

In the Susan B. Anthony article, down at the abortion dispute section, the "Sweeter even" bit gets a full treatment, complete with non-free image to prove that FFL uses the quote in their promotion. This even though FFL's best researcher has let the air out of the quote, proving it to be unrelated to abortion. Further assumptions about Anthony's views of the unborn taken from the quote do not have the support of reliable sources.

Here is what can be found right now at the SBA bio article:

Link to non-free image, a promotional poster published by FFL, containing a portrait of Anthony, the "Sweeter even" quote, and an unfounded assertion that Anthony is "another anti-choice fanatic". The organization Susan B. Anthony List, which supports pro-life politicians, writes that Anthony was "an outspoken critic of abortion", and a similar group, Feminists for Life (FFL), makes extensive use of her words and images in their work. A letter that Anthony wrote to Frances Willard in 1889 has been presented by both the SBA List and FFL to indicate her stance on abortion: "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them." SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser adds that these words "speak for themselves". However, in 1998, Mary Krane Derr, FFL's foremost historian, determined the context of Anthony's words to be unrelated to abortion; instead, she was referring to her victory in overturning a law which extended past death a father's absolute control of his children, through the means of his last will, resulting in a baby's fate determined by the father's legal estate if it was born after his death; the newborn could be "willed away" from its mother.

(All references have been removed for ease of reading flow. Go to Susan B. Anthony#Dispute over abortion to check out the refs.) This interpretation of the quote unseats it as a source for Anthony's opinion on the unborn. The crusty old estate law she got overturned applied to babies as soon as they were born, not before. (Before they were born, they were in the possession of the mother.) Once born, the baby could be taken from the mother if so stipulated by the dead father's will. As can be imagined, this happened vanishingly few times, but Anthony rightly sensed the law's unfairness and worked to strike it down. I think she can be excused for reveling just a little bit in this minor victory of hers. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No proof? Sherr

I am taking out a sentence that interprets Sherr, offering a paraphrase of her opinion. I think the interpretation does not accurately summarize Sherr's position, the one she took in her opinion piece in The Washington Post: "Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony". Here is what I am removing:

"[Sherr] says that while there is no proof Anthony opposed abortion, there is likewise no proof that she supported it either."

Sherr was quoted by Women's eNews as saying "I looked desperately for some kind of evidence one way or the other as to what her [anti-abortion] position was, and it just wasn't there." What Sherr is saying is that nobody can say for certain what Anthony's position was back in the 19th century. The paraphrasation made it sound like there was a serious question as to whether she "supported" abortion. Nobody takes this position—all Anthony scholars agree she disapproved of abortion. If we choose to take up a reader's time by writing Sherr's opinion down, we might as well quote her exactly. I see no reason for paraphrasing her imperfectly in a confusing and misleading manner. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No proof? Gordon

I am restoring a sentence I wrote. Here are the two versions of the same sentence, both with slightly different meanings:

• "[Gordon] says there is no proof she [Anthony] wrote that piece, and that none of the 14,000 documents the project has examined were written by Anthony and signed "A."
• "[Gordon] says there is no proof that any of the 14,000 documents the project has examined were written by Anthony and signed "A."

It is clear to me that the second version casts Gordon as not being sure. She and her project people have examined 14,000 documents, but they are still not sure. The first version has Gordon being quite sure: she says "none of the 14,000 documents" rather than "no proof that any of the 14,000 documents". I wrote the first version staying as close as possible to the sources. I think the second version is an attempt to throw a sense of confusion into Gordon's university research work. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this again, it's tough to explain it. There is no proof that Anthony ever signed A., but there is likewise no proof that she never signed A. If this is true, then a more accurate statement would be, "Gordon says there is no evidence that Anthony ever signed A., while Feminists for Life says there is no evidence that she never signed A." Per the following section, the second part could be revised. Let me know what you think. BS24 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it quite sufficient that the article quote Gordon and let it lie. FFL does not need to be quoted, especially since this article is not about them. What does Dannenfelser say? Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No proof? FFL

I am taking out another instance of the article saying there is "no proof".

• "...but Feminists for Life counters that there is likewise no proof Anthony didn't sign any pieces with 'A.' "

The word proof does not appear in the source document, http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/2007/spring-2007.pdf. Instead, the source (Cat Clark of FFL) says "Sherr's reported claim that 'Anthony didn't sign her pieces "A.,"' presumes a conclusion that needs to be proven." Clark puts the onus of proving a negative back on Sherr, but Ann D. Gordon is confident that Anthony never signed 'A'. The sentence I am removing has none of these finer points—its phrase "no proof" makes it appear that a complete examination of 14,000 Stanton- and Anthony-related documents, none signed 'A', is not conclusive. It is misleading. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Sherr

I take issue with the phrase: "Lynn Sherr...searched for Anthony's anti-abortion views and came up empty." This statement implies that her search was exhaustive and accepts it as fact. I have deleted it and replaced it with simply "Lynn Sherr...said 'I looked...'" BS24 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is intended is that her following quote is given a subject: "anti-abortion". Without it, Sherr's comment can be misconstrued as being about Anthony's abortion views, but instead, Sherr was talking about her anti-abortion views, about how there is nothing in the historical record about her position on anti-abortion. As well, Sherr is an author of a book on Anthony's words and writings, so she is considered qualified to comment on Anthony, even if you and I think her search may not have been exhaustive. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-abortion views" or "Came up empty" is not part of the context of the citation. Why can't we just leave the quote? What you're doing is simple edit warring at this point. BS24 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to tussle over unimportant wording? Indeed, why would you? The wording is very important or you would let it lie. If Sherr's brief quote is given without the context surrounding it, then her quote is stripped of its essential meaning. Sherr was talking the impossibility that Anthony was an anti-abortion activist; she was not wondering whether Anthony disliked abortion in her day. Sherr has no doubt that Anthony's views included a distaste for abortion. What Sherr is saying is that the anti-abortion activism stuff assumed by SBA List and FFL is not in the historical record. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Who ever said she was an activist? All they are saying is that she opposed abortion and they are acting in her legacy. And the article context is not necessary, the quote speaks for itself. You're just adding biased wording.BS24 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The specific quote by Sherr has as its subject "anti-choice", which is anti-abortion activism. If the preceding paragraph is not used to give context, some kind of summary of the context is required. Here are the two parts of the newspaper article which place the context as being "anti-choice":

But after poring over the entirety of Anthony's record, Gordon and Sherr say these quotes have either been taken out of context, do not express anti-choice views, or were not written or uttered by Anthony.
"I looked desperately for some kind of evidence one way or the other as to what her position was, and it just wasn't there," Sherr said.

As you can see from Allison Stevens's article, Sherr conducted an exhaustive search of Anthony's writings, and she came up empty, as did Gordon. The "position" that Sherr is talking about is Anthony's notional "anti-choice" position. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevens's article is a biased source from a biased website. Of course she's going to make it sound like Gordon's search was exhaustive. We simply don't have every single piece Anthony ever wrote and to make it sound like she did is a flat out lie. BS24 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Since 1989"

This statement is inaccurate: "Since 1989, this topic has been subject to a dispute about Anthony's views on abortion..." The citation references this statement from Ann Gordon: "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989." Gordon's statement doesn't mean the idea that Anthony opposed abortion suddenly came about in 1989 as the current wording asserts; it simply means she herself has been hearing it since 1989. I am removing the "since 1989" clause. BS24 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1989 date is when the topic became a matter of dispute. Before 1989, scholars and suffragists were content in knowing that Anthony frowned on abortion, even though she was not active in fighting it. After 1989, Anthony was put forward as being very active, and scholars disputed this claim. The 1989 date is crucial to the encyclopedic information about the dispute. I'm restoring it. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The citation says "I've watched...since 1989." It's talking about Gordon's personal experience, not the universal debate. I am removing it again because your rationale is ridiculous and unprovable. If you can find a citation that holds up well for 1989, then we can keep that. BS24 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's personal experience cannot be shrugged off. She is America's foremost expert on Anthony's writings. If Gordon says she became aware of the assertions in 1989, that is the observation of an expert. It's perfectly suitable, and it is very good encyclopedic information. It is important that the reader understand that there was absolutely no dispute about Anthony until 1989 when pro-life women co-opted her legacy as the most dogged, determined and dedicated suffragist the US ever had. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. How does one person's personal experience prove when something began? Prove that it began in 1989 as a universal fact and we can keep it. The quote says SHE has watched since 1989, not that it all began in 1989. You're being completely illogical at this point. BS24 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big problem. You are offering no other year in which the dispute began to take shape, so what beef do you have with the year 1989? In 1989, volume 7 of Crisis journal published a list of early feminist writings on the subject of abortion, taking the quotes out of context. In 1990, FFL and others filed an anti-abortion suit within which many Anthony quotes were presented out of context. In 1991, George Grant published his flawed book Third Time Around: a history of pro-life movement from the first century to the present, with that anonymous Revolution quote misattributed to Susan B. Anthony, so it appears to me that Gordon has the timeframe nailed down pretty tight.

Short of you putting forward your notion in which year the dispute began, with a reliable source, I can't see that your argument has any legs. The easiest solution to meeting your complaint is to have Gordon quoted exactly to determine the year to be 1989. I did not do that because I did not want to clog up the beginning of the section with an explanation of who Gordon was. I wanted instead to present the subject in context before the various players were named and quoted. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Without an alternative year proposed, without a good reference which contradicts Gordon's 1989 observation, I am putting it back in. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, that observation is based on her personal experience, not a universal historical fact. "Long running dispute" settles it. Stop edit warring without a logical rationale. BS24 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brinkerhoff

I am removing the Brinkerhoff paragraph as irrelevant to this article. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote has been attributed (1 2) to Anthony, regardless of whether she actually said it. BS24 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is laughable to put in a quote misidentified as being Anthony's when we know it is Brinkerhoff's. We are not building the Wrongopedia. In your Washington Examiner example, Barbara Hollingsworth fails not only in correctly identifying the quote, but she fails in directly connecting the quote to SBA List. She does not say that SBA List ever used the quote. In your About.com link, Jone Johnson Lewis (a Women's History Guide at About.com) does not mention SBA List anywhere in her flawed biography. Because the quote is not connected directly to SBA List, it is irrelevant to this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: Since the request made at the third opinion project page doesn't even link to a particular section on this talk page, it's not clear what dispute is the subject of your request. It should be noted that third opinions are not well–suited for complex disputes. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." If this dispute is more complex than that, then you may not find a 3O Wikipedian willing to take the dispute. If, as the current listing suggests, it is an overall dispute about what should go in the article, rather than some particular addition, you might get more help through making a request for comments.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Early feminist connection

Ongoing dispute about the Susan B. Anthony and early feminist connection section of the page. The two edits currently in question are found here. See the discussion here: "Since 1989" and Lynn Sherr. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: The "since 1989" thing is weird to me; the only quote on susanbanthony.com about 1989 is the one by Ann Gordan, and she says "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989". I don't think that's sufficient to make a sweeping claim that the topic has been in debate since 1989. And I think that "searched for Anthony's anti-abortion views and came up empty" is just a little grandstanding and is unnecessary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with HelloAnnyong. "Since 1989" is not adequately supported by references and shouldn't be in the article. The "came up empty" phrase is an example of subtle non-NPOV and is unnecessary in the context of the quotation that follows it, and thus also shouldn't be in the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is supported the reference is that Gordon said "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989. It's pretty far fetched.". I believe that Gordon's opinion on the matter is suitable to the article as a quote, which is different than putting it up as a widely held fact. I propose that the article include the direct quote with attribution, as opposed to laying it down as a general truth. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying all along. Oh well. BS24 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. If you had suggested putting the complete quote in the article I would have remembered that vividly. I'm glad we have arrived at a suitable solution. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you already forgotten Talk:Susan B. Anthony List#"Since 1989", where I was saying we can't paint the quote as universal fact? BS24 (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We agree on what's in the article, so I'm backing away from the WP:STICK... Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on Pro-Life Feminism

The August 2010 "Conversation on Pro-Life Feminism" paragraph is wholly unsupported by the reference that accompanies it:

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUsRzm8sd7lCUvshVp03NRdB9pqAD9HQNQC04

That reference quotes Dannenfelser saying "There's an unsettling of the political apple cart... Sarah Palin kicked the door open, and a lot of women started going through." It does not state that some kind of panel discussion was held by SBA List, and it does not mention a "Conversation on Pro-Life Feminism". If the panel discussion was not in the news it is not noteworthy. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"In New York, the Susan B. Anthony List — it backs female candidates opposed to abortion — will host a forum on 'pro-life feminism'." BS24 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

George Soros

Per WP:BLP, I removed "atheist", "pro-choice" and "billionaire" from the description of George Soros, as the cited reference did not describe him this way. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Susan B. Anthony and early feminist connection"

This article is about the SBA List, not about Susan B. Anthony, but one could be forgiven for being confused. Much of the article is currently taken up with the obscure debate about the views of early suffragists, some of which appears to be a cut-&-paste job from here. I'd propose cutting back this section significantly, and directing the reader to Susan B. Anthony for further info about this relatively tangential historical dispute. Cloonmore (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is confused. I agree that the full debate itself does not need to take place in this article space, but certainly the specific connections that it has with SBA List ought to be present, especially since SBA List is named after Susan B. Anthony and others have decried the connection. A short descriptive section topped by a clear link to the main debate at Susan B. Anthony#Dispute over abortion is sufficient for anything to do with Anthony herself, but that approach will fail to cover other early feminists who may be used by SBA List in their promo materials. The notional shorter section ought to cover what SBA Listers have said and what others have said against them on the topic. If Dannenfelser is quoted about Anthony, a rebuttal likely exists and should be described. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be trimmed, but most of it pertains to what the organization cites as its inspiration. Binksternet, your POV is showing with your last sentence above. That is ridiculous. You are truly out to cut down this organization in any way possible. BS24 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My POV? That's pretty funny when the article is about a political action group whose entire purpose is to push a POV. I don't want to cut down the organization here on Wikipedia, I just want to prevent the organization from using Wikipedia as their mouthpiece. This is not a public relations branch of the SBA List, it is an encyclopedia article that summarizes all the important information about SBA List, both bad and good; all the notable information. All political group articles should have their opponents' notable actions and words described in their articles. You should know: you have chosen to work primarily in political articles on Wikipedia, all with similar political views and connections. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So I am a PR mouthpiece? BS24 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot answer that question, but I'm sure you can. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Other articles, such as EMILY's List and NARAL Pro-Choice America, lack a criticism section you like to build here. Why don't you build them over at those and similar articles? Instead, you single out the SBA List because you disagree with them, and try to pass off your disagreements as fact. BS24 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not active on those articles; I am active here. My disagreements (unquote) are the well-considered disagreements of extremely thorough researchers who have studied Anthony's life. When I vote, I vote with the smart people such as Ann D. Gordon of Rutgers Stanton and Anthony Papers Project. I do not vote with people who say that Anthony was "passionately pro-life" when she never expressed any opinion about the sanctity of fetal life, and she never said that laws against abortion were a good idea. She cannot possibly be considered pro-life in today's terms. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are completely closed to the idea that she was pro-life. That's POV, and your edits reflect that. BS24 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am completely closed to the idea that she was pro-life, by definition! "Pro-life" means the political and ethical opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction. Anthony never, ever supported its legal prohibition. She only rarely expressed any kind of opinion on elective abortion, and at those exceedingly rare times she expressed disappointment in it and in the conditions leading to it, not opposition to it. And she never became an activist against abortion—not even in the tiniest way. On the contrary, she expressed her opinion that some women were having too many children, and that too many children limited the advancement of women in society. She hinted that birth control would be a boon to women. She expressed her opinion that there should be no laws limiting a woman's control of her own body. How can anybody look at these verifiable truths of Anthony's life and not see the obvious contradiction? The very definition of "pro-life" throws Anthony and her 19th-century beliefs out of the running. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Guilty quote

I changed the paragraph explaining the "Guilty?" quote because of a complaint by Cloonmore that too much of the "Susan B. Anthony and early feminist connection" section did not relate specifically to SBA List. I showed the connection by beginning the paragraph this way:

• "Connecting Anthony with anti-abortion, Dannenfelser has used quotes taken from an 1869 letter published in Anthony's newspaper, The Revolution."

User:BS24 reverted with the edit summary "Restoring better wording", to this new version:

• "The organization cites an 1869 essay published in Anthony's newspaper, The Revolution."

If a restoration had been desired, this version would have applied:

• "An 1869 essay about abortion published in her newspaper, The Revolution, referred to abortion as "child-murder" and included the following:"

I can see that the BS24 version vaguely connects SBA List to the "Guilty?" quote, but it does not explain anything. My version tells the reader that Dannenfelser used the quote to connect Anthony with anti-abortion sentiment. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not complain that too much of the section "did not relate specifically to SBA List." I complained that there was simply too much of the section, much of which was sloppily cut and pasted from elswhere. As for your "connecting Anthony with anti-abortion" sentence, Binkster, it was rather inartful and awkwardly phrased. BS24's rewrite is a marked improvement. Cloonmore (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At least my version told the reader what was up in very few words. The words "the organization cites an 1869 essay" does not explain a thing, and leaves the reader gasping for context. Why does the organization cite the essay? We are writing an encyclopedia here, and we should be able to tell the reader what is going on, in summary form. If you have any suggestions for a better, more artful phrasing, fire away. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

SBA Birthplace Museum

I see that it is owned by a women who, among other things, is also a member of the advisory board of the SBA List. I don't see why else it is discussed in this article. Cloonmore (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dannenfelser the only voice

I am surprised and disappointed at an edit by BS24 in which all voices of opposition have been removed in favor of having Dannenfelser speak her mind on every disputed element of Anthony's legacy being co-opted, without a single voice in opposition. This is not Dannenfelser's PR arm; it is an encyclopedia. Dannenfelser's organization has kicked up a fair bit of opposition, and our responsibility is to present the arguments fairly. This edit of mine sought to adjust to BS24's recent changes by eliminating all discussion and arguments for and against, while retaining the references that BS24 removed—the ones in opposition. That version is the sleek and slim version which throws the reader off onto another article to read about the dispute. I would rather see this version which has a detailed argument, representing SBA List people and people who are notable opponents. At any rate, the version in which Dannenfelser is given her own soapbox is wholly unsatisfactory. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was simply trying to cut down the section to only directly relevant information as per the discussion above. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with going back to that version, as long as some things are fixed. The section should not and can not be devoted to knocking down any and all points the SBA List makes. BS24 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the article can certainly include notable rebuttals to each point the SBA List brings up. Dannenfelser does not get a free pass to spread her take on things here on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you're acting like I'm Marjorie Dannenfelser. Stop polluting these articles with your opinions. BS24 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The opinions you do not like are those of Anthony scholars. I merely represent them here, to counter Dannenfelser's one-sided assertions. I never once thought you were Dannenfelser. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this is not a Dannenfelser PR arm, but it is also not a Gordon PR arm or pro-choice talking points article. BS24 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But if Dannenfelser is given the soapbox, to air her views, her critics will be given a chance at rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but you write as if Gordon is the only one to be trusted on this issue, which simply cannot be. BS24 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about Dannenfelser being the only voice in the article, which you characterized as "cut[ting] down the section to only directly relevant information". Dannenfelser is not the only relevant source of information. If we quote Dannenfelser, we can quote her critics. If we quote her critics, we can quote her most formidable critic, the Anthony expert Ann D. Gordon. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please stop trying to paint Gordon as the only one who could possibly be correct. BS24 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

After 28 years of nearly monomaniacal focus on what Anthony did, wrote and said, Gordon might be wrong. Dannenfelser might be right about Anthony after spending 20 years analyzing political positions and campaigns, seeking donations and conducting committee meetings. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop it. This is ridiculous. You have no idea of either's credentials, unless you know Gordon somehow and that's why you're trying to give her a bully pulpit. BS24 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's credentials are online at Rutgers University. Dannenfelser's might be online, too, but I was guessing about what she was doing for 20 years. The bully pulpit we are discussing is the one that you gave Dannenfelser, to the exclusion of all others. If Dannenfelser is given the pulpit, her critics can respond. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the others simply at the suggestion of Cloonmore about downsizing the section. Her critics have and do respond. It is just not Wikipedia's place to decide who is right, and you know that. BS24 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to give Dannenfelser the bully pulpit in this article about a political action committee. Yes, her critics have responded in public, and we have a responsibility to relate this criticism to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But we can't try to pass off the criticism as fact. BS24 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When facts are part of the criticism, this can be pointed out. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That Anthony was not pro-life is an opinion. We can't know factually one way or the other, since she's not here to tell us. BS24 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaking what was with what might be. If Anthony were alive now, she could tell us her position. Since she died before 1972 when the pro-life feminism movement began, she cannot ever have been a member of that movement. She cannot be "pro-life" as defined by that movement if she never advocated for anti-abortion laws. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Gordon in the lead section

I have returned Ann Dexter Gordon to the lead section, a voice of criticism. 184.74.22.161 was removing that bit, ostensibly because the criticism is not notable. The guideline we go by is WP:LEAD where it says that the lead section must be a summary of important article content. Of course the criticism coming from pro-choicers and from the academic community, the latter embodied by Gordon, is an important section in the article, and opposition by Sherr and Gordon gained an immediate response by Dannenfelser, so yes Gordon is notable. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony and early feminist connection OFF-TOPIC

This article is about the organization, not the name dispute. There is already an article for that. The section is duplicative, and WP:UNDUE. Let's trim the section. Proposals? Lionel (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the organization is critical to the organization, and disputes about the name are central. Proposal: retain everything written so far. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific to this article is information not related to Susan B. Anthony but still connected to SBA List claims. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support trimming it somewhat and linking to the main article. How does this wording (to go in the "history" section?) sound? - "The organization's name derives from the belief, advocated by female opponents of abortion and rejected by Susan B. Anthony scholars, that the nineteenth-century feminist opposed abortion"? That seems like a pretty succinct summary.

As Binksternet notes, though, there is the issue of other information about supposedly "pro-life" feminists - should that go in the article on this dispute? I think it might fit better there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The dispute article is only about whether Susan B. Anthony is being misused by modern-day anti-abortion political organizations. It is not about other 19th century figures. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't now - but do you think it could be? Would that be a better way of organizing the information, rather than by keeping it at articles on partisan entities like pro-life feminism and Susan B. Anthony List? (I suppose a rename could be in order.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it could definitely be trimmed to what isn't covered in the dispute article. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I reject as out of hand that mention of the significant and non-trivial controversy that SBAL is misusing Susan B. Anthony in their fringe propaganda campaign is undue. Perhaps it can be trimmed, but the controversy should be very prominent in the article as it certainly is very relevant. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiMan, your POV is shwoing yet again. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The section under discussion covers problems specific to Susan B. Anthony List. It does not detail anything about Feminists For Life, for instance, and it does not stray from discussing what SBA List says about 19th century feminists. The information is relevant and on-topic, contrary to the shouted header of this talk entry. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees, your pov is showing everywhere. You want as much criticism as possible of Planned Parenthood on their article but as little as possible on any anti-choice group's article. But this type of discussion does not belong on article talk pages. So why not be civil for once, hey, yankee? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The caps in the title are helpful in quickly locating the section where the {{OFF-TOPIC}} discussion is taking place. Lionel (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So would a colorful scrolling marquee. Or flashing lights. :/

Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I just removed everything about the SBA dispute that is already covered in the separate article. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not good. This takes away the opposition arguments about the misplaced dependency on prickly old Anthony and leaves a promotional, self-serving paragraph discussing connections to Stanton, Woodhull, Blackwell, etc. You tried to evict the bad to leave the good, and that is not neutral. I reverted your removal per WP:NPOV. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Lionel (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you threw the baby out with the bathwater. This material cannot be evicted from the article as it is relevant to the organization and their interaction with the public. The SBA List has tussled over this issue a lot, and the specifics are relevant. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The stuff about the other feminists needs to stay since it is specific to the SBA List. All it needs to do in terms of Anthony is briefly mention the dispute and link to it. No need for redundant WP:FORK content. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want the baby nor the water; Bink wants a Roman bathhouse; NYYs edit seems a fair compromise between being succinct and verbose: it solves the OFF TOPIC issue. Lionel (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no off-topic issue—that's your wording. All of the text is about official SBA List claims and positions, and about public responses. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence

There is no reason why a neo-conservative opinion writer's support for SBAL somehow constitute due weight in this article. This is not US News making the claim anyway, this is an opinion column written by a right winger whose day job includes working for Let Freedom Ring, Inc. and the Institute for Liberty. If it is included, which it shouldn't be, it should be worded as "Peter Roff, a neo-conservative commentator, writing on US News and World Report's website stated that...." as that is exactly what is going on here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See this edit. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Early feminist connection redux

In this edit, I reconfigured the material discussed in previous threads, taking out the specifics of the quotes, those specifics being argued succinctly at Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. Dannenfelser's use of two quotes has been challenged and I note this fact in the new version, along with quotes from a couple of the main players, presented in a neutral tone.

One reason I put this text into the article is that the dispute was described in the lead section but not in the article body, with Ann D. Gordon mentioned in the lead but not later. This is backwards from WP:LEAD and is the result of inconsiderate removal of the article body text.

The main reason I brought this material back in because it is on topic, a critical reaction to SBA List statements which are seriously challenged by historians. Per WP:NPOV, we "describe disputes, but not engage in them." Any removal of this text is a failure to describe the disputes specifically associated with SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded earlier. You are exactly right about WP:LEAD. As such I removed Gordon from the lead and cut out everything that's already covered in the main article. You are right that we describe disputes, and the dispute is already described in the main article. No need for a massive description on multiple articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD was the minor reason, but you appear to have focused solely on that one. The text is critically important to the topic of SBA List, and should be presented on that page. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Step-by-step of my removals:

• "SBA List founder and president Marjorie Dannenfelser has attributed several quotes to Susan B. Anthony,[18] including a letter appearing in Anthony's newspaper The Revolution, one that was signed only 'A.' SBA List founder and president Marjorie Dannenfelser has attributed several quotes to Susan B. Anthony,[18] including a letter appearing in Anthony's newspaper The Revolution, one that was signed only "A."[18] Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon said this letter's author could not be positively identified.[19][20] Author Stacy Schiff notes that "what is generally not mentioned [by pro-life organizations] is that the essay argues against an anti-abortion law; its author did not believe legislation would resolve the issue of unwanted pregnancy."[21] Gordon adds that Anthony "never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life ... and she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term."[17]" Covered in main article: Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#"Guilty?"
• "In 2010, Dannenfelser referred to another quote from Anthony, observing of Anthony's views on abortion that her "words to Frances Willard in 1889 speak for themselves."[18] However, pro-life feminist researcher Mary Krane Derr wrote in 1995 and 1998 that the words in question related not to abortion, but to Anthony's victory in estate law.[22][23] Continued use by SBA List of the quote in an abortion context perpetuates an abortion-related misinterpretation.[24]" Covered in main article: Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#"Guilty?" NYyankees51 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

The issue is what amount of detail about the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute should be mentioned in the article. Should it get a large, detailed part, or a brief mention and a link to the dispute article? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this article about the SBA List should contain all the suitable information about the SBA List. The namesake organization has been criticized for using Susan B. Anthony's words and image inappropriately, and that information is crucial to the understanding of SBA List. The details which are under discussion are ones specific to SBA List, not to Feminists For Life or any other pro-life organization. I see the wish to remove these details of the critical dispute as a wish to remove any criticism from the article. Such an action is a violation of WP:NPOV. We must tell the reader about the group, warts and all. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I continue to consider this article a very important place to put critical information about the clash between SBA List and the group of scholars, pro-choice activists and journalists. Specifically, this article should have the following:
    • Dannenfelser has attributed certain quotes to Anthony, and that she has been challenged by Ann D. Gordon and Lynn Sherr.
    • Dannenfelser has also been challenged by Stacy Schiff regarding the interpretation of a quote.
    • Mary Krane Derr gave a different interpretation to a Dannenfelser assertion about a quote, and Laury Oaks said this misuse of the quote perpetuates a misinterpretation, that it was about child custody in estate law, not about abortion. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question: I assume the "large detailed part" is the current version, but what do you propose for "brief mention"? And, the article is not disputed, it's the "SBA abortion dispute" article. Lionel (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Large and detailed. The removal of unflattering critical information is against WP:NPOV. According to the NPOV guideline, the SBA List article is supposed to contain text "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " The views of Ann D. Gordon, the leader of the largest scholarly research group studying the lives of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, has spoken out against the misuse of Anthony's image and words. That is a major element in the story about SBA List, an organization whose name was based on the incorrect assumption by Dannenfelser that Anthony fought against abortion. If Dannenfelser had called it the Elizabeth Cady Stanton List or the Matilda Joslyn Gage List she would not have met such strong opposition from modern-day scholars. The relevant details about the dispute cannot be swept off this page to try and gloss over the dispute.
  Using the methods described at WP:NPOV#Good research, the truth can easily be determined regarding Anthony. Derr, Sherr, Gordon and Oaks have written accurate texts describing what Anthony actually did with her life, what she wrote to her friends, enemies and colleagues, and what she wrote in her diary. The misconstrued quotes by SBA List members are well-rebutted, with best-quality scholarship. The rebuttals are very important to this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, Gordon's, Oaks's, and Sherr's opinions are just that, opinions. Nobody knows exactly what Anthony was thinking. It would make things easier if we could ask her, but we can't. The issue is that you're crying NPOV while violating it yourself. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we have really good research available to us, and per WP:NPOV#Good research we should be using it as the mainstream view, as an anchor point. In this case, the researchers who have studied Anthony's actions and thoughts the most, the researchers who pored over the most primary material and have the broadest appreciation of the situation, have spoken. These university researchers, headed by Ann D. Gordon, have published the definitive works about Anthony and Stanton. They established the mainstream view of Anthony in these very highly regarded volumes. Anything else is what you might call casual opinion—for our purposes, Anthony's actions, thoughts and feelings are best represented by Gordon. If Gordon rebuts another person on the topic of Anthony or Stanton, that's the deal, the mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Brief mention and a link is what I am leaning toward, but I need to see what the brief mention looks like. I am opposed to the lengthy section, and if I recall I may have initiated all of this with my OFF-TOPIC query a while back. Lionel (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Lionelt that the content of the "brief mention" is very important. Some of the users who have been trimming the section have been claiming that it's unnecessary to include the entire thing as a cover for the removal of most of the WP:RS criticism of the list, and this is inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ros, I think your suggestion from an earlier thread should work fine:

The organization's name derives from the belief, advocated by female opponents of abortion and rejected by Susan B. Anthony scholars, that the nineteenth-century feminist opposed abortion.

I think it could possibly use a bit of tweaking - is the belief generally held by female opponents of abortion, or is it restricted to the membership of this group (and FFL)? conversely, do male opponents of abortion also believe it? We can avoid having to find out by saying "advocated by its founders" - we know that's definitely true, no one assumes that "advocated by its founders" entails "and nobody else." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC Comment:How about "The organization's name derives from the belief, which is rejected by historians, that the nineteenth-century feminist opposed abortion." Since the view that Anthony opposed abortion appears to be solidly rejected by scholars, it's a WP:FRINGE theory that we should treat as one. Mentioning it in this specific article is definitely in order but we shouldn't present the fringe notion on an equal footing to the rejection of it by scholars. --Dailycare (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been solidly rejected by scholars, it's been rejected by one scholar who happens to be the most prominent. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no Anthony scholars who have proved Anthony worked to oppose abortion, and scholars Laury Oaks and Ann D. Gordon have affirmed she did nothing of that sort. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said she actively worked to oppose it, so they're right in that respect. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Large and Detailed fully listing all MAINSTREAM criticism, fringe defense should also not be included. BelloWello (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Scholars

NYyankees51 just replaced "scholars" with "one scholar" who points out that SBA did not work against abortion and that the SBA List quotes are misattributed, etc. There is a plurality of scholars who say these things, including Ann D. Gordon, Laury Oaks, and Lynn Sherr; all of whom should be in this article, in the most neutral version of it. "One scholar" misrepresents the facts of the situation. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If Mary Krane Derr and Carol Crossed are not scholars, neither are Oaks and Sherr. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Crossed and Derr don't neutralize Oaks and Sherr. If Oaks and Sherr disagree with SBA List about Anthony, agreeing with Gordon, then we have a plurality of scholars. They do and we do. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean that Crossed and Derr's credentials are just as good as Oaks and Sherr. If Oaks and Sherr are classified as scholars, so should be Crossed and Derr. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That has no bearing on whether the article says "one scholar" or "scholars".

However, to answer your assertion, Gordon and Oaks beat all the others for scholarly credentials. Sherr and Derr studied Anthony in depth and wrote books (Sherr more from primary sources than Derr), but Crossed wrote and co-wrote a few books about abortion politics without researching Anthony deeply. Oaks is a university scholar, and Gordon is the leader of a group of Anthony and Stanton scholars—the most scholarly source we have. Oaks is a great source for this article you removed her along with Sherr. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Crossed owns a Susan B. Anthony museum. She hasn't researched Anthony deeply? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes a museum owner a scholar? Nothing. The books Crossed wrote are her greatest assets in terms of us respecting her opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the fact is that you don't respect her opinion not because she isn't qualified, but because you disagree with her. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Only I can state as fact who I respect and don't respect. You cannot. Regarding Carol Crossed, I have tried to discover her education details but I get nothing from web searches. I don't see how she measures up to these other authors and scholars. Rather than attacking me without basis, can you describe scholarly credentials for Crossed? Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the plural "scholars" is the answer. Because the scholars involved include Ann D. Gordon, the leader of the largest Anthony/Stanton history research group in the world and the author of the most respected and complete works about Anthony and Stanton, we can safely say "scholars" without dropping down to the diminutive "some scholars". The "some" tries to minimize the influence but this is not the case here where the most influential Anthony scholar is included in criticism of SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this part of the RfC? Lionel (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The plural "scholars" could still be discussed no matter the outcome of the RfC. The RfC results, if a consensus develops one way or another, will not change the question of how multiple critical scholars are to be referred to in the article. Even at the times during the recent edit warring when there is only a short description and a link to the dispute page, the fact remains that multiple scholars are critical of SBA List. This stays true even after those other scholars are stripped from the SBA List article by non-neutral edit warring. If Laury Oaks and Lynn Sherr and even Gordon are pulled out of the article, they are still present in the form of "scholars" who dispute SBA List assertions about Anthony. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Catholics United

The following section of text was removed:

Catholics United Executive Director Chris Korzen said that Soros's Open Society Institute "supports an agenda often very much in line with Catholic teaching, and has funded programs of Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, and many dioceses of the Catholic Church."[2]

This statement came from Korzen two years before the August 2010 bus tour by SBA List, the effort to oust pro-life Dems who favored Obama's health care legislation. Korzen was responding to right-wing attacks about being funded by liberal philanthropist George Soros, the same issue brought up by Emily Buchanan of SBA List in August 2010. Buchanan is quoted in our topic article in an amplification of what she said in passing in the cited news article. To the reporter she said, "They’re so worried they’ve even sent out counter-protesters from 'Catholics United,' a George Soros-funded group masquerading as a pro-life organization."

I feel that Korzen's response to an earlier but identical attack on his organization's funding source is perfectly legitimate for our article in regard to Buchanan's statement about Soros. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The earlier response, two years prior, has nothing to do with SBA list. It's off-topic. Lionel (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the Congressional Record

This section of text was removed by NYyankees51:

SBA List National Leader Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a U.S. Representative from Florida and a recipient of SBA List campaign contributions since 1998, spoke to Congress in June 1999 and delivered a speech titled "To Be A Feminist Means To Be Pro-life" which described the beliefs and activities of early feminists. She said that Anthony editorialized against abortion in The Revolution. However, the mainstream histories of Anthony describe her role at the newspaper as the owner, publisher and proprietor, not the editor. All the editorials were written by Anthony's editors Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen continued describing The Revolution's stance, saying that the editorials identified the "root cause" of abortion as "women's oppression" and "the abdication of family planning."

NYyankees51 wrote in the edit summary, "remove patchwork of different statements and facts that make it look like the everything was related; her speech is not notable anyway". I challenge the supposed lack of notability of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's speech placed in the Congressional Record—that publication is most certainly notable.

The mistake made by Ros-Lehtinen, her assumption that Anthony wrote the editorials in The Revolution, is in character with other SBA List member statements; Ros-Lehtinen is not being misinterpreted or misrepresented here. It is a common assumption by SBA List members that Anthony's opinions were one and the same as the editorial opinions represented in The Revolution. Dannenfelser wrote in 2010, "Most logical people would agree, then, that writings signed by 'A' in a paper that Anthony funded and published were a reflection of her own opinions." However, Ann D. Gordon said that "There's zero evidence that Susan B. Anthony ever made her [abortion] position known." She continued, "People also have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue." This bit about Ros-Lehtinen is clearly a reflection on SBA List attitudes toward Anthony. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of speeches made on the House floor every year. There's nothing to suggest this one received any more attention than the rest. Your patchwork of references is misleading. Those five sources are in no way related to each other. The way you connect the information in the sources makes it sound like they are in direct response to the speech. Also, the SBA List has three dozen endorsed candidates now in office; there's nothing to suggest Ros-Lehtinen is in any way representative of the organization. Also, there are several members who have made speeches like this. I don't think any of them garnered any attention. At most, all we need is one sentence saying several SBAL-supported members have made speeches in Congress saying SBA was pro-life. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupak section coatrack

I removed a phrase which made an unattributed editorial judgment about Obama's health care plan, this bit being stuck into the Stupak section. I was reverted. I think the phrase does not belong per WP:COATRACK and because the cited source does not support this addition. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how it violates coatrack? And how the cited source doesn't support it? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The coatrack is because of the neutrally toned editorial phrasing of the sentence. The wording made it sound like everybody reasonable thought 3590 was not. Rather than saying Dannenfelser spanked Stupak for her stated reasons (executive orders may be rescinded unilaterally, she heard that some Reps said this one was meaningless), the article said there were "doubts about its effectiveness." Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we would have to say it was Dannenfelser's position. If we say that, we can bring in other opinions that Dannenfelser was spanking Stupak for making a deal with Obama no matter what the content of that deal was. Stupak was not to be allowed to make concessions with the hated president. We could also bring in criticism about SBA List turning its back on an executive order which had possible good ramifications for pro-life concerns. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

From an SBA List blast email sent March 21, 2010: "An executive order is an ineffective maneuver and completely unacceptable." NYyankees51 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Dannenfelser was spanking Stupak for making a deal with Obama no matter what the content of that deal was. Stupak was not to be allowed to make concessions with the hated president." What in the world are you talking about? Are you trying to make assumptions about her motivation? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if the phrase is to be included, it should read "because of Dannenfelser 's doubts" or "because of SBA List's doubts." The phrase probably wouldn't have leapt out to me as problematic, but this seems an easy way to resolve it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Normally that would be fine, but almost every pro-life organization that I know of, except Democrats for Life, takes the same position. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But this article is not about them, it is about SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)