Talk:The Revolution (newspaper)

1972

Can we verify the 1972 date? --Duncan 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

References to abortion

I have removed this single-sentence paragraph from the article:

• "According to the owner of the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum, The Revolution contains 122 references to abortion, a fact cited by those who believe Anthony opposed abortion."

This factoid has two basic problems: it is unaccompanied by any context and it pushes a point of view. The 122 references to abortion are not shown to be notable by other, non-SBABM sources, and they are not shown to be purely for or against abortion, or even a mix of viewpoints. The SBABM source does not say whether they include the phrase "child-murder" to count as an instance of mentioning abortion, though that phrase has been used by 19th century activists to mean two things: abortion, and infanticide—the killing of unwanted newborns.

The factoid is not accompanied by how many references there are in The Revolution about alcohol, about woman suffrage, about spouse rape, about a woman's right to control her own body free from laws, etc. The factoid sticks out as inappropriate to this article, since it is clearly advocating a position not necessarily taken by the newspaper. People discussing abortion in The Revolution held varying opinions on abortion, including the infamous one which comes later in the "Guilty?" letter, where the anonymous writer signing 'A' says that passing a law against abortion is not the answer to unwanted babies. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "According to the owner of the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum, The Revolution contains 122 references to abortion." This solves the context and POV problem since it doesn't imply that all the references were negative. BS24 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Still no context, no encyclopedic knowledge passed on to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? I don't understand. BS24 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The entry does not describe who or when; it does not describe why or what; it does not say what the supposed 122 abortion references said, whether they were written by readers or by the newspaper owners, whether they were written in defense of abortion or in opposition, or if some middle ground position were being made such as anti-abortion morally but not legally. The entry does not say whether the 122 references include those that may have been published after Anthony sold the newspaper. There is just not enough information to make it encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to make a connection between the newspaper and Anthony. I think it is encyclopedic because it shows abortion was an important issue to women just as it is now, and your wanting to smother facts is questionable. If I find more "context", would you deem it acceptable? BS24 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you find. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Major expansion coming soon

I plan to post a major expansion of this article in the near future. I have temporarily placed a draft of the proposed revision in my sandbox in case anyone has objections, suggestions, etc., before I officially post it.Bilpen (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The draft looks pretty good. I welcome any expansion of this article.

I noticed a few little points in your draft that could be changed. One was the assumption that all American women who were working for suffrage left off that fight during the Civil War to fight instead against slavery. This is not true—there were plenty of women who were in favor of woman suffrage but not abolition.

I like your emphasis that the Revolution was willing to publish both sides of a debate. Anthony/Stanton scholar Ann D. Gordon also emphasizes this fact as one which is not very well understood. Gordon said so in a local newspaper piece in 2010. See Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute#"Guilty?". Perhaps Gordon can be referenced in the article.

A red link to Hester Vaughn is a good idea, to encourage expansion of the encyclopedia.

As in the current version, Lucy Stone should be named as the founder of the Woman's Journal. As well, Stone should be named explicitly in your version as the leader of the other group of women fighting for suffrage, the (larger) group that decided to back the 15th Amendment without holding it up to force the issue of a woman suffrage amendment. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Adding Lucy Stone and creating a red link to Hester Vaughn are easily made improvements.

On referencing Gordon when discussing the paper's policy of publishing both sides of debates: I personally think the newspaper's own colorful statement ("those who write for our columns are responsible only for what appears under their own names. Hence if old Abolitionists and Slaveholders, Republicans and Democrats, Presbyterians and Universalists, Saints, Sinners and the Beecher family find themselves side by side in writing up the question of Woman Suffrage, they must pardon each other's differences on all other points") makes that point more forcefully than any scholarly observer could do. I would not object, however, if someone added a mention of Gordon, perhaps in the footnote to that statement.

In reference to your first paragraph, I see two sentences in my draft that you might be referring to. The first is: "The women's rights movement strongly opposed slavery." You're right, that's too broadly worded because it excludes those who were in favor of women's suffrage but not abolition. That's easily fixed. I think it would be accurate and meaningful to say instead: "The leading figures in the women's rights movement strongly opposed slavery." The second is: "The women's rights movement had greatly reduced its activity during the Civil War (1861-1865) so its members could apply their energy to the fight against slavery." I will similarly change that to: "The women's rights movement had greatly reduced its activity during the Civil War (1861-1865) because its leaders wanted to apply their energy to the fight against slavery."

I posted a revised draft in my sandbox. Let me know what you think.Bilpen (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks for changing the abolitionist sympathies from general to specifically the leaders. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The expanded version of the article has now been posted.Bilpen (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)