Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

See also links removed

I removed the section of See also links as none of them were not left out of the article; they were all redundant. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

External links removed

I removed the pro-life organization links per WP:EL. They are not at all about the dispute. The only URL I know of which is specifically about the dispute is already used as a reference, and does not need to be placed as an External link. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

120 texts in The Revolution

I have taken out the factoid "The museum documents over 120 letters, articles, and editorials in The Revolution that speak out against abortion." The museum source says "Over 120 letters, articles, and editorials in Anthony’s Revolution speak out against the practice and are the basis for the exhibit." By "the practice", the source is talking about Restellism, a euphemism for abortion.

The 120 items are not described in an encyclopedic manner, not given context for the reader to gain understanding. The biggest problem I have with the factoid is that the 120 items are not cited by pro-life organizations and are not connected to Anthony as author. Once any of the items are used by pro-lifers, and attributed to Anthony, that one item can be discussed. Throwing them all in as a group is inappropriate to this article.

Personally, I'd like to know which of these anti-abortion texts are also for laws against abortion. I would expect that to be fewer than 120, based on the disputed essay/letter signed "A." Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossed has noted that repeatedly in response to criticism of her exhibit. Restellism and abortion were synonymous so I don't see the difference. BS24 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. This thread is about 120 references to abortion in The Revolution, a factoid I removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You said the fact can't be included because they didn't speak out against abortion, but Restellism. They are the same thing. That they opposed abortion in some way is enough context. 120 are documented by the museum. That's good enough. BS24 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same article? The same talk page? I said no such thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1989

The whole "Ann Dexter Gordon..." paragraph. Her personal experience is irrelevant; we already had this discussion. It's better than saying the dispute began in 1989 as a universal fact, but when she began to notice it does not matter. The whole paragraph makes it sound like these organizations were simply exploiting Anthony to promote their causes. Wording needs to be neutralized. BS24 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We decided that the 1989 time frame can be attributed to Gordon, not introduced as a fact all by itself. I have attributed it. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If FFL and CWA were founded in the 70s, Gordon's personal experience that she noticed in 1989 is especially irrelevant and serves only to discredit the other side of the dispute. BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's personal experience discredits nobody. She merely observes the year in which she first noticed the use of Anthony's image and quotes for a pro-life agenda. It does not matter one bit when FFL and CWA were founded. If you have evidence that either organization used Anthony quotes earlier than 1989, you can bring it forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's personal experience cannot serve as the starting point of the dispute. I have changed it to a compromise wording and moved the whole paragraph to the more appropriate background section. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You added "The start of the dispute is unknown" but you do not have a source for this assertion. I am removing it as original research. The way we had it was the one settled by RfC, where the year 1989 is allowed if attributed solely to Gordon saying that's when she noticed the start of pro-lifers using Anthony quotes. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At the SBAM history page, the link used in this article, Lusignan and the other museum folks do not attempt to interpret Lynn Sherr, Ann D. Gordon and Allison Stevens: they are quoted directly. A direct quote is not a misinterpretation of the source. 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.

The complaint that the year 1989 "serves only to discredit the other side of the dispute" is baffling to me. How can a neutral observation of some year discredit the pro-life organizations? It could just as easily discredit the folks who did not act upon the observation until 2006 and later, probably triggered by Crossed's purchase of the Anthony birthplace property, with the pro-choicer's expectation that the Anthony museum would be turned into a promotion of pro-life causes. Why would someone think less of FFL if they existed for more than ten years without connecting Anthony quotes with their message?

Even more baffling is the absence of a correction. Nobody has been able to show me that a pro-life feminist group used Anthony quotes before 1989. It should be an easy task for someone who has access to past publications. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. We don't know what the quote means or what is being referred to. The blog rips the quote from its context. (Leaving aside for the moment the other problems, e.g., the blog is deceptively titled, not reliable, anti-FFL, and set up for the sole purpose apparently of attacking the real SBA museum.) Cloonmore (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper interview shares none of these characteristics, and the context is plain. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is no longer available rendering the blog's claims unverifiable. An attack blog is not a reliable source. BS24 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unavailable? I have obtained a copy. It was published, so it will never be unverifiable. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FFL founding year

Scholar Laury Oaks writes that there are conflicting sources which say when FFL was founded. We cannot ignore this impeccable source and instead go with one from FFL themselves, an organization which is not neutral about the subject. Oaks is neutral, and scholarly articles are our top sources. There are none better. Oaks writes that FFL was founded in 1971, 1972, 1973 or 1975, according to different sources. That's the way we must put it, unless editors here would prefer a simpler version, something like "in the early '70s." Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oaks is neutral?

My writing, from the position of a white feminist scholar who advocates for reproductive justice, seeks to analyze critically pro-life feminists' argument that an anti-abortion stand is a central feminist position and consider what this conflict over "feminism" means for "feminisms."

Please. Cloonmore (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And "Thank You". Oaks states her position clearly and then analyzes FFL from a neutral standpoint. Her scholarship is the best source we have. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world FFL doesn't know better about when it was founded is beyond me. BS24 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is easy: FFL may wish to emphasize a certain moment in time, while others observe the beginnings of the organization in more standard fashion. Oaks has sifted through the versions and has decided to present them all rather than selecting one as correct. Her judgment guides us here. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How ridiculous. I don't even know how to answer the claim that some random author is correct about an organization's founding rather than the organization itself. And to say Oaks is an "impeccable source" given her quote above is almost as ridiculous. BS24 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Bink, but you're far from being the arbiter of sources or of "what guides us." Especially since you've shown a singular inability to recognize a blog as a blog, insisted that published material was "unpublished," and decreed that a writer with an acknowledged point of view is "neutral." It's the same old you, edit warring and pushing your views as the only views that matter. Very predictable. Very tiresome. Cloonmore (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have not addressed the Laury Oaks scholarly source. Instead, you have decided to deride other sources. Oaks is a fantastic source. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to "see" better. I did indeed address Oaks. You called her "neutral." Oaks' own words, which I quoted, refute your assertion. Cloonmore (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Scholarship requires such statements of position, before analysis commences. Her analysis is perfectly appropriate for our purposes, as neutral as it gets. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I will make it say "early '70s"... my point is not to belittle FFL via founding year. All I wanted was accuracy equal to scholarly analysis, which in this case has less precision. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

SBA List mission

I keep removing from this article any sort of quoted mission statement from SBA List. That kind of detail is only appropriate in one article, the one about SBA List. Here we are only concerned about what SBA List means to the dispute. This article is not the place for statements not related to the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you keep removing it because you don't like it. BS24 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I keep removing it because this is not the SBA List details article. Here, we stay general. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous

I have used the word "anonymous" to describe The Revolution article signed "A." The definition of anonymous that I am relying on is from a 1973 printing of Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

• anonymous 1) having or giving no name 2) of unknown or unnamed origin 3) marked by lack of individuality or personality.

Clearly, the third meaning can be thrown out as irrelevant. Both of the other meanings certainly apply, as the author of the essay a) gave no name, and b) is unknown to we of the 20th and 21st centuries. If the editorial staff of The Revolution knew who it was, they did not leave a note for us to follow. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A name was given -- "A." We just don't know who "A." was. If someone for whom no record exists wrote an article in the Revolution and signed their name, we wouldn't call her anonymous. BS24 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If a person named "A." wrote the piece, then why would anybody think it was Anthony? (!!) And now the writer is a "her"? No, the writer is anonymous, name and sex unknown, likely a woman but not known for certain. No name given = anonymous. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sherr and Gordon call the author of the piece "anonymous". Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream vs minority

Several places in the article I use Oaks' construction which puts pro-life feminism in a minority position separating from mainstream feminism in the early '70s.

My wording per Oaks:

• "Pro-life feminism separated from the mainstream U.S. feminist movement in the early 1970s."
• "Mainstream feminism's insistence on gender equality and abortion rights"

Other wording:

• "A pro-life feminist movement began to distinguish itself from the feminist establishment in the early 1970s."
• "The feminist establishment's insistence on gender equality and abortion rights"

I do not see that "feminist establishment" is any kind of improvement from "mainstream feminism", the words used by Oaks. The term establishment puts up an oppositional slant. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oaks is a biased source. "My writing, from the position of a white feminist scholar who advocates for reproductive justice, seeks to analyze critically pro-life feminists' argument that an anti-abortion stand is a central feminist position and consider what this conflict over 'feminism' means for 'feminisms.'" BS24 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't put so much into that statement of hers; it is standard practice for scholarly papers. The scholar states his own position but the paper is held to neutrality standards. This paper went through a severe vetting process—it was examined by other scholars and passed. That's what scholarly journals are for, and that's why we at Wikipedia hold scholarly papers as the highest possible sources. Oaks is an impeccable source. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The term feminist establishment is neutral and more widely used than Oaks' terminology. Here's a very small but revealing sampling:

• Pro-choice Emily Bazelon on her Double XX blog
• Pro-choice Katha Pollitt in The Nation
• Pro-life Marjorie Dannenfelser in the Wash. Examiner
• Christine Rosen in Slate
• Pro-Choice Camille Paglia in Salon
• Neo-con William Kristol in The New York Times
• The Boston Globe
• Seattle News Weekly

Clearly, "feminist establishment" is widely used and not POV, as it's been employed by writers across the political spectrum in opinion pieces as well as in hard news stories. It's the correct term to use here. Cloonmore (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

None of which are scholarly works. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely! We're writing a Wikipedia article, not a dissertation. Cloonmore (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia article. Per WP:SOURCES, "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." This is one of those instances. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Bink, you're missing the point of this discussion. It is not whether Oaks is or is not a reliable source for certain data. It is whether her terminology is NPOV. One can be a reliable source for certain info but still use POV terms. "Mainstream" connotes that all else is "out of the mainstream," that is, fringe and esoteric, but FFL contends that it represents the more mainstream view. We can avoid this dispute altogether by using better terminology. Clearly, there is a "feminist establishment," and, just as clearly, pro-life feminists are not part of it. The term is thus more accurate, and provably neutral, as per the above sources. OTOH, "mainstream" fails both the accuracy and neutrality tests. Cloonmore (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "mainstream", a term which certainly puts other streams in a minority position, by definition. It's a neutral assessment made by a scholar studying the various streams of thought. Yes, pro-life feminists are not part of the mainstream. However, "mainstream" does not fail any measure of neutrality. Oaks has not been shown to use non-neutral wording. FFL's contention that they are the more mainstream doesn't stand a chance against neutral scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life women are not the minority; as I said above, 46% of women consider themselves pro-life compared to 49% pro-choice, which is within the 3% margin of error. BS24 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about pro-life women, we are talking about pro-life feminists. Your Gallup reference does not address feminism, does not sort pro-life feminists from mainstream feminists. Not only that, but your Gallup reference says that only 23% of those polled wish for abortion to be illegal in all cases, the position held by FFL and the ultimate goal of SBA List. That leaves 77% of Americans in some degree of disagreement with the aims of those who would co-opt Anthony's legacy. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

I have used the word promotion several times in this article in describing the actions of pro-life feminists who seek to expand their base of support, and seek to have more people sympathize with their cause. I have been opposed by BS24 who says "'Pro-life promotion' sounds like evil pro-lifers are hijacking her image." I think the word is perfectly acceptable—organizations engage in promotion all the time. Not once has BS24 offered another word in its place, to yield the same idea but in a manner more to his liking. I am removing the POV tags after each instance of the word. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Binksternet, since you dominate the article and remove every single edit Cloonmore and I have made, your work should at least be called into question if we aren't allowed to disagree. BS24 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And since we're not allowed to edit, I'm going to tag every POV statement to force you to correct it yourself. BS24 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your logic falls down right from the start. The article is not about the editors, it is about the referenced facts. If it involves one editor against a hundred, with only the one supplying referenced facts, the article should still reflect references. The tagging you have initiated is an example of that sort of editing which is deprecated at WP:POINT—do not disrupt the article to prove a point. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Discussion is the preferred venue for highlighting issues with rules or practices." You reject any attempts at discussion. I am not trying to prove a point. You won't let us edit the article so I'm trying to make you address our concerns, since this is apparently your article. BS24 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This supposed discussion thread was originally an announcement made by you that I will have to figure out and explain the results of your tagging session, your dropping of nine tags without saying what each one was about. Your talk entry here was not an "attempt" by you to discuss anything. You did not engage me in article discussion, you just wished to push me back on my heels with an aggressive action. I am a very poor subject for that sort of conversation; I have more backbone than that. If you had chosen to discuss particular concerns, we would now be discussing those concerns.

By the way, your tagging session also misspelled a direct quote where Palin said "woman's"; you thought "women's" was better, but Palin's quote should not be changed. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here you go then.

• Lead tag: Says unnamed "scholars" say the pro-life side is wrong. Only the pro-choice arguments are given and not the pro-life arguments.
• "Pro-life feminism separated from the mainstream..." Pro-life feminism isn't mainstream? 46% of women consider themselves pro-life, just three points behind pro-choice. Please explain how pro-life isn't mainstream.
• Multiple uses of "pro-life promotion": promotion is a loaded term.
• Multiple uses of "Anthony scholars": Name these scholars. You have only named one, so this seems to be WP:WEASEL.
• A signature equals anonymous: We've been over this before.

BS24 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• You are perfectly able to solve the POV tag by adding pro-life views, not taking away scholarly assessments.
• Yes, exactly. Pro-life feminism is not mainstream feminism, per Oaks.
• Pro-life promotion is loaded only from your perspective.
• Anthony scholars can be named. Certainly we know of Oaks, Gordon, Schiff.
• Anonymous includes signing with a single letter so as to hide one's identity. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The most coherent argument given here about the lead section was that it did not present a pro-life argument, which was true. I have added such an argument, and removed the POV tags. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"unwilling to see her legacy co-opted"

I used the phrase "unwilling to see her legacy co-opted" to describe scholars' wish to keep Anthony's legacy one of only suffrage, abolition and temperance, primarily suffrage... anything but abortion, a subject on which Anthony did not act. This wish has been stated by scholars Gordon and Sherr (Sherr having written In Her Own Words, a book on Anthony) who said "Our argument here is not over abortion rights. Rather it is about the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism." I am restoring the phrase with the cite made more obvious, even though cites should not be needed in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote doesn't support your phrasing. "Co-opting" one's "legacy" is obviously pejorative. Cloonmore (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not saying that the pro-life organizations are in fact co-opting Anthony's legacy, we are saying that scholars such as Sherr and Gordon are "unwilling to see her legacy co-opted", which is an accurate statement of their position. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken out the tag. The complaints here are that the phrasing is pejorative, but the position taken by Gordon and Sherr is a strong one against pro-life feminism's usage of Anthony, changing her legacy to something it never was before. None of the editors here thinks that the phrasing is an inaccurate statement about the positions taken by Gordon and Sherr. I am removing the tag at that phrase, since it is a straightforward representation of their position. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"None of the editors here thinks that the phrasing is an inaccurate statement about the positions taken by Gordon and Sherr"?? I'd have thought the statement, "The quote doesn't support your phrasing", couldn't be much clearer. Cloonmore (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality again

I have removed the POV tags placed by BS24, an editor blocked for sockpuppeting. Discussion had already ground to a halt about the supposed neutrality of the article, and the one substantive suggestion was addressed: I added a bit in the lead section in support of the pro-life viewpoint.

At Template:POV it says "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor."

Moving ahead on this matter, any future tagging of the article must be accompanied by discussion including a suggestion of how to fix the indicated problem. Leaving tags up without discussion is not to be used as a "badge of shame". Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, your insistence on using loaded terminology throughout the article and reversion of any edits regarding same has compromised its neutrality. There are any number of examples under discussion -- "co-opted...legacy", "mainstream". "promotion", etc. No discussion is dormant. The purpose of the tag is to attract other editors to help improve the article, as perTemplate:POV. Your repeated removals of the tag do not appear to be in good faith. Cloonmore (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, an editor's blocking for unrelated conduct is no reason to revert his edits. Cloonmore (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute? it says that the POV tag can only be a temporary measure, and must be followed by actual contributions to the article which fix the problem. It says "repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your 'right' to use the tag."

If you do not wish to edit the article, or don't have time to fix it, don't keep re-adding the tag; let other editors fix the perceived POV problems. To attract other editors, they need to come see the article. To have them see the article you should start a Request for Comment, or take another form of dispute resolution. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as you know, isn't that attempts haven't been made to improve the article. The problem is that you revert all such edits. Your implicit suggestion that my "sole contribution" to this article has been to add a tag is little more than a bald faced lie. Cloonmore (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are your contributions in the last five days:

• Talk page: Calling Binksternet predictable. No article improvement suggested. 01:47, October 30
• Article edit: Getting rid of "co-opted", swapping 'mainstream' for 'establishment' etc. 13:09, October 30
• Talk page: Saying Oaks is not neutral. 16:40, October 30
• Article edit: Getting rid of "co-opted", swapping 'mainstream' for 'establishment', adding FFL mission statement, ridding uncertainty in FFL founding. 16:56, October 30
• Talk page: Saying that "co-opting" and "legacy" are "obviously pejorative", but with no proof. 20:47, October 30
• Talk page: How "feminist establishment" is the more neutral phrase. 02:58, October 31
• Talk page: Again about "feminist establishment". 12:09, October 31
• Talk page: Laury Oaks is not neutral. 22:55, October 31
• Article edit: Revert, restoring two POV tags. 13:57, November 2
• Talk page: questioning "co-opting". 02:16, November 3
• Article edit: Revert, restoring two POV tags. 02:18, November 3
• Talk page: discussing loaded terminology. 10:56, November 3
• Article edit: Revert, restoring one POV tag. 10:54, November 3
• Talk page: personal discussion about tactics, no article improvement suggested.16:59, November 3

Since October 30, you have only reverted my removal of POV tags. You have not found better arguments regarding wording you consider non-neutral. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so now it's about me, eh? Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. Cloonmore (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's about "repeatedly adding the tag" which is, of course, about somebody's edits to the article. Again, if you wanted to attract more eyeballs you would be asking for RfC. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With no new arguments, and discussion stalled, I'm removing the tag again. Per Template:POV, it is not to be used to warn others, or as a "badge of shame". If any editor wishes to attract other eyes, start an RfC. Binksternet (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Co-opted

This loaded word describes a viewpoint held by some people, and as such does not need to be a neutral word. It accurately represents the viewpoint; a fact not challenged by other editors here. The people using the word "co-opt" are a combination of historians and pro-choicers who oppose the pro-life usage of Anthony's words and image. They have used this term repeatedly: At the SBA museum website headed by Nora Bredes, Deborah Lusignan, et al it says "we will not stand idly by as our most cherished native daughter is co-opted for the narrow political agenda of a few." This editorial was broadcast on NPR Northeast US stations on March 4, 2010, and included this sentence: "For the past ten years, two anti-abortion organizations entrenched with the leadership of the SBABM, Feminist Choosing Life of New York and Feminist for Life of America have been conducting a deliberate and methodical campaign to co-opt Anthony as a historical role model and icon for their new anti-choice feminist movement." Reporter Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times said on NPR about Palin using the concept of grizzly-bear-mama conservative feminism, "I think that's unfortunate, and I don't think it's surprising that Palin has taken this opportunity to claim it, co-opt, however you want to discuss." In an opinion piece in the New Haven Register, Connie Schultz writes of SBA List, "in true Palin style, this PAC co-opted Anthony’s name and her intentions, and turned them into something she never would have supported." The word is perfectly legit in this usage. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are alternate constructions which mean much the same thing. Deborah Lusignan is paraphrased by a reporter into these words: "the anti-abortion group has been covertly absconding with Anthony's legacy and image over the last ten years". Co-opting is much the same as, if not better than covertly absconding. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase skews the meaning and adds a POV to the lead and is unnecessary. I suggested a neutral revision to the sentence, that retains the underlying basis of the dispute without the gratuitous phrase, but you removed it without comment. Cloonmore (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And why are you starting a new section rather than continuing the existing discussion? Cloonmore (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresent my edits on 30 October. You removed the phrase "unwilling to see her legacy co-opted", with the edit summary "'legacy...coopted' -POV" but without discussing the change on the talk page. I reverted a raft of your changes (including this one) with the edit summary "rv, See Talk" where I posted a detailed description of my reversions on the talk page. Your accusation "you removed it without comment" is without merit. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More cant. Your so-called detailed description is nothing of the sort, as anyone can see. Cloonmore (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole article contains non-neutral points of view, yet we must represent them to the reader. Your deletion of the phrase "unwilling to see her legacy co-opted" made all historians and all pro-choicers say "that Anthony did not actively work against abortion". At least one historian, Mary Krane Derr, hedges her bets on this. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Your sentence about "co-opting" SBA's legacy is refering to Derr as well? Support? Cloonmore (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not referring to Derr. The sentence was intended to say that scholars such as Gordon and Sherr (who are unwilling to see her legacy co-opted) and pro-choice activists (the ones who are unwilling to see her legacy co-opted, which is pretty much all of them) have argued that Anthony did not actively work against abortion, and that her words on the subject have been taken out of context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So then your comments above at 05:58, 4 Nov 2010, make no sense. You argued that my alternative formulation somehow shortchanged Derr's position, but you now agree that Derr has nothing to do with it. So what exactly is the problem with deleting your gratuitous POV phrase? Cloonmore (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not gratuitous. "Co-opted" is used by a number of sources and it is an accurate representation of their position. You prefer "absconded"? Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

This word is used by historians, by pro-lifers and by pro-choicers to describe the benefits handed down by Anthony's hard work. All sides of the dispute use it. The "Question Abortion" poster campaign launched by FFL in 2000 included one with a photo of Anthony. Underneath her it said "Another anti-choice fanatic. The woman who fought for the right to vote also fought for the right to life. We proudly continue her legacy." FFL also wrote "What did Susan B. Anthony say about abortion? How do modern pro-life feminists continue her legacy?" Nora Bredes reports she "has been having weekly conversations with colleagues about strategies to reclaim Anthony's legacy". Bredes and her website partners, opponents of the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum, write "Anthony serves a model of female empowerment and strength to all women, and for any group to misrepresent her legacy to claim her for their own political agenda is divisive and a disservice to her legacy." The Birthplace Museum itself holds as it mission that it is "dedicated to preserving the birthplace and raising public awareness of the wide-ranging legacy of the great social reformer, Susan B. Anthony, who was a pioneering feminist and suffragist as well as a noteworthy figure in the abolitionist, pro-life and temperance movements of the 19th century", though what notional pro-life movement of the 19th century is supposed to have existed is not elucidated. In the North Adams Transcript, Deborah Lusignan is described by the reporter Jennifer Huberdeau as expressing that "the anti-abortion group has been covertly absconding with Anthony's legacy and image over the last ten years" (Huberdeau's words). Huberdeau writes that a room at the SBA birthplace museum is "dedicated to Anthony's legacy", and it includes exhibits on suffragism, property ownership for women, the right for women to regulate their own bodies, temperance and abortion, with the questionable addition of an exhibit on anti-Restellism showing only circumstantial evidence to tie Anthony to that cause. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No one's disputed the word "legacy." The issue, as you know, is your gratuitous phrase, "unwilling to see her legacy co-opted". Cloonmore (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream

Scholar Laury Oaks uses this word repeatedly to describe the non-pro-life feminists. She does not use the alternate term "feminist establishment", which I consider non-neutral, suggesting a closed bloc of feminists not open to change or to newcomers, viewed from the outside. A number of pro-life and pro-choice writers have used "feminist establishment" but a scholarly source is the better source. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, why are you avoiding the existing discussion and starting a new one? Cloonmore (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not avoiding, just starting anew. No reason except to have the discussion connected explicitly with other words that have been tied by you to the POV tag. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

This is a good word, not a bad word. For instance, the Tennessee Teachers give out the Susan B. Anthony Award for high achievement, including "promotion of awareness of women’s issues". Alma Lutz writes in her Anthony biography that Anthony was impressed by Charles F. Hovey's trust of $50k for "promotion of the antislavery cause and other reforms", including women's rights. Even in the 19th century the word was seen as positive: the British Association for the Promotion of Temperance was established by 1835. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an unusual usage, awkward and POV. What's wrong with "use"? Cloonmore (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Regarding this edit, WP:SAY says "points out" is a phrase to avoid, while "said" is "almost always neutral and accurate". NYyankees51 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not seen that WP:SAY describes these terms in the context of whether the statement is true. It is of course true that abortion in the 19th century was more dangerous and unpredictable than in the 21st century. The sentence "Schiff points out that abortion in the 19th century, unlike today, was a very dangerous and unpredictable procedure", is patently true. The non-neutral phrase "points out" is appropriate here. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many who would say abortion is still very dangerous and unpredictable, considering there have been hundreds of deaths since it was legalized. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is beside the point. Your examples of "hundreds" gets lost in the many millions of abortions that are performed worldwide these days. The "many" you refer to would not say that the 19th century was less or equally dangerous, less or equally unpredictable. Anybody considered the slightest expert on the topic agrees on the fact that abortion was more dangerous and unpredictable in the 19th century. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see what the problem is with simply "said"? It is what she said. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are taking a POV position, trying to undermine the well-founded arguments against pro-life feminists who wrongly use Anthony as their totem. Your suggestion weakens the utterly true statement. By holding this line, I am preventing this article's death by a thousand cuts. Taking out "pointed out" is one such seemingly minor cut, part of a POV campaign to make SBA List and others look somewhat better than they do for choosing cranky old Anthony as their mascot. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you really think that I am a simple POV-pusher, and you are the intrepid defender of facts and Anthony's legacy, you are only kidding yourself. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One of us has a history of working for SBA List, and it is not me. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were done with that. You have about as much evidence of a current COI with SBA List as I do of a COI of yours with Ann Gordon. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We would be "done with that" if you edited baseball articles. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ann D. Gordon, I have never met her, though I watched her in the 1999 DVD by Ken Burns about Susan B. Anthony: Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony. It's impossible for me to have a conflict of interest with her. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My alleged COI is about as plausible as yours. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all about POV: are you neutral on the topic? No matter your personal opinion, can you edit this article neutrally? Taking the above RfC as an example, it is clear you wish to have Carol Crossed or Mary Krane Derr be judged a scholar so that their pro-life concepts of what Susan B. Anthony was all about can be brought to bear on this article. By filing the RfC, it appears you are reaching for straws because there are no acknowledged experts of the topic who agree with the FFL and SBA List version of history, the one you are defending so strongly. Nobody who is a scholar on the topic says Anthony was "pro-life", a modern term that has no bearing on any issue prior to the late 20th century. However, the official positions of FFL and SBA List are that she was pro-life! Can you see why the article cannot let a shred of the pro-life viewpoint change the historical truth? It's a laughable position, the one that SBA List takes on their historic heroine. Trying to salvage something of that position is not editing neutrally. Rather, it is editing with a POV. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I think you may have just proven that you are not neutral on the topic. PeRshGo (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My POV is this: historical accuracy and scholarship are of top importance. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And you claim that Anthony not being pro-life is historically accurate. Unless you were alive in the 19th century and asked her, you can't know for sure one way or the other, but you still take that position. As I have said over and over again, where there is a genuine question about something (in this case there is), Wikipedia's job in disputes such as this is to present both sides of the debate and let the reader decide. You refuse to do this and instead try to make the decision for the reader. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Anthony not being pro-life is historically accurate"... Yes, because "pro-life" emerged long after she was dead. "Pro-life" began in 1973: it was a label chosen by the new right-to-life movement, a countermovement formed in response to feminist social pressure to make abortion safer. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point - you disagree with the pro-lifers' beliefs about Anthony, and you are trying to make the article fit your opinion. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This can also be phrased, 'I agree with scholarly thought regarding Anthony never working against abortion.' Thus, I disagree with those who do not accept scholarly thought. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to believe that, but you're not entitled to pass it off as absolute fact when there's no way of knowing whether it's true. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You say we should "present both sides of the debate and let the reader decide". That is not what we do if one side has all the scholars and the other side has people with a political agenda but no scholars. In that case, there is one accepted mainstream version of facts, and what we describe for the reader is the mainstream thought regarding the situation, and the straying from accepted scholarly thought by the political activists. We describe how the activists misuse history, twisting it around to shape their political aims. We do not give both sides of the question the same weight when one side is so far from center. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're making unfounded assumptions about the pro-lifers' motivations (political only), rendering your argument invalid. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthony's image and words are put forward by FFL and SBA List to change people's opinions, to shape politics. There are no non-political uses of Anthony by pro-life people. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Their mission is not strictly political. SBA List's goal is the end of abortion in America, and politics is one the means they have chosen towards this end. Abortion is a moral issue that has been turned into a political issue. FFL's scope is much larger than politics. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the mission of FFL or the mission of SBA List. I'm arguing that Anthony's words and image are used solely for political aims. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, you have clearly drawn your own conclusion on the debate and are attempting to enforce that conclusion. Your presence in this article has amounted to textbook POV pushing and rejecting even attempts at reaching consensus. That isn’t to say that you are alone in this. It’s a debate article, and like many others POV pushing is common, but you at least have to make some attempt to at least veil it for the sake of impartiality. The fact is the entire debate is little more than an episode of Deadliest Warrior or the ever present attempt to answer the question of what the founding fathers would say about a particular issue. Any conclusion drawn, whether “scholarly” or otherwise is bupkis. No one has a time machine as far as I know so no one has had the chance to ask her. Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements are modern inventions and because of that I can comfortably say that she was a member of neither. So where does that leave us? Well it leaves me asking you to please stop at least overtly trying to slant the article. Present the facts and stop trying to lead conclusions. Every source presented has been written by an activist despite whether one considers them a scholar or not because they’re all trying to convince themselves, and the reader that their hero would agree with their actions today. So let’s try to push some reality into this article so we can move on to just as ridiculous ones like the debate over the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. PeRshGo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. I came to this debate a complete greenhorn, and to find answers I checked some relevant books out of the nearby university library. Reading them, I found that scholars say one thing and pro-life feminists say another, and that the pro-lifers imagine that the argument has only two poles: pro-life and pro-choice. This image is incomplete: the scholars are not pro-life or pro-choice—they form the third dimension of the debate, the ivory tower of accuracy in history irrespective of political aims. I don't know how much you understand of what Lynn Sherr and especially Ann D. Gordon have done in writing books about Anthony, but they looked at every word that is known to exist from Susan B. Anthony, thousands of documents. If they are activists (a reach!) they are activists for historic truth, not political change. Pro-lifers tend to paint the dispute as being between themselves and pro-choicers, a bitter fight that can only end with one side dead and gone. Indeed there can be found some pro-choicers in the debate, but they are few and they stand behind the scholars who take no sides.

I am unable to enjoy your TV episode reference as I do not watch TV; I read. If a time machine could be found to ask SBA her opinion, this article would be written very much differently (along with much of the encyclopedia), but that has nothing to do with the situation we find ourselves in, one without such fantasy tools. What we are left with is scholarly opinion grounded upon decades of careful study, something that Wikipedia classifies at the highest level. How you came to consider this level of scholarship bupkis is incomprehensible. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Study is irrelevant when dealing with the literally unknowable. The question the debate asks is would have SBA considered herself Pro-Life, or Pro-Choice? And the only factual answer is that it is impossible to know. Now since you have arrogantly declared you don’t watch TV you may not know that Sherr is basically a TV personality best known for reading the news and being closely associated with Planned Parenthood, the US’s largest abortion provider and lobbyist. Gordon who actually does carry credibility, and is whom I would consider to be the only scholar in the debate, still shouldn’t be considered unbiased given her own positions on abortion and her collaboration with Sherr. Sides have CLEARLY been taken in this debate by all involved and everyone is trying to spin a hand full of quotes into a genuine position. Is it a stretch to spin SBA into a pro-life hero? Of course, but it is just as much of a stretch to try to make this article into a debate between scholars activist by pumping it full of POV and conclusions in an attempt to discredit the pro-life activists. This debate most closely resembles people trying to apply the right to bear arms view of the founding fathers to the issue of assault weapons. Yes they agreed that citizens have the right to own weapons but we do have to accept the fact that weapons at that time didn’t fire 750 rounds per minute. It doesn’t matter if the person is a history professor or someone who owns a gun museum. Their position on the issue is an unknowable and open to individual interpretation so any article referencing that position should present it as such. PeRshGo (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

PeRshGo, you're trying to put words into others' mouths here. No one here - no one, not scholars nor editors - is trying to claim that Anthony was a pro-choice activist. Which is good, because we don't have material that suggests this. You're putting forth a legitimate premise - "We don't know what Anthony's position now would be, given a bunch of modern circumstances that weren't present in her time" - and using it to draw the opposite conclusion - "therefore, we should pretend that people who claim she would support their political views have a legitimate position." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My argument is given the handful of statements she made on the matter I can’t blame anyone for claiming she deplored abortion like many of the day which would equate her to being pro-life in modern terms or was decidedly apathetic towards it which would equate her to being pro-choice in modern terms. It’s a matter of opinion and as such I don’t think the article should be written as it is, which carries a strong POV that the pro-life groups’ opinion is wrong. PeRshGo (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are subtle differences between "wrong" and "not based in any evidence," but for Wikipedia purposes they're largely equivalent. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of that I'm certain, but as it stands both the pro-life and pro-choice folks who have chimed in are both using the same crumbs of evidence and as the article reads the pro-choice folks through the use of phrasing and editor drawn conclusions are getting a far better presentation. There was literally a Sarah Palin picture in this article when I came across it. If that's not trying to make your opponent look bad I don't know what is. PeRshGo (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a very nice picture of Palin. :-)

You are incorrect: Gordon's position on abortion has never been stated. She is neutral on the subject.

Your supposition that the Anthony scholars and the pro-lifers are using "the same crumbs of evidence" is plain wrong. Gordon's Rutgers project has looked at 14,000 historic documents; everything that is known to exist about Anthony. Gordon and the Rutgers people have published five of the most highly considered scholarly books on Anthony; the sixth and final one is due soon. None of the books tie Anthony to abortion because she did not do anything on that issue. Gordon's opinion on what Anthony did and did not do, did and did not think, is far firmer than you imagine. Gordon is not guessing about the fact that Anthony did not work against abortion—she knows. In February 2010 she told the The Transcript that "There's zero evidence that Susan B. Anthony ever made her position known. I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions [that SBA was clearly against abortion] since 1989. It's pretty far fetched—she didn't often speak on religious issues, which she would have considered this. We can't say what her stance on abortion would be, but we can say for sure that she'd be against the government regulating a woman's body. She spoke out about that issue quite clearly." When Gordon says there is zero evidence, that's the last word. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you PeRshGo for saying it much more articulately than I could. First, as for Gordon's position on abortion, I can't find her saying anything about it, but there's really not any doubt where she stands on the issue, considering her field of work, her place of work, and the people she works with. But that's not the point. Binksternet, you may trust Gordon as the final authority on this issue, but the simple fact is that no one knows which side is right. Gordon knows what Anthony did. She has no idea what Anthony thought. The dispute is real, and that means a legitimate debate exists. Our job is to present both sides of the issue fairly. You may trust Gordon, but others might not. So let the readers decide. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why bother to make stuff up about Gordon's position on abortion? It helps nothing.

In her role as editor of the six most highly respected books on Stanton and Anthony, Gordon is very careful about what she says on the subject of Anthony. If she offers an opinion about what Anthony thought, it is from reading hundreds of Anthony's diary entries, hundreds of private letters written by Anthony, hundreds of speeches and journal articles; a wealth from which to draw conclusions. Gordon says Anthony spoke out clearly against laws restricting a woman's body, and never spoke out clearly about abortion. We must accept Gordon's expertise as the best possible interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But by letting no one oppose Gordon’s opinion we allow her to make unscholarly assessments with no dissenting opinion. Stating that SBA would have considered abortion a “religious issue” or having to do with “government control over a woman’s body” are both attempts to implant modern pro-choice viewpoints into the mind of this 19th century woman, and contradicts other assertions that the terms simply don’t translate. As much as I agree that Gordon is a professional Anthony scholar she is no more qualified to speak for Anthony’s opinion on modern concepts that were not brought up during her time than an amateur, in that situation Gordon and the folks at the SBA list are on level ground. PeRshGo (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source that opposed Gordon's opinion, of course we would include it. But we don't. These claims you're making about "Anthony historians don't actually know anything so we must pretend this propaganda is a valid interpretation of Anthony's life and work" are bizarre and contrary to WP:RS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears you've thrown out the scholarship guidelines and are now going by gut feeling. I do not consider it worth arguing on that basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The scholarship guidelines are but one but one factor in this discussion, and I don’t see where gut feeling has gone into it at all. It is simply my position that both sides should be able to plead their case without editor drawn conclusions and attempts to only show one side of the debate. Yes the pro-choice side has Gordon, a respected SBA scholar but I don’t see any guideline that says one scholar’s opinion renders an issue, case closed. The folks at the SBA List, and museum have made their case, and Gordon and Sherr have made theirs. The article should read like that, not like the view of some Wikipedia editors that one side is being disingenuous while the other somehow is not. PeRshGo (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:NPOV covers this situation. It says we must write in a manner "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are doing that: the scholars give the mainstream view, and the pro-life activists supply the significant minority view, the reason for having the article in first place. NPOV says we should "not give a false impression of parity", but your conception of this article would show parity between the scholars and the political activists. No parity exists as the activists have no scholarship to back up their position. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we are certainly not representing all views fairly. If you think you are, you have a warped view of fairness. You trust Gordon. The readers may or may not. Let them decide. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The readers are perfectly free to decide that their own personal biases trump scholarly research and publication. PeRshGo has done it even with the article in its current form; I don't think other readers will have a problem with it either. If that's what they really want to do, no amount of evidence will dissuade them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please Roscelese. Let's stop treating the pro-lifers like a bunch of 9/11 truthers or moon landing conspiracy theorists or whatever. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scholarship + or -

• Lynn Sherr - [1]

Has been pretty open with her involvement with planned parenthood. I appreciate many of these authors have written a lot on the topic but just writing about something does not make one the be all end of that realm. - Haymaker (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the scholarly publications you dismiss as "just writing about something" are a textbook example of WP:RS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things: being involved with Planned Parenthood does not erase the fact that Lynn Sherr's book about Anthony has been cited by scholars, making it a scholarly source for us to cite, and defining Sherr as an Anthony scholar.

The other thing is that Planned Parenthood has prevented more abortions in the U.S. than any pro-life group. You are trying to tar Sherr by association but the association is positive. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lynn Sherr is a TV personality and activist riding along on a book with a genuine scholar in order to sell more books. If this were any other article no one would ever consider her as a scholar as well. And Binksternet I have no clue how you expect to be considered impartial with your bias out of control like this. Close association with a political lobbyist has never in the history of scholarship been a good thing. PeRshGo (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You know my bias is about historic accuracy and scholarship—I don't deny it. This article describes as accurately as possible the mistakes made by pro-lifers in their misinterpretations of Anthony's words and motives. That mistakes were made by only one side, the FFL and SBA List pro-lifers, is not in question. Scholars who have spoken out on the topic are in perfect agreement.

Sherr wrote the book Failure is Impossible by herself, so I don't know where you're going with the bit about her "riding along". It's nice that you have shared your personal opinion of Sherr, but Wikipedia's guidelines define her differently than you do. At WP:RS#Scholarship, it says that "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." Sherr's book on Google Scholar shows a few dozen other writers citing her work, showing that it has "entered mainstream academic discourse". This sets TV personality and feminist activist Sherr firmly into the category of Anthony scholars. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A few dozen… wow. Only in THIS article would a few dozen hits to Google Scholar consider a TV personality who wrote a book, a scholar. David Icke, the guy who thinks Freemasons are lizards gets thousands on his publications. Perhaps we should go over to the Freemasonry article and write that this clear scholar’s opinion outweighs the belief that they are human beings. You are gaming the system, and this talk page is the biggest evidence. What's worse is I go and check other articles and you're doing the same thing. You remove sourced information, and bolster the credibility of pro-choice viewpoints while trying to minimize pro-life. You ARE POV pushing. PeRshGo (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Icke and Sherr is that Icke is cited and reviled or ridiculed whereas Sherr is cited as truth.

POV pushing? I take out lousy text and weakly tangential URLs and I replace them with solid text and solid refs where possible. I am improving the encyclopedia when I remove bad lumber from the construction. Binksternet (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

PeRshGo, I'm not sure that this talk page is the appropriate venue for you at this point. If you think that Sherr is on the level of Icke, that's an issue for RS Noticeboard, because absent that sort of external discussion, we have no reason to discard her here as she is a textbook example of RS. If you just want to dispense with the RS policy all together, that sort of thing is best brought up at the Village Pump; you're not going to change longstanding site policies here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. I disagree with your interpretation that she is a textbook example of RS. Trying to overdramatize the issue is fruitless. Lynn Sherr is a TV personality which wrote a book that was published by a general commercial publisher. Scholarship has been in no way proven per Wikipedia guidelines. PeRshGo (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No offense, PeRshGo, but those you are arguing with have cited a guideline and shown how the source fits that guideline, so the appeal to interpretation seems somewhat feeble. You could at the very least present an alternate "interpretation". As for the number of citations, it looks like "a few dozen" actually amounts to 32 (per the "cited by" number on the results list), which seems significant for a rather small niche field of history for a book published in 1995. Additionally, considering that it's been well established in this discussion that very few scholars have actually spoken out in this debate, such a number seems even more significant. So, in short, scholarship in the sense of wikipedia guidelines has been demonstrated, and not contested in any substantive way except for your vague denigration of the number of sources. Could you elucidate what number would be appropriate and why? siafu (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The material has not been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. It is a commercially published book by a TV personality. The book was about Susan B. Anthony in general, not the niche subject of the article which makes 32 a fairly small number of citations. PeRshGo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony *is* a niche subject to begin with. Taking some examples from the "Further Reading" section on Susan B. Anthony, I found that I. H. Harper's "The life and work of Susan B. Anthony: including public addresses" shows 42 citations on Google Scholar, Douglas Linder's "Susan B. Anthony: a Biography" gets 2 citations, one of which is wikipedia, and "Role model: Susan B. Anthony to come to life" by the Patriot Ledger also gets 2 citations, again one of which being wikipedia itself. In just searching for "Susan B. Anthony" on Google Scholar, the most commonly cited work on Ms. Anthony specifically seems to be Barry's "Susan B. Anthony: A biography of a singular feminist", which gets 75 citations. 35 seems quite appropriate in this perspective. siafu (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Does that then offset the nature of the publication, or the background of the author? PeRshGo (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The "nature" of the publication seems to be a canard; it's a book, not a journal article. If you're complaining that it wasn't published by a university press or somesuch, I would rejoinder that most biographies are not. Times Books, the publisher, has published quite a few of them (including the acclaimed American Presidents series). Is there some reason we should consider this suspect? As for the background of the author, the fact that she is and was a television presenter is somewhat irrelevant beyond noting that she isn't a renowned historian to begin with, and thus we can't simply refer to her reputation in the field. As a result, the best thing we have is the evaluation of how other experts in the field have viewed her work, and the best metric of that is the citation count and quality (i.e., supporting reference vs. ridicule). This metric has been provided, so yes, I think it does offset both of those concerns. siafu (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You've made a convincing case that the book is a reliable source, but I don't think that has ever really been in question. The question is does one commercial book make her a scholar, and more importantly, in turn does that allow the editors of this article to imply that her views and those of Gordon constitute a consensus of scholars rather than just Gordon alone? Because the current trend in the article has been to make the pro-choice side of the debate appear as credible as possible while making the pro-life side appear dubious, so if Gordon is indeed a scholar via consensus on this article then what makes writers of books on Anthony that portray her in a Pro-life light unscholarly? Personally this subjective label of “scholarly” seems a bit foolish. This is a debate article and we should simply present the qualifications and the statements of the various people and groups that have chimed in and allow the author make the decision themselves rather than hiding such information within terms like “scholars.” PeRshGo (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This thread was about whether or not the source could be considered "scholarly", which I read as code for "reliable" (you did in fact seem to think this was an important point earlier?), and that I felt able and compelled to comment on. I'm not in a position to say whether or not any particular position represents the overall consensus. siafu (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for poorly representing my argument then. I have no issue with her work being cited as a reliable source, just the idea that she should uniquely be elevated to the level of scholar for the purposes of representing a lopsided scholarly consensus on the issue. PeRshGo (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors we don't create lopsided conditions, we report them. This "debate" is a lopsided one with all the careful research associated with only one side of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I keep hearing from you, but it reads like a whole lot of POV to me. PeRshGo (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Sherr's book even address the abortion dispute? If not, it's irrelevant anyway. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? The absence of abortion from Sherr's and Gordon's books does not stop them from being experts on Anthony's life. They have nothing about abortion in their books because there is nothing to say. Rather, they have stepped up (and put their careers on the line) to tell the world there is nothing in Anthony's life to indicate abortion was a concern of hers. Oaks, Sherr and Gordon say plenty about the abortion issue because they have done the primary research to show that there is a yawning vast absence of evidence on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Scholars

Regarding this edit, there are some who say the opposite - Carol Crossed and Mary Krane Derr, probably among others. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gordon has published several books on 19th-century women's rights and feminism, and edited Stanton and Anthony's papers. Neither Derr nor Crossed appear to have ever done any work on 19th-century feminism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Crossed is no scholar. Mary Krane Derr is an avid amateur researcher, a poet, a social services professional and an author. She is not a university-based professor. She obtained a BA from Bryn Mawr and a Masters in social work from U of Chicago. Derr is fairly careful about what she says about 19th century feminists, and she does not say Anthony worked against abortion. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Define "scholar". I would say someone who operates a museum with a research team about someone is a scholar on that person. Derr has done extensive research as well. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's reliable source standards would disagree. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for wording

Can we work on a new wording? "Certain scholars..." maybe? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There still aren't any scholars (as opposed to activists with no background in the subject) who say differently, and your proposed wording implies otherwise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. It would help combat some of the POV pushing in this article. PeRshGo (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ann Gordon and Laury Oaks are the only people in the article who are unequivocally scholars. Carol Crossed and Mary Krane Derr could be considered scholars for their work; Crossed owns a museum about Anthony so she has done extensive research and Derr has done at least limited research on the abortion part of Anthony. That said, I would have no problem with simply "Scholars Ann D. Gordon and Laury Oaks along with pro-choice activists..." NYyankees51 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As we've already said, believing that you are a scholar is not equivalent to being a scholar. Crossed and Derr have never published any material on Anthony or on nineteenth-century feminism with a scholarly press or journal. Conversely, Gordon and Oaks Sherr [Ed. I mixed them up] are the authorities on the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no scholars who say Anthony worked against abortion. If you use the phrase "certain scholars" you are misrepresenting the field. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody at all says she actively worked against abortion to my knowledge, so the sentence is fundamentally misleading. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this whole article about? What is it that you think people mean when they say SBA was a "pro-life activist"? I think it means they say she actively worked against abortion.

• Mary Krane Derr, FFL: "...let us carry on the tradition of pro-life activists such as Susan B. Anthony..."
• Jane Abraham, SBA List: "She strongly opposed abortion."
• Serrin Foster, FFL: "Without known exception, the early feminists condemned abortion in the strongest terms."
• FFL: "Another Anti-Choice Fanatic"
• SBA List: "...she was strongly pro-life." Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Derr refers to her as an activist, but the rest simply say she opposed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Activism can be a gray field (what constitutes an activist?) let just try to write about SBA's work against abortion and leave the catagorizing of that work to the reader. - Haymaker (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the point; she did not work against abortion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

SBA never worked against abortion. Whatever we "write about" it would be fiction. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody except Derr has said that she actively worked against abortion, so the pro-choicers are debunking a straw man. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If one person sets up the statement worthy of being challenged, as Derr does, then it is not a straw man situation to challenge it. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Does writing not count as work? - Haymaker (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If she had written against abortion, then we could have that conversation, but circumstances being as they are, it is off-topic and frivolous. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

The sentence in question is in the lead: "Those scholars of 19th century American feminism who have spoken up in the debate, as well as pro-choice activists, have argued that Anthony did not actively work against abortion..." The issue is who is considered a scholar: Carol Crossed, who owns the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum; and Mary Krane Derr, who has done limited research on Anthony's views for Feminists for Life. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Crossed and Derr are not scholars: never having published anything on the subject with a reliable, scholarly publisher, they do not satisfy the very clear standards set out in WP:RS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not scholars. We have discussed this at length! There is no way Carol Crossed can be considered a scholar for owning a museum or for writing popular books. No freakin' way. Mary Krane Derr is a university-trained social worker who writes popular books and magazine articles. She's an avid amateur researcher and a poet. She is not a university-based professor. She obtained a BA from Bryn Mawr and a Masters in social work from U of Chicago. Nobody considers her a scholar: she's a writer. Yes, Derr is FFL's best researcher on the topic of Anthony, but in that field she is compromised and non-neutral. Her writings on the subject, ones which start with the conclusion and work backwards to find tiny bits of notional evidence to support it, would be torn apart by the friendliest of peer reviews.
  On the other hand, Lynn Sherr, pooh-poohed at Talk:Susan B. Anthony as only "a TV personality", wrote the book Failure Is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words for which she performed scholarly research of primary sources. That book is cited by a few dozen other writers, affirming its scholarly status. No scholar quotes Derr or Crossed when describing Anthony's life work. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Not scholars - they are the real life equivalent of a WP:ACTIVIST editor, in that, they are not scholars, but activists. BelloWello (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As this discussion started over this edit, could some explain what was wrong with "some scholars?" PeRshGo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "some" implies that there are those who say differently. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Some implies that not every single scholar has opposed the assertion which would include scholars that have never commented on the issue. Some is accurate, the use of “Those” isn’t even grammatically correct. PeRshGo (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some" is not accurate. It implies there are others, perhaps a majority, who disagree. None disagree.

The grammar in the edit, "Those scholars of 19th century American feminism who have spoken up in the debate, as well as pro-choice activists, have argued that Anthony did not actively work against abortion...", is fine. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PeRshGo, if your issue is that "scholars" implies "every single scholar in the world has bothered to comment," I disagree with you, and think that's a really idiosyncratic usage, but that problem is solved by the use of "Those scholars who have spoken up" or similar wording. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Proposal: "Scholar Ann D. Gordon and pro-choice activists have argued..." - This solves the issue because it doesn't purport to say whether all scholars or no scholars feel a certain way. We can add Oaks, but I'm not sure he says anything about the dispute because I can't access the source. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? There are several scholars (you forgot Sherr again) who "argue" this and no scholars who argue otherwise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the phrasing makes it sound like there are several scholars roundly rejecting the idea. There are only two. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened to "Those scholars who have spoken up"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean. It's correct, but there are only two who have spoken up. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing makes it sound like there are several scholars roundly rejecting the idea. There are only two. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

These two comprise the entirety of scholarly opinion on the subject. We shouldn't use wording that implies otherwise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the current wording implies a larger body of work. This is an encyclopedia, specificity is a virtue, mention the number. - Haymaker (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence, again, my wording "Those scholars who have spoken up." It is perfectly adequate for conveying that a) not every scholar has expressed an opinion, thus addressing your idiosyncratic interpretation of just using "scholars" b) that everyone who has commented agrees. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I prefer the lead (opening/introduction) to be a simple statement without argument or references. I recognize that this entire article is about a dispute, but I find it more elegant to have a simple statement of the topic in the lead and to have arguments outlined under separate headings below. The distinction between scholar and activist would have less import if the citations and argument were not in the lead. --Vampyrecat (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the scholar/activist distinction, my opinion is that one can be both a scholar and an activist. Crossed and Derr both seem to be activists and scholars.--Vampyrecat (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate, they badly fail WP's definition of scholar in RS guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FFL political classification

SBA List is an inherently political organization and should be classified as not, but FFL is not and should not. It is a 501(c)(3) that advocates for a few specific pieces of legislation. Nearly every non-profit (at least the major ones) is involved in the political process in some way - cancer research and homeless shelters lobby for money, niche groups advocate for favorable legislation, etc. Being involved in the political process is different from being a political organization. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FFL's use of SBA's image and words is political, so the adjective political fits. Nobody uses SBA's image and text to soothe a girl in trouble, or to provide assistance to a young single mother. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

po·lit·i·cal: of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics. No adjective is necessary, in any case. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FFL, as you admit, works to a degree on legislation, which is all we need to say that they are political. They definitely use SBA's image and words to affect public opinion and and political thought, so their political aims are directly topical in this article. Future U.S. Senate Special Projects Manager Brian Chatwin, in writing about Patricia Heaton, Honorary Chair of FFL, called FFL in 2006 a "political action group", even though they call themselves otherwise. By definition, everybody in the pro-life movement is interested in political change, including FFL. Otherwise, they would be satisfied simply by helping troubled pregnant women bear and raise their children, and leave abortion laws alone. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just "working to a degree on legislation" does not make an organization political. My previous employer, a community mental health center, would conduct an annual trip to the state capital so that the clients (those who volunteered anyway) could join demonstrations and visit their state senators to lobby for more funding for mental health treatment and medicaid coverage. I can't possibly see how the agency could be called "political" just because of that, considering 99.9% of the agency's activity was simply providing mental health services. The only valid argument supplied here is the reference to Mr. Chatwin, though the fact that he would later become US Senate Special Projects Manager does not lend any extra credence to the editorial you've linked since he obviously wasn't speaking in such a capacity at the time, and furthermore Ms. Heaton's professional puff-page is not going to present a balanced view of anything except, possibly, her own views, which this page can't be used to represent. Surely there must be other, better sources voicing this characterization? Moreover, some sources discussing what FFL actually does on a day-to-day basis would probably clear this up pretty quickly, and since they are a 501(c)3, their budget must be (i.e., mandated by law) available for public review (we had to keep a copy at the front desk at the agency in case someone walked in off the street to ask for it), so surely in such a contentious field as the abortion debate someone must have done this simple investigation already. Rather than debate in a rather OR/SYNTH style about what we should characterize this organization as based on our own opinions, I advocate referring to reliable sources. siafu (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FFL congratulates themselves here regarding legislation they worked to promote or defeat:

• "successfully fight child exclusion provisions in welfare reform supported by President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress."
• "to actively champion the New York state model program to help working poor pregnant women receive prenatal care through the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under both President Clinton and President George W. Bush."
• "successfully advocate the Enhanced Child Support Enforcement Act of 1996"
• "consistently advocated for the protection of resources like WIC (Women Infants and Children) and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps)"
• "to work successfully for the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994."
• "to support Laci and Connor's Law, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. C-SPAN carried live coverage of FFL President Serrin Foster as she testified before Congress"
• "FFL was a charter member of a coalition against sex trafficking. (1995)"
• "consulted on the groundbreaking Coercive Abortion Prevention Act introduced by Michigan women legislators in 2006."
• "FFL worked to introduce the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act"
• "FFL held the first-ever Capitol Hill briefing on the needs of 4.5 million parenting students"
• "The Republican platform included Feminists for Life's trademark line, "Women deserve better than abortion."

This is the record of a political organization. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We should not be the ones deciding whether or not this is a political organization for wikipedia. This should be done for us by RS's. siafu (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring some in! Until then, I see no need to go further afield than FFL's own published list of political achievements. To me, this ends the question. It is not an iffy gray area worthy of debate, study and research. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, why don't you make everything easier and cite a reliable source for classifying them as inherently political? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think this ends the question, then I would strongly recommend a review of WP:OR. siafu (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing

Am I not allowed to touch the page while you fill it with your own stuff? Am I not allowed to be in the process? BS24 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what the {{tl:Inuse}} template is for, to give an editor space to work without edit conflicts. Let's talk after I am done reworking and expanding the article. Alternately, you can bring up specific concerns in advance, here on the talk page. I will keep an eye out. Back to work on the article... Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. My apologies. Here are my concerns --

• The whole "Ann Dexter Gordon..." paragraph. Her personal experience is irrelevant; we already had this discussion. It's better than saying the dispute began in 1989 as a universal fact, but when she began to notice it does not matter. The whole paragraph makes it sound like these organizations were simply exploiting Anthony to promote their causes. Wording needs to be neutralized.
• Women's eNews is probably not a proper source for this article. It's more of a Huffington Post than a CNN.
• The Quotes lead is redundant. We just don't know who signed it. Also, the lead in to the quote is unnecessary, we just need to show the quote and the response below it. "Leaving it anonymous, no name attributed" is false. It is not anonymous if it is signed. Us not knowing who signed it does not make it anonymous.
• Social Purity paragraph - "Later in the speech, Anthony mentions abortion in passing" is not needed. Derr's quote about it being "more explicit" is more proper. And the final paragraph makes no mention of the abortion dispute and probably shouldn't be in there.

BS24 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We decided that the 1989 time frame can be attributed to Gordon, not introduced as a fact all by itself. I have attributed it.

Women's eNews is a major element of the article, and a fine source. If you do not think it reliable enough for this article, take your concerns to WP:RS.

The word "anonymous" means that no name was signed. The essay is anonymous, unless you are saying that someone was named "A." alone. Signing the letter "A" does not change it from anonymous to signed; it does not turn the essay into "we know for sure who this was".

I am still working on the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits --

• If FFL and CWA were founded in the 70s, Gordon's personal experience that she noticed in 1989 is especially irrelevant and serves only to discredit the other side of the dispute.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Gordon's personal experience discredits nobody. She merely observes the year in which she first noticed the use of Anthony's image and quotes for a pro-life agenda. It does not matter one bit when FFL and CWA were founded. If you have evidence that either organization used Anthony quotes earlier than 1989, you can bring it forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Gordon's personal experience cannot serve as the starting point of the dispute. I have changed it to a compromise wording and moved the whole paragraph to the more appropriate background section. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You added "The start of the dispute is unknown" but you do not have a source for this assertion. I am removing it as original research. The way we had it was the one settled by RfC, where the year 1989 is allowed if attributed solely to Gordon saying that's when she noticed the start of pro-lifers using Anthony quotes. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I changed SBA's mission in the article to their actual mission statement.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You changed it from their actual mission to a wording which you prefer. The statement as I had it was referenced, and worked perfectly. What part of it do you think is wrong? SBA List wants to eliminate abortion in America, and they work closer to this goal in these five ways: 1) Elect pro-life women to Congress 2) Educate voters 3) Train and equip pro-life activists 4) Promote positive responses in both traditional and new media to dispel the myths and distortions of the abortion lobby 5)Advocate passage of pro-life legislation. The article we are working with here is not the SBA List article, so it is only important to note their ultimate goal. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • New wording combines mission summary ("SBA List Mission: Advancing, Mobilizing and Representing Pro-Life Women") with their ultimate goal of ending abortion. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • This article is not the SBA List article; we do not need to have their feel-good mission statement quoted. All we need is a summary of what they do and what they want done. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Women's eNews is an aggregation blog, and the writer's name is irrelevant.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Baloney. The writer is a reporter who interviewed people. The writer's name is there for reading flow and journalistic respect. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, she interviewed people. Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com is a reporter who interviews all sorts of people. I suspect you would not accept him as an objective source. Any site that uses "anti-choice" is biased. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Your suspicion is unfounded, probably a projection. I don't know enough about Ertelt to have an opinion. Yes, I agree the phrase "anti-choice" is biased, but this whole issue has bias plainly visible on two of the three sides: FFL uses the phrase "anti-choice" under Anthony's image, the one where they quote some non-abortion text and make the reader think it is about abortion. Bias is seen everywhere except from the third side of the argument: the scholars. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• The heading needs to be arguments; "Pro-life promotion" sounds like evil pro-lifers are hijacking her image.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the arguments come lower down, associated with the various quotes. "Evil pro-lifers ... hijacking" is your take on it, not mine. "Pro-life promotion" is exactly accurate. Susan B. Anthony's name and image are used by pro-life people to promote a pro-life agenda. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Article reorganized so that the arguments are in the same section. "Pro-life promotion" is exactly accurate by your standards. I call it bias. "Agenda" is a loaded term these days. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The modern sense of 'pro-life' is defined..." borders on original research and has been removed.
  • The definition serves the reader, so that they know what "pro-life" means, so they can follow the threads. If they think "pro-life" means "I am for being alive" then the term is meaningless as it includes everybody who has not yet committed suicide. The modern political usage of the term is exceedingly relevant to the subject. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Readers can go to the pro-life article to find out. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've used that argument myself before, but it only goes so far. For instance, we write things like "SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser" even though people can click on the blue link to find out what relevance Dannenfelser has to the subject. If we took the argument all the way to its logical conclusion, the article would just have blue links to other articles, and have no explanation of its own. The middle ground, the route I would take, has some crucial concepts neatly summarized to make it easy for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Gordon's statement that she never voiced an opinion about the unborn is an opinion. She doesn't know that for a fact.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • She states it as fact; she believes it as fact. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly. She believes it. She doesn't know it. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutralization of wording.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I will contest any word changes which promote the agenda of any political action committee. This article is not here for their benefit. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • And I will contest any word changes which attack the other side of the dispute. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Full context of Dannenfelser quote.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• A signature means it is not anonymous.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No. See below. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Summary of the essay is unneeded; Schiff covers it below.BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Schiff does not summarize the essay. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Readers can go to the source to read the whole thing. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Restoring Schiff summary, and reordering Schiff quotes to end with a disapproving tone. Schiff is very critical; her words cannot be used to give the impression that she agrees with pro-lifers. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• No need to play mediator with Gordon's response to the Revolution piece. BS24 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, yes, there is a need, because Gordon was heading that argument off before Dannenfelser used it; Gordon was not responding to Dannenfelser. I worded it that way because the reading flow is better with the earlier Gordon rebuttal (of a notional argument) following Dannenfelser's use of that exact argument. Gordon said her bit in February 2010, Dannenfelser in May. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Dangerous and unpredictable" -- we've gone over this before; it's still a dangerous and unpredictable procedure. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you now a reliable source? We go by what notable people say, not by our own opinions. This article is not the place to argue whether abortion is safer now than 140 years ago. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added Schiff's inconvenient statement which you chose to ignore: "there is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement." BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a great statement, not inconvenient. However, it goes before her criticism, not after. Schiff cannot be implied as approving. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "people in the suffrage movement in the 19th century held political and social views—"secularism, the separation of church and state, and women's self-ownership". Not all did. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a quote, and not open to our personal interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quotes lead: The only Anthony scholar mentioned is Gordon; to say "Anthony scholars" plural is misleading. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Lynn Sherr wrote the book Failure Is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words for which she performed scholarly research. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Social Purity -- has nothing to do with the topic of the article. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Then why did you leave Derr's interpretation of it in the article? If the scholarly analysis is taken out, the whole section must be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Museum -- The protesters' website does not have the noble mission of providing fuller context, they just oppose the museum. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You wrote that the protesters "wanted visitors to know about their website which criticizes the museum". What they said in the reference article was: "We want people to know there's more context for discussion about Susan B. Anthony's views" and "we just want more people to know that in supporting the museum they support Feminists for Life." Your version made stuff up, my version carried their words in summary, including my wording "fuller context" for their words "more context". Which of our two versions hews more closely to the source? Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please at least try to work with me on this? You have monopolized the entire article and revert every single edit I make. It's extremely frustrating. BS24 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will work for the benefit of the reader of the article. We are perfectly aligned if that is your goal as well. I will not compromise to allow political views some amount of promotional leeway simply because an editor wishes it. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)