Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Social Purity section

As first written, the Social Purity section had simplistic analysis by the non-scholar Derr and counter analysis by Gordon and other scholars. There was no specific dispute about "Social Purity", just the known inclusion by Anthony of the word "abortion" in one of her speeches; a speech not about abortion but about prostitution by women and alcohol abuse by men, and about women not having the vote.

If the sentences with scholarly analysis are taken out, the section cannot be called a dispute. Without a dispute, the "Social Purity" connection does not belong in the article. In this edit, NYyankees51 decides unilaterally that I am driven by the reason that I don't like the section, a conclusion which is way off base. I expanded that section when it was living here at "dispute". How could I not like it? Preposterous. Instead, the guideline is WP:TOPIC. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Its place in the dispute appears to be that both sides use it as evidence for their position. PeRshGo (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That answer has no foundation. Show me where the two sides use it and I'll show you a dispute we can describe to the reader. Until then, the section has no place in a dispute article. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It’s the basis of quotes section. In social purity you have Derr’s commentary on one mention of abortion and in “She will rue the day” you have Gordon and Sherr’s commentary on another. Such is the nature of the entire debate. PeRshGo (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference there is that the "rue the day" bit was used already by pro-lifers, so both sides are represented. There's no dispute about "Social Purity" because it is so weak: Anthony wasn't talking about abortion laws or policies. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And according to Gordon, she wasn't talking about abortion laws or policies in any of the quotes so your point is...? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The pro-life side has used it as evidence in the dispute. Just because Gordon hasn't attempted to refute it doesn't mean it's not notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead

Basically good work, Roscelese. The one problem I see, however, is that we shouldn't refer to one side of the abortion debate as "activists against abortion rights" while referring to the other as "pro-choice activists." Either grant each side its preferred designation or find neutral and basically equivalent language for each. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Scholars again

This change reduced "Scholars" to "Some scholars". The problem with that is there are no scholars on the other side of the dispute. All scholars in this area of expertise say that the pro-life feminist groups are putting forward an incorrect revisionist viewpoint about Anthony. There are no scholars who say that she devoted any amount of energy to fighting against abortion. The word "some" is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know that? Sounds like WP:OR. Moreover, your wording didn't just say scholars broadly, Binksternet, It also said journalists broadly. Not a single journalist thinks that Anthony was significantly anti-abortion in her activities. How about Nat Hentoff? No, I think "some" will have to do for now. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Find me a scholar who thinks otherwise. Some journalists, yes. Some scholars, no. The scholars are of one mind. You want to make a change against previous consensus then you prove your point. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not something I've been spending a lotta time doing, but I did notice that Jone Johnston Lewis who is used as a WP:RS in all sorts of Wikipedia articles relating to women and feminism seems to think that Anthony's anti-abortion efforts were significant. I will concede that pro-choice feminists scholars may be of one mind on the subject, at least, the two that you've used are. Incidentally what (Wikipedia?) consensus are you referring to? I notice that you added this change to the lead long after the previous talk page discussion had ended.Badmintonhist (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Two things: Jone Johnson Lewis is not an academic historian; she holds a bachelor's in business and a master's in divinity. Her work in women's history is not that of a scholar but that of a writer. Second point: Lewis gets Anthony completely wrong. She quotes Mattie Brinkerhoff saying "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn..." but she credits the quote to Anthony, thus destroying her (Lewis's) credibility on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating whether or not Jonesy got it right or wrong. The point is that there are journalists, and likely academics too, who have researched and written on Anthony and find that her position and efforts on abortion were significantly "pro-life." You, in effect, made a blanket statement in the lead that ALL interested scholars and journalists contend otherwise. On that point you were wrong. Again, where did you get the idea that your December 2011 addition had some sort of consensus behind it? Because talk page adversaries had moved on to other topics? Badmintonhist (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no debate about Jones. She blew it on a Brinkerhoff quote. She knows 19th century feminism like I know ancient Swahili.

This exact issue of "some scholars" came up in April 2011 with this change which was discussed on the talk page with no consensus to keep it. The arguments against "some scholars" was stronger than the argument to keep it. You are welcome, even encouraged, to read past talk page discussions about the word "scholar". The decision was to avoid saying "some scholars" because none could be found who think that Anthony worked against abortion. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor, apparently, was there any consensus to keep the wording that you were defending either (which was even more extreme than the change you made in December of 2011). I notice, however, that when the New York Yankee fan deleted that wording on May 12, 2011 and asked that this issue be joined on the Talk Page, you and other editors, apparently, declined to do so -- though other issues about the article continued to be discussed. Seven months later you went back and made your change when the Talk Page had cooled down -- sly.

As for the substance of this issue, you have no real case. Your sources are two polemics (the NOW BLOG especially crude and juvenile in tone) that tell us nothing about what ALL scholars and journalists have to say on this subject. Sorry, but "some scholars and journalists" is all Wikipedia should be granting you here. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Find a scholar who declares Anthony an abortion foe and you'll have a leg to stand on. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. You found Linda Naranjo-Huebl who is a professor at Calvin College. However, she's a professor of English, having earned a "bacholor" degree in '92, then a PhD in English literature in 2001. This removes her from the pool of possible professors who can make an academically appropriate comment about Anthony supposedly fighting against abortion in the 19th century. She is outside of her area of expertise and into pro-life activism when she offers her opinion about Anthony and abortion. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, I'm sensitive to your comment that only a limited number of people have taken an interest in the topic, but "some" is not the right word choice because it implies that there are other scholars of Anthony's life and times who agree with the anti-abortion activists, which is not the case. Please suggest another phrasing that, in your view, conveys the idea that not everyone has expressed a position while still correctly representing the status of the "debate," ie. that scholars do not support the activists' theory. (Previously, I had suggested "those scholars who have commented," or something like that - what do you think?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'd say a PHD professor of English who specializes in women's and feminist literature certainly qualifies as a "scholar" on the subject at hand. More so, certainly, than Lynn Sherr with her mere B.A. degree in ??. I respect "amateur historians" who can write well, know their subject, and are scrupulous in their handling of facts but, given your lofty standards, Binksternet, I would be inclined to think that you'd reject any source that Ms Sherr had a major hand in creating. Alas, politics makes strange bedfellows. As for Roscelese's comment, it isn't quite accurate. There are scholars of Susan B's life and times who largely agree with the anti-abortion activists. I'll give you another name (a rather unusual one): Professor Suzanne Schnittman (sounds like a play on MY last name). Look the lady up. As for Roscelese's follow-up suggestion about different wording, however, I'll see what I can do. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with "a number of" - it seems to convey the limitations while not falsely suggesting anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. Glad I could help. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Schnittman is a pro-life activist pushing a political agenda regarding Anthony and her supposed stance against abortion. Schnittman is the Consistent Life Ethic Coordinator for the Rochester Catholic Diocese, and she was president of Feminists For Life of New York. None of her scholarly papers posits that Anthony fought against abortion, but she makes hay of the issue outside of her academic work, there's no doubt of that. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to think, Binksternet, that you are savvy enough to realize that all of this crappola ON BOTH SIDES is political. How many of those challenging the "Anthony was a pro-lifer" thesis are not themselves militantly pro-choice? No, Anthony was not peculiarly "pro-life" for her day but she did share the prevailing ethos among most reformers of the day that abortion was an evil. Even were she inclined to have been very anti-abortion there was little need to spend vast amounts of time on the subject, since almost all "respectable" folks were against it by the late 1800's. The legal changes of the mid-century reflect this. It was rather like being against drunk-driving today which doesn't mean that the practice itself has become rare. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no "crappola" in Ann D. Gordon who does not take any kind of stance on the topic of abortion, but defends vigorously the fact that Anthony did not work at all against abortion. Gordon is the epitome of the neutral scholar. Her presence in the dispute takes away the gloss of near-truth from the pro-life debaters. Basically, one side in the dispute is right, and the other is guilty of unwarranted revisionism. Sure, among other voices there are ones that are more strident, on both sides, but Gordon is the unbreachable ivory tower. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Gordon and Sherr take part in the debate solely as scholars. They are authors of books on Antony and editors of her papers, and they are quoted in RS media because they are experts on her. (We don't even know Gordon's position on abortion.) Schnittman is an activist who, to strengthen her political position, claims scholarly expertise, but I can't find anything she's written or said on the topic other than on anti-abortion websites and at anti-abortion events. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If the wording of the lead is now satisfactory then our discussion here is, for the moment at least, moot. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is only one narrative we are talking about here, "the" recent pro-life narrative about Anthony supposedly working against abortion (she did not, just in case you were wondering.) The word "the" is appropriate. "Strong opponent" gives too much to the pro-life side.

And what's the deal with removing Maya Schenwar? She is a senior editor and executive director of Truthout.org. The Ms. blog section is a perfectly valid opinion section, just like any editorial in a newspaper. Schenwar goes back into the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason Schenwar shouldn't go back in the article. First, she's superfluous. In the places she was used other sources already support the information. Second, she's over-the-top partisan, hurling personal insults at her political opponents. Why use an editorial as a source for an encyclopedia when we don't need to, and, particularly, why use such an unusually vituperative one in our noble, collegial endeavor? Unless, of course, one has little real interest in being noble or collegial? As for the difference between "a pro-life narrative" and "the pro-life narrative" it's small potatoes and I probably shouldn't have made a big deal of it in my edit summary. However, "THE pro-life narrative" can be read to mean that the whole pro-life movement has adopted this "Anthony was a pro-lifer" theme when I suspect that some folks in the movement don't even know about it and wouldn't care about it if they did. As for your mention of "strong opponent" I really don't understand your point. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Schenwar specifically puts the word revisionism into the discourse, applying it to SBA List regarding their novel interpretation of Anthony. The Schenwar cite supports our use of the term "historical revisionism". Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure we can find much better sources than the vituperative Schenwar blog to support inclusion of the term "historical revisionism." Moreover, we don't really need the term as much as we need the idea of historical revisionism. However, I would agree that if we want to include examples of name calling by partisans on either side of the issue, Schenwar is an absolutely first-rate primary source. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no guideline on Wikipedia that says biased sources cannot be used; in fact, there are guidelines such as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which help us use biased sources in the proper manner. Schenwar is a veteran reporter and she makes valid criticisms of the Anthony abortion dispute. Naturally, we do not use her type of strong language in the article, per WP:NPOV, but we can benefit from her viewpoint. She says SBA List "has predicated its brand on shaky history." She describes how other shared beliefs of pro-life politicians (ones supported by SBA List) go against Anthony's belief in the importance of the separation of church and state, for one. She shows us the absurdity of using Anthony to pass laws against abortion or otherwise limit women. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone not yet 30, I believe, a "veteran reporter" is rather a stretch isn't it? Moreover in the blog entry in question Schenwar is not serving as reporter at all but rather aa a polemicist, unless you think she's making a fair minded effort there to "get the other side of the story." Also I'm a bit concerned as to your actual reason for including the blog as a source? Is it because you really think it is needed to support the description of the FFL/SBAL narrative as historical revisionism or is it because you hope Wikipedia readers will tune into her trashing of those organizations in the footnotes; a trashing which if included in the text of our article and properly attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) would still not pass WP:UNDUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs) 19:04, June 21, 2012

Schenwar is veteran in regard to her being a senior editor of Truthout. Your conjecture about my "actual reason" is getting damn close to a personal attack; I will now ask you very firmly to keep off that grass. I will only say in response that I see Maya Schenwar's opinion column as useful because she makes some connections that others do not—her op-ed piece has value to this article because of these novel conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, stop threatening people. Wikipedia is no place for bullying. Accusing you of bias certainly doesn't assume good faith but it's a far cry from a personal attack just the same. PeRshGo (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's bullying to tell someone to stop throwing out conjecture about the reasons I am editing here, I don't know what to say to you. Binksternet (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Partisan comment in the background section

The followed comment was left in the edit summary by Binksternet "Revert. Wow, the world's top Anthony scholar is suddenly partisan? That is not how it works here." This comment is over the top. I did state incorrectly that Gordon is partisan, what I was trying to say and did not succeed is that the comment is partisan. I rushed the edit and the edit summary to get back to work. The comment should be moved to the arguments section. I was going to make that edit but I got detained from real work at my real job. I should have waited until I had time to make both edits at once. Also, the comment is over the top in the sense that Binksternet should not be saying, "That is not how it works here." That comment is clearly violation of the principle of good faith. I never questioned Gordon's credentials. What I do question is the neutrality of the comment. Experts can make partisan statements that does not take away from their expertise.--Bing Norton 16:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ann Gordon's position on abortion is unknown; she has never made it clear whether she supports legal abortion or whether she is in favor of laws greatly limiting it or making it illegal. Thus she is not partisan on that issue.

On the issue of what Anthony said or did, or what she did not say or do, Gordon is the world's leading scholar. Statements she makes about Anthony's words and acts are expert statements with the authority of decades of study, poring over 14,000 documents to get at the core of Anthony. If Gordon says Anthony never worked against abortion, that's what we accept as the final truth. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Bing Norton is referring to Gordon's comment on how long anti-abortion activists have been promoting the theory, not on the validity of the theory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the 1989 quote. Gordon says it has been happening since 1989. Does anybody say different? Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant to the point. I have to agree that you do act like a bully. I have stated that I do not question Gordon's credentials. That is not the point. Also, just because she stated something does not mean that the comment is: (1) notable, (2) encyclopedic, (3) unbiased, etc. I don't believe that her comment adds anything of importance to the article. And she makes it clear that it is her experience and her experience only. She does not state, for example, I did extensive research and I have concluded that the pro-life movement has been doing this since 1989. She does not state that. She does not provide a journal article to support her experience. It is pure speculation on her part and she is frames her comment such a way to make it clear that it is her experience, nothing more. It is not her area of expertise and even if was that does not mean that every comment that comes out of her mouth must be treated as if it is gold standard on every topic in the world.--Bing Norton 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Can't find any disagreement" isn't sufficient for using a source that would otherwise not be reliable. It's not Gordon's subject area; we should be able to find another source. I've poked around Google News and I find MacNair using it in 1989, when the Boston Globe covered the "pro-life feminist" movement. The search also brings up earlier results, but they're paywalled; if you need me to see if they're related (as opposed to just mentioning both SBA and abortion, or identifying SBA as a pro-choice feminist icon), I can look at them through a database. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It can't hurt to get another source. If you give me a link to the paywalled article I'll throw down some electronic cash to see it. Of course I will share its relevant section. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Gordon's expertise is on Stanton and Anthony's lives. It is not surprising that a jarring 1989 statement made by non-experts about Anthony would alert Gordon, especially since Gordon had been studying Anthony in depth since 1982. The Gordon remark about 1989 is not an extraordinary claim. At any rate, it is fully attributed and presented as Gordon's own observation. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your re-write is a good compromise. Thank you.--Bing Norton 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

untitled

Honestly I think this whole article is rigged to make the pro-choice position look bad by making them argue without any evidence in opposition. The introduction is especially biased towards the pro-choice side, but I wonder if this was not written to sabotage their position because in the quotes section everything mentioned makes Susan B. Anthony look pro-life. The only counterargument against the pro-life side presented is that Susan B. Anthony only mentioned her opposition to abortion a few times while focusing on other major feminist issues. There should be more pro-choice evidence to balance the article and make it more neutral. And if there's not, then this page should be taken down because it just makes the pro-choice position look awkward disputing Susan B. Anthony's written anti-abortion statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.119.80 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The article pretty much sums things up: Susan B. Anthony made a few statements against abortion, a lot of people use this to say she would have supported the pro-life movement, and a lot of people say that using the statements in that way is misrepresenting her position. I'm not sure the "pro-choice" side, as you put it, looks awkward by saying that SBA would not have supported the modern political movement - remember that just because SBA opposed abortion does not mean she would have agreed with the strategy of the modern pro-life movement.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole dispute is absurd, and would be akin to asking what the Founding Fathers thought about drone strikes. The technology, laws, and norms of the society she was advocating in have changed considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.17.184 (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the "Defense of woman accused of infanticide" section a case of synthesis?

Yesterday I added a new section called "Defense of woman accused of infanticide". Roscelese reverted it with the question "Can you demonstrate that this is related to the abortion dispute without using synthesis?"

That's a valid question. The connection between the Hester Vaughn case and the abortion dispute has been made by the following academic study, which is lengthy and detailed: Thomas, Tracy A. "Misappropriating Women's History in the Law and Politics of Abortion". Seattle Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2012).

Thomas' study should be mentioned in this article somewhere. Perhaps we should start a Bibliography section? Bilpen (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article was started in 2010, taken from text that had been written into the SBA biography, the Susan B. Anthony List article, and The Revolution (newspaper). This marvelous paper by Tracy Thomas is from 2012: it would have been invaluable to me in arguments I was continually making to try and shape this article's storyline in a scholarly fashion.

I can see this abortion dispute article bringing in some text about how infanticide was viewed in the 19th century, in a background section which includes a brief mention the Vaughn case but is more about the high number of babies killed directly after being born. Feminists of the day were split on the Vaughn issue but they were not split on whether infanticide was bad—it was a terrible symptom of the way that society as legislated by men was harming women. Thomas can also be used to describe how the practice of abortion was socially accepted by most Americans before 1850, with it allowed until the fourth month, after which it became a crime, and Thomas can be used to tell the reader that family planning methods (19th century birth control) was universally applauded by feminists of the day. The notional right of a woman to decide when and if she became pregnant—"voluntary motherhood" or "enlightened motherhood"—was a foundational tenet of the emerging women's movement.

Of course the Thomas paper can also be used to augment other sections, for instance the conclusion that Parker Pillsbury is the most likely writer of anti-abortion editorials in The Revolution. Thomas can be used to tell the reader about how Stanton was somewhat supportive of infanticide if the pregnancy was going to deliver a "moral monster", and she was very much in favor of family planning, using abstinence as the method. And Thomas can be used to describe how FFL was using a Stanton quote about "children as property to be disposed of as we see fit" as pro-life propaganda, but nobody was able to locate the original quote, so FFL stopped using it. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese reverted the proposed "Defense of woman accused of infanticide" section a few days ago by asking if I could demonstrate that it is related to the abortion dispute without using synthesis. I have clearly demonstrated that, but I haven't heard from Roscelese. Before I recreate the new section that was reverted, I need to know if someone is going to revert it again, or remove a large part of it, and why. What are the criteria for including material in this article that would somehow exclude such highly relevant background information?

The material in the proposed new section certainly meets the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, and all of it is going to be included somewhere. The only question is where. This material is important for an understanding of Anthony's views on this subject.

Binksternet, why do you suggest including background information in this article about how infanticide was generally viewed in the 19th century but imply that we should not include detailed background information specifically about Susan B. Anthony? The article, after all, is called "Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute." I think we should follow the lead of Tracy Thomas, who has written what appears to be the most detailed study of the abortion dispute, and who devoted a large section of that study to the Hester Vaughn case.

We need to think strategically about this. The Susan B. Anthony article has a section called "Views on abortion" that links to this article as the "main article" on that subject. However, if the scope of this article is defined so that it excludes such things as the details on the Hester Vaughn infanticide case, then it is improper to list it as the "main article" for the SBA "Views on abortion" section. That section's link to this article would need to be revised to treat it as simply an article with related information, not the "main article", because we wouldn't have a main article on that subject. In this scenario, I would create a separate article from the material in the proposed "Defense of woman accused of infanticide" section and include a link to it in the SBA "Views on abortion" section, which would be in addition to the link to this article. Also, this article and the newly created article would need to be linked to each other.

Obviously I think this is not a good idea. I think it would be better to place all information on this subject in one place. I think we need a true "main article" for the SBA "Views on abortion" section, and that this article can easily serve that purpose as long as its scope is defined so that it can include any and all background material related to the subject. How could there be an objection to well-documented background information? Bilpen (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thomas article, Bilpen. I'm not sure it's necessary or desirable to include the Vaughan case at such length (for WP:WEIGHT reasons relative to how often other pieces of evidence are brought up), but we could mention it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bilpen, I wasn't sure you'd seen this message. I think it's still being given too much weight in the article. What of this can be sourced only through sources related to the abortion debate? That's the best way we can ensure due weight. Currently almost none of it is actually cited to relevant sources, though of course it's possible this was for the sake of convenience and more of it could be. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

First we need to address the fundamental issue I raised above: What is the scope of this article? Or more specifically, how much historical background information can be included in this article?

Currently this article has a dual identity. Its first sentence says it is about the modern-day dispute, which would limit its content to topics mentioned in that dispute plus light background material. The "Views on abortion" section of the Susan B. Anthony article, however, says it is the main article for that section, which would mean that its content is limited only by the historical record on that topic. In practical terms, the difference between the two is very small because the historical record of SBA's views on abortion is so small. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, the addition of the "Defense of woman accused of infanticide" section to this article means that it now basically contains a complete historical record of SBA's views on abortion (although, of course, the interpretation is disputed).

I think the scope of this article should include background material about SBA's views on abortion that is limited only by the historical record. That would qualify it as the main article for the "Views on abortion" section in the SBA article without detracting from the purpose of this article. If even a few sentences are removed from the "Defense of woman accused of infanticide" section, then the only way to present the complete historical record of SBA's views on abortion would be to place those sentences in a separate article that would then need to be linked to this article. In my view, that would create an unnecessarily awkward situation. Bilpen (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just changed the 'main' template to a 'see also' template at the SBA biography. I don't think this article's scope should be widened to include everything SBA ever said or wrote about infanticide. Instead, it should remain focused on the modern dispute. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of alleviating the concern that this is supposed to completely cover all of Anthony's positions on abortion - although I would caution Bilpen to rely on writings by historians, not on contemporary papers, if he wants to write about the issue elsewhere, too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevance and weight

At most, the Hester Vaughn case merits only a passing mention, probably in the "Arguments" section of this article. The case involves infanticide (a "reproductive issue"??) not abortion and even in this realm speaks around the issue of its criminality rather than directly to it. Giving the case a large section of the article, as if it had a clear relevance to the Anthony/Abortion issue, gives it vastly too much weight. Had Anthony spoken out against the prosecution of Madame Restell a decade later then you'd have had something; though actually, I suppose, if she had done that there would be no "Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute." 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tracy Thomas

@Bilpen: I left a message on your talkpage a little while back, but maybe you didn't see it? Anyway, I was suggesting that some of the information from the Tracy Thomas source might find a better home in the Pro-life feminism article. Also, as I note in my edit summary, I believe the "Despite their statement, it's still on their website" is original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the changes you made, although frankly I would prefer to include the quote from the FFL. I did notice your earlier message to me that said "Consider adding some of the material you've been reading/writing to Pro-life feminism? :)". I took that to mean that some of the material I have added here should be in both articles. Perhaps I will do that at some point, but I will think about that later. Thomas has published what is by far the most detailed critique of the anti-abortion movement's historical narrative, and I think it is important to present her rebuttals to some of the statements that are made in this article.Bilpen (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I see problems with quite a bit of the material which Bilpen has added recently from the article by Tracy Thomas. To begin with, I see no relevance to this article whatsoever in the story of SBA's actions in the case of Hester Vaughn. I'm sure that Professor Thomas must have deemed it somehow relevant but I don't, and I'm wondering if Bilpen or any other editor can explain to me why it would be relevant to Miss Anthony's view on abortion. While it is true that all material in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable in a relevant reliable source it does not follow that all the material in that relevant source needs to be included in an article.

I also notice that Bilpen has included a 1990 quote by a former Feminists for Life officer (or, at least, a woman who claimed to be a former officer) as an example of "some" FFL members disagreeing with the organizations tactic of using quotes by nineteenth century feminists to advocate for their cause. ONE, of course, is not the same as SOME, but more importantly Bilpen failed to mention what is clear from the Thomas article, that this woman spoke as a former FFL member who was now obviously and completely on the the other side of the abortion issue (so much so that she refers to her old colleagues as "anti-choice"). Thus, Bilpen's assertion that there is some substantial internal FFL disagreement here amounts to what we could call original speculation. I seem to recall that I saw one or two other problems with Bilpen's additions but I can't recall specifically what they were. This is a start, however. KatieHepPal (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am adding back the Hester Vaughn paragraph on the grounds that Tracy Thomas, a participant in the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute, is of the opinion that the Hester Vaughn story is very relevant to this topic. She covered this case over the course of some 10 pages in her 68-page critique of the anti-abortion movement's historical narrative, presenting it as one of the reasons for believing that that the views of Anthony and Stanton are not compatible with those of the modern anti-abortion movement. Obviously, if other participants in the abortion dispute disagree with Thomas about whether this story is relevant, their disagreement with Thomas should be included here also. It isn't the job of Wikipedia editors, however, to decide whether or not Thomas's opinion on the relevancy of the Hester Vaughn story is valid.

I added a modified version of the Ravinsky paragraph back, making it even more clear that Ravinsky spoke as a former member of the FFL, not as a current member disagreeing with a tactic.Bilpen (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not, or in what form, Tracy Thomas's writing on the Heather Vaughn case should be included in this particular Wikipedia article. You might look up WP:ONUS as I did last night. What you are saying on this Talk page seems to be a classic argument from authority. The mere fact that a professor has presented something in an academic journal DOES NOT oblige us to use it in this article. From my admittedly brief look on the internet I see precious little discussion, academic or otherwise, of Thomas's "thesis." What reliably sourced opinions support her view? Surely, if others found her argument to be cogent some would weigh in on the matter but I haven't seen anything indicating this to be the case. As for those who might dispute Thomas on this point, would any of them even take it seriously if they knew about it? Anthony worked to save a young woman convicted of infanticide from the gallows, therefore she felt what, pray tell, about abortion?

In my earlier comment, Bilpen, I asked if you could explain the connection, any connection at all, between Anthony's actions in the Heather Vaughn case and her views on abortion. At this point, you have failed to do so. If you, as a Wikipedia editor, can't see any substantive relevance in Tracy Thomas's Heather Vaughn story, is it really responsible editing to add it to this article?

As for the Annette Ravinsky quote, while what you have done is an improvement, it still doesn't let the reader know that Ravinsky, at the time of her letter/article, was a firm pro-choice partisan not merely a former officer in Feminists for Life disenchanted by its tactics. Incidentally, though I'm not sure it can resolved by an online search, I'm rather curious if Ms. Ravinsky was actually a national vice-president of the organization or whether there is a bit of exaggeration in that description. KatieHepPal (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1) The purpose of this "Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute" article is to present information about what participants on both sides of the abortion dispute have said. 2) Thomas is a participant in this dispute, having written "Misappropriating Women's History in the Law and Politics of Abortion," the longest and most detailed critique of the anti-abortion's historical narrative. 3) A very large part of her critique is about the case of Hester Vaughn, who had been found guilty of murdering her newborn child. 4) Thomas noted that The Revolution, the newspaper of Anthony and Stanton, began its campaign in Vaughn's defense with an article that described Vaughn as a "poor, ignorant, friendless and forlorn girl who had killed her newborn child because she knew not what else to do with it". 5) Thomas believes that this attitude toward infanticide indicates that it is a mistake to say that the views of Anthony and Stanton are compatible with those of the modern anti-abortion movement. Conclusion: Thomas's presentation of the Vaughn case qualifies as participation in the abortion dispute and is therefore eligible for inclusion in this article.

Thomas is not the only scholar to discuss the Vaughn case. Ellen Carol Dubois, for example, in her book Feminism and Suffrage, page 146, notes that the Working Women's Association, which was formed in the offices of the Revolution and in which Anthony's actively participated, argued in their defense of Vaughn that she was, in DuBois's words, "the victim of a social system that forced women, especially poor women, to murder their illegitimate children or face social ostracism." Bilpen (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Weight

I think you've made a decent case for mentioning Tracy Thomas's article and "thesis" but not for doing much more than that. I think that what we now have of Thomas constitutes undue weight among other things. The fact that other scholars have brought up the Heather Vaughn/Anthony story only supports its inclusion if at least one of them has reached a conclusion about it similar to Thomas's - that it puts Anthony at odds with the modern pro-life movement. Otherwise, it actually argues against inclusion.

Similar to Anthony's attitude toward Vaughn and her likely act of infanticide, the notion that woman who obtained abortions were more victims than villains was common when abortion was illegal. That is largely why such women themselves routinely went unprosecuted when abortionists such as Restell were charged with crimes. Generally, however, this wasn't then regarded as a reason to make abortion legal.

Annette Ravinsky quote

I also think that the quote from the rather obscure Annette Ravinsky should be removed as undue. I've found nothing else confirming that she was ever a FFL and even if she was, at the time she was writing her letter/article, it was simply as a pro-choice partisan (referring to the other side as "anti-choice"), not as a scholar or as an organizational leader. I don't see any cogent reason for its inclusion here.

(Responding to the paragraph above, which was added by KatieHepPal on 10 February 2015.) The sentence about Ravinsky is a properly cited contribution to the abortion dispute from a reliable source who identifies Ravinsky as a former vice president of the FFL. It is fully qualified for inclusion in this article.Bilpen (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Improperly framed quote

I noticed a place where your re-quoting of Thomas quoting historian James Mohr misstates the historical context. You say "abortion at that time (i.e. Anthony's day) . . . [now quoting Mohr/Thomas] . . . 'was neither morally nor legally wrong in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, provided that it was accomplished before quickening.'" However, the specific time period that Mohr refers to here is "the first decades of the nineteenth century." That, of course, is when Anthony was born, but not when she did her famous work - the mid and late decades of the century. By that time abortion law (and perhaps attitudes as well) had changed very considerably and the old common law notion of "quickening" was no longer the standard in increasing numbers of states. KatieHepPal (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I modified the Mohr sentences to handle possible misunderstandings about time frames. Bilpen (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mohr versus Dellapenna

The most comprehensive history of abortion in western society is the the massive (1300 page) study by Joseph Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History. [1]. Much of it is devoted to debunking James Mohr, particularly in the areas of "quickening" as a common law doctrine and the supposed dominance of 19th century medical doctors in leading the charge against abortion. Amazingly, Dellapenna's study seems to have been ignored in Wikipedia's articles about abortion. This Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute article wouldn't really seem to be the best place to introduce Dellapenna's contradicting of Mohr, but if the Tracy Thomas material citing Mohr remains in the article, then it needs to be brought in. I raise the issue partly because the Thomas/Mohr material is of questionable relevance to this particular abortion article. It does not really tell the reader much about whether abortion was a "hot political issue" in the mid to late 1800s (Thomas seems to enjoy contradicting opponents with material that doesn't really contradict them). By the way, I think what Marjorie Dannenfelser probably meant was not that abortion was not a political issue at that time (it obviously was something of a political issue since anti-abortion laws were being passed) but, rather, that it was not an especially hot political issue. In other words the anti-abortion laws passed during that time were not especially controversial and met with little opposition, feminist or otherwise. KatieHepPal (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is no source connecting Dellapenna's work to this particular dispute about SBA, then Dellapenna is not going into this article. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"A number of"

I find that going back into the history of these articles and their "Talk" pages can pay dividends. For example I have now discovered that in June of 2012 editors Roscelese (explicitly) and Binksternet (tacitly) agreed to this much discussed consensus wording of the article's second sentence "However, a number of scholars, pro-choice activists, and journalists have said that this narrative is a case of invented historical revisionism." This version remained in the article for more than two years until about six months ago when "sly devil" Binksternet unilaterally removed "a number of" to recreate the version that he had preferred more than two years earlier. That being the case, I feel justified in going back to the wording that existed between June 2012 and August 2014. KatieHepPal (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Name the scholars that explicitly agree with the FFL and SBA List narrative about Anthony... Right, the number is zero, which is why there should not be any attempt to water down the scholarly assessment of the narrative as wrong. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Mr. Knowles, let us put paid to the notion that (in your most recent edit to the article) you were "restoring a long-standing consensus" about the article's wording. You did nothing of the sort. What you restored was your own unilateral change to the article made on 20 August 2014. It was THAT edit which violated a long-standing wording consensus from 20 June, 2012 formed between yourself, Roscelese, and Badmintonhist. The wording "a number of scholars" made by Badmintonhist was explicitly accepted by Roscelese who said "I'm fine with 'a number of' - it seems to convey limitations while not falsely suggesting anything." You made no objection to the new wording in that discussion, but rather, when the coast was clear, removed " a number of" some two years and two months later.

As for your attempt at substantive argument above, I am not impressed. Serious scholars tend to avoid getting directly involved in spitting contests between ideologues. I wouldn't really expect a Joseph Dellapenna or a Carl Degler or a Marvin Olasky to explicitly and publicly announce whether the Susan B. Anthony List or its critics are right about Anthony's views on abortion.

One other issue here, Mr. Knowles, perhaps the most important one. Could you describe for me precisely what the "FFL and SBA narrative about Anthony" is, perhaps with specific quotes from representatives of those organizations? I suspect that there may be some straw man burning going on. KatieHepPal (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Ravinsky quotation"

The mere fact that a supposed quotation weighing in on the Anthony/Abortion dispute appeared in an academic journal is not a cogent reason for including it here. We don't really know if there is an Annette Ravinsky who was once a vice-president of Feminists for Life (no independent source has been presented to confirm this). We more or less do know, however, that she was not an especially prominent figure in that movement, and that she was neither a well known commentator nor an academic historian. Tracy Thomas might as well have quoted a Joe Blow on the subject and the mere fact that an academic paper quotes a Joe Blowis is not enough give the quotation sufficient weight for Wikipedia. Moreover, we now have someone earnestly maintaining that she is the Annette Ravinsky in question telling us that she never made the comment that is being attributed to her. [2]. Under these circumstances why would anyone think it a good idea to keep the quotation in the article? Surely there is something better in the Thomas Seattle Law Review article that we could put in its place. Motsebboh (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tracy Thomas is the reliable source here, supported by the prominence of the scholarly publication. If Thomas looked at a quote and thought it was significant to understanding the topic, then that is much more leverage than an IP editor from Philadelphia who says that somebody was pretending to be her. As far as I can tell from searching the interwebs, there is indeed a person named Annette L. Ravinsky who lives in Philadelphia, with various group affiliations such as white supremacist, animal rights activism and pro-life. I can't see whether she was ever in FFL, but again, it was Tracy Thomas who determined that Ravinsky's quote is important to the SBA abortion dispute narrative. Who are we to dispute a topic scholar? Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors here and everywhere pick and choose AL THE TIME as to what parts of reliable sources they use and don't use. That is the basic job of an editor. Why pick an especially dubious line of an academic work to quote? Just because Tracy Thomas thought it was significant in her paper doesn't mean that we are obliged to use it. Again, is there any other source besides Thomas who says that an Annette Ravinsky was ever a vice -president of Feminists for Life much less wrote such a letter? Daughters of Sarah, incidentally, seems to be long gone. Motsebboh (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings in favor of including the quote, but Binksternet is right that we have no way of knowing that this IP is really Ravinsky. I've invited the IP user to submit an OTRS ticket, which I believe is the right way of going about doing things when you need to confirm your identity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of copies of Daughters of Sarah laying around in libraries and archives. The fact that the periodical is defunct doesn't make its contents less authoritative. Pamela D. H. Cochran, the director of the Center on Religion and Democracy at U of Virginia, writes that Daughters of Sarah "was the first, and at its height, the most polished" of the four primary journals of evangelical feminism. She says that the journal was published from late 1974 to late 1996. The authority of the DoS journal adds to the letter written by Annette Ravinsky to the journal's editors. If the editors of DoS had any suspicion that the letter was a fake, they would not have run it. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is the compelling reason for including the quotation? That somebody who may or may not have been a vice president of Feminists for Life, may or may not have changed her mind about abortion, and/or about Anthony, and may or may not have written a letter to a then existing publication. Even if all true, so what? And again, what sources exist other than Thomas and (maybe) DoS confirming that an Annette Ravinsky was once a VP at Feminists for Life? Motsebboh (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP user says she notified several periodicals about false quotes. If that is accurate, she should be able to tell us which journals printed retractions and when.

In Wikipedia, as in academia, the history research of a professor is presumed to be reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary. That qualifies Thomas's material as a reliable source, and Wikipedia requires only one reliable source. (Unless, of course, it is contradicted by another reliable source, which hasn't happened here.) The Ravinsky quote is relevant to this article because it comes from a former vice president of one of the organizations that popularized the idea that Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion. Bilpen (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean that it may have come from a former vice-president of Feminists for Life. It is unlikely that Tracy Thomas would have done anything other than assume that the letter was legit when she wrote her article. As for the now defunct Daughters of Sarah, who knows? Perhaps someone should check with the FFL office. Of course, even assuming that Ravinsky was a former FFL VP and actually did write this letter, it would not be especially edifying fact. Many people both famous and obscure have changed their positions in either direction on abortion and the issues that surround it. Motsebboh (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The characterisation of an evangelical feminist who headed an organisation that helped proselytise the idea that Anthony opposed abortion into the dialog as "Joe Blow" is disenheartening. It's also cited in a reliable source and that RS sources a known publication considered to be reliable for scholars of the field. Need I remind everyone of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth? Ogress _smash! 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What we really have now is a letter in a magazine describing someone name Annette Ravinsky as a former vice president of Feminist for Life. If whoever wrote the letter is not an Annette Ravinsky, former vice president of Feminists for life then citing it in our article would be worse than citing a letter by Joe Blow. Relying on verifiability doesn't mean that we go out of our way to print stuff that might be false. Motsebboh (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Two respected journals thought enough of Ravinsky and her ideas to print them. The first was Daughters of Sarah, a Christian feminist journal that purposely stayed neutral on the question of abortion, so that its readers could read about and discuss the issue in an open forum. The second journal is the Seattle University Law Review which published the Tracy Thomas piece. Just one of these would be sufficient to tell us that Ravinsky's words are important to the topic, but we have two. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No. We editors determine what is important to the topic based on information that we get from reliable sources. Nothing whatsoever obligates us to include the Ravinsky/Thomas quotation in this article. Motsebboh (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence that the information is false? "It could have been a person impersonating her" is ridiculous. Ogress _smash! 20:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion? Someone claiming to be Annette Ravinsky has recently buzzed in to one of the editors and claimed precisely that. Motsebboh (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC) PS: I've just E-mailed Feminists for Life for information on the Annette Ravinsky in question.

An IP claims quoted material is fake because they are the quoted person and never said it... Feminists for Abortion Life have been specifically criticised for their use of Susan B. Anthony quotes and you are going to them for confirmation? Ogress _smash! 21:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm going to Feminists for Life about someone who is supposed to be a former VP of Their organization. I don't know anything about an organization called "Feminists for Abortion." Motsebboh (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeesh, that was one heck of a slip. Ogress _smash! 22:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Material from Harper Ward

The web site of the National Susan B. Anthony Museum and House has a research article on this issue. I will add some quotes from that article to this article today, and, after giving interested people time to digest it, I will begin adding other quotes from it. Bilpen (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent "context" reversion

@Ams9831: I've reverted your recent edits as they seem to be original research. It is not clear from your text whether or not the sources actually refer to SBA and her views on abortion, the article subject. We need to know that it's not just you drawing these connections. The material is interesting and may be useful for other articles - it's just not clear that it is relevant to this article without original synthesis. (Additionally, some of the material seems unusable on its face for this or other US articles as it's not about the United States at all.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the dispute over Susan B. Anthony's views on abortion, not on the history of the abortion issue in general. Also, Ams9831 quotes Anthony as saying, "no matter how ill-prepared she may feel herself for maternity, the demands of [her husband's] passion must never be refused." That quote comes from "Marriage and Maternity," an article in the Revolution by the anonymous correspondent "A", who some anti-abortion activists have claimed to be Anthony. Ward has shown that the author of one of the articles by "A." was later identified by the editors of the Revolution as "Mr. A." Quotes by "A." cannot be attributed to Anthony (who signed herself "SBA"). Bilpen (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing citation by Michael Novak

I will shortly remove one sentence plus a phrase from another sentence from this article, along with their citation, footnote #6. That citation refers to an article called "Second Thoughts on Feminism" by Michael Novak that was written (according to the sentence to be removed) in February 1989 and (according to the accompanying citation) appeared on page 4 of volume 7 of a journal called Crisis. Something apparently went haywire with this citation. There is indeed an article called "Second Thoughts on Feminism" in the February 1989 issue. The problem is that it is by Dinesh D'Souza, not Michael Novak, and it is not relevant to the SBA abortion dispute. Specifically, it does not support either of the two places for which it is a citation. Here is the link to the Crisis article.

Fortunately this citation isn't necessary for the first instance where it is used, in support of the statement that 1989 is approximately when the abortion debate began. There already is another citation for that date, from Ann Gordon.

The other place where this Crisis article is used as a citation where is where Elizabeth Cady Stanton was said to have "referred to both the killing of infants and abortion as 'infanticide'". The idea that Stanton equated infanticide and abortion is open to debate. If added to a Wikipedia article as a fact, not an opinion, it would need to be supported by a recognized authority on Stanton's life and work, and that would not include either Michael Novak or Dinesh D'Souza.

Stanton's views on abortion and infanticide are difficult to pin down. If anyone wants to hunt for a non-biased and authoritative source that says she equated abortion and infanticide, please be aware that, in my opinion at least, that statement should be balanced with the fact that Stanton's opponents accused her, with some justification, of finding ways to excuse the conduct of women who actually committed infanticide. That obviously puts an unexpected spin on the whole thing. Here is a link to a newspaper article called "The Women's Congress" about a public clash between Stanton and Julia Ward Howe on this issue. Stanton is identified as "Mrs. Henry B. Stanton in this article, which is on page 3 of the NY Tribune, Oct 17, 1873. Similarly, footnote 10 in Ward's "Misrepresenting Susan B. Anthony on Abortion" talks about how Stanton dealt with some actual cases of infanticide. Bilpen (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilpen: It appears that the line attributed to Novak ("unearthed quotations showing that...") appeared in the print edition but not the online archive: you can see it in Google Books snippet view here, under the heading "Feminism Derailed". If you'd like a copy of that article, I'd suggest asking at the resource exchange project. Cheers, gnu57 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that resource. Bilpen (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It turns out that "Feminism Derailed" doesn't provide any new information that is relevant to this article. It reprints a quote from the "Marriage and Maternity" article by "A" but labels it, incorrectly, as a quote by Anthony. It also incorrectly says that Anthony called abortion "child-murder", which actually comes from the same article by the anonymous "A" (who might have been the person the newspaper referred to as "Mr. A"). In addition, it reprints the "treated as property" quote that was supposedly found in a letter by Stanton to Howe, a quote that has never been authenticated. These points have all been thoroughly discussed already in this article. Bilpen (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. I appreciate the work you've been putting into this article. Cheers, gnu57 01:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Problem based on depicting both sides with equal weight

Since this change by Bilpen to the lead section, we have a problem of WP:WEIGHT. We need to emphasize that the positions taken by FFL (and later SBA List) were invented for political purposes, and that the "dispute" is very strongly countered, corrected and dismissed by scholars, especially Ann Gordon. The position that Anthony was active against abortion is a minor or even fringe belief, which we should not be presenting as equal to the scholarly assessment. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To me it just reads like an expansion of what we already had. I can see your argument that giving roughly equal amounts of lede content to both sides might create a false equivalence, but I also think it's hard not to discuss the anti-abortion position in the lede since their claims are the reason there is an article to begin with (this isn't Climate change). This might be less of a WEIGHT issue and more about vocabulary choice; maybe "opposing viewpoint" is not the best way to describe Gordon's contributions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just added material in the Background section that tries to provide a better balance there. I agree that the phrase "opposing viewpoint" in the lede section can be misunderstood as a false equivalence, and I would be happy if someone came up with a better way of stating it. Maybe the second paragraph, instead of beginning with "A prominent supporter of the opposing viewpoint..." should instead begin with something like Binksternet's phrase above, "Scholars, especially Ann Gordon, ..." Bilpen (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that works. Binksternet (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

On this note, I've reverted "some scholars" to "scholars" and "One scholar, Anne Dexter Gordon" to "Scholars, especially..." because the latter is more accurate to our sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

19th-century controversies

@Dimadick: I wouldn't call this a "19th-century controversy" seeing as it started in 1989 - even if it is a controversy about people who lived in the 19th century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote is illegible

@Binksternet: Whatever the point of the meme image and its caption, the quote inside the image is illegible, and that is why I typed the verbatim quote into the caption. I cannot understand why that part of it was reverted in both articles. Elizium23 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Because you removed the analysis by Laury Oaks saying that FFL was using the poster to mislead the viewer, by putting a wholly false spin on the supposed Anthony quote. Even FFL's own historian Mary Krane Derr wrote about how it was a wrong interpretation of the quote, but FFL printed up boxes of the poster regardless. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What quote? Can you read it? Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

When I uploaded the image it was larger (625 × 680 pixels) and still readable. But since it's a non-free image, a bot came through and reduced it in size according to image policy, so now it's only 303 × 329 pixels, less than a quarter of the uploaded size.

Despite this problem, the Frances Willard quote appears in the prose section of the article, so the reader can get an idea about the poster quote.

I put the image in the article to show that FFL was deceiving the viewer. I did not put it in to help make FFL's political point. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't we satisfy both aims here? Clearly Elizium's edit removed information, but he is also right that the quote is difficult to read. Perhaps we can link to our section on the quote in the caption, something like Susan B. Anthony image and "Sweeter even" quote, used by Feminists for Life to portray her as "anti-choice". I also think we could find a better source than the FFL paper, even though even the FFL paper points out that their use of the quote is historical misrepresentation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Several scholars point out the misrepresentation of the quote: Laury Oaks, Tracy Thomas and the one known as Harper D. Ward. We can link to their work in the caption.

The guideline WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE recommends against linking to another section of the article in the infobox, pointing out that the table of contents serves the purpose. This article doesn't have an infobox, but I think the guideline applies generally to whatever's in the top right corner.

How about if we add the poster text to the discussion in the "Sweeter even" section? We could display it in a blockquote like this:

Another Anti-Choice Fanatic

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them." — Susan B. Anthony

The woman who fought for the right to vote also fought for the right to life. We proudly continue her legacy.

Then we could tell the reader that Laury Oaks determined the poster quote to be taken out of context. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this addition of two sidebar boxes, one with a referenced explanatory summary and the other showing the poster's full text? Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Sorry, to be clear, I meant as a citation in the box. I don't disbelieve that we have better sources - I think we should cite those instead. I wasn't familiar with that guideline, and I see that the explanation it gives for why we should not link seems also to apply here, as you said. I'm not sure your proposal of separating the poster text from the image of the poster is helpful - either seeing the poster (as opposed to just reading its text) is meaningful or it's not, you know? I'll float the idea of the upper right image just being a portrait of Anthony if this issue is otherwise difficult to resolve, but I would prefer to use an image more directly related to the dispute. Is there a MOS reason why the poster caption can't have two paragraphs, one with the quote and one with the explanation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The general style guide for image captions says we should stay succinct, putting whatever sorts of "more information" into the article body prose. But it might be okay for us to determine that our situation is unusual enough to support a local consensus to stretch the rules. I support your suggestion of getting another main upper right image for this article so that the poster image could be shifted down. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support Roscelese's proposal to get another image for the upper right corner so the poster image can be moved further down.Bilpen (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Impartiality of "FFL College Outreach Poster"

I redid one part of my reverted edit, which says "While Anthony never endorsed abortion," I did not put this statement to diminish any "factuality" of other interpretations. It is necessary to point out that Anthony's newspaper The Revolution, while not in favor of laws punishing abortion, has never endorsed abortion. Source: [3]

To quote from WP:IMPARTIAL:

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

「HypeBoy」^TALK 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You're putting forward the argument of politically motivated FFL? That's not good enough for this article. And you cited an FFL page that does not actually say what you want it to say. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought this article was about a dispute which presents two different opposing viewpoints? Politically motivated or not, FFL is one of the most prominent subjects on half of the viewpoints supposedly presented in this article. Your constant rejection of their particular side of the dispute means that you are the one who are trying to make this article "say what you want it to say", not me. Regardless, I can see that it's not going to be easy improving this article when there is an editor that is clearly gatekeeping this article.「HypeBoy」^TALK 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Your idea of improvement was telling the reader that Anthony "never endorsed abortion". Nothing like that is found in the sources.

The tone of this article is that the anti-abortion groups describing Anthony as "anti-choice" are explained as misrepresenting the historical facts. That tone is there because it accurately conveys the scholarly literature. Shifting the narrative in a direction favorable to FFL is not the right way to proceed. We should not adopt a false balance which isn't found in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

HypeBoy, I don’t see the necessity of pointing out that Anthony's newspaper never endorsed abortion. No one is saying that it did. Bilpen (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A correction: The subject in my edit was "Anthony", not her newspaper. It's not about if it was said or not. I find it necessary to include an new point to the section (from an existing source already referred to in this article) because the subsequent statement "Anthony never fought for laws restricting abortion, and she never "fought for the right to life"", while perhaps true, is not impartial in tone relating to the proportion of how both positions are presented in this article. This is why I referred to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL in my edits. Two supporting points :

1. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.

2. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

I do realize improving this article is not going to be easy for some reason. I'm not going to push it further. I'm just a newbie editor who cares.「HypeBoy」^TALK 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)