→Ideas for wording: Might help. |
|||
Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
Can we work on a new wording? "Certain scholars..." maybe? [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk:NYyankees51|talk]]) 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
Can we work on a new wording? "Certain scholars..." maybe? [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 18:10, 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. [[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Go for it. It would help combat some of the POV pushing in this article. [[User:PeRshGo|PeRshGo]] ([[User talk:PeRshGo|talk]]) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:16, 27 April 2011
![]() | Feminism C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Readers can go to the pro-life article to find out. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Readers can go to the source to read the whole thing. BS24 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Schiff does not summarize the essay. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 21 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- The newspaper interview shares none of these characteristics, and the context is plain. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 27 October 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
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:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Precisely! We're writing a Wikipedia article, not a dissertation. Cloonmore (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- None of which are scholarly works. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 31 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, 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)
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 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)
- 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)
- Ah, so now it's about me, eh? Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. Cloonmore (talk) 02:35, 4 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What? Your sentence about "co-opting" SBA's legacy is refering to Derr as well? Support? Cloonmore (talk) 11:05, 4 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)
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)
- 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)
Ideas for wording
Can we work on a new wording? "Certain scholars..." maybe? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)