This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Dannenfelser said that while the anti-abortion cause was not "the issue that earned Susan B. Anthony her stripes in American history books, historians would be wrong to conclude that Anthony was agnostic on the issue of abortion". She quoted Anthony's business partner, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as saying, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Attempts to authenticate this quote, however, have been unsuccessful. After Thomas notified the FFL in 2011 that she could not locate the source for this alleged quote, the FFL acknowledged the problem by saying that, "Earlier generations of pro-life feminists informed us that these words were written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in a letter tucked into Julia Ward Howe's diary on October 16, 1873," but that they could not locate the letter. The FFL said that Howe's diary entry for that date indicated that she had argued about infanticide with Stanton, who, according to Howe, "excused infanticide on the grounds that women did not want to bring moral monsters into the world, and said that these acts were regulated by natural law. I differed from her strongly". Thomas added that the disagreement occurred during public discussion at a women's conference in New York City.
Dannenfelser's Stanton quote reasonably could be interpreted that (if the quote is accurate) the latter was anti-abortion. Yet FFL quotes Howe's diary entry, which says that Stanton "excused infanticide." If Stanton excused infanticide, how could she have been against abortion? These depictions of Stanton in the same paragraph are contradictory and the contradiction is not explained at all. Rontrigger (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement claimed to have been made by Stanton in a private letter whose existence has never been proven does indeed contradict what, according to Howe, Stanton said in a public meeting. If a claim has been demonstrated to be true or false, it is proper to document that in Wikipedia. But a claim involving the content of a letter whose very existence cannot be demonstrated cannot, by its nature, be given any sort of definitive treatment. A "dispute" article like this one, in my opinion, does better by documenting the various claims and statements without necessarily trying to resolve any resulting contradictions. Bilpen (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points, particularly about resolving the contradictions. But what I tried to say was that the contradictions were not even acknowledged. FFL based their position on Stanton's anti-abortion views on this dubious letter, and then noted something (Howe's diary) that flatly contradicted the letter (assuming that the letter existed). What I found mystifying was that nothing in the text of the article pointed out that these assertions contradicted each other, and thus that FFL's argument regarding Stanton made no sense. Rontrigger (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes no sense, FFL making contradictory assertions about Stanton. Perhaps we should downplay the interchange between FFL and Thomas because of the contradiction. On the other hand, Stanton was mercurial; she wanted to shake the world up, and in retrospect the things she wrote and said at various times include some contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is presented in an extremely biased tone that makes its overall credibility questionable. Here are some examples:
- Using scare quotes to describe anti-abortion feminists ("feminists");
- In the first paragraph, juxtaposing "anti-abortion activists" with "acknowledged authorities" (rather than merely "other authorities"), which suggests that the activists are not authorities on her life in any way;
- In a similar vein, in the third paragraph, framing the opposition to the pro-life view as merely "scholars" instead of "several" or "many" or "few" scholars (suggesting that scholars are in unanimity on this issue);
- In the same paragraph, giving an lengthy expansion on Gordon's credibility through a description of her studies into Anthony's life; the only description given of the other side of the debate is that they are anti-abortion more generally, rather than any explanation on their scholarly stature;
- Lastly, using "scholars" again in the last paragraph generally rather than using a modified. (I am not sure this last paragraph is necessary, for purposes of the article beyond its tone).
Well, the difference between activists and scholars (that's another word for "acknowledged authorities") is very relevant. Binksternet took care of the scare quotes, inserted by an IP editor for no good reason. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, my issue with the sentences in question are not that they distinguish between the two classes of people, but that they make an appearance of scholarly unanimity when there are only a handful of historians who have written about the topic. That's why I object to simply writing "scholars" instead of clarifying "many scholars", etc. It's also why I object to "acknowledged authorities" in the first sentence (which also has no modifier between it); it gives the impression that there is unanimous "acknowledgement" of the "authority" that these scholars have.
The entire article seems to me to be set up to give the impression that it's a small group of motivated activists fighting against basically the entirety of "scholarship" when that's not true. It's some activists and some scholars who are duking it out. Unless unanimity can be proven, there should be different wording here. PS BC BBSK (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment is correct that the article describes a small group of motivated (pro-life) activists fighting against anyone with a sense of history, neutrality and scholarship. It appears that you want to create a false balance favoring the fabricated fable and myth about Anthony created around 1989 to promote anti-abortion politics. That myth deserves to be shot down in a clear and no-nonsense manner. There's nothing to fix. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up!
If the fact that Susan B. Anthony made statements painting abortion in a negative light during her life is indeed a myth, then I think the article you're describing me as unnecessarily attempting to bring a false balance to in fact suffers from a false balance itself! In fact, if it is a myth and there is consensus on that among "anyone with a sense of history, neutrality and scholarship", why would this article not be worded in the same manner as other popular urban legends and conspiracy theories, such as, for example, Paul is dead, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? Actually, you could use anything from the List of urban legends or List of conspiracy theories page if that is the case! If this "myth deserves to be shot down in a clear and no-nonsense manner", why is it the case that the entire article is written such that the issue in question is presented as a "dispute" and not a "myth" or "urban legend"? We seem to be making accusations at my editing (that it aims to bring about a "false balance") that actually should be directed towards the article in its current state!
Could it be, on the contrary, that it is not merely "a sense of history, neutrality, or scholarship" that motivates a certain reading of Anthony's quotes, and that indeed there is a significant case for Anthony's personal opposition to abortion? If such were not the case, why is it that out of the 5 quotes analyzed in the article, not a single one lends credence on the contrary, and each of them at least superficially appears to show her opposition? Indeed, all that the people with "history, neutrality and scholarship" can do in the article is argue against interpretation of her quotes rather than providing any positive evidence themselves! Certainly if Anthony were truly ambivalent on the issue, which was clearly not completely ignored in her day (given she negatively listed it in a speech against drunkenness), there could be at least one clear quote provided that could prove her "ambivalence".
But, given the fact that there is not, could this be why this issue presented as a dispute and not a myth? Further, could this be why the dispute deserves to be presented in a truly neutral light and not in a clearly biased one?
Either way, your proposition that "there's nothing to fix" cannot be true! If it is a myth, as you say, then there's plenty to fix, because the article doesn't present it as one! But if it's a dispute, as both myself and the article say, then there's also plenty to fix, because it's presented in a very biased manner! PS BC BBSK (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to fix because this article is defined by uninvolved WP:SECONDARY sources. Pro-life sources cannot define the topic because they are involved in changing history to suit their aims. Uninvolved sources would be any scholar who has studied Susan B. Anthony, and any journalist who has noticed the falsehoods about Anthony put forward by pro-lifers. So the definition of this topic comes entirely from the non-pro-life world—people who are not activists for anti-abortion laws. Obviously, you want to have the pro-life viewpoint given more credence, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there's absolutely no way that such "uninvolved sources" could be proven to be uninvolved; they absolutely could be pro-choice and making their interpretation of history based off of that ideological lens, we just have no way of knowing that. Funnily enough, the article cites a Planned Parenthood president as one of the people claiming that Anthony showed no indication of having any thoughts on abortion.
The uninvolved sources agree about the utter falsehood of the relatively recent attempt to paint SBA as an anti-abortion activist. They agree that SBA never proposed a law to force women to carry their pregnancies to term, never spoke for regulations against abortion. In fact, SBA was in favor of women taking control of their lives, in favor of reducing the restrictions that laws place on women, making women subservient to men.
It doesn't matter what the scholars and journalists think about today's abortion politics—what side they are on. What matters is that they recognize a unilateral attempt to rewrite history for political gain. Everybody who is trying to falsify SBA's history is a pro-life activist. That's why we don't settle for a "he said, she said" style of fairness, giving equal time to both sides, letting the reader decide who is right. Instead, this is a very lopsided issue, with only anti-abortion activists creating new problems by willfully misinterpreting established history. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
