Talk:The Revolution (newspaper)

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

message: I have removed this single-sentence paragraph from the article:
*"According to the owner of the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum, The Revolution contains 122 references to abortion, a fact cited by those who believe Anthony opposed abortion."
This factoid has two basic problems: it is unaccompanied by any context and it pushes a point of view. The 122 references to abortion are not shown to be notable by other, non-SBABM sources, and they are not shown to be purely for or against abortion, or even a mix of viewpoints. The SBABM source does not say whether they include the phrase "child-murder" to count as an instance of mentioning abortion, though that phrase has been used by 19th century activists to mean two things: abortion, and infanticide—the killing of unwanted newborns.
The factoid is not accompanied by how many references there are in The Revolution about alcohol, about woman suffrage, about spouse rape, about a woman's right to control her own body free from laws, etc. The factoid sticks out as inappropriate to this article, since it is clearly advocating a position not necessarily taken by the newspaper. People discussing abortion in The Revolution held varying opinions on abortion, including the infamous one which comes later in the "Guilty?" letter, where the anonymous writer signing 'A' says that passing a law against abortion is not the answer to unwanted babies. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: "According to the owner of the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum, The Revolution contains 122 references to abortion." This solves the context and POV problem since it doesn't imply that all the references were negative. BS24 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no context, no encyclopedic knowledge passed on to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? I don't understand. BS24 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry does not describe who or when; it does not describe why or what; it does not say what the supposed 122 abortion references said, whether they were written by readers or by the newspaper owners, whether they were written in defense of abortion or in opposition, or if some middle ground position were being made such as anti-abortion morally but not legally. The entry does not say whether the 122 references include those that may have been published after Anthony sold the newspaper. There is just not enough information to make it encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not trying to make a connection between the newspaper and Anthony. I think it is encyclopedic because it shows abortion was an important issue to women just as it is now, and your wanting to smother facts is questionable. If I find more "context", would you deem it acceptable? BS24 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you find. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References to abortion