Talk:Susan B. Anthony/Archive 2

message: Although Anthony's sexual orientation is not in dispute, I removed the following sentence from the introduction:  "She was the first notable lesbian in U.S history".  She had two or three partners in her adult life and made no secret of her choice.  Although she saw her personal choice as related to feminism, sexual orientation was not a primary focus of her life, activities or politics.  I would suggest a modest paragraph later in the article.  Baker's  Sisters:  The Lives of America's Suffragists. has enough material. 
WBardwin 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there is no longer any reference to her sexuality in the article or in categories. I dont know enough about her to add it in myself though, and I do not want to guess user:Pzg Ratzinger
As with abortion--homosexuality is an issue that's talked about a lot in the USA at present. The fact that someone as well-known as Susan B. Anthony was in fact a lesbian is entirely relevant, in my opinion. I can't agree that "sexual orientation was not a primary focus of her life, activities or politics" given that her actions and opinions were so closely linked to what she thought about women. "The personal is political" as the slogan goes. I literally didn't know about SBA's sexual orientation until I read the Talk section here--that's not the way you're supposed to find out about someone. Tei Tetua 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You probably didn't know about SBA's supposed sexual orientation before viewing this talk page because it is an extremely questionable assertion. There is no real credible reference that is going to pronounce her a lesbian without at least some air of speculation, because SBA's choice to not marry was attributed to many different things throughout the years: insecurity, homosexuality, even asexuality. It is all speculation, and the only person who has ever, and likely will ever truly know would be SBA herself. I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to mention that she remained single and unmarried throughout her life, and leave it at that.--Jackbirdsong 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources known to me on Anthony's sexual orientation and her relationships with Anna Dickinson and Rachel Avery.  Lillian Faderman, "To Believe in Women, what Lesbians have done for America-A History" and Baker's  Sisters:  The Lives of America's Suffragists. They probably draw on the same sources, mostly letters from Anthony and the other women.  Single gender relationships in the 19th Century are problematical.  Many of them were solely emotional and had no physical component.  "Singleness" and the related "independence" were important aspects of Anthony's character.  She remained close to her sisters, and shared her home with family members, but did not live with either of the two women for whom she professed love.  She also focused on the legal position of women and did not publicly refer to her sexual orientation in a legal context.  She did however advocate the independence of women and discouraged young activists from marriage, particularly if it led to them to "retire" from the cause.  WBardwin (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation 

message: "She traveled by carriage, wagon, train, mule, stagecoach, ship, submarine, and ferry boat."
submarine?!?!  that can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.212.207  (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well -- there were submarines during her lifetime.  But, I suspect vandalism.  I removed it until a source is presented.  WBardwin 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traveling 

message: "Susan B. Anthony taught for 15 years and worked at the female academy Eunice Kenyon's Quaker boarding school, in upstate New York, from 1846 to 1849."
Somehow, this sentence doesn't seem right... did she teach for 15 years or just 3. I checked other sources and they just mention the three that she spends at the boarding school. Maybe I am wrong. Feel free to disprove me... Iheartflutes 06:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of thorough research revealed that she did in fact teach for a number of years (about ten) at a couple of different boarding schools, which are now specifically listed in the article. Thanks for inspiring the check.--Jackbirdsong 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teaching Years

message: Anthony was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. I didn't see a good place to smoothly slip it in, but if one of the regulars on this article wants to, here is a php cite for it: . The category Anthony, Susan B. should also be added, once it is supported in the article. - Crockspot 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAR membership 

message: Someone seriously did this page in.  I'm kind of doubting that Carmello Anthony was her father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.225.1 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the vandalism by User:209.190.1.195 was rapidly reverted. --lquilter 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shouldn't have been reverted. Carmello Anthony WAS her father. They actually look very similar. Plus wasn't she actually born as a man, but then had a sex change? I can't find the source, but in the 1830's sex change operations were extremely basic, only male-to-female operations were possible, and I'm pretty sure that he lived as a man (or boy) until he was about 13, then Carmello, his father, gave him permission to have an operation. When she was 20, she was so tired of bullshit from women that she became clinically depressed and wanted to revert the operation, but they hadn't developed the technology. Can anyone confirm this? I'm like 99% sure its true. Sunshine 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it was in the innernets, it MUST be true... I've never heard any of this hooey until right now. Unless there are some reliable sources forthcoming, this discussion is silly. If SBA were alive, policy would require that this section be removed from this talk page. - Crockspot 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Who's SBA? You shouldn't make stuff up to damage the credibility of me and my sources. -Sunshine 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't be making stuff up to damage the credibility of the article's subject (Susan B. Anthony) either. Just because she's dead and can't come to her own defence doesn't make it any different. And as for "SBA", it's an acronym. (You should be able to figure it out from there, given what article this talk page is assigned to.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion. I don't appreciate your treating me like an infidel. -Sunshine 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's almost funny. Almost. Don't quit your day job, sunshine.--Jackbirdsong 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carmello Anthony

message: This is my first time doing this, but I saw some vandalism and couldn't help trying to communicate it to the great Wikipedia community--so as to fix it up. Fuck all of the idiots who did it. Anyhow...In the Legacy section, there is blatant vandalism. So I guess I am supposed to do this:  Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed.  Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
71.134.251.86 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell are you talking about? What vandalism is there on Legacy? Sunshine 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested an admin semi-protect. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I used to do a few edits before I registered.  Mostly grammatical stuff, but I never Vanadlized an article--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, on this article at the moment, you behavior does not seem to be typical.  In the month before semi-protection only two anonymous edits added to the article that weren't vandalism, and that was adding fi:Susan B. Anthony and changing "Panic" to "panic".  In that same period anonymous vandals were reverted more than 50 times, some of that vandalism staying up for hours.  Some subjects seem to be magnets for IP vandalism - I suspect anything that's on a significant number of high school curricula.  -- Siobhan Hansa 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Protection (semi or full) is normally set to expire after a set amount of time (to prevent pages being indefinitely protected).  I expect the semi-protection expired and dumbBot was simply cleaning up.  If vandalism returns at unacceptable levels we should ask for the page to be re-protected.  -- Siobhan Hansa 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This edit was made just before a bunch of vandalism.  I don't know if it's a good edit and I didn't want it to be lost in all the reverting.  -- Siobhan Hansa 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed edit - it was eight children.--Jackbirdsong 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second of eight or 11 children? 

message: An anonymous editor has twice removed this content (diff1, diff2), but without explanation:
: The house was donated by Freddie Mac Bank from a foreclosure, and there are plans to create a "Women's Rights and Suffrage Museum" in Battenville, New York.Helise Flickstein is the organizer.
I'm leaving it out for now, on the assumption that it's a good faith edit deleting erroneous or out-of-date content. The content wasn't sourced and, before I cleaned it up a little bit, looked like it was placed there by Flickstein or a friend, since it included an email address. I also asked the anon editor to explain. In the meantime I'm noting the content here so it's easy to retrieve if it's later sourced. --lquilter 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anthony's childhood home

message: ===embarrassment to feminists===
not wanting to re-open a very silly debate (that was nevertheless not resolved correctly) -- still, I removed the unsourced opinion (added a few days ago by User:Pete unseth) that Anthony's statements on abortion are an embarrassment to many feminists today, moved the 3rd sentence to first so it introduces the topic, and moved the 2nd sentence "in the 19th century abortion was illegal and dangerous" further into the paragraph. (diff) --lquilter 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing issue -- with many strong opinions.  Please see the long "Abortion" discussion above.  We are trying for NPOV, but the pendelum swings back and forth.  IMO, a Mother Teresa quote would be a good addition.   Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I do get your point, and generally I agree.  But trying to stop Wikipedia editors from interpreting historical events in a modern context is like trying to stop the tide.  Most have no sense of the historical period and viewpoint, assuming that everyone in Anthony's time period in the 19th Century thought as they do.  The limitations of modern education (sigh).  The best we've been able to manage in the time I've been "watching" the article is to keep a "modern reaction/belief" paragraph very brief and only mildly POV.  If a Mother Teresa quote would add balance to the brief section, please add it.  Or at least place it here for consideration.  Thanks.  WBardwin (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view we should definitely not expand this section; Schiff was put there to contextualize the material, but frankly I think (as I said below) that the whole section should be struck. It is frankly ahistorical to look back at SBA for her views on abortion -- she was not an activist for or against abortion and that is not why she is notable. It's frankly no more notable than trying to figure out, for instance, what Lincoln thought about abortion. If people want to document the state of opinion about abortion in the nineteenth century, I'm sure they could write a fine article for that, but we should not let our modern concerns and passions drive the SBA article into irrelevancy. --Lquilter (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's fine, but be ready for a firestorm - this material and similar quotes were inserted by editors interested in documenting 19th century feminists' views on abortion, regardless of its relevance to their work. By "fine" I mean better -- it is, in my view, undue weight to include it at all, since it was an incredibly trivial point of SBA's work which was largely oriented towards suffrage. I'm sure she had views on many issues but we have to select only the ones that wee significant in her life -- not simply survey her for all opinions that might have a bearing on modern-day disputes. --Lquilter (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion, redux

message: not wanting to re-open a very silly debate (that was nevertheless not resolved correctly) -- still, I removed the unsourced opinion (added a few days ago by User:Pete unseth) that Anthony's statements on abortion are an embarrassment to many feminists today, moved the 3rd sentence to first so it introduces the topic, and moved the 2nd sentence "in the 19th century abortion was illegal and dangerous" further into the paragraph. (diff) --lquilter 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: embarrassment to feminists

message: The previous text from the article, shown below, includes paraphrases not direct quotes, and the order of the text has been re-arranged.
Pulitzer prize winner Stacy Schiff has discussed Anthony's opposition to abortion, saying that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate." Schiff cautions that "...thrusting historical figures into contemporary debate is treacherous because argument can be made for anything when words are taken out of context..." 
* Stacy Schiff, "Desperately Seeking Susan," (Op-Ed), New York Times, October 13, 2006.
Specifically, in the actual NYT article:
*The actual text "There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion..." appears in paragraph #4
*The actual text "The bottom line is that we cannot possibly know what Anthony would make of today’s debate." appears in paragraph #12
*The actual text "In the 19th century, abortion often was life-threatening, ..." also appears in paragraph #12
*The remaining quotes appear to be paraphrases of text in paragraph #9, however, the words "thrusting", "historical", "contemporary", appear nowhere in the article.
I have changed to correctly reflect the actual content of the cited article. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schiff quote 

message: I think this article should be as much NPOV as possible. It´s obvious that Stacy Schiff, as a pro-choice feminist, tries to explain Susan B. Anthony stance on abortion by her own views. A pro-life feminist certainly would write very differentely. So, I don´t see any need for the Stacy Schiff quote, as much for a Mother Teresa quote, who certainely admired very much Susan B. Anthony for her view on abortion.Mistico (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing issue -- with many strong opinions.  Please see the long "Abortion" discussion above.  We are trying for NPOV, but the pendelum swings back and forth.  IMO, a Mother Teresa quote would be a good addition.   Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I do get your point, and generally I agree.  But trying to stop Wikipedia editors from interpreting historical events in a modern context is like trying to stop the tide.  Most have no sense of the historical period and viewpoint, assuming that everyone in Anthony's time period in the 19th Century thought as they do.  The limitations of modern education (sigh).  The best we've been able to manage in the time I've been "watching" the article is to keep a "modern reaction/belief" paragraph very brief and only mildly POV.  If a Mother Teresa quote would add balance to the brief section, please add it.  Or at least place it here for consideration.  Thanks.  WBardwin (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view we should definitely not expand this section; Schiff was put there to contextualize the material, but frankly I think (as I said below) that the whole section should be struck. It is frankly ahistorical to look back at SBA for her views on abortion -- she was not an activist for or against abortion and that is not why she is notable. It's frankly no more notable than trying to figure out, for instance, what Lincoln thought about abortion. If people want to document the state of opinion about abortion in the nineteenth century, I'm sure they could write a fine article for that, but we should not let our modern concerns and passions drive the SBA article into irrelevancy. --Lquilter (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stacy Schiff Opinion

message: The quotation "No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!... All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." is unsourced, and has been tagged for months.  If no one has an authoritative source, we should remove the quote.—G716 <T·C> 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine, but be ready for a firestorm - this material and similar quotes were inserted by editors interested in documenting 19th century feminists' views on abortion, regardless of its relevance to their work. By "fine" I mean better -- it is, in my view, undue weight to include it at all, since it was an incredibly trivial point of SBA's work which was largely oriented towards suffrage. I'm sure she had views on many issues but we have to select only the ones that wee significant in her life -- not simply survey her for all opinions that might have a bearing on modern-day disputes. --Lquilter (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced quotation 

message: I think we should put her views on abortion back into the article, minus the POV modern-day interpretations. Besides, she called abortion "ante-natal child murder", so trying to dismiss her views as from a time when abortion was dangerous is, frankly, stupid; not merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, she stated that it is morally wrong. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Her views

message: I'm not sure how this discussion board works, but something doesn't seem to be right where it says "Lucy was a progressive-minded woman." Surely it means Susan, Lucy was the mother, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.95.129 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually it means Lucy. The info was about Susan's mother. Please restore it.67.99.231.82 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that it means Susan. If the sentence is indeed referring to her mother, Lucy, it needs to be removed or placed elsewhere.--Trilibywiliby (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not just fairly sure, I'm positive it refers to Lucy, because I added the original quote years ago and the reference tells you as much. And why does it need to be "placed elsewhere" when it was originally in a paragraph dedicated to Lucy? And beyond that, why would you "remove" pertinent info? Whatever, I'm sick of dealing with arrogant wikipedians, so do what you want.--67.99.231.82 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucy or Susan

message: Should her attempt to vote and sentence not be mentioned in this article? 194.151.165.92 (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: this womens rights convention was actually held in Seneca Falls, NY   not Onieda, NY..72.75.194.7 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  womens rights convention 1848 

message: Two online sources show differing info on Anthony's siblings.  The info now reflected in the article is from a geneology site which shows seven siblings with Anthony as the eldest.  The other, drawn from a work from Anthony's lifetime, states the siblings were eight, with one dying as an infant.  Living siblings are listed as: Guelma Penn (1818), Susan Brownell (1820), Hannah E (1821), Daniel Read (1824), Mary Stafford (1827), Eliza Tefft (1832), and Jacob Merritt (1834).  
 Any other known sources?  I personally would be inclined to go with the above older source.  WBardwin (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on siblings/ number and dates 

message: The second chapter's sentence 'She was not a convinced Quaker and claimed that she was “not good enough” for the Anthony's mother, Lucy, was a progressive-minded woman.' could be improved as, e.g.: 'She was not a convinced Quaker and claimed that she was “not good enough” for the Anthony's mother for Lucy was a progressive-minded woman.' or - even better - as two sentences: 'She was not a convinced Quaker and claimed that she was “not good enough” for the Anthony's mother. Lucy was a progressive-minded woman.' or with a semicolon as: 'She was not a convinced Quaker and claimed that she was “not good enough” for the Anthony's mother; Lucy was a progressive-minded woman.'; anyway, the comma between 'Lucy' and 'was' is not needed. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sentence 

message: I took out the cartoon of Anthony chasing Cleveland with an umbrella. There was no encyclopedic content to support the cartoon, no explanation of why it was drawn and for what purpose. No text in the article supported it. It's a great image; it just needs some support or it will just tease or confuse our readers. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grover Cleveland cartoon 

message: Susan died from pneumonia. Pneumonia is when you have a difficult time with breathing,serious coughng chest pain,and fever. She died on March 13, 1906. She died at 12:40 o'clock that morning at the age of 86 in Rochester,New York.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.177.38 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When,Where,and,How Susan died 

message: I propose adding a section for quotes since these can really bring an historical figure's story to life and enrich the article.  Yes, Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes per se in that they do not substitute for a well developed article, but in the presence of such, they serve to fill out the story by allowing the voice of the subject to come through unprocessed by the lens of the editor.  "Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes" therefore does not address this proposal, because I do not propose to turn the article into "a collection of quotes". Hardpan17 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Feminist was deeply linked to eugenics from its foundation in XIX century. Susan B. Anthony was an eugenist?Agre22 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few feminists believed in eugenics, as many were abolitionists and believed that African Americans should be given freedom. Anthony was an abolitionist, but kept her opinions on eugenics largely to herself. She was not racist, so the racist side of eugenics would have revolted her. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: She was eugenist?

message: no you know how she died but some people say she was killed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.92.135 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony "...died of heart disease and pneumonia in her house at 17 Madison Street on March 13, 1906."  WBardwin (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  did she get killed? 

message: I read the article with great interest, but had difficulty reconciling the 1878 date: According to article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the very short 29-word amendment was drafted in 1878 by Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  However, the year 1878 does not show up in this article, or what year she worked with Elizabeth on original text of the 19th Amendment that got ratified many decades later in the year 1920 (with the same 29 words apparently penned more than 40 years earlier).  I'm interested in what happened in 1878 -- add the year and/or appropriate wikification, to connect the dots better, please.  Mdrejhon (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not mention 1878 

message: I submit that this article should briefly touch upon the dispute over Anthony's supposed position on abortion, and then leave the subject alone. Abortion was only one of a great number of subjects that the Revolution carried in its pages, and it was not a subject that Anthony put much effort into. What she did put her full spirit in was the drive to win the vote for American women. Before that, her concerns were to abolish slavery and to rid the country of alcohol abuse. These three things were her main focuses in her life, with the vote being by far the most important.
The subject of abortion is not so important to understanding Anthony in her time. By WP:WEIGHT, it is a minor part of her life. She was against abortion as it existed in the late 1800s, but her position today cannot be known. Back then, abortion was often deadly, and it was often carried out by women. Male doctors of the A.M.A. were in the process of outlawing abortion so that they could take control of it themselves; take it away from midwives. Anthony's opinion of this aspect is not known. She was certainly not religious about it—it was not the sanctity of unborn life that drove her—she was instead horrified that men's sexual desires could ruin the lives of women, including married women who had to bear so many children that it broke them. Anthony was in favor of sexual abstention to solve the problem. Her opinion of The Pill cannot be known; the same with her opinion of safe clinical abortions.
I deleted some material that was added in a good faith attempt to explain Anthony's position. One sentence, "when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged", was attributed to Anthony by the source. The source is an opinion piece posted online in the SF Examiner by Barbara Hollingsworth, an opinion editor with that organization, and an investigative reporter with the Washington Examiner. Hollingsworth misses the fact that the quoted sentence is not Anthony's even though it ran in her paper, the Revolution, on September 2, 1869. This quote is from Mattie H. Brinkerhoff. 
Another sentence I deleted was this: "Feminists for Life point out that Anthony's newspaper, The Revolution, editorialized against abortion, calling it "child murder" and "infanticide." Revolution stated that abortion's root cause came from women's oppression and the newspaper advocated family planning." I see no reason why we need to give Feminists For Life any further mention, per WP:WEIGHT, even though the 1998 article by Mary Krane Derr is among the most fair portrayals of Anthony given by FFL. Derr draws the conclusion that the article signed 'A' was written by Anthony, though other scholars debate this. We cannot know for certain whether Anthony wrote the words "child murder" and "infanticide". Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with almost everything that you have stated above.  The problem with reverting out the edits that I made is that, yes, the section is shorter and more in line with the real weight that should be applied to the topic of abortion.  But if what the pro-choice folks state is true (let's be honest you don't know whether what they state is any truer than what the pro-life people state), then abortion should not be mentioned at all.  That's the problem.  Your version--where you eliminate all of the pro-life point of view and keep in the speculation of the pro-choice crowd you are having the article give the false impression that the pro-choice POV is accurate, which we just don't know that to be true.  Honestly, there are really only two ways to cover this topic and at the same time be true to one of the pillars of Wikipedia--NPOV--and that's to either take the whole section out entirely or put in both POVs--both pro-life and pro-choice.  Now, if there was definitely evidence on one side or the other then it would be appropriate to focus on that POV, but since, as ALL of the pro-choice point out there is NO concensus on what Anthony or other suffragists believed.  So I vote that we excise the whole topic instead of giving voice to one POV--which clearly violates POV.  Now, there is a third option which is to cut the whole thing down to maybe one or two sentences and eliminate the section header.  Say, pro-choice say this and pro-life say this and then drop the subject.  But your version is unacceptable because it inherently violates NPOV.--InaMaka (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you deleted contained words from FFL's founder and words from a pro-choice person, so I do not see the problem with neutrality, with covering both sides. However, the deleted section was redundant given the fact that abortion and today's disagreement is already covered in the Revolution section of the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much focus on abortion? 

message: The website is under current ownership of the Susan B Anthony Museum in Adams and links to their site.  Due to illness, Ms Lusignan was unavailable for work on the website and the web domain name expired.  She has no affliation with the museum.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.73.240 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. BS24 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deborah Lusignan's website quotes articles in the North Adams Transcript and in Women's eNews. We have access to the Women's eNews article "Susan B. Anthony's Abortion Position Spurs Scuffle", and Lusignan does not misquote anyone. Why would we expect her to misquote someone from the article in a local paper which is unavailable behind a firewall? She has already established her reliability and her verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: a few confirmed quotes from "Women's eNews" does not a reliable source make.  Read up on WP and familiarize yourself with the policy.  Lustignan is a blogger with an ax to grind, like most bloggers.  She hasn't established anything re her reliability other than the demonstrable fact that she attempts to disguise her personal blog as something more with a phony official sounding name of a non-existent museum. Cloonmore (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, a bunch of the quotes on there are from local newspaper articles that we don't have access to anymore. For disputed topics such as this, indirect sources should be avoided. Plus, "Women's eNews" is a very biased source ("anti-choice") and should not be portrayed as reliable. You tried to make the site look official here and I caught you, so please don't do it again. BS24 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny that you would point to Women's eNews as a biased source of anti-choice information when that same bias, in the other direction, supplies all of your preferred text here in the article. You prefer anti-abortion-biased sources such as FFL and SBA List, so who is to judge? What's more important than bias is reliability, notability and verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  susanbanthonymuseum.com 

message: I am changing this sentence: "In 1836, at age 16, Susan collected two boxes of petitions opposing slavery, in response to the gag rule prohibiting such petitions in the House of Representatives."  to this:
"In 1837, at age 17, Susan collected petitions opposing slavery as part of an organized response to the gag rule prohibiting anti-slavery petitions in the House of Representatives."  I am also changing the citation to point directly to the source for that information.
I am providing a detailed explanation here because the original sentence has a valid citation to support it.  The author of the book referenced by that citation, however, misreads his source.  The citation for the original sentence references Arguing About Slavery, by William Lee Miller, page 314, which says, "Young Susan B. Anthony (sixteen years old in 1836) would gather signatures for so many petitions that once, we are told by Gilbert Barnes, they filled two boxes in the archives of the House.  After looking at them, Barnes called her 'indefatigable'."  
Miller's book references The Anti-Slavery Impulse by Gilbert Barnes, a highly regarded work.  Barnes briefly mentions Anthony in conjunction with the anti-slavery petition drive that occurred in 1837.  On page 143, Barnes says, "In the ranks labored the youthful Susan F. Antony, an indefatigable volunteer, and Elizabeth Cady, Stanton's bride-to-be."  In a footnote Barnes says, "Petitions that Susan B. Anthony circulated are in House Files, Boxes 126, 128."  
Contrary to what Miller says, Barnes does not state that Anthony collected petitions in 1836 that filled two archive boxes.  Instead Barnes says that in 1837 Anthony collected an unspecified amount of petitions that are stored in two numbered archive boxes, presumably along with much other material. Bilpen (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting sentence about collecting petitions at young age 

message: Under the "Early Life" section – pretty sure this is just blatantly false:
"In 1849, at age 29, Anthony took up drinking, cocaine, and methanphetamines. She was forced to quit teaching and moved to the family farm in Rochester, New York for detoxification."
lolwut?  They even spelled methamphetamine wrong...  I could be wrong, but just wanted to bring it to someone's attention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.236.124 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right - she just did alcohol and coke.  See sciencesource.com.  And after she stopped taking them, she became a temperance campaigner.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: By the way there is a Susan B Anthony Recovery Center for drug addict mothers. But its website claims that it was "named after the founder of the Junior League of Greater Ft. Lauderdale (in 1937)",  i.e. a different Susan B Anthony.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan B Anthony did cocaine and "methanphetamines?" 

message: Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment