Talk:Susan B. Anthony

Vandalism

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. Thank you. 71.134.251.86 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Me

What the hell are you talking about? What vandalism is there on Legacy? Sunshine 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, when was the last time an anonymous editor did anything other than vandalism on this article? Can we semi-protect already? --lquilter 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested an admin semi-protect. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

DumbBOT removed the semi-protection template this morning. The edit summary said that the page was non-protected. Any light that can be shed on this would be appreciated.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Second of eight or 11 children?

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)

Fixed edit - it was eight children.--Jackbirdsong 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

anthony's childhood home

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.

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)

Abortion, redux

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)

Schiff quote

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)

(G716's diff for the record -- Lquilter (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Stacy Schiff Opinion

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)

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)

I don´t think you get my point. This article simply should state what she believed back then. What other people interprete nowdays, that´s other story, and it´s not NPOV. So I don´t see the need for any quote from any of the passionate pro-choice or pro-life fields from nowdays. By the way, many people, men and women, also were pro-choice in the 19 th century. The pendulum doesn´t need to swing in any direction.Mistico (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Unsourced quotation

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)

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)

• User:James Xeno added it again, with the source, but without the historic context. Since this was not part of what Anthony was notable for, I still feel it should not be in the article at all; but if it is in the article, then it needs the historic context that was previously worked out. Let's please discuss it here and arrive at a consensus-based version before inserting this material again. --Lquilter (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Her views

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)

Lucy or Susan

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)

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)

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)

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)

Marital Status

Like it or not, the lack of a mention of Anthony's marital status is conspicuous. It is pertinent and should be addressed, or at least mentioned in the body of the article; the issue is not trivial, nor is it trivia. For example, if Anthony's life experience did not include marriage or children, then it may be emblematic or purposeful---thereby meaningful and worthy of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.74.194 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A brief paragraph on family and personal relationships would probably be ok, but these were quite private to Anthony and were definately not prominent in her public life. She was intimately involved with her extended family and was influential in the lives of her nieces. Anthony was involved in at least two same sex relationships during her lifetime, although how intimate the relationships were is a matter of conjecture. She, however, did not discuss these or make a point of the topic during her public efforts. Feminist issues dealing with marriage and sexual relationships were more often addressed in public speeches and articles written by her associate Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Anthony focused, preached and wrote on legal rights for women, with a strong emphasis on sufferage. WBardwin (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speculation as to whether her marital or parent status was meaningful would definitely be OR. However, I agree that any biographical article of an important historical figure should at least briefly mention significant love affairs/marriage/personal relationships. --Lquilter (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's interesting commentary in Elizabeth Stanton's book "Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897 by Elizabeth Cady Stanton - Project Gutenberg".

Much curiosity has been expressed as to the love-life of Miss Anthony; but, if she has enjoyed or suffered any of the usual triumphs or disappointments of her sex, she has not yet vouchsafed this information to her biographers. While few women have had more sincere and lasting friendships, or a more extensive correspondence with a large circle of noble men, yet I doubt if one of them can boast of having received from her any exceptional attention. She has often playfully said, when questioned on this point, that she could not consent that the man she loved, described in the Constitution as a white male, native born, American citizen, possessed of the right of self-government, eligible to the office of President of the great Republic, should unite his destinies in marriage with a political slave and pariah. "No, no; when I am crowned with all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen, I may give some consideration to this social institution; but until then I must concentrate all my energies on the enfranchisement of my own sex." Miss Anthony's love-life, like her religion, has manifested itself in steadfast, earnest labors for men in general. She has been a watchful and affectionate daughter, sister, friend, and those who have felt the pulsations of her great heart know how warmly it beats for all.

(As an aside, Stanton does not mention SBA's opinion on abortion) —G716 <^T·_C> 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

I am weary of dealing with the anonymous editor vandalisms of this page. Can we get this page partially protected at least until the kiddies are back in school? --Lquilter (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. —G716 <^T·_C> 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The kiddies have been in school. Wats up with the curses at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.250.233 (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting

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

womens rights convention 1848

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)

Confusion on siblings/ number and dates

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). [1] Any other known sources? I personally would be inclined to go with the above older source. WBardwin (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets Start A Blog

Susan B. ANthony was a great leader. What are your opinions on her and her partner, Elizabeth Stanton? Feel Free to Edit or Add!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.252.85 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

,rqekjokngvie rqgifohnvuijokdemsjaiojekmfjahrf,aserj,gdkx,ghejwnrtuhjnuowfhbrhrnjfjnwjfnqmkrnbghvjrikmlgrqhjmegvuerjwasdhbfcdnhnjekmrgbdfnrejdfhsjqerigkmakfdsnjkmsdvhjtkwgnbv9jtkmribnmoiojwrm wgebmnkm kyrmg dbfskvz'lxmcaklnvm'bktwmerspobjmrtmnrbqaejwmrpodlsmz djtbkcx mkrfndmp ,bgordflmorghlmds