Talk:Phyllis Schlafly

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JacksonRouse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bbuonocore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up "STOP ERA" section.
The first sentence of paragraph four was not comprehensible, and it cited to an opinion piece on a (libertarian?) website entitled "OpEdNews". If there is some value to including arguments critical of Ms. Schlafly's activism, citations should be made to scholarly or news media sources. In addition, voices critical to Ms. Schlafly may be relevant if they are noteworthy people, like Gloria Steinem, however, the blog writer does not appear to be a noteworthy person. I deleted the sentence and attempted to rewrite the paragraph so it made sense.

Including Gloria Steinem's "Aunt Tom" comment would be a great addition, if one could find the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsgy01 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NYT Article and Schlafly's code words
Elstong - First, welcome to Wikipedia. There are two issues that need to be addressed; first, here is the direct citation from the NYT article: Critchlow points out that Schlafly "never identified Jews as part of any conspiracy," but then she didn't have to: phrases that invoke godless, countryless "well-financed" minorities are a well-recognized code among those who fear world domination by Wall Street and the Trilateral Commission. But Critchlow, a professor of history at St. Louis University, lets all this wink-winking go on without comment.

This is the exact quote from the article from Judith Warner, a Jewish NY Times reporter. She does state that Schlafly uses code words for a specific group of people, and in my opinion, reflects such in the wiki page.

Second, you were removing a source, namely the NYT article due to your editing. If you have an issue with the source, then that should be discussed also and the reasons why rather than removing it - maybe that was an accident. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Dinkytown (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the footnote back in. Read the quote carefully. It does not say who uses the code phrases. It does say something about who recognizes the code, but it does not even say that Schlafly or Critchlow recognize the code. Please do not attribute something to Warner or the NY Times unless they actually said it. Elstong (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Lobby?
Is it true that she has, or had, ties to Liberty Lobby? I distinctly remember reading that somewhere, but it's not mentioned anywhere in this article, nor in the articles for Eagle Forum or Liberty Lobby. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources indicating she had or has ties to Liberty Lobby. One source Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States By Sara Diamond states:"No doubt, the Liberty Lobby's constituent base overlapped with that of the conservative movement. The featured speaker for the lobby's well attended 1965 National Defense Seminar was Phyllis Schafly..." This differentiates between "the conservative movement" (of which she was obviously a part) and Liberty Lobby's (implying she was not a part). I'll further note that there are places that speak of her (the Eagle Forum) in the same article, or even the same paragraph, as the Liberty Lobby, but only to discuss something that the author of that piece felt they had in common - not to state any tie between them. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

/* Women's issues */Neutrality
I placed the POV flag above this section (please replace with a more appropriate flag for a section, as this one mentions "article", and most of the article is fine). I feel that the tone is set out to prove that Mrs. Schlafly is outdated in her thinking, especially with the bit about the clothes dryer and paper diapers. While I realize it represents her views, I think it's easy for a section to pick out only certain views which can attempt to prove the subject in question outdated. Please add a better balance of her views towards women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varkstuff (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is an accurate representation of her views, then there is no POV problem. If you can cite other comments to more completely describe her thinking on women, that would be welcome. But just because a statement may be controversial does not mean, if accurate, that it violates NPOV. Uberhill 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

WTF is wrong with Wikipedia editors? Schlafly's most famous quote about the Equal Rights Amendment was: "Adopting the ERA would be like using the atom bomb to kill a few mice"... It was the only quote she spoke that was true. It's unconscionable that it's not included here. 2601:1C0:5000:5D00:C48E:3402:910C:5D85 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

SCHLAFLY and BIRCH SOCIETY
It is worth noting that although this article claims that Schlafly joined the Birch Society but then quit --- nevertheless, Phyllis has always denied that she ever joined the JBS. In reality, both she and her husband joined the JBS circa August 1959 after attending a recruitment meeting in Chicago. For proof of her membership, see letter she wrote to Verne P. Kaub which is posted on-line here (item #2): http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/documents Ernie1241 (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP reminder
On this edit: we really should be careful to avoid implying that the subject of this article is a hypocrite when discussing the sexuality of her son. The old source makes the point, but the treatment at Phyllis Schlafly is both better sourced and more relevant to that section. The new section may be over-reliant on primary sources, but I think that this is a case where the relevance is clearly established by outside sources, while the primary sources are used to ensure that the article does not materially misrepresent Schlafly's positions. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) The original edit does not imply that she is a hypocrite. It is quite relevant to point out what her views are and that her son was her right-hand man despite those views. It may be unexpected and interesting but does not imply she is inconsistent. She is definitely consistent. Javaweb (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Have just found the article Phyllis Schlafly's social policies, I propose that article be merged into this one. I don't want to take it to AFD, as it's reasonably well-developed, but there's simply no need for a separate article on the subject. Phyllis Schlafly isn't a politician, or other major world figure; why should we have a separate article on her political views, when we do for almost no one else? (Indeed, not just her political views in general, but her social policies, which is presumably a subset of them.) I doubt it would meet the notability criteria. As this article is not incredibly long, I see no reason why Phyllis Schlafly's social policies shouldn't be summarised and merged into this one as a subsection of Phyllis Schlafly. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schlafly was a major politician in the 1970s-1980s. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She's never worked as a politician. It's not surprising you've confused the role of a politician serving the public good and a political activist serving their own self-interest. Funny, that. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * She's never worked as a politician. is false. She once ran for Congress (and lost) and attended every GOP National Convention since the 1950s and has been on many GOP committees. That's what politicians do. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: well sourced, passes WP:N, more than enough coverage in RS for a standalone article. – Lionel (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Schlafly and Eagle Forum have been a continual presence in conservative thought. The PAC, Eagle Forum, was founded based on Schlafly's social conservative principles and will likely continue to do so, whether Schlafly is around or not. Keep the articles separate as PS's social policies lay an historic reference point around which Eagle Forum, as a PAC, was developed and continues to develop. 10stone5 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Schlafly has been a major political leader for over 30 years and her policies and priorities have been widely adopted on the right. The Phyllis Schlafly's social policies article is well sourced and useful to both her supporters and critics, and to people studying the history of the era.Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge or delete. The article is sourced largely to Schlafly's own writings, indicating that few or no reliable sources have taken notice of the specifics of her beliefs. At the least, the article should be trimmed to material appearing in secondary sources, stripped of promotional language, and merged into the main article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is already cited above as being well-sourced. You're going to have to come up with something better than that. 10stone5 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is actually terribly sourced, depending almost entirely upon primary sources. It clearly needs a lot of work. Glaucus (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge As Roscelese pointed out, the article is quite poorly sourced and depends almost entirely upon primary sources. I doubt it could be supported in its current expansive form based upon reliable secondary sources, suggesting it'd be better suited as a section in her main article. Glaucus (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * wiki rules say primary sources are fine when dealing with a person's opinions and positions. That's quite useful for readers whether they are pro or con. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not unreliable, but they can't support an independent article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I count 17 separate citations to books (chiefly Princeton University press) and two scholarly journals. That is plenty and falsifies the complaint that it "depends almost entirely upon primary sources". Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I count 34 citations to Schlafy's own work. Almost every other sentence is based around a quote from her work. The article as a whole reads more like an essay written to introduce her at a speech than a neutral wiki article. There is little to no mention of reception or criticism etc. Utterly riddled with POV and editorialized put in wiki's voice. No signs of influence beyond a specific campaign (ERA) or the founding of the Eagle Forum. So yes, it's a pretty poor article that depends almost entirely upon primary sources. Glaucus (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's even worse than that. Of those 17 non-Schlafy cites, many of them are used to source quotes from Schlafy. Glaucus (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed an article about her ideas is ultimately based on her published statements as verified by citations from reliable secondary sources. That's how an encyclopedia works, and this article works well. The RS include scholars pro and con. As for "No signs of influence beyond a specific campaign (ERA)..." is that serious--she played a central role in a major constitutional debate in the 1970s and 1980s, so the RS say.  Glaucus seems to say the ERA debate was a trivial issue but it is covered in the major history textbooks.  One has the repeated sense that Glaucus' motiviation for the merge is that he dislikes her ideas and does not want them to be available in Wikipedia, which is a violation of the NPOV rule for editors and blinds him to make false statements such as "depends almost entirely upon primary sources". Rjensen (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, if you're unable to AGF then you should find another hobby. I never said the ERA debate was a trivial issue. That just points to her own notability, not the notability of her political ideas outside of that context, suggesting that they don't warrant their own articles beyond ERA and Eagle Forum. By this reasoning, everyone majorly involved in the ERA debate should have an entire article devoted to their general political views, and that's clearly just ridiculous and a complete flaunting of WP:NOTABLE. The article itself has clear SYNTH and POV problems. What little criticism is in there (and be honest, Schlafy is deeply controversial) is responded to by direct quotes from Schlafy from works often published BEFORE the criticism, with no secondary sources used to support. That's exactly the reason that primary sources should be used so carefully. The article itself was created whole in essentially its current form for whats appears to be an English project, and the citations were used accordingly. That's pretty damn close to the definition of WP:OR. It's not an appropriate wiki article and it has never been. Glaucus (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith when we get demonstrably false claims that

"quite poorly sourced and depends almost entirely upon primary sources." The single most important person by far in a major constitutional debate should get major attention is turned into the ridiculous statement that "everyone majorly involved in the ERA debate should have an entire article devoted to their general political views." Schlafy is indeed controversial and the RS cited cover both supporters and sharp critics of her views. The numerous boks and studies of her ideas point to their notability. For example the Klatch article appears in Signs, a leading feminist scholarly journal, and the Petchesky, article appears in Feminist Studies, another leading feminist scholarly journal. Klatch is quoted in three different sections. The Marshall article is from a leading feminist book, Rjensen (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC) You're missing forest for the trees. Just because the references include sources critical of Schlafy doesn't mean the article actually contains a fair representation of criticism. It clearly does not. Most of the context for her views comes directly from Schlafy's own description of her opponents. The majority of the content is based on Schlafy's own writing, with no secondary sources for interpretation. You keep repeating your own demonstrably false claims, yet I don't accuse you of bad faith. If you're unable to extend me the same courtesy (and wiki policy requires it), then please do us all a favor and exit the discussion. Glaucus (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether her ideas are true or false but what they actually are. In that regard her written statements are RS. The interpretation of them is given through the eyes of her feminist opponents. If Glaucus thinks that more criticism should be added he can certainly add it himself, assuming he's actually read any serious scholarly criticism of the sort that is in there now. But so far he has added zero to the article, and he has not named any critics who have been overlooked and should be included. That is the profile of someone who is hostile to Schlafly's ideas but unfamiliar with the NPOV rules at Wikipedia and indeed unfamiliar with any of the RS that deal with her. Now perhaps I am unfair to Glaucus and he has studied the scholarship and knows it well--now is the time for him to cite that scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my complaints again, but this time without intent. My complaint is NOT that there are "missing" critics (are you serious? Virtually every serious feminist philosopher is a critic of Schlafy), it's that there is very little actual criticism or framing. Take the single Marshall cite. It's not referencing a critique, but a rephrasing of Schlafy's views. Just because Marshall is a critic doesn't make that reference a criticism. It makes it a reliable secondary interpreting her views. Petchesky is the only source used to cite actual criticisms. You keep whining about the incredible breadth of sources used, but you're completely ignoring HOW they are used. Using a critical source for a non-critical statement does not count as criticism. Sticking singular out-of-context quotes at the end of a section does not make for meaningful criticism, not does it give context to the content as a whole. Once again, if you can't assume good faith or refrain from mocking then please refrain from commenting at all. Glaucus (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, you're missing the point. While the fact that the article is based almost entirely on Schlafly's quotes (and written non-neutrally) does make it basically a brochure for her, the fundamental issue is that there is no reason to have a separate article on her political views. We have an article on her which should be sufficient to cover her views. Few cites in the sub-article are not to Schlafly's own writings, and what remains (and is about Schlafly rather than social conservatives in general, as some of the cites appear to be) can easily be merged. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge I have to agree with Roscelese. She's notable only in the context of her organization, so this article is doomed to either be duplication or (as it currently is) single-sourced propaganda. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Reports
Phyllis Schlafly is named in the following SPLC reports:

Exploring Nativist Conspiracy Theories Including The ‘North American Union’ and The Plan de Aztlan http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/paranoid-style-redux#.UbnayPl4yM1

Neo-Confederates attempt to Whitewash Southern History http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/lincoln-reconstructed/whitewashing-the-confederacy#.Ubnaxvl4yM1

Additionally, her son's contribution to her Eagle Forum website, over which she maintains editorial control, is mentioned in the SPLC's 2013 "Hate in the Mainstream" report: http://www.splcenter.org/home/2012/spring/hate-i-the-mainstream#.Ubnayfl4yM1

The original text that I proposed adding in the section currently titled "Immigration proposals", which I feel would more accurately be titled "Immigration and Race" is this:

''Schlafly has been named for her views in Southern Poverty Law Center reports on whitewashing of Southern racism and slavery's impact on the civil war and as part of a group of nativists promoting anti-latino conspiracy theories. Posting on her Eagle Forum website, her son Roger Schlafly repeated a belief that "non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds … see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture."''

I am open to alternative wording suggestions such as: ''Schlafly has been named for her views in Southern Poverty Law Center reports titled "Neo-Confederates attempt to Whitewash Southern History" and "Exploring Nativist Conspiracy Theories Including The ‘North American Union’ and The Plan de Aztlan". Her Eagle Forum website, over which she maintains editorial control, was named in the 2013 "Hate in the Mainstream" report for a December 11 post by son Roger Schlafly repeating a belief that "non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds … see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture."

I am open to alternate suggestions and discussion. Please provide input. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.235.104 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the page for two days to end the edit war and BLP violations. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view User:Rjensen was correct to revert this material in a BLP. What her son thinks is largely irrelevant; and the rest of it is a smear by association. Concentrate on the specifics of what Schlafly actually said, undeniable facts, not "named in a report about whitewashing racism". Malcolm X might have been "named in a report about whitewashing racism". Pinkbeast (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pinkbeast you need to read the full reports please. She is named in the first report because she says, "Southerners "certainly did not die to defend slavery." She is named in the second report for similar reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomermike (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read them. So - and I'm not saying this will automatically result in a good edit - quote that. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am open to a third opinion regarding her son's commentary, but I find it relevant that it is Phyllis Schlafly's bio - and only hers - on the Eagle Forum website and that the Eagle Forum website exists under her sole editorial control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomermike (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And does the Eagle Forum website promise only to publish things Schlafly agrees with unequivocally? Someone else said it; leave it out. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * She is quoted in the report, without commentary as to why, and certainly nowhere is it described as 'on whitewashing of Southern racism and slavery's impact on the civil war' - that's synthesis of analytic commentary not found in the reference. 'Her views are quoted in SPLC reports.', with or without the title. No editorializing. Dru of Id (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Pinkbeast's suggestion, 3rd possible wording: ''Schlafly has been named for her views in Southern Poverty Law Center reports. In the report titled "Neo-Confederates attempt to Whitewash Southern History" she is named for expressing the view that "Southerners certainly did not die to defend slavery". In the report "Exploring Nativist Conspiracy Theories Including The ‘North American Union’ and The Plan de Aztlan" she is named as a group of conservative individuals demanding congressional investigation into the conspiracy theories per her comments at a 2008 Townhall.com article "North American Union: Conspiracy or Cover-Up?". Her Eagle Forum website, over which she maintains editorial control, was named in the 2013 "Hate in the Mainstream" report for a December 11 post by son Roger Schlafly repeating a belief that "non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds … see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture."''

Additional source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857363/posts (Schlafly's commentary on slavery). http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2008/04/14/north_american_union_conspiracy_or_cover-up/page/full/ (Schlafly commentary regarding anti-latino conspiracy theories).

As to the question of whether only her approved views are allowed publication on the Eagle Forum blog, perhaps we should ask User:Schlafly himself as he indicates in multiple places on User talk:Schlafly that he is indeed the Roger Schlafly in question? Or is that a violation of policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomermike (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view; keep her son out of it, keep the Southern Policy Law Center out of it. Report that she said those things, using the SPLC as a reference. There is absolutely no need to get the title of the reports into the article, and definite potential to appear to be smearing her by association. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can provide some proposed wording then? It would help the process if I could see what you are aiming for. Boomermike (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "In her review of the film _Gods and Generals_ Schlafly stated that "Southerners certainly did not die to defend slavery"." Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the BLP violations consist of explicitly stating the Southern Poverty Law Center linked her to the highly emotional & hostile words "racism" and "anti-Latino". That allegation is completely false. The two Southern Poverty Law Center reports cited NEVER used those terms to describe her or anyone else. They were added by the offending editor as deliberate POV. What she said was 1) she praised a particular Hollywood movie in 2003 and gave her opinion of Southern soldiers' motivations; 2) she called for a Congressional investigation of an issue that involved US sovereignty with regards to Canada & Mexico. The Source clearly states that her view is mainstream and mentions that the legislatures of 18 states are in agreement with her. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chill Pill, my friend. You get so worked up you won't do anyone any good. I'm trying to work with people here on the wording and you're about 2 hours late to the state of the conversation, do some reading back and try to relax and work with people rather than assuming everyone's out to get you? Boomermike (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * [User:Rjensen]'s comments strike me as essentially apposite. You can't imply someone is racist by association in a BLP. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bad idea to source information to articles that only mention the subject in passing. Film reviews btw are rarely reliable sources especially for BLPs.  There already is information about Schlafly's controversial views, so no informed reader would be surprised about her views on the Civil War.  No doubt we could find more controversial views to add.  But we should concentrate on what is most important.  Do biographers devote much space to her Civil War views?  TFD (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think Schlafly's review of the film is a reliable source for a direct quote on her review of the film. But you have a fair point as to whether it needs inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * as for the movie review, people may want to look at what Schlafly actually said, instead of the garbled view in the movie review. It's at http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/mar03/03-03-05.shtml It never mentions race or slavery and instead is an attack on "politically-correct revisionism" in teaching US history generally.  That was a popular topic at the time (2003). As for the Civil War. she mentions the motivations of actual soldiers (not politicians who caused the war) with emphasis on the roles of religion and defense of Union and of homeland. Perman (2010) says historians are of two minds. Schlafly follows the second line of thought among scholars.  Perman says: "The answer has not been clear—even though all men felt they were fighting for something. Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery.  Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men."  That puts Schlafly's opinions in the mainstream of current thinking on the war. But she seldom writes about the Civil War, she is much more interested in attacking what she calls "politically-correct revisionism". In an article about Schlafly we should be quoting her, not using a truncated quote that garbles her motivation. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr all else aside, I read that paranoid rant yesterday when this first came up, and it certainly does mention slavery. It mentions it in the second paragraph! But clearly if the quote is to be used at all, and I'm not sure it should, it should be used intact; it's unreasonable to quote "southerners certainly did not die to defend slavery" without "since few southern soldiers owned any slaves". Pinkbeast (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * She has expressed many opinions on many subjects. There are probably 100 different political organizations that have expressed disagreement with her or have made name-calling attacks on her. What is so special about the SPLC? Why would anyone care that someone at the SPLC did not like her review of a 2003 civil war movie? I suggest sticking to the sorts of things that the mainstream press says about her. Roger (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As perhaps a slightly less biased observer than Roger, I agree. What _is_ special about the SPLC? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The SPLC blog published a movie review by an outside historian from a museum in Molile who was not connected with the SPLC. He was the person--not the SPLC -- that brought up Schlafly. She did not mention prewar slavery which was the historian's main concern. She said (correctly) that few Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources policy says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.... Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces." (See WP:NEWSORG.)  The review could only be a reliable source for an article about the film.  TFD (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Current Schlafly controversy and more anti-latino statements.
Source:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/27/schlafly-latinos-arent-republicans-because-of-illegitimate-babies-and-handouts/

I request assistance in formatting this information for inclusion in the article. Boomermike (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the material at the link is not a good source for Wikipedia. it's a diatribe attacking Schlafly's views --but it's not coherent and it misreads her views (eg "limited government" becomes low taxes).  it's not a RS that can be used. Our editors have to be neutral here re controversial people. Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This or this may be more acceptable sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has been semi-protected for two weeks


This article has been semi-protected for two weeks. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.

Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them here, using the template if necessary to gain attention, or alternatively at Request for edit. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. Please remove this notice after the article is unprotected. Thanks. Wifione  Message 16:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DIscussion with respect to the sources the ip was attempting to add
Now that the page has been semi-protected to prevent immediate edit warring, may I request the editors to point out the issues with the sources in question? I can understand that contents within sources should not be used in a non-NPOV manner, but my question to the editors is, are the sources unacceptable per se? If so, which ones and why? And if not, then what is the appropriate wording you would wish to add from the sources that the ip was attempting to add? Thanks. Wifione  Message 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't know much about Phyllis Schlafly, some mention of criticism she has received relative to being perceived as anti-Muslim may be warranted. My issue with the content added by the IP is that it was not worded neutrally.  It was worded as if her being anti-Muslim was fact.  Careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are needed.  Sources other than the apparently highly biased website rightwingwatch.org would be needed for this content as well.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither wrightwingwatch nor alertnet are qualified reliable sources, both are highly activist sites. And wnd (World Net Daily) I thought was a blacklisted site, I am surprised the IP was able to include it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about the salon.com source? Thanks. Wifione  Message 17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Salon.com is a news organization and should qualify under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWSORG. The Worldnetdaily article [ http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/are-you-american-1st-or-muslim-1st/ ] is an editorial penned by Schlafly herself. It should be an RS for her words as quotation.

I want to know why you consider RightWingWatch to be unreliable. They are a news service, and their articles include the audio and direct quotes/transcripts of what they cover. While they have a bias (their purpose to fact-check and cover things in right wing media) that does not, per the RS page, make them unusable especially when they include their sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Salon is not really "news", its a culture magazine mostly. but generally respected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No source says that she is anti-Muslim, or that her views on Muslims have anything to do with Sen. McCarthy. Please stop trying to add these distortions that are not backed up by any sources. Roger (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP never used any reliable secondary sources until he got to SALON, and then grossly distorted it.
 * 1. The IP's original statement came on 14:54, 18 November 2013.it was that "Schlafly has also repeatedly voiced anti-Muslim views". That is the IP's personal POV and is not based on any reliable secondary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&oldid=582211932#Anti-Muslim The sources used are quotations by her attacking polygamy. source used introduces a Schlafly quote by saying that immigration is on "Schlafly's increasingly enfeebled mind these days." That statement (not by the IP but by the source he used) is the kind of intense personal attack that motivated the use of the quote.
 * 2. As for "rightwingwatch" it has a record of distortion, as in this case. Schlafly is quoted as saying "I would like to know if our immigration authorities are letting in people who believe in polygamy." "rightwingwatch" twisted that as saying  "Schlafly also warned that immigration authorities are allowing Muslim immigrants to practice polygamy." That's is POV distortion. source used
 * 3. The IP wrote "She has previously stated that ...the House Unamerican Activities Committee would be "would be useful to reinstate" for the purposes of hunting Muslims." That is a gross distortion of her statement: "It would be useful to reinstate the House Committee on Un-American Activities so we can have a look at those in our midst who may be jihadists, dupes of violent Muslim indoctrination, or (in old Communist lingo) fellow travelers or useful idiots." Schlafly said 'jihadists' and IP changes that into all Muslims. [ http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/are-you-american-1st-or-muslim-1st/#zrPjmh50dAb3uFUe.99 Schlafly statement]
 * 4. on the IP's last edit before the main Schlafly page was protected IP text we again have the IP statement: "Schlafly has also repeatedly voiced anti-Muslim views" based entirely on the IP's personal views.
 * 5. On this talk page the IP added a new source by Elias Isquith on the SALON website Salon page The Salon headline says "Phyllis Schlafly: Beware of polygamous Muslim immigrants on welfare bringing Shariah law! The legendary conservative activist has some serious concerns about U.S. immigration"  The IP totally distorted Isquith into this POV:  "Schlafly article impugning Muslims as non-americans or inherently disloyal"  Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest editors reach a consensus on how the above sources (leave Right wing watch) should be used and what should be quoted from the sources. I could lift the article's protection before two weeks in case such a consensus is reached quickly. Also, please necessarily follow EXCEPTIONAL and WELL KNOWN. The important lines are, you need to have multiple sources if the claim is exceptional. Again, for exceptional claims, usage of primary sources is not preferred. I'll be watching this page. Regards. Wifione  Message 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear ip 98.196.232.6, this is the crux of the issue. You are interpreting sources contentiously. That is not permissible at all and this editing trend is hazing out any good encyclopedic intentions you may have. If you continue to misinterpret sources even once, please note that you will be immediately blocked again. As per what I seem to understand, we have the following sources that can be discussed for their contents:
 * 1) salon.com: This source contains insignificant material, but may be used verbatim.
 * 2) Crosstalk home page: As this is hosted as a blog, we'll have to follow the NEWSBLOG policy. I don't know how well this blog's facts are checked by the media organization's editorial board. Someone could fill in.
 * 3) [ http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/are-you-american-1st-or-muslim-1st/ WND personal column]: This is a primary source and can be used only as per our BLPPRIMARY policy clause. In other words, we can only quote her verbatim from this source, without making our own interpretations. If there is any other secondary source which interprets this interview, then that could be used.
 * 4) Right Wing Watch: It seems to exist for the sole purpose of "exposing the risks that their [right wing groups'] extreme and intolerant agendas present to our country." (copied verbatim from their website). It clearly is an activist site and need not be used at all.

"If you continue to misinterpret sources even once, please note that you will be immediately blocked again." - You know what? I tried to improve this article. I tried to follow your rules I tried to follow YOUR ADMIN telling me to bring it to this talk page and instead of getting help what do you do? You threaten me, RJensen removes the talk items over and over again, I get attacked for trying to report him, and I get threatened now yet again.

If all you're going to do is threaten me I'm not going to assume any good faith from you because you're showing none, all you are doing is threatening me if I speak anything that doesn't agree with you.

Here is a direct interview with Schlafly including questions about her anti-muslim sentiment: http://www.policymic.com/articles/43987/conservative-icon-phyllis-schlafly-the-republican-party-is-in-the-hands-of-the-wrong-people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, use ~ to sign your posts. That's the way you should leave posts on any talk page. Now to your fears: it is nothing like that. It's only because editors here have shown good faith that they are here discussing the issue with one anonymous editor. There are multiple editors who have challenged you with respect to your interpretation. Please read CONSENSUS to realize that the consensus here is that you are misinterpreting sources. If you read BLP, you will also see that in the case of BLPs, erring on the side of caution is the rule rather than the exception. So in my administrative opinion, I'll repeat what I said (and please take this in good faith and as an attempt to make your stay more congenial and enjoyable): If you misinterpret sources to write your own made-up contentious statements in the article, your block will be extended.
 * Way forward: Take the three sources mentioned above (add the new source policymic.com). Pick statements from there which you wish to include in this article. In a civil manner, write them here as suggestions. The editors can see those statements which you wish to include, and in case no one objects (or suggests changes, which can be included), you can go ahead and include it in the article. Remember that WP:BLP is a policy overriding many other policies, so points like WELLKNOWN (the need for multiple sources to support any exceptional claim) have to followed without exception. If you find the construction of any statement problematic, ask on this talk page. Editors out here are not against you; they are simply acting to protect the BLP. And once your current block is over, you are free to engage with me directly on this talk page or on my talk page for directions. Take care. Wifione  Message 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of "modern" feminism edit
I fat-fingered the edit summary, but what I meant to say is that "modern" seems appropriate. Presumably, for example, Schlafly is all for the idea that women should be able to have their opinions taken seriously. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But be subordinate all the same; never equal. That's opposition to feminism, full stop. 72.200.151.13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Schlafly is clearly opposed to many modern feminist ideas; she is clearly not opposed to many early feminist ideas. That that is "opposition to feminism, full stop" is your own opinion. The suffragist movement pre-WW1 would have found remarkable the idea that women could in general do "men's jobs", but one could hardly say _they_ were opposed to feminism. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What, women like Margaret Fuller? She advocated that women seek any employment they wish, rather than catering to the stereotypical "feminine" roles of the time, such as teaching. She once said, "If you ask me what office women should fill, I reply—any ... let them be sea captains if you will. I do not doubt that there are women well fitted for such an office" Phyllis Schlafly is opposed to social equality between men and women. What else is that besides opposition to feminism as it is defined here on Wikipedia and elsewhere? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edit about Lisa Levenstein
My edit in the "Equal Rights Amendment" referencing Lisa Levenstein as a feminist historian -- with citation -- was reverted by [User:Pinkbeast]. It was claimed that my edit was an "axe grind". I've checked the page on axe grinding, and I wasn't editing persitently, nor did I assume a non-neutral point of view, sticking only to the fact that 98% of Lisa Levestein's work deals with feminism, making her a Feminist Historian. How is this grinding an axe?

The paragraph I edited needs serious editing anyway. The sentence "Schlafly moved into the vacuum.", unless attributed to another auther, should not appear in an NPOV article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.32.89 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Moving into the vacuum" is a standard usage for historians; it is not POV. examples: 1) "Paul Weyrich, and Mrs. Schlafly were responding, in a sense, to the vacuum created on the conservative side" [William Bennett, America (2007) Page 467, A view from the right]; 2) "...allowed the right to fill the political vacuum. Front and center were ...Phyllis Schlafly" [Kolin. State Power and Democracy: (2012), A view from the left]. 3) "Ford's centrist policies created a political vacuum on the Right that was quickly filled by a groundswell of grassroots activism....Schlafly" [ Critchlow, The Conservative Ascendancy, a scholarly history] ; 4) "Failure to win the allegiance of housewives left a vacuum that has been filled in part by Phyllis Schlafly...." [U.S. News & World Report (1981), a news magazine.    Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense. I guess I'm not too familiar with poli-sci terminology, but your wealth of references has convinced me. Thank you. However, I still question the reversion of my edit as why it was considered "axe-grinding" to refer to a historian whose output is 98% on the subject of feminism as a "feminist historian". In an article about Lincoln, would it not make sense to distinguish between "historians" and "Lincoln historians"? I just don't get how this is grinding an axe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.32.89 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I had a think about it. This page does attract a lot of drive-by attention, and I'm afraid a lot of what we do is damage control. Sorry.
 * I think the difficulty with "feminist historian" is it's not clear from that phrasing whether Levenstein is a historian who happens to be a feminist (which I imagine she is, but it's not germane) or a historian who deals with feminism. If you put it back in with that distinction clear, I'm happy enough. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that the ambiguity of whether Levenstein is a feminist herself or a historian of feminism is indeed an issue. Although, honestly, I think the reference I provided to her work amply comfirms both interpretations of my edit -- she is herself a feminist, and also a feminist historian. Both pieces of information are relevant to a discussion about feminism. Still, I'll think about how to make this distinction more clear, so that you don't needlessly accuse me of axe-grinding again. Thank you for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.32.89 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a stab at it myself. I think it is much more pertinent that she's a historian who studies women's history than that she herself is a feminist.
 * Take my apology at face value, please. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 72.69.32.89 here. I like the way you addressed my concerns, and I'm quite happy with the edit you've made. Thanks! I've also read up a bit on the edit wars going on around this page, so I'm also more sympathetic to your initial reaction. The process has worked, let us continue on our journeys. 100.2.126.53 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"A living legend and conservative heroine"
She contributes to the current 2016 Republican primary race, with her opinion. Headline-1: Phyllis Schlafly: National Review Is Not the Authority on Conservatism QUOTE: "Living legend and conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly slammed National Review for their efforts to take down GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing
 * http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/23/phyllis-schlafly-national-review-not-authority-conservatism/

Constitutional lawyer
This article mentions that she got a law degree in 1978 but it states nothing about her ever practicing law. Is it appropriate for us to call her a "Constitutional lawyer"?


 * You can find Eagle Forum legal briefs here. Most of these are on constitutional law. Roger (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That the Eagle Forum has filed amicus briefs is weak justification for calling Ms. Schlafly a "constitutional lawyer" in our article. I opened several of these PDFs and none of them were authored by Ms. Schlafly.


 * So what do you think are the required justifications to qualify as a constitutional lawyer? Roger (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There should be evidence that she practiced constitutional law in a meaningful way, and it should be cited in the article. As far as I can tell, she is notable for being a conservative activist and founder of the Eagle Forum -- not for being a constitutional lawyer.

Attribution of Radcliffe degree
The text states "In 1945, she received a Master of Arts degree in government from Radcliffe College (part of Harvard University)." Radcliffe was not part of Harvard University in 1945. This should be clarified. Also, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the attribution Alma mater Harvard University should be amended to Radcliffe College. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the text but left the infobox unchanged. It is a piped link to Radcliffe College, Schlafly's MA is de facto a Hardvard MA if not de jure, and I'm reluctant to risk confusing the reader and/or put a wordy explanation in the infobox. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that is so clear. This is well explained at Radcliffe College: the college was a separate university, issuing its own degrees, and was not a faculty of Harvard University. Initially, its degrees were from Radcliffe. From at least 1963, Radcliffe degrees were jointly awarded with Harvard . --Duncan (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite true, Duncan. The infobox now carries false information. It's a simple fact: a 1945 Radcliffe degree was not a de facto Harvard degree. This conflates the erstwhile Harvard-Radcliffe model with the Tulane-Sophie Newcomb model, the latter of which had Newcomb as within, not parallel to, the larger institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.57.164 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN Nomination
This article may be a good candidate for the Recently Died (RD) section of WP:ITN. Nominations can be made and discussed at WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016
Phyllis Schlafly wrote her last book, published during her lifetime, in 2016, entitled, "How the Republican Party Became Pro-Life." Please, add the book to her bibliography because the evidence is within Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/How-Republican-Party-Became-Pro-Life/dp/0988461390 73.247.186.19 (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Her last book ever
I created a red link to her posthumous book, The Conservative Case for Trump and then went and created an article describing the book. Is it okay to have a link in the Phyllis Schlafly article to this book? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by Chas. Caltrop
Recent edits by Chas. Caltrop have removed “Critics of Schlafly saw her advocacy against equal rights and her role as a working professional as a contradiction.” from the last paragraph of the “Opposition to Equal Rights Amendment” section, where it served as a clear topic sentence, leading the reader into the paragraph.

Much of the rest of that scattershot edit was in a similar vein, obfuscating the clarity of the writing. Replacing the straightforward “lawyer” with “attorney-at-law” is one example. Pompous vocabulary does not make better writing. Here is a place for Caltrop to show how his changes are an improvement. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Constitutional Lawyer?
The first sentence of the lede describes Schlafly as "an American Constitutional Lawyer" as well as an activist, political candidate, etc. There does not seem to be any support within the body of the article for describing her as a "constitutional lawyer". In which cases of constitutional law did she represent a client? In which judicial opinions did she write, from the bench, did she address applying the constitution to a decision?

Most people would agree that Thorough Marshall was a constitutional lawyer; the same could be argued for Abe Fortas. What cases did Schlafly plead before a court. The article does not even mention that she was admitted to the bar! What is the source that called her a constitutional lawyer.

Opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment is political activism, not constitutional law. I was opposed to numerous proposed constitutional amendments but I never considered myself a constitutional lawyer. I propose, in the absence of citations supporting the use of the term "constitutional lawyer" that the lede be changed to remove it.Slickjack (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Courtroom appearances as the main criterion?? She had a law degree and as Critchlow shows, played a major role in writing a highly influential report on Constitutional Law that was issued by the American Bar Association in 1958. see   Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

YOU DID IT AGAIN!
You recently revised your article to include this comment: "Schlafly had previously been a member of the John Birch Society, but quit, and later denied she had been a member because she feared that her association with the organization would damage the repution of the book. By mutual agreement her books were not mentioned in the John Birch Society's magazine, and the distribution of her books by the society was handled so as to mask their involvement. The society was able to dispense 300,000 copies of A Choice Not an Echo in California prior to the June 2 1964 GOP primary.[21]"

Footnote 21 refers Wiki readers to the recent Daily Beast article by Ron Radosh. Ron's article includes links to substantiate the assertions which you just inserted into your article. And WHOM did Ron Radosh rely upon for his PROOF for those assertions? ME!! I sent him the PRIMARY SOURCE documentation (i.e. the correspondence by Phyllis Schlafly and by Robert Welch) which PROVES that Phyllis was a JBS member and then explains why she resigned in 1964. So, once again, you prove my point about how you selectively use data to substantiate what you claim in your articles but you irrationally refuse to accept the EXACT SAME INFORMATION from the ORIGINAL source whose research discovered that data in the first place!! Ernie1241 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

“Background” section
“Her mother, Odile Stewart (née Dodge), went back to work as a librarian and a school teacher to support her family ... Her sole sibling was her younger sister, Odile Stewart (married name Mecker; 1930–2015). Phyllis attended college and graduate school.”

Her mother and sister are both named Odile? No reference for the second half of the quote. Precognizant (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

How Mrs America’s son is flying the conservative flag – and fighting Wikipedia’s ‘liberal lies’
Maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it of note that she was once pied in the face? Surprised that didn't make the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.115.222.108 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dishonestly 'Cute'
References to 'contradiction' and 'ironic'; namely,

'Critics of Schlafly viewed her ... role as a working professional as a contradiction.' and 'Gloria Steinem ... among others ... considered it ironic ...'

are altogether too cute, I think. The more apposite and truthful word is 'hypocritical'. 49.181.92.153 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I would delete the whole paragraph as factually incorrect and not supported by the sources. None of the sources say that she has any contradiction, irony, or hypocrisy. None say that she was a working professional. None mention Pia de Solenni. One does quote Steinem as saying "she is arguing that other women should stay home." However that is false, and citing it would require explaining that it is false. Roger (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Phyllis's death
all i cared about was this POS's death. more could have been written about it. 2601:1C2:1000:420:F8C1:8E88:A94E:5DDD (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly
Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly has been merged to Phyllis_Schlafly per Articles for deletion/Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly. मल्ल (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)