Talk:Susan B. Anthony

White Supremacist
I notice that her white supremacist views are not mentioned in this article. In her own words:

“I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.152.188.92 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This point is already covered in the American Equal Rights Association section of the article, which uses the historically accurate version of the quote: "she would sooner cut off her right hand than ask the ballot for the black man and not for woman". She said this during a meeting with male abolitionists, who told her that, during that period of history, she should be campaigning exclusively for voting rights for black men.  She refused and continued to campaign for voting rights for all women and all black people.  The footnote to that quote shows some of the various ways the quote has been distorted. Compared to the vast majority of other white people of her time, Susan B. Anthony's views on race were surprisingly advanced. Bilpen (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is something this important buried deep in the article, this isn't quite WP:DUE.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 00:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not important because Anthony was not a white supremacist—in fact she spent important years of her early career fighting for the rights of African Americans. She wanted women of all races to have the vote, and was not willing to put this, her her main life's work, aside for any reason. She thought the best effort for equality of sex and race was to raise up women as voters; after that, she imagined that voting by women would help to bring about major progressive advances of every sort. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of WP:RS to back that claim up. Eruditess (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Susan B. Anthony: was one of the biggest usurpers of the U.S. Government, and the American People, as a Whole!
 * If she were a witness to this country, at this present time. She would be ashamed of what her work has done to this country! One of the main people that opened the floodgates, that swamped this country, and turned it into a nest of criminals, rapists, and murderous people that the left - wing Democrats and Liberals support. In any way that they can. They have destroyed the moral fabric of this country, and they will be done only, when there is a war against good law-abiding citizens . Against the liberal left-wingers! And, hopefully, when the smoke clears. They shall be utterly destroyed. and dealt with the most harshest terms known.
 * They must be eradicated, even down to their lowest supporter! AMEN to that! God will back us up 1000 percent! As long as it is NIMBY, for them. The fat faced liberals, could not give a rats ass what happens, to the rest of the country! However, if one of their own children or blood is spilt by the criminals that raped, robbed, or killed, by one, or a pack of these reprobates! Then, and only then, will they scream for bloody murder, to befall the perpetrators of those crimes! Then I assure you they will be the most bloodthirsty people in the US, and suddenly change their outlooks, political affiliations, and then will flood the stores that sell firearms, Mark my words!  It is only an amount of time.  We must defeat these forces of Satan, and Darkness!  Before there is nothing worth fighting for, or saving.  Except our children, loved ones, and people close to our hearts!
 * An excerpt on Liberalism: by Francis Parker Yockey. Whom foretold is this in 1948.
 * One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the points of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist,  e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time.  Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is in "in one word ", WEAKNESS. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party.  The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas ——  " These" are the enemy. Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from Masculinity into Femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality, into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from reality. " Feminism " itself —— what is it but a means of feminizing man ?  If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to "society ", I.e., a woman. " Society " is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is better than someone else.
 * And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and declares her a " SOLDIER." This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History." 68.192.167.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and declares her a " SOLDIER." This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History." 68.192.167.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Pardon in lead
I removed the potential pardon from the lead (it's still in the article) as undue weight for the lead. When it's actually granted, it could be mentioned in the third lead para:"In 1872, Anthony was arrested for voting in her hometown of Rochester, New York, and convicted in a widely publicized trial. Her conviction was pardoned by President Trump in 2020." Schazjmd  (talk)  15:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The pardon should be mentioned in the article in greater detail. Here is a source from the NY times that says she was Trump's 26th pardon.
 * The wikipedia article mentions how the museum tried to decline the pardon, but doesn't state that she was pardoned anyways. She was actually pardoned by Trump.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/trump-susan-b-anthony-pardon.html 2600:8800:2221:F500:5185:C71B:D6D2:D91A (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The pardon 115 years after her death was a cynical gesture by Trump as part of his ultimately successful drive to deprive American women of their constitutional right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. Any such content addition should also summarize the widespread opposition to the political manipulation of this pardon. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The pardon should be in the lead as it is with others that have been pardoned, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arridy, and the section about the pardon needs to be re-written because she has been pardoned, it's still written as if it didn't happen. The museums objection to the pardon can/should stay, but that didn't stop it from happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2221:F500:4826:DE82:F13F:19F (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As it should, the lead section concisely introduces Anthony by summarizing the most important aspects of her life and work. It is not the right place to mention political posturing that occurred more than a century after her death. Bilpen (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Crime of Voting
"In 1872, Anthony was arrested for voting"

The Article should mention explicitly that women were not allowed to vote. The bare-text idea that she was "arrested for voting" fails to include the totality of the circumstances that made that act a crime. Did she vote in the wrong precinct? Did she vote more than once? Did she misrepresent her identity and vote as someone else? Most Americans understand the general idea, but people from other countries may not. Further, I think it improves the Article to provide more detail on how and why her act of "voting" was "illegal".2605:6000:6FC0:25:80DF:B3F:F9BC:2D28 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Better late than never, I have clarified this sentence in the lead section.Bilpen (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Engraving to Photograph proposal
Why are we using an engraving for the lead image? I can get behind that in certain cases, but there are numerous photographs that are much better and more suitable for the lead image than an engraving that isn’t even particularly high resolution. Here are two of my proposals to replace the engraving. Thoughts? Relevation Animations (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I greatly prefer the image that is currently used as the lead image. It is the image that she and Stanton chose for use in the History of Woman Suffrage, and it shows Anthony in the prime of life, not near the end of it. Bilpen (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you ignore the signature, is this a better image? It was taken in 1870 when she was only 50, and it’s a somewhat more accurate representation of Anthony during her prime. And Sundayclose, we aren’t talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Relevation Animations (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)




 * Oppose the proposed images. The current image is most representative of Stanton. Sundayclose (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No change. I happen to like the engraving, and I don't think less of it for not being a photograph. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No change, but flexible. I like the engraving too, it has a certain...dignity... to it, memorializing her in 'perfection'. But that said, Proposal #1 is also a rather iconic pose, and a fine portrait. Is there any reason that couldn't be added to the article elsewhere? More photos is almost always desireable in articles. Anastrophe (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
Here is the source for the missing citation related to Susan B Anthony’s pardon...

The president of the National Susan B. Anthony Museum and House wrote to "decline" the offer of a pardon on the principle that, to accept a pardon would wrongly "validate" the trial proceedings in the same manner that paying the $100 fine would have.[citation needed]

https://susanb.org/on-news-of-a-presidential-pardon-for-susan-b-anthony-on-august-18-2020/ 2601:681:4A04:740:86A:7682:192D:EB9 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Adding in the already used citation for this that included your susanb.org ref and an NPR one. For someone with more familiarity with this article, why is the pardon mention both in trial and Commemoration? Is it really needed in Commemoration? WikiVirusC (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestion above, I removed the duplicate paragraph from the Commemoration section. Bilpen (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022
Please arrange this introduction for short description "American women's rights activist (1820–1906)". 2001:4452:490:6900:2D6E:BB69:9571:2188 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the change as requested. Thanks for the idea.  Bilpen (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of structural notes at the end of the paragraph on abortion
There's two lines of structural notes, possibly Todos at the end of the paragraph on abortion. Maybe delete these? Nemea (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem. Bilpen (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)