Talk:Susan B. Anthony/Archive 2

Susan B Anthony dollar
Could someone explain the coin? -- what denomination is it; is she on all coins of that denomination, and since when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 11:29, 27 November 2002 (UTC)

The so-called "Susan B. Anthony dollar" was minted for only four years, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1999. It was produced at the Philadelphia and Denver mints for all four production years, and at the San Francisco mint for all years except 1999. The dollar coin is approximately the size of a U.S. quarter. The obverse bears a right-facing portait of SBA and the reverse is of an eagle flying above the moon with the Earth in the distance. While being round (with ruled edges),the coin has the appearance of being 11-sided due to the presence of an 11-sided border around the rim on both faces. In 2000, the SBA dollar was replaced with the gold-colored Sacagawea dollar.


 * Someone please take this and add it to the article appropriately. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri (11:49, 27 November 2002)


 * I would, but I don't know if it is copywritten or wiki-originified. Kingturtle 23:06 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * God, I think it's from the US Mint website... how does copyright apply to government publications of that nature? --Dante Alighieri 11:09 27 May 2003 (UTC)
 * For the record, US government documents are not copyrighted. 17 U.S.C. 105. ("Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.") --Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Traveling
"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)


 * 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)

Teaching Years
"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)


 * 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)

Good Article
This is laid out ok, I did move most of the intro (as it pertained to her early life) to a new section 'early life' as I beleive what was written was very informative. However, some of the following sections are laid out of order, IE it talks about her retirement before the court case. I am no expert on the woman, so someone else will have to sort it out. My only issue on this article it seems a tad too pro -Anthony (not that I am the opposite!). user:{Pzg Ratzinger


 * Thanks for the nod of approval - a few months ago I started overhauling this article and adding info, and although I think it has improved (at least in size), I still see minor issues with it as well. As far as the order goes, let me know what you would suggest, and feel free to lay out some other specifics for me as well. We can always work on improving it further.--Jackbirdsong 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing that needs to go though, is the 'she traveled...' mention, as it strikes me as unneeded. People then traveled in all kinds of ways, do we need to know if she was ever carried somewhere? What about Kaiser Wilhelm II? Did he ever travel by riding on skis? :P you get the point I hope. user:Pzg Ratzinger


 * I agree. Such a sentence at best is unneccessary in this article, and entirely irrelevent in the intro. The mere fact that she traveled a lot to promote suffrage — stated in the previous sentence — does belong here, but the means she used to get from one place to the next doesn't tell us much. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One other point - I think the section on her speech needs to go. That is more for Wikiqoutes. I'd take two or three more memorable lines out of it, and add it to the previous section. Also, some parts of the 'activism' portions seem to be out of order. Another odd sounding portion - "..It was difficult for an outspoken and intelligent woman like Anthony to live as secondary to men in 19th century society. Anthony was a constant target of abuse from political leaders, media representatives, and many other less progressive individuals." the word 'progressive' has become a buzzword of late (seems to replacing 'liberal' in modern politics) and I think it should be avoided. Aside from that, that sentence sounds a tad POV. One last thing - I think the whole portion on abortion needs to go. This article will never have featured status if it has such revisionist context to it. I might leave it as 'she occasionally wrote about abortion..' state why she disagree with it, and leave it at that. The way it looked recently it was like the author was trying to say 'she didnt like it because it was dangerous back then, but shed support it today with the safer methods' user:Pzg Ratzinger


 * OK, firstly, the speech summary was added to bulk up what was an otherwise diminutive article, but if anybody else sees it as unnecessary, then we can talk about removing it. Also, the word "progressive" is and should be used, as the original American progressive movement largely adopted women's rights into its central tenets and played a vital part in the eventual ratification of the 19th amendment into the constitution (see: progressivism). As far as the abortion section, clearly you haven't read the whole discussion on this page, which would be worth your while to look at. This has been much debated and the current state of the section is the result of too much argument and compromise to be dramatically altered. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The speech should stay. If it were moved I probably would not have read it (and been moved by her grasp of logic).  Is it acceptable to leave the speech as is?--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DAR membership
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   should also be added, once it is supported in the article. - Crockspot 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dar means "to give" in spanish. -Sunshine 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Carmello Anthony
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)
 * For the record, the vandalism by User:209.190.1.195 was rapidly reverted. --lquilter 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * That's your opinion. I don't appreciate your treating me like an infidel. -Sunshine 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's almost funny. Almost. Don't quit your day job, sunshine.--Jackbirdsong 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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. 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 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) yall know that yall have the articall wrong she have 8 the last one died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.29.82 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 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.&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 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
 * 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 offices 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) &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:19, 19 December 2007 (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). Any other known sources? I personally would be inclined to go with the above older source. WBardwin (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad sentence
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)

There are many more bad sentences following the above-mentioned one. If you unprotect the article, I will correct them, please. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland cartoon
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)

When,Where,and,How Susan died
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)

Quotes
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)
 * Eh...are you suggesting that your selection of quotes is not processed through your own editorial lens? Of course your selection is your own. Here is what I propose: insert the quotes into the text at the appropriate places (chronologically speaking), and make them look good. That provides a rationale for the selection, which is necessary since right now the only rational is your taste. And there is a Wiki project for quotes: Wikiquote. As you have it right now, it does not jive, so I have reverted--but please find a way for them in the text. Her words are important enough. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For instance, if you expand the "Personal life" section a bit, you can easily find a place for the first quote. The second quote is already in there--it's the motto of The Revolution. The third is so essential to her activism that it should fit most anywhere. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed. Hardpan17 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a nice box to put that big quote in--so one down, one to go. (And I just saw this: [WP:QUOTEFARM.) I really think that the personal life section ought to be bigger, so let's see if we can't expand the article a little bit, and incorporate some more of her own words in the process. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very nice indeed. I have added that second quote in context, and I think it sheds a bit of light on the personal side of someone whom we know primarily in the public light. I will continue with my research on her personal life to see if I can bring together enough pieces to put a story together, but I hope this is an acceptable start. Hardpan17 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardpan, this is excellent. Thank you for your cooperation. I have also found some little tidbits of information and will continue to add to the article. Oh, don't forget to include the source for that quote. Later, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She was eugenist?
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)agre22


 * 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)

did she get killed?
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)


 * 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)

Submittal for Discussion
The material below, while sourced, revisits the modern feminist abortion issue. --- often seen on the Elizabeth Cady Stanton article as well. I removed the material both for its placement in the article and for some editorial pov. Opinions on inclusion? WBardwin (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The anti-abortion groups, Feminist for Choosing Life of New York, Feminists for Life of America, and Susan B Anthony's List have co-opted Susan B Anthony as a symbol for their anti-abortion movement. Link 24 -http://susanbanthonymuseum.com/userPage_11_Organizations.htm
 * There is a serious historical dispute between expert academic research historians and these organizations over Anthony's position on abortion. Ann Gordan, Rutgers University Professor, Research Historian, & editor of the academically acclaimed Susan B Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Stanton Papers has concluded through her research that it is impossible to know where the suffragists stood on the personal issue of abortion "She never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life," Gordon said of Anthony. "And she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term.
 * Link 25 - http://www.womensenews.org/story/abortion/061006/susan-b-anthonys-abortion-position-spurs-scuffle

Does not mention 1878
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)

How much focus on abortion?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Feminists for Life revisited
Once again there is too much in this article from Feminists For Life. I deleted a new addition:

"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."

Any number of observers or historical Anthony scholars can be quoted to say that Anthony's newspaper carried this or that opinion—we do not need to give FFL the soapbox. The use of the word "editorialized" makes the reader assume that the writer is Anthony, when the writer is unknown. The newspaper did not advocate family planning, it advocated a woman's right to say no to sex. These are two different things! The phrase "family planning" has a specific tone today that it would not have had in Anthony's day.

These reasons, and reasons of undue weight, are why I took FFL out. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with NPOV is very simple. The whole section is based upon an editorial written in the Washington Post.  The rules of Wikipedia are very clear.  Editorial are not to be relied upon in question in dispute.  Also, Wikipedia makes it very clear that "claimed" is a weasel word.  These are both very clear rules.  In an earlier post you stated that abortion should not even have much coverage, now that you have found a much larger section that discusses abortion which is slanted in its perspective you suddenly believe that it is ok for abortion to be covered in huge section and suddenly it is no longer given undue weight.  I go back to my pervious comments:  either we cut down the whole section--which is basically an editorial from the Washington Post and reprinted in a Wikipedia article--or we cover both sides of the dispute equally--which currently is not happening because you are removing relevant, reliably sources, notable information. Please edit in good faith.  NPOV requires us to either treat the topic from both sides--since there is NO concensus--just one editorial from a TV news reporter and an assistant history professor--or follow your earlier advice and cut the section down where there is less weight on the topic in the first place--since your earlier comments so clearly outlined how abortion is merely a side issue to ALL of the things accomplished by Anthony.--InaMaka (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazing, just amazing. Somehow, the opinion piece entitled "Sarah Palin is no Susan B. Anthony", written by Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr, is not neutral, whereas an article by the partisan organization Feminists For Life, published in their quarterly organ, is above reproach. How did this state of affairs come to pass? The FFL expert, Mary Krane Derr, tells her audience that she makes the assumption that The Revolution article signed 'A' is by Anthony, even though no other article by Anthony was signed in this manner.
 * Yes, the word "claim" is a WP:WEASEL word if it is used improperly. Used correctly, it can serve to pre-shadow a future rebuttal, as it did where Sherr and Gordon took Derr's argument apart.
 * It is difficult for me to evaluate your comments here in light of your active edits. Your comments talk about cutting the section down, but your actions repudiate your description of your actions. In your additive actions, you edited the page to return a promotional bit about Feminists For Life; one which restored the challenged bits about family planning, editorialization and Anthony's authorship. You talk a good story but you do not hold yourself to the same strictures you would place on others. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason that you are confused is because you believe that the end result of our discussions boils down to merely two choices: your way of writing it or my way of writing it. It's not that simple.  I'm more than willing to compromise.  For example, I conceded your comments concerning the word "claim."  I can't have it both ways.  So not only did I remove the word claim from your edits I removed it from my edits too. Now, let's get down to the heart of the matter. Just for the sake of discussion let's assume that the editorial written by Lynn Sherr, a TV personality, is not neutral, but let's also assume that the comments of FFL is also not neutral.  We throw them both out for lack of neutrality--unreliable sources.  What do we have left?  Nothing.  In that scenario, I agree with your earlier comments about how the topic of abortion is not central to what Anthony's life and work was about. She was a much larger figure than that.  You stated that sentiment earlier and I see your point.  Therefore, if we have no real reliable sources that definitively outline her position on abortion AND if abortion is not central to a discussion of Anthony, then why do we have such a large section on abortion at all in the article?  The whole section is bogus because it is based upon an editorial and Wikipedia does not allow us to decide issues of fact based upon editorial opinions.  That is a brightline rule.  Also, the FFL evidence is quite questionable also, as you point out.  Now when you add that to the fact that abortion was not discussed by Anthony (or very little) why are you and I (or any other Wikipedian) trying to decide what exactly her position on abortion was.  It is above our pay scale.  We should just cut down the section--especially the abortion comments--from both sides--and focus the section on things that we clearly know--without question.  But for the article to explicitly state that Anthony supported abortion or to give the impression that she did not support abortion is way, way beyond our mandate as merely Wikipedia editors.  Now, keep in mind the section is about the newspaper The Revolution.  Revolution did state a lot of things and Revolution did call abortion "child murder", etc.  Now, we cannot attribute those words to Anthony per se (but it is conceivable that those were her words--we just don't know), but those damning comments were in Revolution, if the section is going to be about Revolution then it is reasonable to place them in that section.  All I am saying is that if we are going include the work of an editorial opinion and try to pass it off as fact then we need to put in the opposing viewpoint and clearly label the whole thing as opinion.  The section as previously written did not do that.  It merely presented the OPINION of a low level, obscure assistant history professor and TV personality as fact and that is just wrong.  I was attempting to add balance with the FFL, but as you point out that information has its own set of issues also.  Let's go back to the original point of the article which is to give some useful information about Anthony and remember that the point is not about spreading wild speculation as fact--which is what will do if we place the EDITORIAL OPINION from the Washington Post in the article as if it is FACT because it is not.  I'm open to all possible solutions, but the way that the section was previously written violates NPOV.--InaMaka (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the brightline rule you refer to banning opinion pieces? If you find it, I will be surprised. At WP:RS, the guideline allows for leeway in sources. It states, "reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." Sherr and Gordon are experts on the subject of Anthony, and the platform for their opinion piece is The Washington Post, a mainstream publication. Your attack of Lynn Sherr as a TV personality ignores her notability as such, and ignores her authorship of Failure Is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words, a well-regarded work. Ann D. Gordon is the editor of the series of books Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony, including the 2006 third volume subtitled When Clowns Make Laws for Queens, 1880 to 1887. Gordon was also co-author and co-editor of 2001's Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Fobbing her off as low-level and obscure is false. Sherr and Gordon both have read reams of Anthony's own words including her private letters and her public statements. They would not misidentify a Brinkerhoff quote as did Barbara Hollingsworth in this addition you made to the article. They know Anthony inside and out. Furthermore, the specific Sherr and Gordon opinion piece catalyzed discussion by others such as Allison Stevens of Women's eNews, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews, President Carol Crossed and Executive Director Sally Winn at the Susan B. Anthony Museum, and Tracy Clark-Flory, a staff writer at Salon. The opinion piece has earned its own notability.
 * I think that many readers who come to this article will expect to see the modern conflict discussed, which was why I didn't remove the "Disputes after her death" section when User:Drmies brought it in last November in these edits. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore what is a vital discussion in today's world. We must address its main points from both sides. The guideline at WP:NPOV does not support your recent changes to the article, changes which include the challenged words "editorialized", "family planning", a pigeonholing of Sherr as a "TV personality", and a bald statement of original research ("Gordon and Sherr cannot claim without question that Anthony did not write it") unsupported by the reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point of view you have, but you never dealt with my main point. It doesn't matter who the professor or the TV personality are.  They are stating an opinion.  Look the Washington Post has a gossip section also.  Just because something is printed in the WP does not make it a reliable source.  Wikipedia will not accept pieces of information from gossip columns.  That is a fact.  Now, the particular work we are discussing here is CLEARLY labeled OPINION and EDITORIAL.  Statements of opinion are NOT be used to support whether something is a fact or not.  Please review here: Neutral point of view.  I will quote the Wikipedia guideline directly: ''"The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
 * If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then &mdash; whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not &mdash; it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
 * We either balance out the section or we remove it. The previous version violates NPOV.  There is a dispute about what she believed. Period.  You don't know the answer and I don't know the answer. If you claim you know the answer then you venturing off in original research.  Also, you completely ignored the previous comment that you made about abortion not being the central tenet of her work.  Now, you want to make it the focus.  Also, you ignored the FACT that the section is about a newspaper, Revolution, that clearly called abortion "child murder" and "infantcide".  Now, that is a fact and that fact you cannot talk around.--InaMaka (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong in insisting that statements of opinion cannot be used in WP articles as reliable sources—your quoted guideline does not prove your point. You are specifically wrong about the impossibility of using the opinion piece under discussion, the one written by Anthony subject expert authors; the one which generated a huge buzz in pro-choice and anti-abortion circles. You are wrong in classifying Sherr and Gordon as holding a minor viewpoint, or their editorial would have fallen on empty ears, with no response.
 * I intend to help the curious reader find out about the FFL vs Anthony scholar debate, while maintaining a neutral point of view and without giving it undue emphasis. I feel certain that we can hammer out a solution of this nature. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You write in such a way where you are easy to work with. No, that's not true. So let me use your tone.  You are dead wrong if you think you are going to remove from the Revolution section any mention of the FACT that Anthony's newspaper referred to abortion as "child murder" and "infantcide."  You are wrong if you think that the opinion piece is going to be in the article without the opposing side being mentioned.  You are wrong if you think that you control the article. You are wrong if you think that Sherr is an expert on anything.  You are wrong if you think that I am going to allow an opinion piece to be used as a statement of fact when it is clearly marked "editorial." So the lines are drawn.  An opinion piece on a controversial subject is still an opinion piece and if you think that it will be presented as fact then you have another think a coming.--InaMaka (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some editors here find me very easy to work with; some don't. Good luck with your goals. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been struggling with this issue for a few days, and the only good solution I could come up with was a fuller expansion of the dispute. It is an important topic that must be touched upon, but no short summary of the situation satisfied me. Only a larger version with an image was good enough. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your longer summary is quite good. I made a few changes, but for the most part it is much more fair than what was there before. Good Work!--InaMaka (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your changes, and I have these observations:
 * You recast the debate as being between pro-life and pro-choice activists, but I understand the debate as arising between pro-life activists and people who do not want to see Anthony's legacy co-opted. The latter group includes many people who have made no effort to promote choice in abortion—they are not pro-choice activists. They are, in the main, people who had been studying Anthony (suffrage scholars) since before 1989 when the dispute began; people who were stirred to activity after FFL and SBA List began to say that she was important to the abortion debate. The SBA Museum calls this camp (including themselves) "academic history experts". I will remove each occurrence of the incorrect term "pro-choice activists" to be replaced by something more appropriate.
 * Clearly or not? You wrote "her thoughts on abortion laws were never clearly expressed" while I wrote "her thoughts on abortion laws were never expressed", meaning not expressed at all. The reference I have is Ann D. Gordon saying "she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term." To me, the modifier "clearly" is not correct here. This Anthony scholar says "never", an absolute statement.
 * You added a paragraph that makes some incorrect statements about The Revolution. Enough references exist to provide correct statements, so I see no reason we need to present the wrong information. The wrong parts are:
 * "The Revolution ... editorialized against abortion". Even though Derr writes this, it is not true. The Revolution printed letters and articles from a wide variety of people, and one of the letters printed on July 8, 1869, was about abortion, written by an anonymous person signing 'A'. This letter was not an editorial if the writer was not the editor. It is instead an unattributable "letter to the editor". A true editorial should be cited if the general statement "editorialized against abortion" is to be used; however, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote the editorials, making them a minor point in Anthony's biography.
 * "Revolution stated that abortion's root cause came from women's oppression..." No, this one unattributable letter said that. The journal did not make the statement, it printed someone's letter.
 * "The newspaper advocated family planning." Not exactly! The newspaper advocated a woman's right to control her own body, including her right to choose when she should have sex and children. Some scholars think that Stanton practiced family planning techniques herself, though the exact method is not in evidence. Anthony was a prude, and never discussed sexual practices. One of our sources, The radical women's press of the 1850s, includes an editorial observation that "The Revolution never advocated ... birth control." Beginning in 1869, Stanton toured the country with Anthony, giving speeches. One of Stanton's talks was solely for women, for all-female audiences, entitled "Marriage and Maternity", the same title of the letter to the editor signed by 'A'. Anthony would stand by while Stanton delivered the talk. Stanton's speech was about best practices for raising healthy children and about the right to refuse a husband's sexual advances. Birth control is not noted by Stanton or others in their descriptions of these talks. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further POV changes I have reverted:
 * "Dispute" changed to "debate". Dispute is a heated exchange in which no side gives the other any consideration of the possibility of rectitude. Debate is gentlemanly (if we can use that term for feminists) and measured discussion. The exchanges described here are disputes.
 * "Academic history experts" changed to "pro-choice authors". The source, SBA Museum, is precisely quoted as saying "academic history experts". No source is cited to establish another definition, especially "pro-choice authors".
 * "Anthony researchers and authors Ann D. Gordon and Lynn Sherr" changed to "Authors Ann D. Gordon and Lynn Sherr". Both women have written about other topics than Anthony, and both have researched Anthony for their books. Each woman is an Anthony scholar and an author. The fact that Lynn Sherr is a famous TV journalist does not stop her from being a respected researcher and scholar on the topic of Anthony.
 * Removal of the bit about social conservatives. This datum is relevant to the dispute. Anthony fought all her life against a class of people, the same class who are now co-opting her image and words for their own purposes.
 * Derr's mistakes added again. See above.
 * The addition of Anthony's words from her speech "Social Purity". These words have not been connected to the dispute at hand. The speech by itself does not relate to today's dispute. It's a laundry list of societal ills, not a focusing on abortion.
 * Addition of Stanton's use of the term "infanticide". This is not the article about Stanton... and you're missing "Restellism", a more specific term applying solely to unborn fetuses. Infanticide also means the killing of an unwanted baby after its birth, so it is less applicable. Some 19th century women who were unable to afford an abortion, or who were afraid of dying or becoming sterile, instead birthed their unwanted babies, killing them soon after. Stanton was referring to both unborn and post-born killings.
 * Removal of Gordon's February 2010 statement, "we can't say what her stance on abortion would be, but we can say for sure that she'd be against the government regulating a woman's body. She spoke out about that issue quite clearly." This is one of the foremost Anthony scholars speaking about Anthony's opinions, not "a personal essay from a Wikipedian", as you put in the edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The section reads like a personal essay by a Wikipedian, that would be you. Now, there is going to be changes to your essay. Count on it. Learn to compromise because there are clear violations of NPOV, reliable sources, undue weight, etc. But you are obviously not willing to allow your work to be edited. Please remember one of the golden rules of Wikipedia. Don't work on Wikipedia articles if you are not willing to have your work significantly altered, edited, or even eliminated. Those are just the facts of Wikipedia live. I would suggest that you grow to love them. I will make those changes because the section as currently has your personal POV stamped all over it.--InaMaka (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not quite able to make the leap from the viewpoints of notable observers such as Ann D. Gordon, Lynn Sherr, Allison Stevens, Tracy Clark-Flory, Carol Crossed and Sally Winn, to your accusation that the section you do not like is a personal essay by a Wikipedian, myself. There is a significant mass of scholarly talent on the side of restoring Susan B. Anthony to her former fame as a suffrage pioneer, away from her manufactured place as a historic abortion foe. Of the thousands of articles and letters Anthony wrote for the purpose of winning women the vote, a handful include side comments about other issues, all so much less important to her than the vote. This 'essay' you say is mine is just a small sample of the strong reaction by notable scholars against the redefinition of Anthony as a being "anti-choice". You accuse me of writing my essay here, but instead I am simply pointing to the significant backlash that has resulted from FFL and SBA List taking Anthony under tow, painting her in new colors, and pointing her in a direction she never faced in life. Anthony was put on U.S. stamps and coins and sculptures because she was a suffragist, not because of any other reason. Not even her considerable early work against alcohol and slavery netted her that level of fame. She should be remembered as a suffragist above all else, a condition that was true before 1989. Her position on abortion was not well known in her day, the same with her position on religion; she made little mention of either, and only vague hints come down to us today about such things. Those very faint hints have become the basis for FFL and SBA List's use of Anthony's image and quotes, to remake her as an abortion foe. She never published an opinion on the subject of laws against abortion, or governmental restrictions on access to abortion. Not once! This is why I think it perfectly appropriate to treat the subject of Anthony's words being co-opted as it is seen by the people who were scholars of Anthony before 1989, people who have reacted notably against the last two decades of public relations effort by FFL and SBA List. These pre-1989 scholars are the people who understand the issue with the most depth, and they are the ones who are given the strongest voice in the section. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent any further discussion, I am restoring the article to its NPOV state, taking out the incomplete conclusions reached by Derr which were presented here as fact, without rebuttal. I do not think the article needs to have the information at all, which is why I am not providing the rebuttal, though I am fully capable of doing so point by point:
 * The 1875 speech "Social Purity" was given by Anthony against the alcohol abuse by, and the attendant licentiousness of men, and for the enfranchisement of women on equal footing with men. In the speech, she devotes one sentence to a laundry list of social ills, including rape, divorce, abortions and infanticides. (Note that "abortions" and "infanticides" are given separate entries in the list—they meant two different things to Anthony.) The speech puts Anthony squarely in the camp of anti-abortionists no more than it puts her in the camp of anti-divorce activists; namely, not at all. Unlike Stanton, Anthony never promoted divorce as a tool to fix faulty marriages, and she never devoted one speech or one tract to the subject of abortion. Author Estelle B. Freedman writes that the speech "referred to a single moral standard for both sexes, including chastity before and fidelity within marriage. ... Underlying this critique of individual male vice was a structural analysis that blamed prostitution on occupational and wage discrimination on women's subsequent economic dependence on men and on the denial of equal suffrage." Freedman attaches no importance to individual entries in the laundry list of social ills. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another reversion by InaMaka, but without discussion. The guideline at WP:BRD suggests that consensus will not be reached without discussion. Reversion without discussion is tendentious editing. Let's get this thing hammered into shape.
 * I added some words from Stacy Schiff who notices that the anonymous writer 'A' argues against abortion law; that such a law would not fix the problem of unwanted pregnancies. I also added Nora Bredes and I quoted Allison Stevens for the bit about social conservatives. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet another reversion by InaMaka without discussion. This time I will bring the edit war text, the supposed explicit abortion mention in "Social Purity", into the article in a neutral manner, with Derr's grasping at straws made obvious. She's out of her league against Freedman, a doctor of U.S. history at Stanford University and an award-winning historian of awesome accomplishments. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over abortion section
The section in its current form is basically aimed at destroying any claims that she was pro-life. We need to be fair to both sides. I'm adding a template. Also, it's a quote farm. BS24 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * She never said that fetuses have a right to life. She never said that laws should be passed to limit or stop abortions. She never acted to stop an abortion or to save an unwanted baby. She never acted to pass laws limiting abortions. Both the sanctity of pre-born life and the passing of laws against abortion are essential parts of the pro-life canon. How can she have been "pro-life" as we know it today? From her words and actions it is obvious she was not "pro-life"—the most that can be said is that she disliked the practice of abortion, as performed in her day, just like every other woman's rights activist back then. Nobody liked it but there is a vast difference between disliking current abortion practices and being pro-life.


 * There is no need to be any more fair than we are to "both sides" of a ridiculous question. There is the side taken by anyone who has ever seriously studied Anthony, then there is the side taken by people who wish to rewrite her legacy to forward their aims. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, these are totally inappropriate comments. No one's here to debate your POV on Susan B. Anthony. Please adhere to WP protocol and stay on topic per WP:NOTFORUM. Cloonmore (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not my POV that we are seeing here, it is the well-researched opinion of Anthony experts that I am quoting. I am merely the conduit. Ann D. Gordon, Lynn Sherr, Stacy Schiff, Allison Stevens, Deborah Lusignan, Marvin Olasky, Estelle B. Freedman, Nora Bredes; all of these people dispute the co-opting of Anthony's legacy for the purpose of limiting or removing abortion rights. Me? I just want to make sure that Anthony remains the icon of the American "votes for women" movement in the same manner as the British have the Pankhurst suffragettes. Nobody is trying to link the Pankhursts to other reform movements than female suffrage, so why are some Americans trying to paint their icon with a different brush? Anthony expressed no strong opinions and made no strong actions regarding abortion. In her time, Anthony was one of the most reviled figures in American history, hated for her opposition to alcohol and for her wish to upset the sexism applecart, where men ruled all. She was accused of being a lesbian, an atheist and a man-hater. She was a spiteful prude, and a severe taskmistress. She hardened her heart to all but winning the vote for women. In this, she has earned the posthumous respect of her country, which put her on an American dollar coin for her activism for votes for women, not for any other reason.
 * To sum up, here are the thoughts of one notable Anthony scholar on the topic of Anthony's legacy co-opted to fight abortion:
 * Ann D. Gordon:
 * "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989. It's pretty far fetched..."
 * "Students now routinely assume Anthony opposed abortion, a view based more on fiction than on fact"
 * "the bits of information circulating on the Web always cite 'Marriage and Maternity', an article in a newspaper owned ... by Susan B. Anthony. In it, the writer ... signs it simply, 'A'. Although no data exist that Anthony wrote it, or ever used that shorthand for herself, she is imagined to be its author." (with Lynn Sherr)
 * "Anthony did not write that article ["Guilty?"] ... and ... many of the ideas expressed in the article clash with Susan B Anthony's known beliefs."
 * "we can't say what her stance on abortion would be, but we can say for sure that she'd be against the government regulating a woman's body. She spoke out about that issue quite clearly."
 * "People also have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue."
 * It is not me you are fighting here, it is the mass of scholars who dispute FFL and SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One of your complaints is that the section is a quote farm. I will tell you why it is: it was impossible to write it as a summary of people's positions because of the strong feelings of opposing editors. The only way that a notable point of view could be presented is if it was quoted directly. Many contentious subjects are written like this on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to debate the topic with you, I'm here to present the debate to readers. Your POV is showing, and it's really ridiculous. BS24 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

susanbanthonymuseum.com
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)

This is not a reliable source. It's not a museum. It's not a news outlet. It's a blog. It's not an expert's or historian's blog. Rather, it appears to be the blog of one perturbed individual in No. Adams, MA. She's entitled to her views, but she's not reliable. And her blog is unacceptable as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Cloonmore (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. BS24 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

RfC about Susan B. Anthony and her abortion position
Should this article serve as a rebuttal to pro-life activists who use Susan B. Anthony's words and images to aid their anti-abortion causes? Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. It's completely contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia to use an article to serve as a platform for the advocacy of your POV. Cloonmore (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps this question was ill-posed? The article certainly should not "serve" as a rebuttal or advocation of any POV, but at the same time it should represent the views taken of the subject in the sources.  Certainly, mention should be made of the use of this subject by anti-abortion partisans, and also of the scholarly response to this.  From reading the section I think the thing to do is to attack whatever issue there might be here in specifics, rather than trying to appeal to some generality: does the characterization in the disputed section actually represent that in the RS's, in specific terms? siafu (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agree obviously that the article should be about the person primarily. Concerning the abortion issue, it appears certainly relevant and should be mentioned in the article, however maybe not at this length. If it's the case that Anthony didn't express her views on abortion (this is a question of fact that can be settled using academic sources), then a short mention to the effect that anti-abortion activists have perpetrated a scam using her name should IMO be included. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea has been struck down, but by biased sources. The possibility that she was pro-life still exists and we cannot make it sound like it's false. BS24 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever bias you suppose has struck down the idea is matched by an equal and opposite bias by pro-life sources. The neutral ground in all of this bias is Ann D. Gordon who is today's premier researcher on Susan B. Anthony's writings, and who has never expressed an opinion about the modern issues of abortion. We have no idea whether Ann D. Gordon is for or against abortion. What we know is that Gordon has stepped up to counter any claims that re-make Anthony's legacy from one of supreme suffragism to one of dedicated anti-choice activist. Gordon has no axe to grind: she simply cannot see any support for the pro-life position regarding Anthony's life, and she apparently wishes to return Anthony's legacy to its rightful position of America's most diligent suffragist. Whenever Gordon speaks on the subject, no bias is involved, only scholarly rebuttal.

Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again Binksternet's POV is showing. This statement, especially the phrase "anti-choice" shows that he does not have improvement of the encyclopedia in mind; he just wants to fill it with bias. BS24 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Binksternet argument is that the results of the leading researcher should be take serious. I think this is an clear push for NPOV. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-Comment: Binksternet is rather wasting everyone's time with this RfC. It an absurd inquiry with a self-evident answer -- of course the article shouldn't be used as a rebuttal of anything.  The heroic efforts of some commenters here to make sense out of the RfC is of no use, since no one disputes that the debate over SBA's and early suffragettes' views on abortion is appropriately a part of this article.  OTOH, the dispute that Binksternet was embroiled in when the RfC was posed, and which makes the RfC appear to be a diversionary tactic, was over reliable sources.  That dispute's not going to be resolved by kicking around this ill-conceived RfC. Cloonmore (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Generally agree with the comments above.  This is a non-neutral ambiguous RfC.  Rewrite it and try again.  Try pointing to sections/verbage within the article that you specificly object to. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also agree with the above comments; the article should present the facts of her life, work, and writings in a balanced, impartial way.  This discussion is way out of hand.  We cannot control, nor should we, the ways 21st century people may try to interpret her writings or use them to promote their own views on any subject.  We can, however, impartially and concisely summarize that her work remains controversial in the present day, and provide links to reliable sources that the reader can explore if interested.


 * IMO, the "abortion debate" section in this article is far too long and far too detailed. It should be seriously trimmed; see the Margaret Sanger article for what I think is a good example of summarizing modern-day controversies without giving them undue weight.  The person, NOT the controversies a hundred years later, should remain the focus of the article.


 * All editors involved in this discussion would do better to ratchet their personal POV down several notches instead of using poor old Susan as their totem pole for or against a modern-day position - which nobody on earth knows how she would have felt and spoken about today, because she is long dead. Textorus (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The dispute over whether or not she was pro-life is an important part of her legacy, for good or for ill. So it deserves to be mentioned. But both sides must be mentioned, per WP:NPOV. Ironically, a quote that was intended against the inclusion of this section in the above discussion ("I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989. It's pretty far fetched...") proves that it should be included, as it is the view of a substantial minority, per WP:ASSERT. However, as the section now stands, there is no doubt it violates WP:Undue weight. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an article about SBA. Therefore, the focus of this article should be primarily about her live and opinions. The opinions of pro-life or pro-choice movements should be presented in these articles, not here. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: While trying to understand how WP:RFC works, I stumbled on this RFC. I then found this abstract of this article co-written by Professor Kay of Harvard and Professor Beisel of Northwestern. The 2004 article they wrote was published by American Sociological Review.  According to the faculty page for Prof. Beisel, the article they wrote was "awarded 'Best Recent Article' prizes by the Political Sociology section and the Race, Class and Gender section of the American Sociological Association."  IMO, articles like theirs can be the scholarly basis for the topic at hand.  Based on their article, I would also suggest that the Susan B. Anthony section be shortened, to keep it in proportion with other sections in the article.  If it ends up being hard to shorten the section, summarize the section then use  to point to either a new article just on "Anthony and her role in the abortion debate, then and now", or use the excess to flesh out a new or existing section in Abortion in the United States. 67.100.125.236 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the Beisel and Kay paper entitled "Abortion, Race, and Gender in Nineteenth-Century America". I hesitate to affirm its usefulness here as it assumes that Anthony is the author of the anonymous letter published in The Revolution in July 1869, the one signed only 'A'. There are expert researchers who question the assumption of Anthony's authorship of this letter, not only because she never signed her name 'A' on any surviving papers, among the 14,000 related to Stanton and Anthony that have been cataloged at Rutgers by Ann D. Gordon and crew, but also because the tone of the letter is against the grain of Anthony's usual style; the 1869 letter is full of religious sayings and references to God. Anthony did not write like this at all. Gordon says the the 1869 letter is not written by Anthony and that "many of the ideas expressed in the article clash with Susan B. Anthony's known beliefs". Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again Binksternet shows his POV. He is convinced that there is no possible way that Anthony opposed abortion in any form and is out to crush the idea. And there's no possible way to prove that Anthony didn't write those letters, because if she signed them in a way she wasn't known to sign, of course the researchers would assume she didn't write the letters. We can't go back in time and there is a legitimate debate about this so Wikipedia should not and cannot just decide who is right. Wikipedia should not take sides in debates but present debates to readers. BS24 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am not presenting those views as mine, I am relaying them as said by Ann Dexter Gordon. She, at various times, said all of these things:
 * Anthony "never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life".
 * "she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term."
 * "comparing the debate over abortion today with the debate that was taking place in the 19th century is misleading."
 * "People also have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue. They had articles written by people, who are clearly against abortion, that opposed the criminalization of the act because of its infringement on individual rights."
 * "For nearly 30 years, both of us have been immersed in Susan B. Anthony's words—Ann as the editor of Anthony's papers, Lynn [Sherr] as the author of a biography. We have read every single word that this very voluble—and endlessly political—woman left behind. Our conclusion: Anthony spent no time on the politics of abortion. It was of no interest to her, despite living in a society (and a family) where women aborted unwanted pregnancies."
 * From Allison Stevens: "Gordon says Anthony did not write that article and that many of the ideas expressed in the article clash with Susan B Anthony’s known beliefs."
 * These opinions are from the foremost American scholar on Stanton and Anthony, the person who knows the most about The Revolution. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So Gordon is the be-all end-all to the debate? Her opinions are completely factual and everyone else is wrong? BS24 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Her opinions are those of a top expert, maybe the top expert, on the subject of what Anthony did, said and wrote. Nobody at any of the anti-abortion political action committees can match her 30 years of that kind of scholarly dedication and depth. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ^I rest my case on Binksternet's POV. BS24 (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you want to add a "I reject science" box or to your tag gallery at User:BS24? ;) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that the findings of Ann D. Gordon as leading and respected researcher on Susan B. Anthony should been taken seriously. She found out that Anthony "never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life" and "Anthony spent no time on the politics of abortion". I think this article should be about Susan B. Anthony. Since Anthony didn't contribute to the pro-life/pro-choice debate, this debate does not belong to this article. If pro-life/pro-choice debaters refer to Anthony, then this should be placed into Pro life or Pro choice. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Gordon simply cannot be the be-all end-all to the debate. She doesn't know everything there is to know about Anthony and it's quite obvious that she is pro-choice and may have ulterior motives. BS24 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gordon has never stated her position on today's abortion debate. Your assumption that she is pro-choice is unsupported, and demonstrates an adversarial point of view, where people have to be either for or against abortion. I recommend opening up to the possibility that there is a third view of not being concerned with abortion, but being concerned with accuracy in historical portrayal of Anthony. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, Gordon (writing with Sherr) stated that "Our argument here is not over abortion rights. Rather it is about the erosion of accuracy in history and journalism." There it is: she does not view the argument as being about abortion rights. She holds herself outside the pro- / anti- polarity. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could say the same thing. Look, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is right. It is our job to present the debate to readers so they can make their own decisions. You should know that. BS24 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about Anthony, and nobody disputes that she didn't express an opinion about pro-life versus pro-choice. Since Anthony didn't contribute to this debate, it does not belong to this article. The huge pro-life/pro-debates and their reference to Anthony should be placed into Pro life or Pro choice. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You realize you're asking a loaded question, right? I wager you want to remove the section tagged with POV. But that section is not about what you claim it is. It's about "Anthony's position on abortion (or lack thereof)", which "has been subject to a long running dispute". As long as it sticks to that topic, it seems perfectly fine. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see now it was a loaded question. I don't really want the section taken out, I just want to make sure that our handling of it is fair to a true representation of Anthony in a biographical article rather than fair to the political goals of the political action committees such as FFL and SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMHO the abortion-stance dispute has relevance, but it should be reduced to one or two summary sentences here. Also the museum in the birth-house should be mentioned, together with who did buy it (in one sentence). The bulk of the material should be put into a separate article. It would definitely be wrong in abortion and none of the participants can be singled out. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are also lengthy and duplicating sections at FFL and SBA List. All this should be put together into one article. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The main image?
The source of it doesn't identify it as Susan B. Anthony and the woman seen in it looks markedly different from the other pictures. Is it really her? UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Notes:The sitter in this daguerreotype was previously incorrectly identified as Susan B. Anthony." http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/photographs/woman_in_profile_with_lace_collar_and_shawl_albert_sands_southworth/objectview.aspx?collID=19&OID=190020160
 * I'm removing the image because this is not her. UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, too bad. That is a very soulful photograph. I wonder if the museum will ever find out who it is... Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Correcting sentence about collecting petitions at young age
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)

Susan B Anthony did cocaine and "methanphetamines?"
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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