Talk:Susan B. Anthony Birthplace Museum

Restellism
I have removed several times now a bit about how Anthony was supposedly known for her opposition to Restellism. This fabricated stuff misrepresents Anthony who is well known as starting out as an abolition activist, then shifting to a temperance activist, then finally embracing the cause of votes for women – the cause that filled the rest of her life. All the other issues of the day were of secondary importance to her. Anthony never spoke out publicly against Restellism. Instead, it was Anthony's newspaper that refused to print advertisements for Restellism products. This was never a prominent issue in Anthony's life and career, so it is wrong to mention it here as if it were as important as abolition, temperance and suffrage. In any case, Anthony left the running of the newspaper to her editors Parker Pilsbury and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Anthony did not make day-to-day decisions about the newspaper as she was busy with her activism for suffrage for women. The museum has more exhibits than the main ones which are worth discussing in this article. There is no need to give undue emphasis to the exhibit about Restellism. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't rocket science. The article is not on Anthony, it's on the museum. If the Restellism exhbit is one of the main features of the museum it should mentioned. Modify the wording if you wish. Don't edit war. Motsebboh (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of WP:UNDUE weight. There are 12 exhibits in the museum, so you would pick just the main ones. The main ones about Anthony's life are, of course, about abolition, temperance and suffrage. Those three. Not more than that. Otherwise we're violating UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

PR effort, conflict of interest
It appears that is continuing to engage in edit warring over this article, including a raft of IP addresses from Ashland, MA. Cynwhitty has expressed a conflict of interest with this complaint that "an unauthorized person" set the article up initially with the wrong title, the same complaint made here in an edit summary for the article being moved. That would mean that Cynwhitty considers herself authorized.

Ashland IPs include the following:

Looking around online, it becomes immediately clear that this article is the target of a public relations effort. Cynwhitty is a PR agent who has been removing text and references that don't fit with the pro-life worldview which is being put forward by the museum directors; a worldview that the museum directors are falsely associating with Susan B. Anthony, in contradiction to the well-established scholarship about Anthony's life. The museum directors have been called on this nonsense by the media who are reporting about protesters and the false pro-life narrative of the museum. Let's not remove the very apt criticisms from the article, and let's not tell the reader things that aren't true about Anthony. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For disclosure, since I have edited this article as well, and nominated it for DYK, I worked at the Museum back in 2013. My edits here were on my own initiative, not on behalf of the Museum, and I informed them of the DYK appearance after it happened. Since then, the article has been on my watchlist, and I've seen this back and forth over the past three and a half years. I've tried to curb things, stating the Museum's claims in a neutral way so that the article is not endorsing the Museum. Last year, the Museum contacted me after I amended edits that Cynwhitty and you, Binksternet, made. They didn't mention to me that they wanted me to ensure a particular viewpoint, but rather had questions about how to edit Wikipedia and cite sources. I explained WP:V, in particular about how it applies to off-line print sources, and did point out issues with conflicts of interest and maintaining a neutral viewpoint. I explained that edits to the article should not be made by employees/volunteers of the museum on its behalf, but that changes can be proposed on the talkpage. I also offered to help advise museum staff on neutrality issues. Cynwhitty did email me at one point, but it wasn't regarding this article, it was some other subject, and the question was about some sources that she came across. If these contacts mean that I need to recuse myself, I'm willing to do that, even though I desire neutrality and historical accuracy within this article.
 * As a final note, from my time working at the museum, I don't think that the display's themselves advocate a pro-life agenda. There's a variety of viewpoints regarding abortion at the museum. I know that Crossed makes her views clear though, from the times that I worked with her in person. I also should note that my time at the museum involved researching the Restellism/anti-Restellism issue.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You said, "I don't think that the displays themselves advocate a pro-life agenda." From the point of view of a scholar who studies Anthony's life and career, the simple fact that a display discusses Restellism gives the topic undue weight at the museum. Anthony said very little on the topic of abortion, and in most of those few instances, she mentioned it in passing while talking about the various evil effects of alcohol abuse. Ideally, a museum about her life would not talk at all about abortion, to give it the proper weight, which is nil. Instead, the museum would emphasize her life's work in the anti-slavery, anti-alcohol, and pro-suffrage fields, the three main efforts that define her career. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)