Jump to content

Talk:Feminists for Life

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilysmall6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

[edit]

The following is in the first para:

"FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee have been criticized, by pro-choice activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." and using "feminist rhetoric"

I question that it belongs there. Nothing comparable is in the opening for the NARAL or NRLC article.

Something like, "Group X and similar groups like Y have been criticized, by pro-choice/pro-life activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." would be a true statement when made of any ro-choice/pro-life group.

Should all pro-life/pro-choice groups have such an addition to there page? It seems superfluous. All of these groups claim that their opponents ignore science, are politicized, and lack compassion. I think that it should be removed or put elsewhere.

I grant that the criticism for using "feminist rhetoric" pertains to FFL, but if that is the significant point, then it should be made in terms of the 'genuineness' of the claim of FFL to feminism.OckRaz (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should reflect the article, should contain a brief summary of article contents. Basically, the body of the article writes the lede. As such, the lead section should hit upon:
  • Biggest anti-abortion group
  • Lots of projects
  • 19th century feminists and controversy
  • Some famous members
  • Started in 1972 by Goltz and Callaghan
  • Chapters in USA and the world
The current criticism section in the lede ought to be matched by a fleshed-out criticism section in the article. If not, then out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the view that the last sentence of the lead section should be deleted. Aside from the facts that it is (a) inappropriate for a lead section, and (b) doesn't connect with anything in the article, it is also (c) completely unsupported by the Salon piece it cites, (d) POV in calling NRTL Committee a "similar group", and (e) contradicted by the article, which notes correctly that FFL does not take a position on contraception.Cloonmore (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the second paragraph should be in the article, in the criticism or controversy section, which should be fleshed out. Here are some more sources:
No matter what subsequent quotes are employed, the sentence fragment "FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates" is completely true per reliable sources, and should be stated clearly in the lede with explication in the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting articles, Binksternet, but neither supports the assertions of the sentence at issue.
And the deeply flawed sentence can't be salvaged by truncating it as you propose. While it is no doubt "completely true" that "FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates," it is also completely redundant and completely meaningless. To say that FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates is simply to acknowledge that it is a *pro-life* organization. (Consider, for instance, whether we should also point out in the lede of the National Organization for Women article that "NOW has been criticized by pro-life advocates"? Or whether we should append to the National Rifle Association lede the absolute truism that, "The NRA has been criticized by gun control advocates"? Kinda silly, no?)
Since no one has disputed the lack of any support for the sentence at issue, or provided any reliable support for it, it should be deleted. Cloonmore (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your example of the NRA article proves my point... There, they have a criticism section which is not mentioned in the lede, a failure of WP:LEAD which suggests that the lead paragraphs should touch upon each of the main themes of the article. Here at FFL, we have the same problem. Our lead section fails to summarize the contents of the article. The NOW article is much, much worse—their lead is far too short and doesn't cover much at all. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Binkster, your insistence on unsupported criticism in the lede is not borne out. See NARAL. Or the ACLU. Or People for the American Way. None of them contains a lede written the way you claim they should be written. And for good reason. They're all *advocacy organizations*. And, by definition, some people are always going to criticize with the position a particular organization advocates. In any event, the starting point should be reliable sources. And the criticism in this lede has none, as no one disputes, so it goes. Cloonmore (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every example you give shows how some editors have resisted the specific guidelines at WP:LEAD. We here are not those editors. At WP:LEAD, it says the lead section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." What part of "including any notable controversies" are we ignoring here? If I could clone myself, I would go around and write suitable leads for every article that doesn't have one. However, I am here at this article to make sure it doesn't drift over into puff-piece promotionalism to the detriment of accuracy and completeness. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

Is rhere any reason to use a template? Where is that one from? I question some of the information included in it. On what basis is FFL's "Type" described as "non-profit pro-life feminist organization", its "Field" as "pro-life feminism," and its "Purpose" as "pro-life advocacy"? Sounds like someone just made it up. Cloonmore (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The lede and the article fail to meet WP standards. The lede violates NPOV in various respects, is not reflective of the article as a whole, over-emphasizes and therefore magnifies criticism by pro-choice opponents of FFL and is too long. Hence, the tag. Cloonmore (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag is wrong according to metrics of page size. The voices against FFL are given 609 characters of the lead section versus 1445 characters of FFL description and promotion. In the article, FFL description and promotion are given 24,913 characters whereas FFL criticism is given 4,234 characters. Neutral and promotional text in the article body outweighs critical text by about 6:1 or 7:1, and the lead section has neutral and promotional text leading by about 3.3:1. At 51k, the article is getting pretty hefty, but not so long that it could not become a GA or FA article. I've seen such articles reach beyond 80k, and I'm sure there are longer ones that I don't know about. It could be trimmed in size by reducing the Marie Smith quotes, by deleting some of the one-sentence paragraphs and by fixing the bulleted list under International outreach program. The criticism of FFL that you think is wrongly magnified is here because it has been published in widely seen fora such as the Los Angeles Times, The American Prospect, The Nation and Mother Jones. It is here because it is notable critical analysis of FFL, and by no means does its presence magnify criticism by pro-choice opponents. There is far more criticism by opponents than is shown in the article—this article has a bare minimum of criticism.
I would like to see you quote exactly which WP standards have been violated by the condition that the article is in. We will then discuss each specific WP guideline. Otherwise, I will remove the tag as unsupported. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a math problem. You can't evaluate bias, POV, and overemphasis by tallying up characters and kilobytes. The lede is inappropriate; the article is too long, unwieldy and disorganized. More later. Cloonmore (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Math isn't the full answer, of course, but it is illustrative. Certainly, math can be used to decide whether an article is too long, and this one at 51–52k can go two ways: it can remain together as one of the many long-but-not-too-long articles or it can have a section split off into its own article. If the latter, I would expect a new History of Feminists for Life article, covering 1972–2004, with the current article covering just the group's recent goals and criticisms, from 2005 onward. What you will not get is a POV split with just the bad stuff shoved off to the side.
I am not yet seeing which specific WP policies this article is violating. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without specific "WP standards" brought to attention, the neutrality tag is impossible to address. Rather than discussing the tag's issue here, the tag-placing editor performed a series of article edits, deleting referenced information and consolidating criticisms. As a validation of placing the tag, Cloonmore wrote that the "lede violates NPOV in various respects, is not reflective of the article as a whole, over-emphasizes and therefore magnifies criticism by pro-choice opponents of FFL and is too long" but in this series of subsequent edits, Cloonmore changed not one word of the supposedly disputed lede. I am removing the POV tag. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tag-placing editor -- yours truly -- "changed not one word" of the lede because of this very discussion. Rather, I edited other sections of the article. So I don't understand your comment. Are you suggesting that I should have edited "the supposedly disputed lede," and by not doing so I've conceded something about its appropriateness? Nay, it's a mess.Cloonmore (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article and the lead section should change in parallel to each other. The article is the dog that wags the lead's tail. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've refrained from fixing your edits to the lede out of deference to this discussion. Cloonmore (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, editing the article affects the lede, and your tag was placed for reasons you described as "[t]he lede violates NPOV in various respects, is not reflective of the article as a whole, over-emphasizes and therefore magnifies criticism by pro-choice opponents of FFL and is too long." Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony quote "Sweeter even"

[edit]

I removed the Anthony quote "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them" because she was not necessarily talking about abortion. The context was a question posed to her asking why she didn't have kids of her own. The interpretation of her response is wide open—it has been taken to mean a number of things. The mainstream Anthony scholars take it as a statement about patriarchal inheritance laws. A widow who bore her dead husband a child was not its legal protector—it was the child of the estate, not her child. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal was inappropriate. The Talk page is not a place to debate whether or not you believe Anthony uttered the quote. The important fact is that FFL uses the quote prominently in its materials, and, therefore, it should be mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that some question the quote's attribution to SBA. (And by the way, the article doesn't cite "historians" or "mainstream Anthony scholars." It cites one historian, a journalist, & the former head of Planned Parenthood.) Cloonmore (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is the perfect place for discussions of what goes in or doesn't go in the article. There are plenty of resources which will add together to support both "historians" and "mainstream Anthony scholars", both shorthand for "all of these smart people who say"... One scholarly essay appears in the organ of the absolute definition of mainstream feminism: NWSA Journal. I will be incorporating this link in the article soon. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote's attribution is not questioned. About FFL using the quote prominently, this page is not for placing every prominently used quote they employ, just the ones that give insight to the stance of FFL. The Anthony quote used raw, without contextual elaboration, is not what an encyclopedia is about. This article is not FFL's brochure, it is about telling their story. A bald quote tells nothing. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page is the place to discuss what goes in or out, not your views of the quote. And you were indeed questioning the quote's attribution to SBA, so I don't understand you latest denial. This article is far from an FFL brochure. How, pray tell, can the article include a section critical of FFL's use of SBA quotes without including the actual quote at issue?? I'm trying to assume good faith as to your edits, but your reference to anyone who takes issue with FFL as "all these smart people" gives me serious doubt about your motives.Cloonmore (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where was I questioning attribution? I know full well that nobody questions whether SBA said this quote. About its use here, there is no sense in having any 19th century feminist quote that is uninterpreted for the reader. None. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does your assertion, "Anthony's authorship is in doubt", ring a bell? Cloonmore (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently combine two of my edits in your linked diff so that the first one is labeled with the second one's edit summary. Let me break them up and explain the relevant diff. In this this edit I deleted a few words expressing confidence in Anthony's authorship relative to the quote "horrible crime of child-murder" which is challenged by Lynn Sherr in the article. I changed "FFL asserts they continue the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, whose stated condemnation of abortion they cite prominently" to "FFL asserts they continue the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who they cite prominently," and I moved the wikilink to abortion down to its next appearance. The fact of Anthony's "stated condemnation of abortion" has been thrown in doubt so I removed it. Nothing in this edit was intended to comment on the "Sweeter even than" quote, which has nothing to do with abortion, and whose attribution nobody doubts. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binkster, please don't preempt this discussion by unilaterally removing quotes at issue, as you just did. Your only stated basis for removing the SBA quote is that you contest whether SBA was talking about abortion per se. That's a fair point to make in the article, with reliable sources, but is not a valid basis for removing the quote wholesale. FFL features it prominently in its materials, and this article is about FFL. Again, you are appearing to be intent on injecting your POV into the article, and I would again caution you not to do so. Cloonmore (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about unilateral! My stated reason for removing the "Sweeter even than" quote is that it has nothing to do with FFL today. We are not here to present each of FFL's brochures in their entirety. What POV is it that I am holding? Even FFL notes that the quote is about a law that is long gone, one that speaks to the unfairness of a widowed mother not being the legal custodian of a child born after the death of the father. The quote does not belong here. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with FFL today? Besides yourself, what's your source for that claim? The quote is prominent on FFL's webpage and cited in The American Feminist in support of SBA's pro-life inclinations. You're obviously quite willing to expand sections criticizing FFL's use of SBA quotes, but you won't tolerate including the actual quotes in dispute! Your POV is showing, Binky. I'm not interested in an edit war with you, but your position is completely untenable and your deletions improper. Cloonmore (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by POV you mean I wish the article to be accurate, then yes. The untenable position is to insist on a quote that has not been given context by FFL or by Wikipedia editors. This article is part of an encyclopedia, not a promotional flyer. Show me where FFL uses the quote to support anything about Anthony's position on abortion and I'll show you where The American Feminist discusses the old inheritance law about the widowed mother who is to give birth to a child of which she will not have custody. I don't know everything there is in the world, but I believe that FFL has never tried to explain the quote specifically in abortion terms—instead, I believe that FFL puts the quote out as prominently as it does, without explication, so that readers jump to the same false conclusion you have. FFL knows better, and here's a hint: Derr. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Binky, by POV I mean your POV, of course, which has nothing to do with accuracy. You don't dispute the accuracy of the quote. You don't dispute its attribution to SBA. You don't dispute that if you click on "FFL's Mission" on its website, you come face-to-face with that very quote. No, this isn't about accuracy, it's about your personal critique of FFL. You're entitled to your opinion, but keep it out of the article, please. Cloonmore (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call me Binksternet per WP:CIVILITY. That "About Us" page in your link has no explanatory text tying the quote to abortion. There, the quote is shown bare, allowing the reader to jump to conclusions. Derr doesn't share your similar conclusion that the quote is about abortion, and FFL has never (as far as I know) tried to link the quote overtly to abortion. It is, in fact, about a dried-up inheritance law against which Anthony and her colleagues fought, apparently thanklessly, for our benefit 120 years later. If you don't quote Derr's interpretation of the quote, or another mainstream Anthony scholar, the quote doesn't belong here. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like to see stronger reason than the quote appearing on the "About Us" page of the FFL website, or it appearing in an issue of the house journal. In those cases, the quote is accompanied by no connective text from FFL saying how it is important to them. The onus for inclusion in the article is on the one trying to put something in, not take something out. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stronger reason" than the fact that FFL's website prominently links to the quote and a pic of SBA when one clicks on "FFL's Mission", and the fact that it's discussed in the American Feminist? How about the fact that the quote was used on posters in FFL's College Outreach program, as detailed in the very NWSA Journal article that you have cited? (BTW, that article goes on to evaluate the use of the quote and its possible meaning, so obviously the author considered it important enough to include in her FFL analysis.) Also, Binkster, you repeatedly give your own interpretation of the quote, but offer no support for that interpretation. Ditto for your assertion as to the editorial "onus." Cloonmore (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much stronger reason. Just because some quote appears on one of the FFL webpages doesn't mean this article needs to duplicate that quote. Just because the quote was used, among other quotes, for a promotional campaign, doesn't mean we need to bring it here for display in the same way that it was used on FFL posters and brochures. This article is about telling the FFL story, just as every Wikipedia article should be about telling the story of its subject. The bare naked quote tells nothing. Why would anyone want a bare quote on this page, if the quoted person said it 100 years before FFL was formed? FFL Member and SBA historian Mary Krane Derr studied this quote and concluded that Anthony had seen some success in fighting for the right of a widowed mother to keep any child she birthed after the death of her husband—previously, the child was considered part of the dead father's estate, and could be taken away from the mother if so stated in the father's will. Derr wrote this in this article about Susan B. Anthony. So if you're willing to have the quote proved to be about inheritance laws, then you're willing to have it shown that FFL's use of the quote is misguided or perhaps even misleading. Me, I wasn't trying to take the quote to that point, the point where FFL is made to look foolish or coldly calculating; instead I was willing to let it slip unmentioned from the page. Binksternet (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: Stanton Act

[edit]

These sentences are wrong for the lede: "A bill was sponsored by FFL in 2005–2006, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students Act. This bill was criticized for being a "largely hollow 'message bill'" that did little to help U.S. women." The first sentence is inaccurate: FFL didn't sponsor anything. The 2nd sentence gives undue weight to one pro-choice journalist's opinion, and misquotes her at that. The lede shouldn't even refer to the Stanton Act bill since it overemphasizes a topic that is not a major facet of the article. Cloonmore (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article puts a lot of emphasis in the bill, so the lead section mirrors that. If FFL didn't sponsor the bill, change that word to match what they did do. "Lobbied for"? "Advocated"? "Promoted"? I wonder how you know more than the Mother Jones writer that ""largely hollow 'message bill'" is a misquote? Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to wonder if you have a too-close connection to FFL. Are you a member? An administrator or board member? A contributor to the house journal? If so, check WP:COI for the limits on your participation here. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:LEAD encourages the lead section to summarize the article, and there is significant article space given the bill. It and its criticism belong in the lede. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the name

[edit]

I don't know if this source can be used, but in this book, Don Sloan, M.D. terms (lower case) feminists for life "anti-choice feminists". He also says "'feminists for life,' as if other feminists weren't." A wry play on words, ultimately critical of FFL. Perhaps it can be used in passing. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution quote "Guilty?"

[edit]

Recently, some back and forth changes have involved the presence or absence of the quote from Susan B. Anthony's periodical The Revolution which starts "Guilty?" One recent version had this blockquote standing alone:

"Guilty? Yes. 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 drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

As presented, the quote does not describe what FFL's position is regarding it. Quotes from 130–140 years ago have no bearing on FFL's issues of today unless they are connected overtly and forthrightly with the beliefs of FFL. Some text explaining FFL's stance on the quote must be present.

This version of the page from January 4, 2010 includes the quote, but frames it in terms of its use in Anthony's day:

Susan B. Anthony dedicated her early career to abolitionism and the Temperance movement. After the American Civil War, her interest in women's suffrage became foremost in her life; she worked tirelessly toward gaining for women the right to vote. Occasionally, she touched upon other issues related to women's rights. Though she never married, Anthony published her views about marriage, holding that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband; the American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband. Anthony devoted very little time to the subject of "child murder", or abortion. Of primary importance to Anthony was a woman's right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity. She saw this form of empowerment as essential for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, using abstinence as the method. In her newspaper, The Revolution, she wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that, instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, she wrote, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains." Anthony continued: "Guilty? Yes, 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."

A good description of the quote and its context can be found at prolifequakers.com.

The smaller version of the quote appears to leave out chunks of original verbiage without giving the reader notice, and that version has not a bit of explanatory text to enlighten the reader why it is important to FFL. The larger version of the quote is more complete but fails to place FFL's position in context with the extensive context given to its 19th century origins. Because of this failing, it required some work—perhaps some text describing when FFL began using it, on which materials or on which campaigns, and why they think it important. Instead, in this edit, Cloonmore took the whole thing out. Subsequently in this edit, Cloonmore re-inserted the quote but without its Anthony context, and with no new context regarding FFL. Without any context whatsoever, I cannot see its relevance to FFL and to this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, too, the onus for inclusion of the quote in on the editor submitting the material. I cannot agree with having the quote with no context. Regarding having it with only 19th century context, this solution seems unsatisfactory as FFL was formed 100 years later, and new context should be added about how FFL views the quote or about how they have used it. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure, moving forward

[edit]

Since there are only two people involved in this discussion at the moment, allow me to offer the following observation: the structure of the article is generally in need of improvement (the first four sections seem plonked at random; "Membership" is clearly related to "structure and chapters" and why is the ""Women Deserve Better" campaign" not part of "History"?). An area where this is particularly relevant to the matter in hand is the overlap between the subsection "Controversy over Susan B. Anthony" and the section "References to 19th century feminists". The latter is again rather oddly and contextlessly positioned. Think about how to improve the structure, and you may move this dispute forward as well. Rd232 talk 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% on your structure suggestions. As well, I believe that the section called "Statement of purpose" should be entitled "Beliefs and campaigns" or similar, and that statements about what FFL believes or does are closely connected, under the same heading, with statements from the wider public reaction to FFL's beliefs and actions. This rather than a "Critique" section (this sounds like a classroom exercise.) Criticism sections reflect poor writing style. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations for benefit of readers

[edit]

I was going to add a simple citation to a sentence for the benefit of readers, before I found the page is currently protected due to a probably unresolvable dispute.

I was surprised to see that the citation is not already there, since the mere addition of it shows acknowledgment of an alternative position, whether or not it is expanded on, and thus providing a modicom of NPOV. The business mantra "location, location, location" is well known. The equivalent Wikimantra would probably be "citation, citation, citation". And the best writers on any subject at the very least acknowledge alternative positions. Enough dribble. Here is what I was going to add, before I found this is currently prevented.

FFL features prominently on its website a quote of Susan B. Anthony, although their quoting of her is not without controversy:[1][2]

  1. ^ Stevens, Allison (2006-10-06). "Susan B. Anthony's Abortion Position Spurs Scuffle". We.news. Retrieved 18 January 2010.
  2. ^ Clark, Cat (Spring 2007). "The Truth About Susan B. Anthony: Did One of America's First Feminists Oppose Abortion?" (PDF). The American Feminist. Feminists for Life: 1–5. ISSN 1532-6861. Retrieved April 21, 2009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Whether or not the article elaborates on this is unrelated to the mere acknowlegement of it for the benefit of readers. A reader who wants to see what the controversy is about need only click on the inline citation, which takes them to the reference, which takes them to the source. A reader who has no interest in checking it out can continue reading without interruption, but is at least aware that there are other angles to check out should they want or need to. The mere insertion of the citation thus demonstrates that completely regardless of the perspective of individual editors, the article is intended to inform readers rather than drive a particular stance down their throats. Wotnow (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wotnow, thanks for the constructive comment, but that article is far from the last word on the subject. FFL published a later piece in The American Feminist that essentially constitutes its response. It's cited in the article (BTW, I don't think the dispute is unresolvable.) Cloonmore (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cloonmore. As I'm sure you'll agree, the acknowledgement is of course not about who had the last word, but about the fact that there is controversy. It's equally easy enough to add the response alongside the first citation. Indeed perhaps useful, as between them they illustrate the point. Again the reader can check it out or keep reading, but at least it's there for the benefit of the reader. On resolution prospects I guess I concur. If simple solutions like this are implemented, I'd certainly give it hope. Wotnow (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed usage of a citation makes it into an external link. The proposal says to put the citation in so that readers can click on it or not, to get the story. No! The encyclopedia is the story. The reader should be told in an overt way why the quote is important to FFL, why FFL uses it, and what notable reactions to it have been registered by non-FFL observers. We are here to elaborate in a manner supported by refs, not to use the refs as a repository for the story we are too timid to tell. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. As far as I can tell, Cloonmore's point is that an article about an organisation should say what it is that the organisation is about. Conversely, I get the impression that you say that's all very well and acknowledged, but this is not the same as making the article into a mouthpiece for the organisation. If the organisation uses a quote in a controversial way, this should be explicated.
So, one describes how the organisation uses a quote, with appropriate citations. And then one describes the controversies pertaining to the quotation, again with citations. The two citations provided should help.
Parallel situations arise in things like Creationists quoting the late Stephen Jay Gould out of context. Now, the Creationist article necessarily needs to describe the Creationist stance, regardless of what evolutionists may wish (many in both evolutionist and creationist camps would be quite happy to see their opponents jailed for crimes against humanity, or at least stop publishing stuff which people might read). But if a Creationist article is not to be a mouthpiece article, it should provide information on the controversial aspects, such as quoting scientists like Gould out of context (there are others, but his examples are easiest to find). If I was writing on that, I'd say how they quoted him, with citations, and then I'd outline Gould's own comments on that.
Why? Because it's central to some of the criticisms of how Creationism has been marketed at times. Therefore, its important in an article on Creationism, even though it wouldn't be the main focus of the article. Indeed, if the controversial aspects grew too large, they'd then warrant their own article, with a synopsis paragraph in the 'parent' article. As I understand it, a Wikipedia article is not the place to change or challenge the way a person has been quoted - there are other forums for that, like publications by Gould and others, lectures, documentaries etc. As I understand it, Wikipedia is the place to describe such things, at the same time telling people where to find the information for themselves.
Of course there it's a bit easier in the Gould case, because it's all there to be found and quoted. Conversely, what seems to be the case here is that there is not the luxury of having the person herself comment on the use of her own statements. Rather, the context itself needs to be outlined, with citations, and if others have provided useful analysis which can be cited, doing exactly that. Given all that, I'd simply go ahead and construct a relevant paragraph, which I'm sure you would both agree with. And for that, I get the impression you could do a good job Binksternet, which I'm sure Cloonmore would concur with. The article can't not be about the organisation. But it equally can't not say what is verifiably out there to say, if it is to be of use to a reader who simply wants to know something about the topic without being press-ganged into conversion one way or the other. Wotnow (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. About me writing the paragraph, I could certainly do it when my real life work calms a bit from its current flurry, but I am woefully short on FFL's positions on the "Sweeter" quote and the "Guilty?" quote. I'm much more up on what the Anthony scholars say, bringing the danger of my version being more rebuttal than statement of position. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving right along

[edit]

As a start, I have amended the above sentence re Susan B. Anthony quote to note the purpose of the quote and the existence of controversy over use of such quotes, with a link to the relevant section, and illustrative citations as currently available. This at least gives a self-contained sentence that can stand alone, regardless of how other paragraphs are developed and amended. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You noted the "purpose" of FFL's usage of the quote, but you don't have a source for your statement. To me, it looks like you selected one of a number of possibilities driving FFL to do what they did... From my point of view, the purpose was just as likely to be a cold calculation that their audience would likely misinterpret the quote, and take it to mean something about abortion when it is not. I tagged your addition for some proof about purpose. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your own interpretation provides the proof in its own way. That of self-evidence conclusion. It is consistent with them seeking to use the quote to bolster their own stance on abortion. In other words, you arrive at the same conclusion from a different angle, which is why I used the deliberate wording. To a casual reader not caught up in any other dynamics, the motive for the quote is self-evident.
Further, it's probably impossible to not logically arrive at that conclusion, whether one is a proponent or opponent (not to be confused with trying to avoid arriving at a logical conclusion, which is a central driver of much of the above-mentioned creation/evolution debates - and which is why they're unresolvable. People don't want to resolve them. They want to win).
A proponent for example, could not possibly use a quote and then say "oh but it's irrelevant to their stance", because they'd immediately undermine their own argument. Conversely, an opponent will arrive at the same conclusion no matter what angle they come from, which is exactly why they take issue with the use of the quote.
The difference then, is that the proponent wants to be able to use the quotes of an eminent person to bolster their stance, whereas the opponent says the quote is being used to bolster the stance in a misleading way. Both are nevertheless agreed (despite their desire not to agree) that the quote is being used to bolster a stance.
Indeed, if they didn't agree on that point, there would in fact be no basis to the disagreement on truth or falsity of the foundation for the quote's usage. To a casual reader, not caught up in the disagreement dynamic, but looking for themselves, all of this is self-evident. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely played. I'm removing my fact tag. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I commend your sense of fair play on such a difficult topic. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge of criticism

[edit]

This article provides a good example of why we generally avoid criticism sections - and we certainly don't send people to other parts of an article to find the criticism. It makes for poor writing and is a disservice to our readers as well as the subject of the article. Criticism and controversy sections such as this one also tend to be a magnet for WP:Soapboxing on all sides and invite more poor writing. Instead any appropriate content, with due weight, should be integrated in the main article and notable criticism summarized (like the rest of the article) in the lede. If they are criticized, for instance, for extremely high salaries then wherever salaries and compensation is discussed so should that criticism. If the only content we have is the criticism then it should be parked on the talkpage until the subject's response or other content about the salaries, in this example, is added. -- Banjeboi 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I apply your observation to this article, I expect that the criticism about FFL's stance on abortion would go up to where the group is first said to be anti-abortion. At the moment, the "statement of purpose" section is where one should find this information, but it is not there overtly. The section should be augmented with the fact that FFL stands against abortion, and that this stance has engendered opposition. Further:
  • Criticism about FFL's stance on contraception has been tied by Katha Pollitt to the stance on abortion—she has linked the two via cause and effect. The criticism of the supposed non-stance on contraception would thus follow the statement about FFL's position on abortion.
  • Controversy over Susan B. Anthony would go along with any quote that is appropriately connected to a person from FFL who interprets the quote.
  • Uninterpreted quotes, ones with no official FFL position stated overtly, would be taken down from the page, including the criticism leveled specifically at that quote.
  • References to 19th century feminists would include both FFL's position statements and non-FFL reactions. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A brief aside so as not to detract from the above discussion which looks constructive and promising. I don't disagree with Banjeboi, and I'm not unaware of these things. It was the best I could do in the circumstances to point to a way forward, by which I'm pleased to see the above discussion is capitalising on. Wotnow (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of this is that criticism sections generally cause more problems, look to where criticism content can be moved and still serve our readers. Pretend this is a well written and well-structured article. As items are removed other problems may indeed need to also be addressed so start with the obvious and move forward. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFL's goals in lead section

[edit]

Katha Pollitt's assessment of FFL's mission goes against FFL's own mission statement. It's not unusual for an organization to say they do one thing but to do something different, or slightly different. FFL says:

  • FFL is dedicated to "systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions."

Pollitt says that the actual work of FFL is less supportive of individual women and more a political action group—that FFL seeks to make abortion illegal and to punish doctors who perform abortions. The actual work of the group as observed by outsiders is discussed at length in the article body, so this assessment should be present in the article lead section. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of one self-admittedly left-wing, pro-choice columnist does not belong in the lead. Cloonmore (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FFL is admittedly a right-wing pro-life political action group, yet all their one-sided information belongs in the lead. The whole article is politically charged, so yes, of course opposition should go in the lead. According to WP:LEAD, anything that covered well in the article body should be mentioned in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You: "yes, of course opposition should go in the lead." Me: Deja vu! Cloonmore (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your main stick in that discussion was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that FFL should be able to manage and control their Wiki article the way that benefits them most because other advocacy org articles have been observed to do this. The argument fails in this case; you cannot hold up as an example a poorly written or formatted article, one which does not follow guidelines.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section and the article must agree. One cannot put a major concept in the lead which is not also present in the article. Nor can one hide a major article element by keeping it out of the lead. The perfect FFL lead will summarize the whole article including the org's history, structure, chapters and membership. Those specific elements are not now offered in summary in the lead, but they would be if it were at GA or FA quality level. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My, my. Now you've resorted to outright lying to support your POV. When and where did I ever even remotely suggest that "FFL should be able to manage and control their Wiki article the way that benefits them"? Cloonmore (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lever in that argument is this: "because other advocacy org articles have been observed to do this." The FFL article does not get to copy the NRA article if the latter is poorly written or has a flawed layout. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask about your "lever." I asked for the proof for your lie, which you've ducked. Cloonmore (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binks, you're still trying to inject your POV into this article. In our prior discussion, you were hellbent on including in the lead the absurd sentence "FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates." As you know, I didn't offer only the NRA as an example of why you were flat wrong. I also cited the National Organization for Women. And NARAL. And the ACLU. And People for the American Way. None of them contains a lead written the way you claimed it should be written. That's because, like FFL, they're all *advocacy organizations*. And, by definition, someone's always going to differ with an advocacy organization. And now -- what a surprise! - you've again discovered that "abortion rights activists" take issue with FFL. It doesn't belong in the lead. It's way past time you quit your advocacy and tendentious editing. Cloonmore (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we are back to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in the form of lots of other stuff exists. None of the articles you mention are written according to Wikipedia's layout guidelines; none are anywhere near Good Article level. We do not need to look to them as a template. This article should have a full summary lead section. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of other stuff exists. Lots. But your goal, as you put it earlier in this thread, is that "opposition should go in the lead." That starting point is wrong. Leave your POV at home. Cloonmore (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "POV" is to have a good layout. If opposition is described in the article body it "should go in the lead", in summary form. If there is no opposition in the article, I agree with you that opposition should not go in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism sidebar

[edit]

I removed the {{tl:Feminism sidebar}} because this article is not about one of the concepts of feminism. Instead, this article is about an organization. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And..,? Cloonmore (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Long quote

[edit]

I removed the Sharon Long quote that starts "regarding contraception". She repeats things Foster has said so her voice is not needed. The message is that there is a wide range of contraception beliefs in FFL's membership, which no one doubts. Foster says this in the NPR interview that is cited right there in the same paragraph. Long is simply not needed.

Another, smaller problem with the Long quote is that the source is inaccessible: http://98.129.134.2/doc/20100405/letter

The URL is to a document folder at The Nation in New York, one that gives me the result "access denied". I can tell by searching The Nation that it was indeed published, but the URL is not helpful to people who do not have a paid subscription. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad link. So? On what basis did you represent that Sharon Long's letter was "unpublished" and that "The criticism from Pollitt went unanswered"? Cloonmore (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

I'm working on too many other articles at the moment to take care of this, but if anyone wants "Contested Loyalties: Dissident Identity Organizations, Institutions, and Social Movements" by Kelsey Kretschmer (Journal of Sociological Perspectives, 52.4 Winter 2009), which discusses FFL, I can get it to them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this article. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's easy to get on here, I'd like to see it as well. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

[edit]

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as they meet five criteria. It is suspicious that certain policies are being called in to wholesale delete information about pro-life organizations. Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminists_for_Life&oldid=1195169615"