Jump to content

Talk:Susan B. Anthony List/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Interpreting WP:SAY

At the WP:SAY guideline, it says:

Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement.

This guideline has been used several times in this article to change "more loaded terms" into lesser ones. For instance, in this edit, NYyankees51 changed "...scholars of 19th-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion" to "...scholars of 19th-century feminism saying that Anthony did not work against abortion". Also, in this edit, PeRshGo changed "The name of the organization stems from its founders' belief, identified as incorrect by those scholars of nineteenth-century feminism who have commented, that suffragist Susan B. Anthony was 'passionately pro-life'" to "The name of the organization stems from its founders' belief, with which certain scholars of nineteenth-century feminism disagree, that suffragist Susan B. Anthony was 'passionately pro-life'."

In both cases, scholars of Susan B. Anthony's life are in agreement about the issue. No scholars dispute the issue, only lay historians and activists. The best sources are in agreement, and the "more loaded terms" are merited. The article has moved beyond the second edit, making it unnecessary, but the "pointing out" bit should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly my edit was a revert, not a rewrite. Actually I have yet to make an edit of my own to this article. Secondly the comments of one scholar from a news article, not one of their scholarly works an overwhelming consensus does not make. In fact even the cited article refers to it as a scholarly disagreement. As such there is no reason to use loaded terminology. When in doubt allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. PeRshGo (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Allison Stevens called it a scholarly disagreement but she failed to note that there are no scholars who stand up for the pro-life arguments about Susan B. Anthony. None. Here at the article, we do not give the same weight of importance to the opinions of lay historians or political activists when a real scholar's statement differs from theirs. The scholar defines the topic; everyone else moves underneath that. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's your philosophy. Can you find Wikipedia policy to back it up? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you find a scholar who says SBA worked to outlaw or restrict abortion? Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, and there are a couple of problems with what you just said. First, no one says Anthony actively worked against abortion. All they say is that she was pro-life. Being pro-life does not require active advocacy; if that were the case, a very small percentage of people would be "pro-life" instead of 51% of people. Secondly, whether any scholar says something about Anthony opposing abortion is not the point. The point is that you trust Gordon and Sherr and Oaks and whoever as the absolute authority on the matter and they are always right and never to be doubted (almost to the point that it seems if Gordon said the earth was a flat triangle that revolved around a cell phone tower, you'd believe her). The reader may or may not trust them as the authority on the matter. Since there is no Wikipedia guideline saying any scholarly opinion on any subject is to be automatically trusted more than any other source and is to be presented as the truth, we must present both sides fairly. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No, everyone knows the earth is held up by four elephants that are standing on the back of a huge turtle! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
From our own definition at pro-life movement, "pro-life describes the moral, political and ethical opposition to elective abortion and support for its legal prohibition or restriction." People who are pro-life are political in their opposition to it, not quietly abhorrent of it. SBA was never politically active regarding abortion. That fact makes SBA not pro-life, let alone the ridiculousness of saying that anyone was pro-life in the 19th century, when the concept was born in 1973 in response to Roe v. Wade. It's hard for me to understand how you can argue in favor of discounting the scholarship of sensible people like Gordon, Sherr, Oaks, etc in favor of political activists who assign post-1973 labels to pre-1973 people. It's not even close to being a fair fight. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
An OR packed discussion on the merits of the debate get us nowhere. The fact is there is no reason the article itself should be taking sides on the matter. I personally think the entire issue itself is laughable. It’s just people arguing over who gets to claim their long dead mutual hero for their side here in the present, but the source states it’s a scholarly debate and that’s how we should treat it. PeRshGo (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said, if being pro-life requires political activism then we'd have a very small percentage of pro-lifers instead of a majority. SBA was quietly abhorrent of it, which Schiff confirms, but she was quiet because it wasn't even an issue back then. The fact is that we don't know her specific beliefs on the issue because she didn't talk about them. But just because she didn't talk about them doesn't mean she didn't have any. I don't argue in favor of discrediting the scholarship of them, I argue in opposition of discrediting those on the other side who are operating on just as much information and have reached a different conclusion. I have no problem with including the scholarly opinion. I do have a problem with using it to ridicule the other opinion when the fact is we simply don't know and can't know what exactly Anthony thought. We wouldn't be in this yearlong dispute if you would agree to let the readers decide for themselves. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Your wish to "let the readers decide for themselves" is tantamount to equating the carefully considered opinion of Ann D. Gordon, gained after three decades of thorough research, and the shoot-from-the-hip opinion of Marjorie Dannenfelser, a political activist who has a horse in the race. No, we do not let the reader decide between two such opinions presented equally. Instead, we show the scholarly opinion to be the mainstream one, based on years of exhaustive and neutral study, and the activist/lay researcher opinion to be the minor view, or even fringe view, of a group that wishes to change people's attitudes about abortion. Binksternet (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So your opinion on the debate trumps the source? PeRshGo (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm stumped regarding how you arrived at that interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The source calls it a scholarly debate, and in your opinion it isn’t, so what you are advocating is that we ignore the source and trust your original research. PeRshGo (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's scholarly because scholars are involved. They are involved on one side. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, this is getting old. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Now you're making edit's "per talk?" What consensus have you found here? That you're trying to claim you genuinely believe that the scholars all being on one side is a reasonable interpretation of the term "scholarly debate?" It’s ridiculous. PeRshGo (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess you were thinking it was a closed discussion. I don't think that it is; I feel that stronger wording is merited. The dispute between scholars and political activists was called a "scholarly debate" because the scholarship of the activists was being questioned. The only scholars in the 'debate' are the ones who have studied Anthony for years, written books about her life, the ones who know the most about her stance on abortion. The SBA List activists do not fall under that description. The truthiness of what they hold to be Anthony's stance is not founded on scholarship. We can easily describe the real scholars as "pointing out" something true about Anthony's life. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fox quote

This quote by Fox should not be in the article:

It is hyperbole, not neutral reporting. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Um...why is that? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it's a Fox News editorial opinion. Editorials, from any source, are generally not considered reliable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
But it's not an editorial. I'm very confused here. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It is NOT an editorial, Sarek. And, it's not for you to decide whether the reporter is using hyperbole or not, Binks. --Kenatipo speak! 02:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
And, it isn't hyperbole anyway, Binks. --Kenatipo speak! 02:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Protect Life Act

I removed this text:

After the House passed the Protect Life Act, which includes new restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care overhaul, by a 251-172 margin, Dannenfelser said, "Given that 251 members of Congress voted in favor of the Protect Life Act, specifically in order to remove the (health care law's) federal funding of abortion that Steve Driehaus claims is non-existent, all of these members must thereby also be guilty of defamation. If the House, including 15 Democrats, didn't believe the [health law's] result is taxpayer funding of abortion, there would be no need for this bill at all." (Anti-Abortion Group Looks for Boost From House Vote in Case Against Ex-Rep)

This appears to be Dannenfelser crowing over a House bill rather than the result of an initiative from SBA List. SBA List has this webpage encouraging activism but there appears to be no SBA List funds devoted to supporting this bill. Because of this, I don't see the relevancy. Also, Dannenfelser bases her statement on the assumption that a House bill must make logical sense, however that is not required. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The RS cited connects the SBA List to the bill. "There appears to be no SBA List funds devoted to supporting this bill." What? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether she's crowing or running through the street naked, it's sourced, it's her quote, and she's the president. This is just WP:COMMONSENSE.– Lionel (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Not common sense in the slightest. This is Dannenfelser making a play for air time—what do you think "Looks for Boost" means in the news article title? SBA List did not make the bill's passage one of their initiatives, so adding this bit is undue emphasis.
As well, Dannenfelser's conclusions are wrong. She says that if logic is applied to the vote, then it proves the losers wrong about abortion funding. However, logic is not required in politics, and cannot be assumed. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
They didn't make it one of their initiatives? If it's a play for airtime, it worked, since a major RS covered it.
It doesn't matter what you think of the quote. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE, Dannenfelser's loudly voiced hopes are not encyclopedic. If the Driehaus lawsuit is actually affected by the House vote then we can print something. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Bink's rationale is completely unconvincing. I'd put this up for RFC, but with so many editors topic banned re: abortion would anyone show up? Hahaha!!! – Lionel (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In the news article, nothing happened. Only Dannenfelser's hopes were stated. This is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. We don't parrot every minor news item; we summarize major themes. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The bill has a potential impact on the lawsuit. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, potential. When it surfaces as an actual factor, we will note it. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The federal judge in question ruled that the PPACA does not subsidize abortion, so the PLA would be unlikely to have an impact on the suit even if there were any chance of its becoming law, which there is not. This is a pointless soundbite from Dannenfelser, not anything relevant or encyclopedic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, those arguments are more sensible than the first ones offered. I'll concede. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Team Sarah pic

Add to article? – Lionel (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC(

Founding rewrite

I significantly consolidated the rewrite of the history section; there was a lot of undue weight to the founding with non-notable information such as where the first office was, the secretary, etc. I'm happy to go over it detail by detail if anyone wants. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You got rid of the National Women's Coalition for Life, the umbrella group which sponsored SBA List. You got rid of the history of the WISH List being organized right when MacNair was between NWCL and the election, diminishing the information about the environment in which SBAL was born. The reliable sources describe SBAL in the context of both EMILY's List and WISH List, with both being against each other but both pro-choice, while the SBAL was bipartisan and pro-life, so the brief chronological placement of WISH List is apt, and explains why they are mentioned multiple times later. You got rid of the interesting fact that MacNair operated the group out of KC MO crisis pregnancy center at the beginning, yet you kept the fact that Dannenfelser ran the group out of her Arlington home. You got rid of the February 1993 party, the first event held at the National Woman's Party building. You got rid of why the SBAL birthday is February 4, 1993. I don't think the changes are good as a whole. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There is way too much weight given to the founding. The NWCL is not notable; the reference is a primary source. I can understand including the WISH List, I guess. Saying MacNair was the founder is misleading. The exact location of the office on East 47th Street in Kansas City is interesting, but not notable, nor is the first event. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Gee, the NWCL paid to start the SBAL. They are the parent group. Not notable?
The SBAL listed Rachel MacNair as the sole founder in 1998, on their website. MacNair is said by reliable source Angela Kennedy in Swimming against the tide: feminist dissent on the issue of abortion to be the sole founder. What's misleading is today's SBAL website which makes MacNair disappear as much as possible. What's misleading is Dannenfelser repeatedly telling people she is the founder of SBAL.
The first office in KS MO helps establish MacNair's position, especially to balance the later mention of Dannenfelser running the group from her home in Arlington.
The first public event helps show the significance of the February 4, 1993, birthday, that it was indeed the first celebration of the founding of group, even though it was announced three months prior. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you removed a well-cited paragraph describing a disappointing year for SBAL, emphasizing its small size relative to EMILY's List and the WISH List. This relation to competing political groups is essential information. Per WP:NPOV, you cannot simply remove unflattering text because you don't like it. Your edit summary, "shouldn't just jump from 2000 to 2007; if we aren't including 2002, 2004, 2006, only major events and first elections should be included", is misleading and based on an incorrect assumption about how to build an article. The correct answer is that material about 2002 through 2006 can be added to fix the perceived imbalance, not other text taken away. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Regarding the consolidation/weight reduction you reverted, what is your objection to all of it that you had to revert it? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Higher up in this thread, you said "I can understand including the WISH List, I guess", but then you deleted the explanation of why they were relevant to SBAL. Your other changes were ones in which you went against NPOV to reduce the parts of SBAL's history which do not promote their desired self-image. This article is not SBAL's promotional brochure, it is an encyclopedia article about them including their history and achievements. Don't try to downplay or erase the parts of history you don't like. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't really feel one way or the other about MacNair and don't really care who founded it, so don't try to paint my intentions that way. And I reconsidered the WISH List and found it irrelevant and confusing in the context. Please show point by point why the founding should be given so much undue weight. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it is you who must explain any contested changes you make to this article. You have worked for the SBAL so you are the one with a conflict of interest, not me. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Please defend your additions based on content, not personal accusations which have been determined moot. As the person who added the content to the article, the burden is on you to defend it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
At WP:COI, the guideline says your options are: a) submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or b) file an RfC. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You either don't want to or can't back up your content, so you're resorting to a bizarre attempt to impose restrictions on me. I don't know whether to be mad or laugh. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Laugh! It's healthier. I will discuss any specifics you wish, but I don't see the need to explain every little change I made to the article just because you order it. Your participation at this article is limited. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My participation is not limited, and since you refuse to heed WP:BURDEN, here you go:

  • I reduced the NWCL to one allusion because the first is a primary source and it doesn't need two mentions, unless you have a secondary source to make it notable enough to stand on its own. The important part of the paragraph is that MacNair and others decided to form it, not the exact process by which they did so.
  • You are correct that WISH was formed in the context of SBAL and EMILY, but the source discusses the wider topic of women in modern American politics. The timeframe in which SBA/WISH were formed belongs in the Year of the Woman or a feminist article, not this one.
  • As I've said, the information about the first secretary and office is not notable. If you can find a secondary source to establish the notability of these facts, perhaps we can include it, but FEC records do not establish notability.
  • "The early SBA List did not have much skill at furthering its mission." I don't really object to this sentence, I just think its redundant given the quote that follows ("None of us had political experience. None of us had PAC experience. We just had a passion for being pro-life").
  • The other changes were uncontroversial wording or structural changes and it is beyond me why you reverted them too. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I continue to hold that your conflict of interest has not ended for this article, even though you said that you volunteered for the group and then stopped volunteering. Your actions here do not show the cessation of the link between you and SBAL.
  • NWCL was formed and then the WISH List was formed before the NWCL sponsored the SBAL. That's why there are two mentions of them: to make the chronology correct.
  • The WISH List was not formed in the context of SBAL which was announced a few months and founded a half year later! It was in response only to EMILY's List. The WISH List is important because it formed while the SBAL was in gestation inside MacNair's head. As such, it had a profound effect on SBAL, and was specifically named in MacNair's November 1992 announcement, along with EMILY's List. The timeframe is critical to this article.
  • You say that MacNair's founding role and the location of her office is not "notable" but then you put in Dannenfelser's role and the location of her office. I am not at all convinced that you are neutral on the matter. The facts of MacNair's early involvement do not need to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they simply need to be relevant and verifiable, which they are.
  • The sentence, "The early SBA List did not have much skill at furthering its mission" was written to frame the following sentences in the paragraph. It is a necessary part of good writing, to aid comprehension.
I kept your wording that I thought was useful. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Believe what you will, but I have already addressed the COI allegation and I'm not going to again. I won't stand for your shameless and petty attempts to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.
  • What's wrong with saying SBAL "was formed out of the previously established NWCL"?
  • Then let's mention WISH in the EMILY paragraph. The current wording is a confusing jump.
  • Again, I don't really care who formed SBA. I said earlier that calling MacNair the founder was misleading because I hadn't really looked into it; now that I see that it's true I have no issues with it. The issue is the weight given to the founding. The fact that Dannenfelser ran the organization out of her home is mentioned in numerous sources; only FEC records show MacNair's CPC. In any case, the exact address of East 47th Street and especially the FEC identification are bizarre inclusions and should be removed.
  • I don't object to including the sentence, I was trying to reduce weight.
  • If you claim to have kept my "useful" wording, can you explain why you completely reverted my edit? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shameless", yes, as in not having shame. Petty, no, not at all. I don't think the strength of your arguments on this article talk page can be equal to mine, because of your clear 2009–2011 connection to SBAL through your sockpuppets Special:Contributions/70.21.119.84 and Special:Contributions/75.103.237.18 which are registered to SBAL, and your continued promotion of the group by the constant addition of new initiatives and positive results, leaving out the political failures. Absolutely a conflict of interest.
  • Nothing is wrong with SBAL being "formed out of the previously established NWCL". The problem is that MacNair should be shown to be active in working against EMILY's List before the WISH List is formed. If you wait until later to say NWCL, the chronology is messed up.
  • I don't think it is a confusing jump.
  • FECs papers are there in accordance with WP:Primary, showing a straight fact that is not an extraordinary claim. Adding MacNair's office in Kansas City is no more bizarre than Dannenfelser's home in Arlington, and it shows how humble the beginnings were: MacNair running the group from her office in a crisis pregnancy center. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, I don't understand why you think that any addition of material that you disagree with is somehow promotional and demonstrates a conflict of interest. I use Google News email alerts to keep track of the group's activity; that means I have a COI?. Because I add information contrary to the Susan B. Anthony narrative presented by Ann Gordon, I have a COI? Because I don't take the word of Ann Gordon as gospel, I have a COI? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, I don't object to saying that it was run out of MacNair's CPC, but I think it's ridiculous to include the exact address and the FEC identification. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with the FEC ID in footnotes, but it should be in the article. Past arguments on this talk page disputed whether SBAL is/was a PAC, and this proves it was at the beginning.
The exact address in KS MO was never placed in the article. Only the street. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The section is filled with unimportant trivia: "Federal Election Commission identification number C00280057." I rest my case. If NYY has a COI we should try capitalize on it. Can you get us signed photos of Lila Rose? – Lionel (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I've been within ten yards of Lila, but the circumstances weren't exactly conducive towards autographs. Gotta say that her photos don't do her justice. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 has reverted to his preferred version "per talk" though he hasn't brought a consensus together. I reverted back, but I will put the FEC ID in footnotes, as we all seem to agree on that. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see what's so objectionable about my consolidation. Concise summary > meandering. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I also think the changes are an improvement and don't see what the fuss is about.– Lionel (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Founding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An RFC was formed as a result of this discussion

Multiple reliable sources and the SBA List state that the group was founded by Dannenfelser in 1991. It appears that the PAC but not the group itself was founded by MacNair in 1993. The two were connected and organized in 1997. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources written by Dannenfelser or by people interviewing Dannenfelser and looking no further. In 1991 Dannenfelser was not working on SBA List, and SBA List was not in existence. No contemporary source can be found to support the assertion that SBA List was around in 1991, or that Dannenfelser was associated with it. The only sources are ones that Dannenfelser supplied later. Dannenfelser appears to me to be attempting to rewrite history, making her role appear foundational when it was not. MacNair started the SBA List in concept and in action. Multiple sources, ones predating Dannenfelser's involvement, place MacNair at the center of the founding of SBA List. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I challenge NYyankees51 or anyone else to find a source published in 1991 or 1992 that says the SBA List was founded in 1991. There are none; I looked very hard. Instead, I found a bunch of sources saying the organization was founded in 1992 (Rachel MacNair's concept and announcement) or 1993 (MacNair filed papers with the government).
  • Felder, Deborah G. (2003). "A Century of Women: The Most Influential Events in Twentieth-Century Women's History". Citadel Press. p. 304. "Republican women have imitated EMILY's List by forming the WISH List... in 1992... and the Susan B. Anthony List..."
  • Day, Christine L.; Hadley, Charles D. (2005). Women's PACs: abortion and elections. Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 21. ISBN 0131174487. "When listed together, the three PACs will generally be listed in the order in which they were founded: EMILY's List in 1986, The WISH List in 1992, and the Anthony List in 1993."
  • Kennedy, Angela (1997). Swimming against the tide: feminist dissent on the issue of abortion. Open Air. p. 117. ISBN 1851822674. Rachel MacNair ...is the founder of the Susan B. Anthony List...
  • "People At". Susan B. Anthony List. Archived from the original on January 30, 1998. Retrieved August 23, 2011. SBA List showed Rachel MacNair as the founder in 1998, not Dannenfelser. Dannenfelser had not yet taken the initiative to rewrite history. Later website versions strike MacNair from the books as if she never existed. Kind of spooky and Soviet in nature.
  • Crisis. 15 (1). Brownson Institute: 30–33. 1997. The list has its origins in a 1992 CBS Sixty Minutes program on EMILY's List ("EMILY" stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast), which funds pro-abortion women candidate. After watching the program, Rachel MacNair, a pro-life Quaker and head of Feminists for Life, grabbed the telephone and began calling her friends in the pro-life movement. They all agreed: The time had come to counter EMILY's List with a pro-life version. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Alexander, Herbert E.; Corrado, Anthony (1995). Financing the 1992 election. American political institutions and public policy. Vol. 9. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 212–213. ISBN 1563244373.
  • "Feminist launches PAC for pro-lifers – Sees lopsided 'Year of the Woman'". The Washington Times. San Francisco. November 7, 1992. As a feminist who opposes abortion, Rachel MacNair could find only one flaw in Tuesday's 'Year of the Woman' electoral triumph. All the women newly elected to the House and Senate were pro-choice. That's no accident, she says, since women's fund-raising organizations like EMILY's List and WISH List refuse to support pro-life candidates. This is the first public announcement of MacNair's SBA List idea.
  • Stange, Mary Zeiss; Oyster, Carol K.; Sloan, Jane E. (2011). Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World. SAGE. p. 474. ISBN 1412976855.
  • "Feminist Launches Pro-Life Political Action Committee (PAC)". Life Communications. 3 (19). 1993. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Zuckerman, Ed (1994). Almanac of federal PACs. Amward Publications. p. 354. ISBN 0939676117.
  • "Page by Page Report Display (Page 1 of 2)". Federal Election Commission. Retrieved August 23, 2011.
  • Esposito, Joseph (November 22, 1998). "Efforts to Elect Pro-Life Women Are Paying Off: In short time, political neophytes' initiative has become a growing force". National Catholic Register. Retrieved August 23, 2011. "SBA List was founded in 1993..." Proof that Dannenfelser and Jane Abraham were brought on board the SBA List after the founders committee realized it had no experienced political hands. Susan Gibbs said of those early pre-Dannenfelser days, "None of us had political experience. None of us had PAC experience. We just had a passion for being pro-life."
  • Flynn, Tom; Dawkins, Richard (2007). The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books. p. 825. ISBN 1591023912.
  • "Commentary". Fidelity. 12. Wanderer Forum Foundation: 24. 1992. To counter the influx of prochoice women who have just entered Congress, Rachel MacNair, head of Feminists for Life, has formed a political action committee to give early campaign funds to prolife women. To the consternation of feminist prochoicers, she's named it the Susan B. Anthony List. We hope it does more than just tweak NOW's nose.
  • Ertelt, Steve (1994). "Announcements: Susan B. Anthony List Seeks Support". Life Communications. 4 (10). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Proof that the SBA List was formed from the National Women's Coalition For Life.
  • Swimming Against the Tide: feminist dissent on the issue of abortion (1997) "Rachel MacNair... is the founder of the Susan B. Anthony List, which raises money for pro-life women candidates to run for public office."
I see no way for a few Dannenfelser-sourced news stories to completely replace these fine book and contemporary news sources. At best we can say that Dannenfelser says that she herself started the group in 1991 and then we tell the reader that better sources say Rachel MacNair started it in 1992–93. That method makes Dannenfelser look bad and I have not at all tried to set that tone. Instead I have chosen the best sources and ignored Dannenfelser's misdirection. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding. Dannenfelser started it in 1991 as a pro-life women's group, not a PAC. MacNair started the PAC in 1993 to counter EMILY's List. They were merged into one 1997. I agree that it's very odd that MacNair has been scrubbed from the website and materials, but it makes sense that they were two more or less distinct operations that were merged into one in 1997. The only other way to present it is to say that some sources say it was started by Dannenfelser in 1991 and others say it was started by MacNair in 1993. But I don't think either of us want that if we can avoid it. Your sources are solid, I'm not denying that; but none of them preclude two separate operations. Again, as I understand it from the sources, Dannenfelser started the non-profit in 1991; MacNair started the NWCL in 1992; NWCL started the PAC in 1993; the non-profit and the PAC were merged into one operation in 1997; MacNair apparently left sometime after that and was "erased" from the history for whatever reason. This seems consistent and cohesive with the sources we have. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"From our beginning, the SBA List has been led by our president and board chairman, Marjorie Dannenfelser, and our general chairman, Jane Abraham. During the “Year of the Woman” in 1992, when the pro-abortion EMILY’s List PAC rose to power, Marjorie and Jane recognized the uphill battle we faced with only two pro-life women leaders in Congress. They vowed to level the playing field by creating a full program to encourage and elect more women as pro-life candidates for national office."
"That year, the Susan B. Anthony List PAC was born and its focus was to raise early money for pro-life women candidates...The checks were mailed to the SBA List PAC, then bundled and mailed to the campaigns....Members were asked to contribute to at least two candidates, making the checks payable directly to campaigns of their choice. In 1997, the Susan B. Anthony List was reorganized as a 501(c)(4) membership organization with a connected political action committee (the SBA List Candidate Fund)."
This is from SBA List's history page. The way I'm reading it, the SBA List was started sometime before the 1992 elections. The PAC was started after the elections. "From our beginning" and "That year, the Susan B. Anthony List PAC was born" indicates that there was an organization out of which the PAC was born. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Totally BS version, straight from the mouth of Dannenfelser who is bent on remaking history in her image. Again, I challenge you to come up with any 1991 or 1992 source naming Dannenfelser to the founding of SBA List. There is none. She's not there. What she was doing in 1991 was getting married to Martin Dannenfelser, not founding SBA List. I can imagine that she may have been hosting a pro-life coffee klatch at her house, but it was not called SBA List, nor was it gathering monies for candidates nor was it endorsing candidates.
To be perfectly clear, we are not going to entertain Dannenfelser's version of history in this article if there are no primary sources at least the equal of the perfectly good primary and secondary sources showing Rachel MacNair being the first person to think up the idea of a PAC helping pro-life political candidates. We have government documents from 1993, we have newspaper and journal announcements from 1992, all showing MacNair to be the founder. If Dannenfelser cannot come up with that kind of supporting material then she has not gained any credibility. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I cannnot imagine what you mean by "consistent and cohesive" when you say that it was okay for SBA List to erase MacNair from their website. Your appreciation of consistent is 180 degrees away from mine. For me, consistent would be to have Rachel MacNair named the founder throughout every telling of SBA List history, from the 1998 website to now, every version saying MacNair is the founder. Dropping MacNair, sweeping her under a rug, and naming Dannenfelser instead is not what I call consistent.
SBA List ridding itself of MacNair is only cohesive in the sense that MacNair and Dannenfelser held two very different views about who would get the money. In November 1992, MacNair said that her conception of the SBA List would not be a conservative one. She said that pro-life Democrats such as liberal Lindy Boggs and centrist Joan Finney would be her ideal candidates, not right-wing extremists like Phyllis Schlafly. MacNair said that right-wing candidates "are precisely who we're not going to be supporting." So, yeah, the word cohesive can hint at the fact that Dannenfelser was required to get rid of the real founder in order to remake SBA List into a right-wing Republican stronghold. Not cohesive in the sense that the organization's early history jibes with its history as told today. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
SBA List's 2010 Form 990 says it was formed in 1992, so according to that, neither of us is correct. So where do we go from here? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether that refers to calendar year 1992 or fiscal year 1992, which started in 1991. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
From the IRS Form 990 instructions page 9: "Year of formation. Enter the year in which the organization was legally created under state or foreign law. If a corporation, enter the year of incorporation." So, it seems clear that it was established in 1992 and not 1991. This would be consistent with the March 1993 FEC filing after organizational activities were completed — especially if it was formed in late 1992. Mojoworker (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked for a source from 1991 or 1992 naming Dannenfelser. Your 2011 source does not qualify; it was written by SBA List under Dannenfelser so of course it gives her version. I am still looking for you to show some contemporary proof. Until then, there's no "where do we go" except to tell the reader about MacNair founding the SBA List, taking the idea from EMILY's List in early 1992, then announcing SBA List in November 1992, then filing the paperwork in early 1993, then hiring Dannenfelser and Jane Abraham as the first leaders with political experience. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources say 1991. If you have a problem with The Washington Post, Newsweek, WORLD, etc. take it to WP:RSN. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. There is nothing to back up the notional 1991 date accompanied by the notion of Dannenfelser as founder, but lots of primary and secondary evidence to back up the 1992–93 timeframe with MacNair as the founder. It's not like I think your sources are unreliable, it is that we are presented with two versions of the truth, one always traceable to Dannenfelser and the other supported by a wide variety of neutral and non-neutral observers. The magazine and newspaper interviews of Dannenfelser always give her version but her version is not supported by historical documents. The neutral observers and historical documents are who we trust, not Dannenfelser and the sources she feeds with supposed 'facts' groomed to put her in a better light. One more time I insist that you find historical documents from 1991 or 1992 saying Dannenfelser was the founder. You will not because she was not. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

The result of this RFC was Option 1; WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, source quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which version of the article should be used? There are conflicting sources regarding the founding of the SBA List; see discussion above.

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • Option 3 - Present the conflicting sources; i.e. "Multiple book sources say it was founded by Rachel MacNair in 1993, while multiple news sources say it was founded by Dannenfelser in 1991."

Please choose one or make a comment below. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Option 1 is the only viable option. Option 2 is demonstrably wrong, an attempt to fabricate one year of earlier history, a synthesis of good sources and bad ones to construct something none of them say: A + B = C. Option 3 is a cop-out, allowing Dannenfelser to determine disputed content, giving her activist agenda equal weight with neutral sources from scholarly books. The SBA List has been remaking its history since around 2000 when it replaced "Founder: Rachel MacNair" on the website with no mention of MacNair. We at Wikipedia are not dumb; we know that newspaper and magazine sources from 1992 and 1993 reinforce the truth told by scholarly books saying SBA List was founded in 1992 (conception and announcement) and 1993 (government papers filed). We know that the absence of newspaper or magazine articles from 1991 reinforces the fact that the notional founding date of 1991 is a recent fiction. We are able to see that 1991 only appears when Dannenfelser is interviewed. Dannenfelser is not a neutral observer! ...and she has no proof of her assertion. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Option 2: best choice. We don't exclude the reliable sources we WP:DONTLIKE. Option 3 second choice.– Lionel (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You might want to help your friend NYyankees51 find a single source dating from 1991 to help him establishe 1991 as the start date. Otherwise, there is no traction for the notional 1991 founding. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For those just joining the RfC, you will notice that it is very difficult to sort out the options above. I would like to help define the options for you:
    • Option 1: SBA List was founded in 1992–93 by Rachel MacNair, catalyzed by MacNair viewing a 60 Minutes piece featuring EMILY's List, broadcast on March 22, 1992. MacNair quickly formed a coalition of pro-life groups by early April, then announced the formation of SBA List on November 7, 1992, after a lot of pro-choice women won their political campaigns. MacNair filed papers to form the political action committee (PAC) on February 4, 1993. To provide the new organization with expert guidance, MacNair hired Marjorie Dannenfelser in 1993, followed shortly by Jane Abraham. (Contemporary announcements and news reports are cited along with a primary source for the PAC filing, and many scholarly books discussing the founding.) Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Option 2: Same as above except Marjorie Dannenfelser is said to have preceded Rachel MacNair as founder, working out of the Dannenfelser home. The well-cited text saying Dannenfelser was hired in 1993 by MacNair is dropped. (No contemporary announcement is cited to support this, only three Dannenfelser interviews from 2010 and 2011. No month or day can be determined to bring more precision to the notional 1991 year, and no catalyst is mentioned. No contemporary news sources can corroborate the Dannenfelser claim, nor can any primary sources or tertiary sources such as encyclopedias of feminism—all of which say MacNair in 1992–93.) Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Option 3: This proposal seeks to show the reader two versions of history: Dannenfelser's fuzzy and imprecise 2010 and 2011 claims to have founded SBA List in 1991, and the mass of primary, secondary and scholarly tertiary material supporting a founding date of 1992–93 with Rachel MacNair as the founder, and a great many details to support precisely the progression of formation. The two versions are terribly mismatched in authority, so any neutral attempt to represent the Dannenfelser version alongside the scholarly version will show Dannenfelser to be <refactored> giving out incorrect information. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Binksternet unless Dannenfelser has recently died remove your BLP violation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment about Option 3 The problem with Option 3 is that it assigns a relatively high worth to some very offhand statements of supposed 'fact', that Dannenfelser started SBA List from her house in 1991. The sources have no details about what day or what month or even what season it was, no details about which current events served as the catalyst, and no details about announcements to the media or the filing of papers. Marjorie Jones got married in 1991 to Martin Dannenfelser and she changed her surname during that year. Sometimes in news reports in the '90s she was referred to as Marjorie Jones Dannenfelser. A search of her various names shows that Marjorie Jones was reportedly the staff director of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus on June 25, 1991, according to the Washington Times. No news item under any of the names turns up anything about the Susan B. Anthony List until 1994 or 1996. What was she doing in '91? We can entertain the notion that she was discussing with her friends the possibility of putting together a pro-life PAC, but she did not do the work to get it started. She did not file papers or make announcements. No early members have come forward to say yes, they were there in the early days when it was just Dannenfelser and her idea. There's nothing out there.
    On the other hand, all of the above kinds of detail are available in very reliable sources to support the 1992 and 1993 founding sequence and to tell the reader a coherent story. None of these sources say Dannenfelser started the group out of her house, let alone in 1991. Susan Gibbs was there at the start when Rachel MacNair founded the group. Gibbs writes that the first public event was February 1993; she should know because she organized it. Political scientist Melissa Haussman writing in Robert P. Watson's and Ann D. Gordon's Anticipating Madam President said that the SBA List, "was formed just after 1992", which neatly straddles the situation. In 2003, SBA List Executive Director Jennifer Bingham told political scientists Charles D. Hadley and Christine L. Day that the SBA List began in 1993. These scholars summarized the founding of three competing PACs: "When listed together, the three PACs will generally be listed in the order in which they were founded: EMILY's List in 1986, The WISH List in 1992, and the Anthony List in 1993." There is no higher source than this which is why the article says the SBA List was founded in 1993, from the infobox down to the categories. Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I read the article with interest and I can see that this is something of a political hot potato in the States but being on the other side of the Atlantic I am quite immune to the nuances of the debate. I think that part of the interest in the article is about setting out the different claims as to who and how the lobby group was founded. It would be interesting to know who was the first candidate that was supported and the amount of the donation. Do you have the equivalent of the UK's companies house where all companies including not for profits are registered from when they are created and if so could this provide some answers? (Isthisuseful (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC))
  • Option 1 The recent evidence provided by the organization itself on their IRS Form 990 filing states they were formed in 1992. The 1993 FEC filing lists Feminists for Life of America as the sole affiliation — if there were some additional SBA List organization, it should be listed there. I see no evidence supporting the idea that there was any organization separate from the MacNair founded PAC prior to the 1997 reorganization into the current form as a 501(c)(4) status non-profit Virginia Corporation with a connected PAC which was incorporated 5/12/1997. If the organization existed in some additional form separate from the PAC prior to 1997, there should exist annual filings with the IRS and the Virginia Secretary of State to prove it… Option 3 as second choice, but if you include the citations of the previous versions of sba-list.org, it makes it look like Dannenfelser or her supporters are trying to rewrite history. Mojoworker (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with a bit of option 3 Present the starting as by the federal paperwork and the other, way more reliable, sources. State as short as possible that this has been debated, with ref. I think we can assume that option 1 presents the facts, but it still neutral when adding the additional information on the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhschreurs (talk • contribs) 11:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The word "scholars"

NYyankees51 has long been trying to rid the article of the word "scholars" in describing the three Anthony scholars who have spoken out against SBA List assertions.

This removal of the word scholars on October 29, 2010, shows how long the dispute has been running.(Note that NYyankees51 was operating a sockpuppet at the time: User:BS24.) This string of edits in March 2011 shows an instance of NYyankees51 removing information about "Anthony scholar Ann Dexter Gordon" providing a solid rebuttal to an SBA List assertion. Again in May 2011 he removed the phrase "scholars of 19th-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion".

Today's removals go against discussions we have conducted here and at Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. Basically, there are three established scholars who dispute SBA List assertions: Noted Rutgers Anthony and Stanton project leader Ann D. Gordon, Laury Oaks from the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Nora Bredes of the Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership at the University of Rochester.

Journalist Allison Stevens says the dispute is a "scholarly disagreement" in the sense that scholars one one side of the issue were blindsided by activists on the other. Stevens quotes Gordon who says "A lot of scholars did not have a clue this was happening", that is, that SBA List was making untrue assertions about Susan B. Anthony to forward their aims. Gordon leads a group of scholars at Rutgers, and can be said to be speaking for them when she says "scholars" in plural. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I did not remove the word scholar entirely. I kept the descriptor of Gordon as a scholar. I removed "scholars and pro-choice activists" to remove the implication that all scholars have questioned SBA List's statements, and instead applied the word individually. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not remove the word scholars. Doing so is an attempt to lessen the strength of the rebuttals against SBA assertions. There are scholars who say SBA List is wrong about Susan B. Anthony. Scholars, plural. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your complaint about "the implication that all scholars have questioned SBA List's statements": show me one scholar who disagrees with the mainstream view that Susan B. Anthony did not work against abortion, that the issue was not very important to her. All of the scholars in this dispute are on one side. Only pro-life political activists and pro-life amateur historians (Mary Krane Derr, for instance) are supportive of SBA List assertions about Susan B. Anthony's life. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there is not a universal consensus among all historical scholars on the issue. Two or three have spoken up. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Four have spoken up, one of those with the authority of a dedicated project involving many scholars. Again, none have voiced disagreement. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand this demand for "all historical scholars." Do we generally ask for comments by "all historical scholars"? Most scholars specialize, you know. Just as I wouldn't ask an editor to provide Ann Dexter Gordon's opinion on, say, pirates and claim that there was no scholarly consensus if she hadn't said anything on the subject, I'm not going to expect that David Cordingly has said something about SBA's position on abortion. Those scholars who actually study this subject have made their position clear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Those scholars who have specifically studied Anthony's abortion stance have made their position clear, yes. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cruft

Can we not agree that reports of things SBA List said - little more than press releases - add nothing to the article? The comments about Rice had no evident effect on her consideration for VP; there is no reason to include attacks on BLPs in articles unless they add something to the article, and the only thing added here is "SBA List opposes pro-choice people," which, surprise, that's why they exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If a tree falls... Announcements and pronouncements by SBA List should be picked up in national media before we insert them into the article. The bit about Rice is not worthy. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a problem with the sources - Politico and WSJ are fine. But "statements" (whether with a comment requested on an actual story, or, as here, a written statement copied into a newspaper) are totally routine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Please add the following sentence at the end of the introductory section: Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote an editorial in response with quotes from Susan B. Anthony, and other suffragists, opposing abortion.^ Dannenfelser, Marjorie (May 21, 2010). "Susan B. Anthony: Pro-life Feminist". WashingtonPost.com, "On Faith" blog. Retrieved October 22, 2010. Fairness would dictate that if two editorials were published on this topic, then both should be mentioned. Readers can check both to see which writer they find more persuasive. Leaving off the SBA List's editorial also seems unfairly partisan in an article about the SBA List itself.```` Kimberdc (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Marjorie Dannenfelser's notion of Anthony is not supported by scholarly study. Instead, Dannenfelser uses Anthony as a political tool, reinterpreting Anthony's words to serve the purposes of SBA List. 'Balance' would not be served by telling the reader two different versions and letting them decide which one is "more persuasive" when the two versions are not equal in accuracy, or equal in scholarship. Wikipedia's policy of WP:UNDUE (part of WP:Neutral point of view) covers the issue. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off of a section

I would like to spin off most of Susan_B._Anthony_List#Driehaus_political_ad_litigation into another article, which I'd like to title, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. This is a now at SCOTUS, and could have consequences for political speech far beyond the parties. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
All SCOTUS cases are notable, so the answer must be 'yes'. Of course an appropriate summary of the case would be left here for the reader who does not wish to click the link and read the whole case article. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I also agree; noted in more detail here. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I also would have wanted a spin off section to discuss further Susan B Anthony's relationship with abortion. Abortion is so different than it was back then, curious to see if this had any affect on her opinions of it Emilysmall6 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fetal pain discussion

When the text regarding fetal pain being medically disputed was added, it seemed WP:Coatrack to me, but more immediately problematic, it was completely unreferenced, so I referenced it. I agree that the ref removed can be considered coatrack, but then all of the refs on fetal pain are, as none of them mentioned or directly relate to Susan B Anthony List. Odd to single out only the newest and most comprehensive ref of the 3 on fetal pain for deletion. I deleted remaining refs and text about fetal pain. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That works: removing the very questionable medical claim. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pro-choice PAC

I don't know if this article needs the descriptions of the pro choice political action committees with great detail. It was a tad confusing to read and I had to reread in order to make sure I knew which pac was being discussed Emilysmall6 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Emilysmall6, it's important for context. There would be no SBA List if it were not for the success of Emily's List. SBA List was born as a political opponent to Emily's List, to counteract it. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Terminology "pro-life"/"pro-choice" in article

There have been some recent edits relating to the terminology used in this article. Roscelese reverted an edit by an IP editor from "pro-life" back to "anti-abortion", with the edit summary "more neutral language". SamuelS10 changed several instances of "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" to "prolife", with the edit summary "fixed typo". This was reverted by SparklingPessimist, in my view justifiably, because the edit summary was misleading.

My question is on maintaining neutral language in this article. It would not be consistent to keep "pro-choice" but revert "pro-life" to "anti-abortion". Furthermore, this article uses primarily the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", which is the terminology commonly used in the US debate on access to abortion. I did some quick counts using the search function in my browser:

  • pro-choice - 18, of which 2 are direct quotes or in refs
  • pro-life - 55, of which 19 are quotes, refs, etc.
  • anti-abortion - 23 (mostly in lead section), of which 16 are quotes, refs, etc.
  • abortion rights - 2, both in refs

A formal RfC was held in January 2017 on this topic at the article Abortion-rights movement and did not come to a consensus.

Should we change all instances of "pro-X" to "anti-abortion" or "abortion rights", except in direct quotations? Or should we do this only for the lead section, with an explanation that this debate in the US especially (which is the context of this article) uses "pro-X" as the common terminology? Kbseah (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_2&oldid=884035669"