Talk:Susan B. Anthony

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

White Supremacist[edit]

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

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

This point is already covered in the American Equal Rights Association section of the article, which uses the historically accurate version of the quote: "she would sooner cut off her right hand than ask the ballot for the black man and not for woman". She said this during a meeting with male abolitionists, who told her that, during that period of history, she should be campaigning exclusively for voting rights for black men. She refused and continued to campaign for voting rights for all women and all black people. The footnote to that quote shows some of the various ways the quote has been distorted. Compared to the vast majority of other white people of her time, Susan B. Anthony's views on race were surprisingly advanced. Bilpen (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is something this important buried deep in the article, this isn't quite WP:DUE. LΞVIXIUS💬 00:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important because Anthony was not a white supremacist—in fact she spent important years of her early career fighting for the rights of African Americans. She wanted women of all races to have the vote, and was not willing to put this, her her main life's work, aside for any reason. She thought the best effort for equality of sex and race was to raise up women as voters; after that, she imagined that voting by women would help to bring about major progressive advances of every sort. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of WP:RS to back that claim up. Eruditess (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon in lead[edit]

I removed the potential pardon from the lead (it's still in the article) as undue weight for the lead. When it's actually granted, it could be mentioned in the third lead para:

In 1872, Anthony was arrested for voting in her hometown of Rochester, New York, and convicted in a widely publicized trial. Her conviction was pardoned by President Trump in 2020.

Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Crime of Voting[edit]

"In 1872, Anthony was arrested for voting"

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

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

Engraving to Photograph proposal[edit]

CLOSED
The result was no consensus to change the current infobox image from the engraving. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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.


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

Proposal #1
Proposal #2
I greatly prefer the image that is currently used as the lead image. It is the image that she and Stanton chose for use in the History of Woman Suffrage, and it shows Anthony in the prime of life, not near the end of it. Bilpen (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignore the signature, is this a better image? It was taken in 1870 when she was only 50, and it’s a somewhat more accurate representation of Anthony during her prime. And Sundayclose, we aren’t talking about Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Relevation Animations (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My 3rd proposal
  • Oppose the proposed images. The current image is most representative of Stanton. Sundayclose (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change. I happen to like the engraving, and I don't think less of it for not being a photograph. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change, but flexible. I like the engraving too, it has a certain...dignity... to it, memorializing her in 'perfection'. But that said, Proposal #1 is also a rather iconic pose, and a fine portrait. Is there any reason that couldn't be added to the article elsewhere? More photos is almost always desireable in articles. Anastrophe (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021[edit]

Here is the source for the missing citation related to Susan B Anthony’s pardon...

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

https://susanb.org/on-news-of-a-presidential-pardon-for-susan-b-anthony-on-august-18-2020/ 2601:681:4A04:740:86A:7682:192D:EB9 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Adding in the already used citation for this that included your susanb.org ref and an NPR one. For someone with more familiarity with this article, why is the pardon mention both in trial and Commemoration? Is it really needed in Commemoration? WikiVirusC(talk) 12:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the suggestion above, I removed the duplicate paragraph from the Commemoration section. Bilpen (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022[edit]

Please arrange this introduction for short description "American women's rights activist (1820–1906)". 2001:4452:490:6900:2D6E:BB69:9571:2188 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change as requested. Thanks for the idea. Bilpen (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of structural notes at the end of the paragraph on abortion[edit]

There's two lines of structural notes, possibly Todos at the end of the paragraph on abortion. Maybe delete these? Nemea (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem. Bilpen (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Susan B. Anthony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unlimitedlead (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

  1. After this period, Anthony focused her energy on abolitionist and women's rights activities.
  2. Suffrage, however, did not become the main focus of her work for several more years.
  3. Anthony continued to be heavily involved in anti-slavery work at the same time.
  4. Anthony and Stanton continued to work for the inclusion of suffrage for both African Americans and women.
  5. Anthony's other suffrage work included organizing national conventions, lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and participating in a seemingly endless series of state suffrage campaigns.
  6. The NWSA decided to pursue the far more difficult strategy of campaigning for a constitutional amendment to achieve voting rights for women.
  7. ...the history evolved into a six-volume work of more than 5700 pages written over a period of 41 years. The first three volumes, which cover the movement up to 1885, were published between 1881 and 1886 and were produced by Stanton, Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage. Anthony handled the production details and the extensive correspondence with contributors. Anthony published Volume 4, which covers the period from 1883 to 1900, in 1902, after Stanton's death, with the help of Ida Husted Harper, Anthony's designated biographer. The last two volumes, which bring the history up to 1920, were completed in 1922 by Harper after Anthony's death.
  8. "Failure is impossible" quickly became a watchword for the women's movement.
  9. She is the author of a 6 volume work History of Woman Suffrage (1881).
  10. A bronze sculpture of a locked ballot box flanked by two pillars marks the place where Anthony voted in 1872 in defiance of laws that prohibited women from voting. Called the 1872 Monument, it was dedicated in August, 2009, on the 89th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment. Leading away from the 1872 Monument is the Susan B. Anthony Trail, which runs beside the 1872 Café, named for the year of Anthony's vote.
  11. ...in Battenville, New York, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
  12. In 2007, the new Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge replaced the old Troup–Howell Bridge as the main conduit of expressway traffic through downtown Rochester.
  • [needs update] tag present.
  • Suggest adding ALT text to images.
  • Some captions are alright, but others are quite short and unhelpful- see "Elizabeth Cady Stanton" or "Susan B. Anthony".
  • The article makes use of an excessive amount of direct quotations, to the point that some paragraphs are just quotes from other people. While this can be useful, an article about such a high-profile historical figure should be able to utilize the decades of authoritative academic analysis on Anthony to be able to discuss her in its own words.
  • The article, clocking in at over 11,000 words, is seemingly not focused on the subject. The "recommended" length of a Wikipedia article is 10,000 words at most, but since Anthony is such a major historical figure, I am willing to overlook that. However, I believe that the article is not as focused as it could be- more could be said about Anthony's legacy (in terms of suffrage and the government), and less should be said about commemoration (in particular, the Artwork section is unnecessarily lengthy.
  • The article's sourcing is dubious to me. Some of the citations look alright (and I appreciate the usage of primary sources, although they should be used more sparingly in favor of secondary ones), but others are strange. I see a broadcaster and even Queen Victoria listed as citations. These things to not reassure me about the quality of the sources used in this article.
Thinking again actually, the rate at which primary sources are used in the article alarms me. Many of these individuals cited has personal connections to Anthony in her lifetime, which makes me concerned that the article may be biased. Wikipedia guidelines mandate that secondary/tertiary sources are to be used in favor of primary ones whenever possible, and considering Anthony's fame, there are surely some ones out there that can be used for the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilpen: Apologies, but I am obligated to fail this GA nomination. The issues with the article are too resounding to fix at the GA process, so I suggest a major restructuring and re-sourcing of the article (which may take a few months) before submitting the article to the GA process again. Cheers and good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Unlimitedlead: for the work you put into this. Some of the problems you identify are fairly easy to fix, so I will work on them. The larger problem is the fact that there is only one scholarly biography of Anthony, the one written by Kathleen Barry that is cited numerous times in the article. It is a little old, having been written in 1988, although it was updated somewhat in 2020. I was surprised that no new biography of Anthony was published to help commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth in 2020. Bilpen (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_B._Anthony&oldid=1217390347"