Talk:Ann D. Gordon

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

Neutrality[edit]

This is not Gordon's PR mouthpiece. Adding template. BS24 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a template does not mean anything unless you discuss the perceived problem on the talk page. You have indicated by template that there is a neutrality problem but you have not suggested what is not neutral. I think the article tells important information about Gordon, and I think the article tells that information in a neutral way. I am removing your drive-by template as WP:TENDENTIOUS and trivial. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here you go.
  • "She has repeatedly defended Anthony's suffragist legacy..." is POV because it implies that the pro-lifers are wrong.
  • Anthony and pro-life organizations section gives her a bully pulpit that you ranted about on the SBA List page. If Gordon is given an opportunity to dissent on the SBA List page, then others get an opportunity to dissent on her page. Two sentences are not enough.
BS24 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She has repeatedly defended Anthony's suffragist legacy" is not anything but accurate. If the sentence were said of a goalie "She has repeatedly defended her team's goal against all comers" would it be POV? No, it would be accurate. There is no attempt by the Wikipedia article to say that she was correct in her defense, or justified, only that she took that action. At WP:YESPOV, the guideline states:
"A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view."
Gordon is described accurately and neutrally in this article, without any endorsement of her actions. If you do not think so, what wording would you use? Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It implies that pro-lifers are falsely attacking her legacy. BS24 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Done. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote the sentence. Let me know what you think. BS24 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You put two of your favorite PACs wikilinked in the lead section: FFL and SBA List. In this article about Gordon, I do not think they merit that level of prominence. They are introduced in the article body as examples, but Gordon is not against only those two PACs; she is against all those who would re-make Anthony into something other than a suffragist icon. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that if Dannenfelser was given a soapbox on the SBA List page, her critics will be given a chance to respond. The same goes for Gordon. BS24 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBA List is an organization with political aims which are stiffly opposed. This is a plain biography. The two articles are worlds apart in how to treat them. On the SBA List page, the group's views are discussed, and so are the views of the opposition. At Dannenfelser's bio article, and at this bio article, no opposition views are voiced. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly[edit]

I wrote in the lead section that Gordon repeatedly spoke out on the Anthony abortion dispute. I track three times she has spoken out:

  • an interview with Allison Stevens of Women's eNews in October 2006
  • an interview in the North Adams Transcript in February 2010
  • an opinion piece authored with Lynn Sherr published in May 2010 in The Washington Post.

To me, three is the minimum number which merits the word "repeatedly"—two instances would be "repeated" but not so much "repeatedly". Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a molehill that you could not make a mountain out of, Binks? Cloonmore (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ever take a debate class? Study law? One of the crucial skills... Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Making mountains out of molehills is a crucial skill of debating? Then I guess you win. Cloonmore (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you will. If it were not important, you would not oppose it. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject. ADG's got a 30+ yr body of work as a historian. Her later, occasional commentary on the SBA/abortion kerfuffle, as borne out by a handful of cites, isn't significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Cloonmore (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at WP:LEAD says otherwise. If an article covers a major topic, its lead section should mention the topic. There is a large section in the article about Gordon's interaction with the public regarding the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. If the lead section does not say this, the guideline is not being followed. The relevant section is headed "Relative emphasis" which says:

"In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although this does not mean that everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text: specific facts will often appear only in the lead, such as quotations, examples, birthdates, and titles, depending on editorial judgment. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." (Emphasis mine)

Your concern appears to me to be one of Gordon's abortion dispute not being a large part of her life. In that case, you should be looking to WP:UNDUE to remove the whole abortion dispute section from the article. If it is removed from the article, of course it is removed from the lead. However, I think the abortion dispute cannot be proven to be undue weight, seeing as how she has chosen to take part in two interviews on the topic, published online and in a newspaper, and especially since she has elected to team with a very visible television personality (Lynn Sherr) to write an opinion piece for The Washington Post, one which elicited a response from Dannenfelser, and comment from many others including Salon.com. The opinion piece was quite notable, and proving that it is undue emphasis will be extraordinarily difficult. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Binks, get a grip. Mountains... molehills... Two simple problems with your lengthy exegesis. 1) The SBA/abortion issue isn't a "major topic" in ADG's canon and career. 2) This is not a "well-constructed article"; it's wildly unbalanced. Cloonmore (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me well enough to use a nickname for me.
The topic is major—it appeared in major news media, as was its intent. The article is constructed well enough for its kind, thank you very much. Any imbalance you perceive should be addressed by additions, not subtractions. You cannot erase what she has done, but you certainly can expand on her life: there is very little here about her personal life. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major news media" -- "Women's eNews" and the North Adams Transcript are major news media? An opinion piece posted online only on a blog on the Washington Post is major news media? BS24 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added an undue weight tag as per this discussion. BS24 (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next step for you: write a new lead which you consider neutral. We can discuss that. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Remove the abortion dispute piece. And it doesn't deserve its own section either. As Cloonmore said above, she's been studying Anthony for 30 years, and the abortion thing is a very, very small part of that, considering you have only three sources talking about it; one is a primary source, one is inaccessible online, and the other is a blog. BS24 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Gordon herself chose to put herself in the public eye regarding this issue; she was not dragged into it against her will. I think the public effort by her to fight the pro-life co-opting of Anthony's legacy is worth touching upon here in her bio. I think it is part of her. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned at all. But considering it is probably 0.01% of all the work she's done, it doesn't deserve a big paragraph. BS24 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "remove the abortion dispute piece", "it doesn't deserve its own section", and you said "I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned at all". You do not have a clear position, which makes your tag into a tool for poking around in the dark. I am restoring the article without the squishy tags. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post On Faith[edit]

Washington Post On Faith was called a blog by Cloonmore, but doing so diminishes the Gordon/Sherr piece. Neither one of them blogs, and they submitted the opinion piece in the style of a "letter to the editor". The On Faith section of WaPo is a hosted news column led by two columnists who combine informative news items with discussion questions which elicit responses from readers. The column is backed by a large panel of religious figures from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is not a blog. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. It's a blog. Cloonmore (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAC[edit]

The term political action committee certainly applies to SBA List and FFL. Both organizations seek to change laws and politics. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, but you're seriously testing that assumption. They're not PAC's. FFL is a 501(c)(3) and SBA List is a 501(c)(4). Cloonmore (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989[edit]

Do not remove the bit where Gordon observes that she has seen pro-life organizations use Anthony quotes since 1989. This is the only clue we have about the time frame, other than the October 2006 news articles that were probably in response to the August 2006 Carol Crossed purchase of Anthony's birth home. At Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#"Since 1989" it was determined that the 1989 statement could not be used as a sweeping generalization, leaving the option that the statement could be attributed to Gordon as being her personal observation. Here in this article it is certainly attributed to her. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether it's her personal observation; it's that it's unclear what she's talking about. You can't tell because you don't cite the original source but a (kinda kooky) blog. Cloonmore (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an obtuse stance. The quote is "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989. It's pretty far fetched." The context is the disinformation campaign—assertions that Anthony was pro-life. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's obtuse (at best) is claiming to know "the context" when the context is completely missing from your unreliable source. There is no context. Cloonmore (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one who constantly frets about context, Binksternet, you should know better. BS24 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the original newspaper article at home. I'm on the road right now, but when I get back home I can post the surrounding text to satisfy your curiosity about the context. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, returning 1989 to article. I cannot believe that this tiny factoid upsets anyone at all. It is cited and it is relevant. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely because it's a factoid that it should upset any reasonable editor. Cloonmore (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't put too much into my use of that word. Gordon chooses to say that she noticed the assertions starting in 1989; she knew the words would appear in print. She did not toss off 1989 without thinking. The fact is a fact, not a trivial factoid. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The context for 1989 is the news article by reporter Jennifer Huberdeau writing on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, for the North Adams Transcript, the article titled "Local group at odds with museum over question of Anthony's stance on abortion".

Huberdeau writes about Anthony and abortion that "historians and anti-abortion advocates" are on "opposing sides of an argument of whether or not she ever addressed the issue". Huberdeau says that "anti-abortion advocacy groups ... say that Anthony was clearly against abortion."

The very next paragraph picks up with Ann Gordon's response to anti-abortion groups saying Anthony was clearly against abortion:

"There's zero evidence that Susan B. Anthony ever made her position known," Ann Gordon, researcher and director of the Anthony and Stanton Papers Project at Rutgers University in New Jersey said on Tuesday. "I've watched the anti-abortion movement make these assertions since 1989. It's pretty far-fetched—she didn't often speak on religious issues, which she would have considered this. We can't say what her stance on abortion would be, but we can say for sure that she'd be against the government regulating a woman's body. She spoke out about that issue quite clearly."

Gordon is saying that Anthony would have considered abortion to be a religious issue, and that she didn't often speak on those issues. Gordon says that Anthony was against laws restricting a woman's body. She says that the pro-life assertions about Anthony being against abortion first came to her knowledge in 1989. The context is straightforward and plain. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ann D. Gordon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_D._Gordon&oldid=1207558515"