Talk:Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Mlup, Emilysmall6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes by Instaurare in Feb 2019

Instaurare, also known as NYyankees51, BS24 and others – an editor with a declared conflict of interest with regard to SBA List – has been editing the article extensively in the past week. I have reverted his changes twice, Roscelese has reverted him once, and somebody using the Cleveland IP6 range 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:0/64 has also reverted him once. Joel B. Lewis also made smaller reversions.

Some of the changes are non-neutral and should not be allowed to stand in the article. Other changes could be considered updates, and could be allowed with adjustments. I will attempt to break down the recent edits here to see what can be kept. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• This update to 2016 and 2018 election activities is mostly appropriate, although with too many promotional quotes, and an unnecessary fling against Flynn-as-VP.
  • Define promotional. What exactly is promotional about tracing the org's evolving stance on Trump by using its own words? Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Promotional text gives too much emphasis to the group's announcements and activities. Wikipedia should summarize the more important points for the reader, not give the political activists a platform. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This removal of scholars is exactly the wrong thing for the article. For political purposes, SBA List has decided to fabricate a new version of the women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony, one where she is actively pro-life. Expert scholars and authors have shown this to be wrong, and our readers must be made aware of the truth. Instaurare and other SBA List people would prefer this article show a false equivalence, where declarations by SBA List political activists are given equal footing with respected topic scholars.
  • One scholar and one author. What's the problem with presenting both sides and letting the reader decide? Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You know perfectly well why a false equivalence cannot be considered. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. And you know perfectly well that there are more scholars who have spoken on the issue, and that there aren't any opposing scholars. So there's no chance we will be "letting the reader decide" between something that's true and something that's 100% fabricated for political purposes. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This removal with the edit summary "random opinion piece by random blogger" is horribly non-neutral. The piece appeared in the well-known online magazine In These Times. The author, Sady Doyle, is an established writer who has written books and contributed to other magazines and newspapers. The edit summary is false and the removal is in the "I don't like it" category.
  • You would strenuously object if I added, for example, David French's opinion of Southern Poverty Law Center to that article. Why is one "established writer"'s opinion about an org worthy of WP:UNDUE placement in an article? Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not undue; it's a well-written magazine article about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This addition is promotional, seeing as how the Charlotte Lozier Institute bit in the article body is not supported by WP:SECONDARY sources. If secondary sources cannot be brought to bear, then the CLI is not important enough to mention in the lead section.
  • You could have Googled it, Bink. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm just pointing out the problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This additino is promotional, overstating the figures, as the numbers reached "millions" just once, in 2014, with less than a million before, and reducing to a little more than one million afterward.
  • Multiple sources cited in the article say they spent $30 million in 2018, $18 million in 2016, etc. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Still doesn't address the lean early years, when a million dollars wasn't available. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This change of numbers and sources is problematic because it takes a secondary source and replaces it with a primary source containing higher numbers.
  • The secondary source comes from before the money was spent: "seeking to spend". Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This addition would be okay if more were written in the article body about the super PAC "Women Speak Out".
  • So let's write more in the article body. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This removal is bad because it erases some of the group's history.
  • As far as I could tell the candidate fund was replaced with the super PAC. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • So tell that to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• [This removal of a respected scholar writing in a scholarly journal is another terribly wrong maneuver by Instaurare to reduce clarity and objectivity in the article and instead have the activists make up their own story.
  • Though the inclusion of another random author's opinion about the group is dubious, I included the bit in later edits without its own section. That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "Random author" my ass. You just don't like scholars, and it shows. Scholarly works are Wikipedia's best sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Removal of redlinks is small potatoes, not forbidden but not encouraged. See WP:REDDEAL.
• [Change to better wording.
  • Progress! Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Slight rewording and a shifting of text. Not a big deal
  • More progress! Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This change added an article link but it removed an assessment of "very successful" by the scholarly source.
  • I thought you were against "promotional language"? Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's possible that the level of success reported back then is now considered not-quite-so-successful by SBA List. I don't know. I would want to call up the source and read it to see whether it's being represented neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This change of wording and cited source is good, adjusting for linkrot and the passing of time.
  • That makes three! Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This trim is incomplete. The "Women Speak Out" donation arm is a super PAC, not just a PAC.
  • The PAC is not just Virginia focused as far as I can tell. That was why it was changed. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• The removal of bolding is wrong because the bolded term redirects to the article.
  • I had later added the term to the lede and bolded it there. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Shifting of text is neutral, but the text is described above as having problems.
• This addition to the lead section gives undue emphasis to Dannenfelser working with Trump outside of SBA List – off topic.
  • It was an attempt to summarize the section about Trump that can be improved. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This new "Advocacy" section misrepresents a cited source – Politico – which talks about how the goal of defunding Planned Parenthood through federal legislation has disappeared with a Democrat-held House. Nothing about that is brought up here.
  • "Groups including Susan B. Anthony List, the Heritage Foundation and Students for Life in America met Wednesday at the White House with Strategic Communications Adviser Mercedes Schlapp and other officials to urge them to flex their administrative powers and take a hard line with Congress." Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's only a portion of the source. The essence of it was avoided, probably because SBA List doesn't like it. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This addition about Gorsuch is undue emphasis, as SBA List had no leverage on the issue.
  • Never said it did. Simply mentioning its support which was widely reported in the media. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This added quote seems superfluous and promotional, giving Dannenfelser too much voice.
  • Again, what is promotional about tracing the org's changing stance on Trump? Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's too much voice given to Dannenfelser, too much of a platform for her views. And to me it seems that she's trying to straddle a fence, trying to distance her group from Trump while also serving him as chair of his anti-abortion committee. I don't see why this article should help her achieve that aim, especially since the media are not reporting it as such. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• This shift of text is neutral, but the text has problems described above.
• This further shift of text is neutral, but the text has problems described above.
• This additional text about Trump gives too much voice to SBA List, who had little leverage on the stated issues. These sorts of reactions to Trump's random outbursts are not part of the SBA List mission. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, this is about tracing their changing stance on Trump. Instaurare (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Too much tracing. The stance is simple: We didn't like Trump, but after he won the primary we started working with him. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you've been shamed into actually discussing, let's see if you follow through. Instaurare (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Others will have to follow through, since you now have a topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Some" scholars

Since it doesn't appear that there's any scholarly debate about this issue, adding "some" to cast doubt is inappropriate, and "humandefense" is obviously an unusable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)