Talk:Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Elizabeth Cady Stanton has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  • /Archive 1 - 2005-2006 (first discussion of abortion; also racism discussion)
  • /Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Awards

We need a report on Elizabeth Cady Staton's awards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.14.242.72 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Excellent idea! If I have time to track them down and add them with citations, I will. Perhaps you would be able to find some and do the same. 71.192.45.207 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion Issue, Revisited

I don't really have a strong feeling about "the abortion issue" per se -- at least in so far as it pertains to these articles. All I really care about is that whatever is said is, first and foremost, properly cited referencing a reputable, scholarly source, and that it not be given undo weight in context of the rest of the article. Since her position on abortion was, I believe, entirely incidental to the work she did on women's rights and female suffrage, I don't think it should be given more than passing mention in a sentence or two. I'd love to be able to source the ECS to Howe quote so that it can be included in the article simply because I think it fleshes ECS out in interesting ways and makes it clear that you can't simply put her in a late 20th century feminist box. I would not, however, like to see it used to make her come across as a "pro-life" advocate, as we use the term now.
I agree that there's no way of knowing what her position would be today, and I agree that it's only reasonable to allow that ECS, while certainly ahead of her time, was a product of her time and that it's not really reasonable to judge any position she may have taken from today's perspective -- whether that perspective be the current pro or con position on abortion. I also think that articles on these women are not the place to hash out an abortion debate. As long as the biographical information about what they said and did is accurate, is properly cited, and is given reasonable weight within the scope of the article, I think it should be included.
We can't control the fact that these women, as wonderfully admirable as they may be, may have held opinions that don't feel "right" to many people today or don't feel "right" from today's feminist or "politically correct" perspective. But, as long as the information is accurate, fully cited, and objectively presented, it is what it is -- warts, unpopular positions, and all.
On another note, I can't help but think that ECS would be delighted to know that her positions are causing as much brouhaha today as they did 100 years ago! Jancarhart 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some abort fundamentalists simply don´t accept other people beliefs. And it´s more then proved that abortion is really murder, as much insignificant it´s the human life that it kills. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a true feminist for believing in that. Only a complete imbecil could say he will know if today she wouldn´t think basically about this issue like back then. It´s like saying that Hypocrates who condemned abortion in a time were even infanticide was legal would be pro-choice if he lived today. By the way this articles need to be neutral. If she was against abortion like many great feminists, it should be mentioned, even if some idiots want to "tear their hair down" (sic) because of that.81.193.223.181 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

These are a lot of opinions about the significance of abortion and what it might mean if ECS had an opinion about abortion. Our standard in doing a biography of ECS should be describing what was important to her and what she did that was historically notable. As Awadewit points out below, she likely had opinions on a great many matters of contemporary interest; but unless she was notable for those opinions (or there is strong evidence that they were personally defining beliefs) then they really don't belong in a biography of ECS. One appropriate place might be to write an article discussing nineteenth century views on abortion; in such an article, the position of various social and political leaders of the time might be relevant. --Lquilter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Right-Wing group 'Feminists for Life' uses her as an illustration...not sure if that's relevant, though.LeeRamsey (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saints banner and category

Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect ECS would be spinning in her grave if she had any idea she was listed as a saint by any organized religion -- although, if she made any exception, I suppose it would have been for the Episcopal Church since she so enjoyed attend Episcopal services with Peter Teabout -- apparently preferring it over her family's affiliation with the Presbyterian Church. In any event, I appreciate your emphasis on wanting reliable sources before adding material on this to the article since ECS herself greatly disliked organized religion and seemed to far prefer humane reason, logic, and a strong sense of social and moral obligation to notions of divine direction. Jancarhart 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Solitude of Self & final speech before Congress

While the following passage is nice and does demonstrate the change in public and political opinion toward Stanton, it needs to be cited. I'm unable to locate a source and am hoping whoever originally put it in might be able to provide a proper citation:

"In contrast to the response common earlier in the century, the suffragists were cordially received and members of the House listened carefully to their prepared statements." Jancarhart 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This link [1] includes a quote from the contemporary Washington Star commentary — which may be the ultimate source of idea about them listening carefully to the women's presentation. Other links [2] contains a record of, but not a transcript of, the 18 Jan. 1892, “Solitude of Self,” address delivered before Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Congress. Excerpts from text found on [3]. Must be something in writing, somewhere, however. Will keep looking. Best.......WBardwin 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECS's personal position on abortion

An earlier editor included what I think was a worthwhile quote regarding ECS and abortion. Unfortunately, a formal citation for the quote, which indicated a traditional 19th century position in opposition to abortion, was not able to be found. I have two thoughts. First, it's worth mentioning that ECS had an opinion on abortion. While, in the absence of a proper citation, it might not be reasonable to state what that position was, I do think it's entirely reasonable to point out that she had one. Secondly, I am hoping the editor involved might be able to locate the formal source (apparently a letter to Julia Ward Howe) so that it might actually be cited in the article.Jancarhart 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting lquilter from previous debate on Mary Wollstonecraft (he says it better than I could):
There's been a concerted effort on the part of some editors to put in the views of abortion in every major early women's rights figure, even though abortion figured in very little of their careers or influence. I strongly disagree with this ahistoricity -- a retroactive attempt to rewrite historic figures thru a modern political perspective. If done just for the hot-button issues (abortion, capital punishment), it distorts the article leading a reader to think that this was a significant part of their thought (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). If done in any kind of consistent fashion, we would survey a historic figure for all hints we could glean as to their positions or likely positions on modern issues--war, imperialism, capitalism, and so on. The main point is that the debates of today are simply not translatable to the past -- the person in question grew up in a very different society, with different technologies, and social realities, and access to philosophical ideas. On abortion, modern abortion and indeed modern reproductive rights debates simply are not translatable to the past -- a woman might have been less in support of abortion than she appeared, because birth control is more available; on the other hand, if she had any support for a woman's reproductive rights in the 19th century when it was against the grain, then that might be an indication that she would be more supportive in today's climate. Either way it's an unfruitful line of discourse, akin to comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Fun for trivia and what-if speculation but not encyclopedic. --lquilter 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Kaldari 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to only include in this article what, according to reliable sources, was significant to Stanton herself. If abortion was not important to her as an issue, I do not feel it should be mentioned. This article is not a forum for listing all of Stanton's beliefs and views, it is a place to explain her most important and influential ideas. We should always attempt to describe historical figures, such as Stanton, in the most accurate light possible. Conflating modern and historical debates is not the way to do that. Awadewit | talk 11:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Her Religious Beliefs

She was an atheist and nevertheless now she´s also an anglican saint. It´s an odd idea. Anybody can show a source about her religious beliefs ? Mistico (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best source for her religious beliefs is The Woman's Bible in which she critically analyzed many basic notions of Christianity and organized religion. There is also much in her own memoir criticizing organized religion and unchallenged religious beliefs. 71.192.39.45 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)~

Thanks for pointing that. Neverthless, it´s odd that she´s an anglican saint.Mistico (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only thought I have is that they "sanctified" her because of her role in empowering women and not for her personal religious persuasions. Whatever the reason, it's ironic. I can't help but wonder if there's any chance it was done, to some extent, with tongue in cheek. 71.192.39.45 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

Hello,

I was wondering if a Good Article review is really what this article needs? It has been approved for A-class already, so wouldn't the next logical step be FA? A GA review at this point seems somewhat regressive IMO. I also noticed that in the very abbreviated FA nom, no major authors commented, responded, or addressed FA reviewers' concerns. I would suggest, instead of pursuing GA (somewhat pointless after the much more collaborative A-class and peer reviews), that the main author(s) fix the concerns raised at the FA nom--namely, wlinking and source/citation format and quality--and renom there. Regards, --Malachirality (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-essential considerations for the article

  • Please use logical quotation in the future.
  • Except in some circumstances (such as before coordinating conjunctions), comma usage is a matter of preference and interpretation. Too many commas, often non-essential, can interrupt or make confusing the flow of the sentence. Consider rewording or using em dashes to indicate parenthetical thought.
  • I have changed the titles of the two sections preceding "Later years" b/c the original titles seemed more indicative of an article on the Women's Rights Movement and distracted the focus from ECS. Please take a look at this and comment or change.

Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is good throughout, although several sentences benefit by being either shorter, split in two, or less complicated by commas
2. Factually accurate?: a variety of reputable and/or print sources were used.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: make sure that the more controversial parts of the article are not substantiated by Stanton's own writings, but rather those of a neutral writer
Are there particular points for which you feel this is a concern? Part of the glitch here is that much of what has been written on Stanton, including Griffith's seminal book, rely heavily on Stanton's own writings, although they have certainly not hesitated to contest her positions when other material has shown variance with her viewpoint.71.192.39.45 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: sufficient, but could use more (especially a variety of pictures from different points in Stanton's life)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Malachirality (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)