User talk:Binksternet


Binksternet	My articles	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Susan B. Anthony / The Revolution

I notice you are administrating the articles on Susan B. Anthony, the SBA and The Revolution, and you reverted the references I gave on all but one, so I hope you do not mind that I speak to you directly. The Women's Archives is currently the only existing archive of original scans of The Revolution on the Internet, and thus I don't understand removing this reference in the article on Susan B. Anthony, which contains an entire section on The Revolution precisely because it was one of the most important things she did in her life's work on Suffrage for women. If you could explain why that reference does not belong in the article, I would appreciate it. If you feel that it should be in the article, but perhaps is better placed elsewhere, I will gladly add the reference where you suggest.

Secondly, I wonder why you would remove the reference I gave in the article on the debate about Susan B. Anthony's position on abortion, when that same section of the article in question quotes Elizabeth Cady Stanton from the exact article I referenced (without the full context of the essay she'd written in The Revolution, hence my provision of the reference). The argument builds its case in part on the idea that Elizabeth Cady Stanton's piece "Infanticide and Prostitution" is an important plank in support of the claim that Susan B. Anthony would have held the same position on abortion that the SBA holds, but without the full context of the original article in The Revolution, it is impossible to understand why this plank in support of the claim is, in fact, debatable. If you think there is a more appropriate place for that reference to go -- as it is undoubtedly germane to the discussion, and no other reference to the complete context of the original copy of The Revolution exists -- where would you suggest that it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.118.140 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that whatever Stanton voiced is the same thing that Anthony believed is wrong. The two women were political partners but the differences in their beliefs caused Anthony much grief, as can be seen in her letters. Stanton continually wished for every one of womanhood's ills to be addressed, the sooner the better, but Anthony felt that a more focused effort was the way forward, attacking only the absence of voting rights for women. On that single issue, Anthony knew the most agreement was possible by the most women.

Ann Dexter Gordon, the world's foremost Anthony scholar, said in February 2010 that "The Revolution was a paper of debate—presenting both sides of an issue." Gordon was specifically addressing the tendency of the pro-life position to equate Anthony's beliefs and those of her paper; Gordon is saying that Anthony's very public beliefs and the things she published in her paper were two different things.

At the URL that was recently inserted in the Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute article, we see an opinion article written on a blog site, an article attributed to a writer going by the pseudonym "Woman". This article is thus an unreliable source; we don't know who "Woman" is, whether this person is an expert or not. Per WP:RS, nothing at the blog can be used on Wikipedia, unless at a notional Wikipedia article about the blog itself.

If original scans of The Revolution are linked to Wikipedia articles without accompanying blog opinions and amateur analysis then those links should be allowed to stay. The scans themselves are worthy, of value. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do happen to know one of the administrators of the site personally, and I emailed her about this today. She asked me if I would convey her response to you:

"The site is not a blog, though we use the Blogger website to publish the scans and digitized documents because it is free and stable. The point of the site is to provide a place where people may view the additions as they are made to the archive, and it would be easier to link to the archive site than to edit the Wikipedia page every time there is a new scan uploaded. The list will get very long after two years' worth of weekly-edition issues, and there are more issues that we already have uploaded which are not listed on the Wiki article.

The only post with any commentary from us is the post on the abortion debate, and while I obviously disagree with the administrator's opinion on the matter and I might have reason to quibble about our analysis being dismissed as "amateur" when one wonders how the administrator supposes the scans got there in the first place if we were not able and willing to access scholarly resources, it is much more important that the archive is made available to the Wikipedia audience than it is to make a point about controversial topics. If the only issue is that analysis, that post can be deleted and we will refrain from any further editorial or analytical remark in the future (that is not our objective anyway, as the administrator may note by observing every other entry in the archive). Please ask the administrator if that would be sufficient. If not, please let them know that if he or she will send an email to [edited to protect from spam: femmenet-at-gmail-dot-com], I will email an update whenever a new scan is uploaded so that the Wikipedia article may be edited as he or she sees fit. I would offer to make the edits myself, but that seems like it would be self-serving, and besides, I am not familiar with the Wikipedia conventions well enough to feel comfortable doing it. - H. Chase"

You're probably suspicious of my edits and I don't want to get into a thing where you're having to scrutinize my changes to make sure I'm not violating standards so I'll let you to decide what to do about this. Thanks. --76.216.104.108 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very calm and reasoned response from H. Chase aka Femmenet, speaking for The Women's Archives. In the same spirit, I will lay out the factors at play here, the somewhat conflicting direction we get from Wikipedia:

A blog is a website with regular entries of commentary or other material. Regular entries of PDF scans of The Revolution seem to qualify The Women's Archives as a blog. So did the now-deleted "Infanticide and Prostitution" commentary and analysis at this URL, giving an opinion of the relationship between Stanton and Anthony's beliefs.
Per the guideline at WP:External links, blogs are allowed as external links in Wikipedia articles if the writer is a recognized authority in the field; for instance, a blog entry by film critic Roger Ebert describing some aspect of film. To be considered a recognized authority, the blog writer must be so notable that he or she meets the criteria for being the subject of a Wikipedia biography article: Wikipedia:Notability (people)
What can normally be linked includes "neutral and accurate material that is relevant" but which "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". The PDFs have too much detail, too much text to be integrated, so having them as external links is good. The scans are neutral and accurate and relevant.
Links to avoid include search results pages. Technically, the http://womensarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Revolution URL is a search result showing instances of "The Revolution" in the blog. However...
...links "should be kept to a minimum". This means my solution of putting individual PDF links into the newspaper article is not exactly recommended. Some balance must be struck between not having a search results page and having a minimum of links.
Wikipedia acknowledges that an external link drives traffic to a website. However, the wiki keeps a lid on the spamming of URLs by those who have a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest

I see that The Women's Archives has deleted the opinion piece that I had problems with, the one in contradiction to Ann Gordon's conclusion reached after her many years of study. I take that as a gesture of good faith. I will keep an eye on the URL with search results and if there's another uploaded scan of The Revolution (probably volume 1, number 12) I will return the external link to the newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, don't remove

Man... before remove a paragraph of "Tango", read the references. Last reference I've given it's not a round table. It'a a reliable reference, then... don't remove anything.

Look this web page, and you'll see that are written and cited Tangos before 1900: http://www.gardelytango.com/genesis-del-tango-de-1860-a-1880.aspx

And this is a relaible page. DON'T remove. --Edipo yocasta (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air raids on Japan

I've just added the material I've been developing on the air campaign against Japan to the Air raids on Japan article. Thanks a lot for your assistance with this - it's been very helpful both in fixing up errors and keeping me motivated. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! You have made a lousy stub article into a broad and balanced panorama! Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

Regarding your comment, I have no intention whatever of contesting any edits made by long-standing contributors to the article. The article is very far from perfect; if you change something in the lead I won't dispute it. The article's fractious history is a result of edits by admins, sockpuppets and nobody in between. BillMasen (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, sockpuppets, and me that is. Unless I too am a sock of HK :p BillMasen (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes jump into articles I know nothing about, learning quickly the main issues to represent the uninvolved neutral viewpoint, but in this case I choose not to jump. I have other plans in mind for my time. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance, but perhaps you can understand my frustration at being told the article has suffered under my 'control', and then asking in vain for concrete suggestions of how to improve it. Of course if you don't want to get involved I can't force you.

regards, BillMasen (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for ProtectMarriage.com

On 9 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ProtectMarriage.com, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ProtectMarriage.com was formed to pass California Proposition 8, a voter initiative against same-sex marriage? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rabatment of the rectangle

On 10 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rabatment of the rectangle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Renaissance artists and architects used rabatment of the rectangle as a compositional tool in their work? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBA List

As per the source, Stanton referred to abortion as infanticide in The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868. I can't revert it because of 1RR. Could you kindly do so? Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're repeating an FFL and SBA List position which is off-base and misleading. Stanton referred to both abortion and to infanticide in the article: two different things. Stanton writes about women who deliver children in a hidden boarding house and then kill them, calling this "child murder". She then says about "the murder of children" that it includes killing babies both before and after birth. Here's the copy of The Revolution which Dannenfelser thinks is the one in which Stanton used infanticide to mean abortion. Dannenfelser is wrong, as she often is when bending 19th century issues to fit her own world view.

Scholars Tamara Kay and Nicola Beisel in "Abortion, Race, and Gender in Nineteenth-Century America" write that "Stanton and Anthony linked women's political impotence not only to abortion but also to infanticide." These scholars separate fetus killing from newborn killing. Scholar Morgan Ridler notes about Stanton that "it is important to point out that this writer was discussing infanticide and not directly abortion."

Stanton biographer Lori D. Ginzberg notes that Lucy Stone and Stanton were of one mind in the late 1850s regarding "divorce, marriage, infanticide, and their kindred subjects". Stone and Stanton felt that a woman should have the right to control her own body, to say no to sex even with the husband. However, by 1860 Stanton took a more radical view than Stone about divorce; that it should be allowed at any time.

Stanton biographer Karen O'Connor writes that Stanton was against both infanticide (newborn murder) and unrestrained pregnancy. The modern use of Stanton as an anti-abortion icon ignores her charge that women should have few children, and should be able to choose the time of their pregnancy.

Stanton used fiery language about a lot of things, and her terms are imprecise. She writes about Hester Vaughan, a teenaged mother who killed her own newborn child, that "If that poor child of sorrow is hung, it will be deliberate, downright murder. Her death will be a far more horrible infanticide than was the killing of her child. She is the child of our society and civilization, begotten and born of it, seduced by it, by the judge who pronounced her sentence, by the bar and jury, by the legislature that enacted the law (in which, because a woman, she had no vote or voice), by the church and the pulpit that sanctify the law and the deeds, of all these will her blood, yea, and her virtue too, be required! All these were the joint seducer, and now see if by hanging her, they will also become her murderer."

Ann D. Gordon writes in The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, volume 2, that "As early as 1854 ECS pointed to the laws about infanticide, or the killing of a baby after birth, as her principal example of how man legislated unjustly for woman". Stanton uses the power of the word infanticide to mean a few different things: the killing of newborns, the unjust killing of a teenaged mother who committed infanticide herself, and to generalize about the killing of babies by prostitutes to prevent motherhood.

Gordon also notes that Stanton and the other feminists rallied in support of Hester Vaughan even though she may have committed infanticide. They did not condemn the act so much as they condemned the unjust manner of laws controlling women that were enacted by men and enforced by men. In this manner, Stanton again fails to fit neatly into the pro-life bracket.

Stanton biographer Lois W. Banner says that "Stanton condemned both infanticide and abortion; in 1871 she categorized them as disgusting and degrading crimes." Banner asserts that Stanton used each term to mean a different thing: one for newborn murder and the other for unborn murder.

We cannot say in the article that Stanton used the word only one way when she used it a number of ways; such a path would be against the neutrality policy. It would be misrepresenting Stanton. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede the point. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question though, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to: You referred to abortion as "fetus killing". To kill means "to deprive of life in any manner", according to the dictionary. By calling it "fetus killing", are you admitting that the fetus is a life? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sperm-fertilized egg, the zygote, is a life in my book. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Santa Maria de Ovila

The article Santa Maria de Ovila you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Santa Maria de Ovila for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mediation about 1953 coup article

Couple of questions for you if you have time. I want to do a request for mediation about the article.

You had (what I thought) was a very well thought out and researched request for mediation, but it's been deleted. Do you still have what you wrote saved somewhere so that Someone (I) can use some of the links and so on for another request?
There is a lot more wrong with the article than just the issues pointed out in the RfC February RfC. Would you advise doing more RfCs until I've covered everything that needs work in the article before making a request for mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(PS Hi Kurdo! --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have a couple of links to previous Arb and Med requests:

As to what the next step should be, I don't know. I thought mediation would work and I though ArbCom would pick up the case, but I was wrong. Maybe you should ask an arbitrator to estimate whether there is now reason enough for the case to be accepted. If not, it's RfC time again. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Draft-card burning

Hello! Your submission of Draft-card burning at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Savidan 20:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-card burning

Dude, kudos. It never occurred to me that we wouldn't have already had an article on it, it's important! Go you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh... Thanks! There are still some cracks here and there that need filling. The wiki is not a completely closed field. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good start to an article - great work. There are lots of gaps remaining, particularly for socio-military topics. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My" War?

I don't accept tha Uruguay tries to has privileges that do not belong to itself. And it is not only with "Tango", it also happened with a lot of argentinian folkloric genres (which are proved its "argentine birth"), which they called "ritmos rioplatenses" ("rioplatense genres"). I am a dancer of Tango and argentine folkloric genres, and I've been studying the "history" of those genres... then I know what I am speaking about.... tou know???

What would you do if you were me??? Imagine that Canada want to steal you the Jazz or.... the swing or twist....or hip-hop...or much better, the "country (USA) music"........ what would you do, if the'd try it without sustainable arguments??? --Edipo yocasta (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lurie details

Hello Binksternet, It's Maria, John Lurie's assistant. I apologize for posting here. We have a few comments and corrections regarding the Wikipedia entry on John Lurie,

In the section on “Early Life” appears the following quote: “He moved to New York City around 1974, then briefly visited London to check out the punk music scene, which did not appeal to him. He was more interested in avant-garde jazz and no wave.[1]
Here you have misread the original source (which you footnote). If you refer back to that you will see that Lurie did not go to London “to check out the punk music scene.”
The following regard the section “Personal Life.”
Contrary to what you imply (“baffling neurological symptoms”), there is no question that John Lurie has advanced Lyme disease. We have medical documents to prove this. Eight different physicians (not a “group of eight”) have said it is late persistent Lyme disease and is a chronic malady. There are presently no doctors who disagree with this diagnosis. We are happy to send documentation so that Wikipedia will state definitively what is apparent to numerous medical practitioners, that Lurie is battling Lyme disease. There should be no ambiguity on this point.
Later, in the same section you write “he was told he had a year to live, and his girlfriend moved out.” We’d prefer that you remove this, as it suggests the girlfriend was a live-in girlfriend, which she wasn’t, and paints her in an excessively harsh light.
In the section’s last sentence, Wikipedia states that Lurie has lived in various locales “since his early 2009 disagreement with Perry.” But characterizing what happened between the two as a “disagreement” is unfair and inaccurate. It is not even clear over what matter the two have “disagreed” since Perry has never settled on exactly what his grievance with Lurie is. Additionally, the threats of violence belie the tame character of that word. We request that you remove that phrase, since it is parenthetical to begin with and obfuscates more than enlightens.

John Lurie was not the only person who found the New Yorker article inaccurate and you may want to refer your readers to the New Yorker blog, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/08/video-john-lurie-the-drawing-show.html, where many of those interviewed had problems with the article. Finally, a clarification on dates. You say, “Lurie says he has been in ill health since 1994.” In fact, while the Lyme disease was contracted in 1994, Lurie’s neurological symptoms began in 2002, not 1994. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Best, Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.21.51 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These recommendations are mostly good, actionable, collaborative suggestions. I will implement most of them.

I have changed the London punk bit, the girlfriend bit, the eight doctors bit, the 1994 bit, and the Perry disagreement, the latter becoming a "rupture", all per sources. However, the 2002 date you suggest here was given as 2000 in the Sutton interview. I must use published sources such as that one. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the previous Lurie discussion from your talk page?

Also, "disagreement" is more accurate than "rupture", unless of course Wikipedia now allows individuals, or by extension their assistants, to dictate the content of their own BLP.Lurielurie (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was reexamine the sources and rewrite the bits in light of the complaints. Rupture is from one of the sources. I did not add anything not contained in the sources.

I took the previous discussion off my page because you kept copying and pasting it to annoy me. You have used up quite a lot of good will in my book.

Wikipedia will always be a bit more sympathetic to living persons who have a biography article than to living persons who wish them harm. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Lurie's claims, there exists no evidence in any cited material that Lurie has been threatened with violence -as he has not been- it is fair not to use language that implies otherwise. Lurie has used his notoriety to engage in an ongoing campaign to destroy another human being with unsupported accusations. Please direct me to where I might find that it is Wikipedia's policy to extend sympathy or privilege to subjects of BLP's over others. That a person's own quoted statements might be percieved as harmful to them indicts only the quoted. My edits, however, referenced published material and his own verifiable statements.

If you wish to remove a redundant posting of the previous Lurie discussion, that seems reasonable. My re-posting of it was no more meant to annoy you than was your removal of some of our exchanges in the original discussion to annoy me. Please restore at least one of them.

I hope your reserve of goodwill is no less valuable than mine.Lurielurie (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons can be read in full here: WP:BLP. I do not believe your assertions regarding Lurie; they do not match what he said in interviews. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which assertions?

Thank you for acknowledging your standard of verifiability is "what he said".

What about restoring the original John Lurie discussion. Something to hide?Lurielurie (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lurie

I feel bad about asking you to help there, sorry. The protection has expired, I am still watching it and if disruption continues without attempts to discuss I will ask for some semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay, no worries. If I need help I'll give a shout out to the right forum. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see there is some constructive discussion happening above so perhaps a resolution and compromise is on the horizon, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

Hi Binksternet, it looks like some of the articles you edit fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho

It's been called "Legacy" for a long time. Thanks to your aiding and abetting that IP troll, I'm forced to take the Groucho page off my watch list. Good job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of low-value mentions of the topic listed in trivia or pop culture sections. I guess you and I disagree on that point. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks to you, it's off my watch list now, so someone else will have to defend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]