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]

John Lurie

Shame on you Binksternet. Inventing source material to gas up someone you serve is frowned upon. Isn't it?

Lurielurie (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No material was invented. Sources are cited. I serve only myself and Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better put. Clearly, you are self-serving. And yes, your sources are cited. Unfortunately the passage to which you refer does not exist on page 206 of Bowman, nor does Lurie's or O'brien's name appear in the index.

Your edit stating that Lurie has painted since the 70's and 80's, based on the reference you cited is also thin (at best), a fabrication (at worst). Unless a BLP subject's claims about themselves are acceptable support, I suggest you clean up your mess.

I can only imagine what other havoc you have wreaked on Wikipedia with your deliberate willingness to misinform in the interest of serving yourself.

If the anecdote you cited appears elsewhere in Bowman, please direct me to the proper page, I will stand corrected, and owe you an apology.

If it does not, may I suggest you direct your self-serving energies someplace other than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurielurie (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman page 206, just like in the cite: "Downtowner John Lurie was supposed to be in the movie, but turned down a part after O'Brien asked Lurie's black girlfriend to make girlfriend to make them some pancakes."

No need for personal attacks, man. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have somehow removed my previous correspondence, I say again; I am not sure why you assume I am a man, nor how you can characterize anything I have said as personal attack since you say plainly above that you serve yourself.

Also, and again, your edits which reference Bowman are wildly inaccurate and reflect your bias, as do many of your other edits.

I repeat, you are in big trouble.Lurielurie (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your threat is lost on me. My editing of the article is well referenced. "Wildly inaccurate" does not describe any of my work at John Lurie's bio. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where, based on your reference, do you get that "He (Lurie) would have accepted a larger role but for..."? And where do you find that Lurie has painted since the 70's?

It is clear you are editing on behalf of Lurie in an attempt to make him appear more favorable.

I have issued no threat. My statement that you are in trouble is simply an observation relative to your desire to be perceived as an editor. You are, by your own admission, self-serving. That makes you decidedly not an editor, but an advocate.

Unfortunately, it is contributors like you that allow people to question the validity of Wikipedia.

Shame on you.Lurielurie (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Binksternet, this is Maria, John Lurie's assistant. There seems to be vandalism going on John's profile and some of the information is inaccurate and misleading. Could you please contact me at art@strangeandbeautiful.com so I can provide you with the correct information? Thank you for you time.

If I get "the correct information" from you it would be original research on my part. Wikipedia uses only published information, and has a hard policy specifying WP:No original research. Your best bet it to get the correct information in print so I can quote it. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 9 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]

john lurie