Talk:Shirley Chisholm/Draft

[[User:Richard Jensen 23:02, 1 July 2007 (CDT)|Richard Jensen 23:02, 1 July 2007 (CDT)]] has nominated the version dated 23:02, 1 July 2007 (CDT) of this article for approval. Other editors may also sign to support approval. The Politics Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on 20070707.

Article Checklist for "Shirley Chisholm/Draft"

Workgroup category or categories	History Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Derek Harkness 00:09, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

I lightened the image. Richard Jensen 00:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, evidently my lighten-up first time was far not enough :-). Yi Zhe Wu 09:14, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Hm

Just added two more relevant images and did some tweaking. My goal for this article is to get it eventually approved, experts please feel more than welcome to change, revise, and comment on it. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 14:08, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

CZ:Neutrality

Yi, Please give a thought to the phrase I removed, and you re-inserted, that Chisholm supported "abortion of unborn embryos or fetuses". Certainly, Chisholm was a supporter of what those who support it call "abortion rights" -- but to add the phrase "of unborn embryos or fetuses" implies that Chisholm's view is, in fact, wrong, that it is not a matter of a woman's right but of the rights of the "unborn." The simple word abortion already describes neutrally what Chisholm supported. I also would note that the footnoted source says only that she supported abortion; the language you use is not in the sources. If you look at CZ:Neutrality Policy, I think you'll see what I mean here. We must state the facts, and not add loaded phrases to qualify them, phrases that have an intrinsic non-neutral viewpoint. Russell Potter 22:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, that was indeed me trying to insert my personal views. I will try to be neutral in future. Sometimes it was just hard to write about a view opposite to my own, but I will try my best to not use loaded phrase. Thanks. Yi Zhe Wu 15:56, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

In this case I'm pretty sure Chisholm never advocated abortion. She said women had a Constitutional right to choose an abortion and said it's unconstitutional for state legislatures to try to remove that right. Richard Jensen 16:09, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Well Britannica says "legalized abortion", but I don't know how to phrase it. If you say "right to abortion" in the article it would seem that abortion is a "natural right" while many would disagree. Jensen, how would you suggest this one to be phrased? Yi Zhe Wu 16:24, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

The Supreme Court said in Roe v Wade that women have a constitutional right to make decisions about abortion. (Which is what people seemed to think back in the 18th century as well). The idea that abortion is morally wrong was limited to Catholics before about 1970, and has since been picked up by a minority of Protestants, in order to build a political coalition. It's not Biblical. Richard Jensen 16:41, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

But there are atheists who oppose abortion as well, like Nat Hentoff. Yi Zhe Wu 17:03, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Picture

The current image seems washed out -- I guess that the original version looked too contrasty, but I think we could improve on the adjustment. I've tinkered about with Photoshop and think I have a better one -- see comparison below. Russell Potter 10:41, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Unmodified image from the Library of Congress

Lightened image of Shirley Chisholm as currently on nominated version of this entry

Image of Shirley Chisholm with (I think) improved contrast and brightness

On my CRT monitor at work, the one currently in the article looks exceedingly better. Will give an alternate opinion tonight from my flatscreen at home. :)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:22, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Bam! I think I hit another home run!

--Robert W King 12:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)]]

[1] I fail to recall the proper memory tools to post an external url =[.

Robert, nothing personal, but your image looks almost as faded and washed out as the one presently in the article. There's no blackpoint, no contrast, and the tone range is from middle grays to whites. But maybe this is a CRT thing? I've looked at the present image on several different computers, PC's and Mac's with different monitors, white points, and color balance, and it looks washed out on all of them. I think the one I've posted looks 1000% better - full tone from white white to black black. but with a range of contrasts. If you have Photoshop, compare the histograms and you can see the difference even more starkly. Russell Potter 12:56, 3 July 2007 (CDT)