Talk:Emmeline Pankhurst

Comments
When did England give the right to vote to women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 October 2002 (UTC)


 * At the same time as Scotland, Wales and Ireland did. The initial date was in March 1918 when the Representation of the People act gave voting rights to women over 30 and men over 21.  However, the suffragettes still saw it as a great victory.  In November 1918, women over 21 were given the right to become Members of Parliament.  This led to a situation where a woman could be an MP even though she was too young to vote!  Women finally achieved equal voting rights to men in the UK in 1928. -- Derek Ross


 * Which right to vote? Many women in the UK had the local franchise for about 50 years before 1918 - as demonstrated in the article itself describing Pankhurst as being elected to the Board of Guardians. The 1918 Act gave (some) women the *PARLIAMENTARY* franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.251.53 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Were any of the Pankhursts born in Salford or did any of them spend a significant period of their lives in the city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.124.118 (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What a great article! Bravo to the writers! --24.12.159.252 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

pictures
maybe a picture of Emmeline Pankhurst would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.16.142 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Who reference?
Dr. Who is the name of a British science fiction series, where "The Doctor" is a time traveler, and in the episode broadcast on 31 March 2007 called "Smith and Jones", he comments that his "laser spanner" was stolen by Emily Pankhurst - given that he is a time traveler, who has met Shakespeare, Benjamin Franklin, Queen Elizabeth the first etc - it is not unlikely that it is Emmeline Pankhurst he is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceHunter (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biographical sketch?
It would be interesting to have some biographical information in the article. Anybody has the knowledge and time to do it? Goochelaar (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture
I'm not at all happy about this section, which seems to be pretty much a Trivia section in disguise. Does anyone really care that: "In Helen Fielding's novel Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Tom tries to convince Bridget to vote and says, 'Go on then. Remember Mrs. Pankhurst.'" Is that really important, relevant, or encyclopedic? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's relevant, to the extent it shows the influence of Ms Pankhurst. However, unless it can be proven - perhaps by a link to the script - that this line is actually in the movie, it should probably be removed. Mwahcysl (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Major renovation
I'm beginning a full-scale reconstruction of this article, with the goal of taking it to FA status. I shall abolish the pop culture section, since that is strongly disfavoured by the English Wikipedia community. I will hopefully move the renovated article from my drawing board to the article namespace by 1 September. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed the aforementioned reconstruction and am now opening the floor for peer review. Thank you for any constructive comments you may care to make. Scartol  •  Tok  18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to the folks more familiar with British English than myself who are correcting the slip-ups in my prose. Cheers, mates! Scartol  •  Tok  11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done! 68.5.138.151 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely splendid
What a terrific article - well done User:Scartol. I made a couple of Br Eng edits. What a pity User:Tttom who tagged the article didn't come here to discuss what he saw was wrong with it. It reads fine to me, and not weaselly at all.

One query - the Goulden house in Seedley is described as a cottage. Seedley is described on its page as being an 'area ... mostly made up of terraced housing, dating from the late 19th century and early 20th century' so it seems unlikley the house was a cottage, which is a term usually used to describe traditional rural housing. 81.156.175.153 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, if Seedley was an old village/settlement which then was gradually 'suburbanised' in the 19 and 20 C, then there is the possibility that there would be old cottages in the original centre of what had been the village. 81.156.175.153 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my guess. Purvis refers to it as "Seedley Cottage", and it's by far the more comprehensive of the two EP bios. I don't have any first-hand sources to pull from, and I think the second comment above makes sense. Scartol  •  Tok  17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cottage is also sometimes used to describe the 2 up-2 down style of terraced housing. David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

 * Slapping tags on an article should be accompanied by a thorough explanation, so I reverted the tagging. I encourage Ttom to motivate the tag with more than just "which historians?" in the edit summary.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article, I suspect the "offending" phrase is "Although historians differ about whether Pankhurst's militancy ..." (in the legacy section - the same phrase appears in the lead - but since this shoudl sumamrise the article as a whole, we probably don't need to spell it out there) we really need to give some examples of specific historians who are pro- or contra-. David Underdown (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Her passionate work with the WSPU is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain, although historians disagree if she did more to help or hinder public support for it." - 'historians' used in this way are 'weasel words' it implies an authority for which no evidence is given. Since this is a statement in the opening paragraph it further lends a credibility to the unsubstantiate, unsourced and unreferenced idea that there is a serious debate over her legacy's effect (which I doubt there is, frankly). Therefore I'm going to tag that part again with a fact tag. Reference that statement or it can be removed.Tttom1 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From wp on weasel words: "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them."Tttom1 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should sumamrise the article, the cite tag would be better placed in teh legacy section, if it can be adequately cited in there, it's mention in the lead is fine. David Underdown (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The footnote at the end of the paragraph which has been tagged refers the reader to the two book-length biographies that have been published about Mrs. Pankhurst (both in 2002, both published by Routledge, interestingly enough). The pages cited in the books by Bartley and Purvis contain an extended discussion about the contention among historians (including Pugh, Liddington, Phillips, and others) about whether her actions increased or decreased public support for women's suffrage. This wasn't an effort to put my opinion into the words of her biographers; it's an effort to represent the general opinion across the field of Pankhurst studies.

By the way: If anyone would like to contribute a more comprehensive peer review, I'd love to have in-depth feedback here. FA, we're on the way! Cheers. Scartol •  Tok  16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated the citation to replace the "fact" tag, although I was under the impression that a citation at the end of a paragraph is assumed to contain the totality of the information in said paragraph. I suppose this is a case where a specific extra citation is useful. Thanks to all for your input. Scartol •  Tok  16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have removed the weasel words in question as they lack NPV and references. Article was tagged with the 2 paragraphs above providing explanation and tag was still removed without adding reference. If, in fact, there is a debate among historians, the editors working on this otherwise very well written article should be able to provide references to that specific claim. Policy is for tags to remain unless a reference is provided or statement is removed. Tttom1 (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I have provided references to the specific claim of a dispute among historians. Bartley goes through every book (and most parts of books) written about Mrs. Pankhurst, explaining that some lauded her contribution while others argued that she didn't help the movement. Purvis' introduction provides a similar overview of the various books written by and about Mrs. P and her daughters, and concludes similarly – that there's no consensus about her net effect. I'm all for rewording the phrase in question, but I also feel that it's important not to portray this woman as someone whom historians universally credit with positive impacts when it comes to women's suffrage. Scartol  •  Tok  01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the editor has provided the reference there should be a number after the statement and the ref in the footnotes. If you cover this aspect in a later section with a reference, that's where the statement should be. Down in the legacy the statement is supported by a reference (and further qualified) which it was not in the lead. There's no problem with what is below, but up front without those refs its misleading and, as shown above here, the very definition of a weasel word. The 'weasel word ' is just the unfortunate jargon wiki uses for this type non-policy writing - its no reflection on the overall quality of this article or the general tone. In fact, removing it leaves the lead more in tone with the rest. If a reader has to get all the way to legacy to find a legitimate source for a statement - that's too late. Imagine all claims only being referenced the 2nd time they are mentioned a few hundred words and numerous paragraphs later. Why not say in the lead: "Pankhurst biographers Bartley and Purvis discuss the debate among historians as to whether her actions helped or hindered... etc" and ref it as in legacy sec. so a reader knows exactly where you're coming from? Tttom1 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that references are not required in the lead (the exception is for direct quotes which shoould always be sourced, as they are in this article) - by definiton it is repeating information discussed in more detail elsewhere. The fact it is referenced in the legacy section is quite sufficient to justify the usage of the words in the lead.  David Underdown (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with David, but let's look at LEAD:"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."If it's the case (as it appears to be) that the bit in the lead about the dispute among historians is controversial and/or likely to be questioned, how about we replace the wording that was removed, and add the same footnotes from the Legacy section? Do you see that as a satisfactory solution, Ttom? Scartol  •  Tok  11:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already replaced the wording. Of course it can be cited, but it's entirely redundant to the legacy section which justifies the inclusion of the wording in the lead.  David Underdown (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs in "Family and birth" section
recently switched the order of paragraphs in the "Family and birth" section, to start the article with info about Mrs. Pankhurst's birth, and then give background on her family.

I actually think it's better to start with family background and then get into the birth of the subject, since this is a chronological approach. (First there was the family, then the child was born.) I used this approach when writing the biographies of Emmy Noether and Chinua Achebe – in both cases, a paragraph about the family is provided, then we move on to the birth of the subject her/himself. In those cases it seemed to work well.

I don't really feel strongly one way or another, but I do have a general preference for chronological ordering of things. I just want what's best for the article, though, so I'm curious about what other folks think. Scartol •  Tok  14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the rest of the article is written in chronological order, I think that the beginning of the article should be treated similarly: family history first, and then birth. There's no reason to begin out of sync. María ( habla  con migo ) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and congrats on making it to the main page! I hope it wasn't too painful. María ( habla con migo ) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it seems to have escaped relatively unscathed. Many thanks to the noble warriors taking arms against the demons of vandalism. Scartol  •  Tok  00:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

congratulations
A very good article indeed. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of Marriage
The third paragraph states she married in 1878 whereas the section "Marriage and Family" states she was married 18 December 1879. Which date is correct? Dcutter (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:English suffragists, Category:English feminists, etc.
Category:English suffragists is itself a category within Category:British suffragists, ditto Category:English feminists and Category:British feminists, and Category:British feminists and Category:British women's rights activists. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

memories
None of these contributors seem to have had any living links to the Sufragette movement, my late Grandmother had firm opinions on the subject all her long lfe.

"Those stupid Pankhurst women. It's far more important being able to feed ten children than trying to get the vote". The Sufragette movement was only ever intended for the middle and upper classes and to quote my grandmother again, "It was the war that brought the vote for ordinary women not the Sufragettes".AT Kunene (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Churchill's defeat?
'One early target of WSPU opposition was future Prime Minister Winston Churchill; his opponent attributed Churchill's defeat in part to "those ladies who are sometimes laughed at."'

Which defeat does this refer to? Valetude (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It remains unexplained in the text, which is a bit poor for a featured article. It actually refers to the ministerial by-election in Manchester in April 1908, when Churchill had to stand again for his own seat because he had been appointed to the Cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. A hangover from the from the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 was that, as ministers were paid and MPs in those days were not, the electors were asked again to vote their confidence in an MP who was taking a paid post. (This went away in the 1920s.) Churchill lost in Manchester by 249 votes to the Conservative William Joynson-Hicks, and it was widely reported that this was because Liberal women were agitating against their own candidate because of his supposed views on the suffrage issue. The quote from Joynson-Hicks attributing his win to "those ladies who are sometimes laughed at" comes from Sylvia Pankhurst's The Suffragette Movement. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iEd9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT315&lpg=PT315&dq=churchill+those+ladies+who+are+sometimes+laughed+at&source=bl&ots=mspsAQJe2O&sig=ACfU3U2fyIRPXz2nj6XDLJ6g0nKyHbOwpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS6o-ftu7gAhUsUhUIHXDRCpEQ6AEwEnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=churchill%20those%20ladies%20who%20are%20sometimes%20laughed%20at&f=false Churchill was then immediately elected to the safe Liberal seat of Dundee instead. He was not at that time as strongly opposed to women's suffrage as was believed. Joynson-Hicks was a slightly unsavoury character, noted for an anti-Semitic address he made to a Jewish dinner shortly after his election. 'Joynson-Hicks gained personal notoriety in the immediate aftermath of this election for an address to his Jewish hosts at a dinner given by the Maccabean Society, during which he said "he had beaten them all thoroughly and soundly and was no longer their servant." ' As Home Secretary in the 1920s he was somewhat repressive and reactionary, except in regard to the expansion of women's suffrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joynson-Hicks,_1st_Viscount_Brentford Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd George
Why no mention of the bomb she and her gang planted at the house of Lloyd George? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.226.5 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While it seems Pankhurst herself did not plant the bomb, given her claim that evening that "we have blown up the Chancellor of the Exchequer's house" and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment, it is a curious omission. It was pure chance that they didn't kill the workmen building it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
Is it alright if I add an infobox, or is there a specific reason there is none? ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Birth certificate name asserted to be "Emiline Pankhurst"
At ticket:2016022510004077 on WP:OTRS someone has provided a copy of what seems to be this person's birth certificate. The certificate says "Crown copyright" so I think it cannot be republished in Wikipedia. The submitter says that the certificate spells her name as "Emiline Pankhurst", and requests that this article present that spelling. Thoughts from anyone?

I regret to say that it is difficult to show the birth certificate when it requires OTRS permission to read it through this link. Personally I do not know what to think, and am only conveying the request. I am inviting the person who shared it to comment here.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit late I know but, who's birth certificate are you referring too? On Emmeline's own birth certificate, her name would have been Goulden not Pankhurst. Richerman  (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmeline Pankhurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104124541/http://www.gov.im/lib/news/mnh/125thanniversary.xml to http://www.gov.im/lib/news/mnh/125thanniversary.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

info box
This article passed FAC without an info box and has remained without for many years. It is unnecessary as, like many other biographies, the box does not allow any nuance and repeats factoids already included in the well written lead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Feature page seems fine without an infobox, looks very classy as is. Too many infoboxes within the realm of activists and events related to them have been enlarged and almost militarized in their listings, as if there were opposing sides in battle. Bio pages of activists like Pankhurst are often fine without infoboxes, and since this one has been featured best to leave it infoboxless as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Linscott novel
Regarding the "popular culture" item I added about E.P. in the Gillian Linscott novel, subsequently removed as not sufficiently notable: I'm wondering if this was the best decision. Is the Linscott mystery really less notable, for example, than the graphic-novel trilogy? I don't know if it matters, but the Linscott book is part of a series featuring a (fictional) Suffragette protagonist, and Pankhurst may even appear extensively within the series, though I haven't read enough of the books to know. Worth reconsidering? Jcejhay (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In popular culture sections are generally discouraged in FAs as they are trivia magnets; I see when this article passed through FAC it did not have an 'In popular culture" section at all. Also the items already included are at least sufficiently notable that they have articles whereas the Linscott novel does not, so IMO it remains not notable but of course others may disagree. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture sections are generally discouraged in FAs." Interesting! I did not know this. Thank you for the explanation. Jcejhay (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmeline Pankhurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113052/http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collectionsdelete/representation-of-the-people-act-1918/ to http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collectionsdelete/representation-of-the-people-act-1918/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Pankhurst's memorials
When Emmeline Pankhurst died it was Kitty Marshall, Margaret, Lady Rhondda and Rosamund Massy who decided to arrange her memorials. They raised money for her gravestone in Brompton Cemetery and a statue of her outside the House of Commons (which she was had frequently been stopped from entering). Money was also raised money to buy the painting that had been made by fellow suffragette Georgina Brackenbury so that it could be given to the National Portrait Gallery. Massy's prison badge and hunger strike medal were placed in a casket in the plinth of Emmeline Pankhurst's statue in the Victoria Tower Gardens. It was unveiled by Stanley Baldwin in 1930.

Proposed merge with Statue of Emmeline Pankhurst
The article is essentially a summary of why the subject of the statue is notable, but there is little - if anything - about the subject of the article, the statue. There is media coverage about the unveiling given it is a recent event, however I would raise questions if the status itself is sufficiently notable. The article does not attempt to establish notability of the statue. Therefore, I propose a merger and redirect. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it is an important statue erected on the 100th anniversary of the first vote by women in England. The location is notable (St Peter's Square, Manchester) and near her birthplace and home, the statue is notable, the subject of the statue is extremely notable, and its place on four templates directs readers to this honoring of a historical figure. More importantly than seeking a merge would be obtaining an image of the statue for use on the two pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from the subject of a piece of art or the location of the artwork. If it were, every picture ever taken of the Queen would be notable or any picture that ever hung at the Tate Modern would be notable. Notability should be inherent in the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the statue, not the person it depicts. At present, the article tells us next to nothing about the statue. I don't think a picture of the statue would help notability. In order to be an article on its own, I'd recommend adding more about - for example - i) who commissioned the statue and what was the selection process, ii) how was the artwork executed, iii) what was the artists thought process when creating the sculpture, iv) how was the location determined, v) how was the statue received by the public, vi) what differentiates this statue from other statues about the subject, vii) how does it blend into its location, etc etc. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From the Pankhurst page: "making her the first woman to be honoured with a statue in the city since Queen Victoria more than 100 years ago" (which I'll add to the statue article if it's not already there). Manchester is Pankhurst's home town which, yes, does make it notable. There are not hundreds of statues of Pankhurst (although there should be), this is the second (at least the second with a Wikipedia page). Did you alert the page's creator, as a "merge" is an AfD by another name? Good ideas for expansion, maybe once the statue, which was just unveiled yesterday, 14 December, gets more publicity these can be added, but I can see no reason to delete an important and already well sourced artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Embiggen this article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree that it isnt the only statue of E. Pankhurst. But there's precedence- it is the second WP article about a Pankhurst statue- not teh first as marosc9 is claiming below, see Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst Memorial. If there are 10 WP articles about sculptures of her around the world maybe they could be merged, but the Pankhurst page is so long already, the 2 WP's would get lost in it - How cultural significance is judged by WP is another matter. But 3 big sources noting the sculpture indicate that British society deems the sculpture sufficiently significant IMO.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. This isn't the only statue of Emmeline Pankhurst but it is the only one to have its own article, which doesn't really make sense. It's probably not culturally significant enough either: there are hundreds of statues of important people around the country but they don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Marosc9 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the official statue in Pankhurst's hometown of Manchester which honors her. So having an article about this statue does "make sense". As for the hundreds of statues without articles, it is notable and productive that someone took the time to write this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Emiline and Emmeline
According to the reference given for her birth, she was registered as Emiline Goulden. At what point did she become Emmeline? DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Timeline confusion?
It says, under Marriage and family, the that the Pankhursts moved to Russel Square after Frank had died of diphtheria in 1888, and that they in their Russel Square home received, among others, the US abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. So I followed the link to check him up. And it said in that article that he died in 1879. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the source regarding the visitors, but this concern seems valid. The sentence does not assert that the Pankhursts received Garrison in their Russel Square home, but it's implied by being mentioned in the same paragraph, so I have separated it to avoid the implication. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing - Minimizing racism and violence of Emmeline Pankhurst
This is an article about a woman who organized a terrorist campaign, which quoting wikipedia included: "improvised explosive devices, arson, letter bombs, assassination attempts". These terrorist acts killed multiple people and animals.

She then went on to found an entirely racist political party. She was obsessed that foreigners and jews were a threat to britain. She mentioned the 'british race' a lot in her speeches and would be considered by today's standards a white supremacist.

The manifesto of her political party reads: the natural resources, the essential infrastructure and the transport system of the british isles and of the empire in general, to be under strictly british ownership and control. - in other words, no foreigners to be allowed a share in british commerce. The party's manifesto then went on to say the british public service to be manned exclusively by officials of long british descent and entirely british connection - ie. the civil service would only be allowed to employ white people who's families had lived in britain for generations and were not allowed to have foreign relatives or relatives living abroad.

Not putting these things front and center is burying the headline. Leaving them out entirely is plain whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.110.180 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Why isn’t the head of the article mentions “Terrorist” like Wikipedia does for unpopular persons/political causes?
 * Why the burying of terrorism? Would a Charles Manson page spend 10000 words covering his personal life, philosophy, jobs then have an “and he somehow got in a mass murder group” bury deep at the end of the page?
 * Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia even when it is inconvenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:41db:f62b:adfd:93b6 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

help with citations needed
a number of citations needed flags appear in this article and I have added some already: help is requested from editors with detailed information to cite e.g.WikiProject_Women_in_Red or WikiProject Women's History Thank you Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am afraid Kaybeesquared I undid some of your work when I reverted to remove the unnecessary "citation needed" tags, but the text was already well sourced so there was no need for additional sources. I think the editor who added all the tags didn't understand the referencing system in this article, which is to put a reference, sometimes citing multiple sources, at the end of several sentences or a paragraph. That of course is perfectly okay - you do not have to have a reference at the end of every sentence in Wikipedia. The article is already very well referenced, with most of the references coming from biographies or academic books. The article was a featured article and it would not have achieved that if it wasn't properly referenced. It was a featured article in 2008, but does not appear to have changed much since then. Southdevonian (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Doubts over Pankhurst's direct connection with the White Feather Movement
There is little to no evidence that Pankhurst participated in or directly publicly supported the White Feather Movement. Popular historian Jenny Draper says in her YouTube video (from 21:21 minutes) on the topic that multiple biographies, including her autobiography, do not mention the White Feather. Her newspapers The Suffragette and Britannia also do not even mention the campaign. A search in the archive of British newspapers shows no connection to Pankhurst and the movement. Yet in the opening to this Wiki article, it states "Emmeline and Christabel urged women to aid industrial production and encouraged young men to fight, becoming prominent figures in the white feather movement." The source given for this is a paper by Robin MacDonald, but it merely mentions that some supporters of Pankhurst gave out white feathers at the location of one of her speeches.

I suggest the claim that she became a "prominent figure in the white feather movement" should be deleted, and perhaps any reference to the movement, as she is never depicted as having any connection to it in any serious literature covering the course of her life and her campaigning.

Arcticotter (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)