Talk:National American Woman Suffrage Association

Separate articles
The American Woman Suffrage Association and National Woman Suffrage Association should be seperate articles - They are NOT the same thing .. They have seperate viewpoints and are led by different woman-

I believe you should NOT merge the two.. as to make searching easier- If the title be National American it should be National & American Woman Suffrage Association to make a clear distinction- --130.85.233.208 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Lauren Litz (women's studies MINOR)

they are absolutely the same thing! I think you are getting the National Woman Suffrage Association mixed up with the American oman Suffrage Association.

I take back what I said just above... The two are different and should not be merged. The NAWSA was a merge of the NWSA and the AWSA. They are all different groups, from different times periods. -Mike, AP student

Please don't merge these, searching difficulty would be increased.


 * I have a couple of points to make;
 * First, an explanation of the layout of the NAWSA article: I included the bolded text within this article so that it would be clear, at a glance, that there are three separate organisations (AWSA, NWSA, and NAWSA) being discussed in this article - NAWSA is an amalgamation of the other two organisations, which is why the discussion on AWSA and NWSA is nessecary, to provide context and an explanation for the controversy that NAWSA's existence caused. Before this revision, the article was extremely confusing and misleading. I think the breif info on AWSA and NWSA provided in the NAWSA article should be left intact, as spreading this out into three seperate articles, with no unifying history provided anywhere, would be a totally unnessecary pain in the bum - it'd become a list of meaningless facts, rather than a contextualised history.
 * Secondly, if you look up "American Woman Suffrage Association", it takes you to the NAWSA article (which is completely ridiculous, because the American Woman Suffrage Association link is included within the NAWSA article), so AWSA has apparently already been merged into NAWSA... this may be what was responsible for the initial misleading/confusing nature of the article. This argues against merging the articles. (Edited to add: i have removed the recursive AWSA link.)
 * Third, I don't think the articles should be merged, the seperate NWSA article does contain extra information, and it is not a copy of the NWSA section of this article (which only really outlines those aspects of the NWSA relevant to the NAWSA). If a merger occurs, we should at least expand the scope of the NAWSA article to include all the extra NWSA information, rather than just deleting NWSA outright...
 * Fourthly, If a merger doesn't occur, i think we should have a similarly informative seperate article on AWSA, as long as somebody can dig up some unique information and history to include in such an article.
 * -- User:Dissembly

I agree that the two articles should not be merged, and that each organization (the NWSA, the AWSA, and the NAWSA) should have seperate articles. If this is done, History of women's suffrage in the United States should be updated to link to each of the articles. -timrem 19:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I may have done something radical. To take care of the orphan problem on the AWSA page, I redirected the AWSA links to that page (see the discussion page there). I then came here and read your discussions. All of you know more about this than me. I suffered from acronym overload just trying to change the redirects. Undo my changes if you like, but I think (1.) the AWSA should have their own page and (2.) someone needs to work on that page to focus on AWSA. Thanks, HornColumbia 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start
I've written new introductory paragraphs for the AWSA and NWSA articles, and they are now clearly distinct from this article, which probably needs more of its own elaboration and less on NWSA and AWSA. And it needs more references (Flexner's Century of Struggle can provide many). But I may leave this to others with more expertise. Dwalls 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Terrible
This article is stupid because it did not talk about how the Congressional Union, and NAWSA differ their strategies. And that's what a really need. Thanks for no help at all. Oh and if you go to Congressional Union there is nothing there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwalls (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The anonymous editor who wrote the above statement has a point, but it was certainly impolite to place it in the article instead of on this Discussion page (so I moved it). It would be a good idea to describe in this NAWSA article the split of the Congressional Union and its evolution into the Women's Party, and to fill out the article on the Congressional Union.  Editor "Terrible" might want to consider working on these as a starting contribution to Wikipedia.  I hope the Alice Paul partisans can keep a balanced POV!  Dwalls 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed.  We need to reconcile the National Woman's Party (NWP) perspective with this article, cover the outrage and movement in public opinion driven by the peaceful Silent Sentinels at the White House which were met with police and prison abuse, and include the defeat of anti-suffrage senators pushed by the NWP, which allowed passage in the Senate.  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

NESA
Is the National Equal Suffrage Association distinct from these groups? --Dystopos (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently several states had Equal Suffrage Associations that were state chapters of NAWSA. I'm not aware of a National Equal Suffrage Association. Dwalls (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Major overhaul and expansion
I have posted a draft of a proposed overhaul of this article at User:Bilpen/sandbox. I will leave it there for several days for comments before posting it as a new version of this article. As much as possible, I am attempting to provide a complete and fully cited overview that reflects the scholarly consensus on this topic. Bilpen (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you described briefly the main points of change you introduced, the things you emphasized versus the things you de-emphasized. One immediate concern is that your proposed lead section is too long per WP:LEAD. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right, the lead is too long. I will work on that.


 * The biggest problem with the current article (aside from its lack of completeness; Shaw is barely mentioned!) is its heavy dependence on Andrea Moore Kerr's biography of Lucy Stone. Apparently Kerr was not trained as a historian.  From what little I can find out about her on the web, she worked as an advertising copywriter, freelance journalist and teacher.  Her book was useful as a pioneering work on Lucy Stone although it is highly biased and contains significant factual errors. For example, on page 225 Kerr downplays the importance of the Seneca Falls Convention, which was closely associated with Stone's rivals, by discussing the celebration in 1888 of its fortieth anniversary, saying, "Until that time, no particular significance had been accorded to the small meeting in upstate New York".  That statement ignores a lot of history, the most obvious being the celebration in 1878 of the convention's thirtieth anniversary, which involved some 1200 people, including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth.


 * Instead of citing Kerr's biography of Stone, the proposed new version of this article cites the recent biography of her by Sally McMillen, a much more balanced book by a university professor and a professional historian. Joelle Million's study of the first half of Stone's life is also good and helps to correct some of Kerr's excesses.  In general, I tried to base the new version of this article on books from respected academicians, especially books that are frequently cited by other respected academicians.  My goal was to present the consensus view of professional historians insofar as that is possible.


 * The current article does not reflect a neutral point of view. It says, for example, "Anthony and Stanton worked behind Stone's back to create the splinter group NWSA".  That represents Stone's point of view, but definitely not Stanton's and Anthony's.  It contains the phrase "Stone's political realist group"; Stanton and Anthony would disagree with that description.  It says the suffrage movement tabled certain measures during World War I and was prudent to do so, but we need to remember that Alice Paul had a very different point of view about what was prudent in this situation.


 * There are factual errors in the current article. It says the NWSA "would only allow female members" but that isn't true.  I suspect that statement is a misreading of the accusation by Henry Blackwell, Lucy Stone's husband, that men were prohibited from being NWSA leaders, but that isn't true either.  See Gordon (2009) p. 65 for a discussion of this.  It also is inaccurate to say that "the AWSA founded the Woman's Journal".  It was founded by Lucy Stone and served only as the voice of the AWSA only on an unofficial basis. Bilpen (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very thorough summary of your work. I'm satisfied that your sources are the better ones, and that you are retaining the sense that Stone was critically important at the time, a central figure, despite her role being downplayed later. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just posted the overhauled version. Bilpen (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Susan B. Anthony & Alice Stone Blackwell signed NAWSA check.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Susan B. Anthony & Alice Stone Blackwell signed NAWSA check.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National American Woman Suffrage Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091208134156/http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/nawsa.html to http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/nawsa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hyphen?
Should there be a hyphen? The photo of the receipt has one. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found some more images that have it with no hyphen. Could still be checked elsewhere, though. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Verifying quote about momentum from the 1913 march per request from BeenAroundAWhile
Per request from‎ BeenAroundAWhile on Aug 31 for a verifying quote to support that statement that the 1913 march on Washington "brought publicity to the movement and gave it fresh momentum", here is the quote from Flexner, page 257:  "Tremendous publicity accrued to the suffragists, and the Congressional Committee picked up fresh momentum.  Pilgrimages were organized to Washington from all over the country with petitions collected at the grass-roots level, culminating in an automobile procession to the Capitol..." Bilpen (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)