Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

The challenge?
I'd be curious to know the nature of the 1922 challenge to the 19th amendment. I am willing to do some research and add a short section about it, unless someone reading this knows of it already, or objects. Tarc 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm quite serious also! I hope you'll do the research, Tarc! Jwrosenzweig 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC}

Alice Paul
I'm not quite clear what the trivia item about Alice Paul means. Does it mean that she was opposed to allowing "women of color" to vote? Thejaysch 07:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem to, though it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's unreferenced. Ral315 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List of states passing the amendment
Does anyone have access to a list of the order of states in adopting the amendment? Also it might be an idea to show which of these states still had laws denying female suffrage (the basis of the second objection in Leser v. Garnett; and also it'd be interesting to see the balance between state legislatures just agreeing with what they already had and those who voted for the Constitution to impose female suffrage on them). Timrollpickering 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See the page http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendments.html#f11 for a list of state ratifications. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Any relation to Voting Rights Act?
Just off a random hunch, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 deals with voter discrimination... Do you think it might have had relation to the whole woman vote question at the time? Regardless if that particular act was related, I'd like to see specific instances where it was and wasn't upheld. Congress only passed this thing under considerable legislative pressure. How long did it take for it to create real change? (I'm especially interested in how it related to women who, well, weren't white. Jim Crow, anyone?) Kennard2 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS INCORRECT
this amendment never existed! ->here there was no sig' - here it is now made by someone else ... time zone [he thinks, but doesn't know for sure] must be some default - UTC? : 71.250.185.54 2007 March 25 20:26)

And you, Mr. or Mrs1) "User:NoName", only identified as one writing on computer 71.250.185.54, do you exist? (would you allow to be made "non-existent" just by being labeled such?). BTW you "forgot" to sign - I have done it for you (look just under your statement) - how do you look now when you read this?

1)which is your sex? isn't it M ? if F, why did you write such a thing ? (the - often not so good - past cannot be erased just by labeling it non-existent) ... my sex is M, BTW --UKe-CH 04:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
There seems to be minor vandalism on this page ever so often. Does anyone think something should be done to prevent it? There's an appropriate template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Protected_articles.2C_pages_and_images, but thought I'd check first before plopping the "semi-vandalism" tag down. Kennard2 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not quite clear to me what your mean by "I'd check" - may-be ask other users' opinion ? For the moment, I'd say, yes, add the tag. Just before you inserted this § someone has inserted the § containing the statement that the amendment never existed - may-be this was the motive to suggest the deposition of the tag? As I understand that it's bad practice to delete entire §s from a disc. page, I have now added to that § some sarcastic comments [how do you find them?] Newer vandalisms of a trivial kind did not resist prompt reverting (well I haven't verified for sure all the corresponding time delays) - is this a reason to not insert the tag? The § I augmented (as said) because of its silly-shocking content is border-line as to vandalism or not ... and protected (?) by having been added as a new § ... to prevent repetition of such, the tag might help. But .... may-be your suggestion in itself has stopped repetition? Now decide yourself what you do. --UKe-CH 06:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess I should just leave it alone unless I actually stick to the same page enough to notice a pattern. On a side note, your comment got glitched or something, though it could be just my computer's prob. Kennard2 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Stuff
Can someone clean up the gigantic ginormous space in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.40.89 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific? SMP0328. (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue with Dates
The dates given in this article don't seem to agree with one another.

"The Nineteenth Amendment was specifically intended to extend suffrage to women. It was proposed on June 4, 1919 and ratified on August 18, 1920. The Nineteenth Amendment was the culmination of the work of many activists in favor of women's suffrage. One such group, the Silent Sentinels, protested in front of the White House for 18 months starting in 1917 to raise awareness of the issue. On January 9, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson announced his support of the amendment. The next day, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the amendment...

How, pray, did Wilson support an Amendment and Congress vote on the same a year before it's being proposed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.61.9 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Presidents have no formal role in the amendment process. President Wilson was simply stating an opinion, like any private citizen, on an amendment that Suffragettes had been demanding for many years. After that, the Congress passed, and the States ratified, the Nineteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences
I have removed two sentences from the History section:"The Nineteenth Amendment was the culmination of the work of many activists in favor of women's suffrage. Starting in 1917, and continuing for 18 months, one such group, the Silent Sentinels, protested in front of the White House to raise awareness of the issue." Those sentences were unsourced and included weasel words (e.g., "many activists"). The quoted material can be restored to the article if reliable sourcing is provided and it is reworded to eliminate the weasel words. SMP0328. (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Congress
I noticed that in two of the amendments to the United States Constitution, the Eighteenth and Nineteenth respectively, there was no link to Congress, although the term is stated at least twice in each article. Therefore, I have linked the first mention of "Congress" in each article, not including the text of the amendment itself, to the United States Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by United States Patriot (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. :) SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court case
According to a couple news sources, the Nineteenth Amendment was apparently litigated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyone know what case this was? This may be a worthy addition to the article. TJRC (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it, and there's an article on it: Leser v. Garnett. I've updated the article with a short description of it. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like it had been in there before, and had been deleted by an IP editor prone to vandalism a week ago: . TJRC (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against the 19th Amendment
I would love to know what some of the arguments against the 19th amendment were, and any notable or major opposition to it. 76.126.242.132 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look for information that is reliably sourced. Then it can be decided whether such an addition should be made to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

History section
The history section needs some major expansion. Right now it sounds like Woodrow Wilson just wrote the amendment himself and a year later it was passed. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The History section desperately needs to be expanded. The Nineteenth Amendment was the product of a decades-long movement, yet this article gives the impression that it was adopted on the spur of the moment. I think all of the time that has been spent protecting this article from Vandalism has led to little or no time being given to improving it. Now that this article is indefinitely semi-protected, hopefully improvements will take place. SMP0328. (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have replace the old History section with one that is based on the Nineteenth Amendment section in Women's suffrage in the United States. The new History section acknowledges President Wilson's role, but doesn't give the impression that he (as Kaldari put it) "just wrote the amendment himself and a year later it was passed." Please feel free to further improve the new History section. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ratification
It should be noted somewhere that only 48 states are listed as ratifying it (either before or subsequent to its adoption) because it was already in force when Alaska and Hawaii became states. I am sure that a reference exists somewhere to substantiate such a statement.  Horologium  (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (8 votes, stays until April 16) is collaboration for February 2011

 * Nominated 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) ; needs 1 votes by April 16 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:
 * 1) cmadler (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) SMP0328. (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) (Iuio (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * 5) Pnm (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Tomwsulcer --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) JayJasper (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Assessed as top-importance for this WikiProject, but it's only start-class. One of two-such articles, but the other (Uncle Sam) gets 1/3 the page views. cmadler (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (FYI, I found this information on WikiProject United States/Popular pages.) cmadler (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the state of this article is embarrassing. A good deal of material could probably be adapted from Women's suffrage in the United States and other more developed articles. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If does get chosen for the collaration maybe we should do a Good topic collabaration for all the Amendments and Bill of Rights? Just a suggestion. Spongie555 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(in templates) that may be of uses here ...I just happen to have this in my ref lists.Moxy (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * References













To-do list
I've added a to-do list on the top of this talk page, and started a list based on previous talk page comments and the 2008 GA review (failed). Feel free to add to, edit, or remove on that list. cmadler (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

History Section
I made a brief start at adding to the history using, for a start, "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. The reference has info. on the progress made by women in the states, starting with Wyoming and other western states and moving east. Amar also explains how the momentum increased as women's political power increased as more and more states allowed women to vote. He has info. on the political strategies employed as well as the influences of other political factors that helped the ratification effort. There is also info. on the effects of the ratification that went beyond simply the right to vote.

John Milton Cooper Jr.'s recent biography of Woodrow Wilson also has some helpful info. on Wilson's involvement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Footnote style
With the article hopefully at the beginning of a significant expansion, I think it might be useful to rethink the footnote style. In situations where works are going to be referred to multiple times with different page numbers, the shortened footnote seems to be the easiest to use as well as the easiest to read. I specifically added a bibliography section for that purpose.

While I am aware that it is generally best not to change footnote style midstream, right now we are working on a Start Level article and only have 6 footnotes. In any event, my primary interest is adding content. For the time being, unless someone really objects,I am going to add material using that method -- it can always be changed later. Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was me did not notice it was listed bellow ...i have fixed it .Moxy (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Effects section?
Should we have one that mentions the effect on politics from the 1920s onward, one dealing with the fears that there would be a woman's voting bloc, but that that never really materialized?  Pur ple  back pack 89    21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the impact and aftereffects are very important to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Leser v. Garnett
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous bullet outline is incorporated into a narrative taken from the previous editor’s citation. The introduction and conclusion are the same.
 * The arguments of both sides are included in the revision, so that the federal courts do not appear arbitrary in dismissing the petitioners’ plea.
 * The Republican-appointed Chief Justice Taft and the Democrat-appointed Justice Brandeis who wrote the opinion in the unanimous decision are pictured.
 * Inline citations to the Constitution are incorporated to allow for ready reference while reading the article without leaving the section.
 * thanks for notes help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Background/history
I am looking at this book: ''Joseph Irvin Arnold (1928) "Problems in American Life". Row, Peterson and Company (Evanston, IL). page 359''. In Chapter 27: Elections and Political parties it states The modern movement for general suffrage for women on the same terms with men really began in 1869 in the Territory of Wyoming, although a few women could vote earlier. Complete equality existed in twelve states at the time of the adoption of the Nineteeth Amendment in 1920. Twenty-three other states had partial woman suffrage by 1920. I thought this may be useful. Jesanj (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General amendment process
I wonder if we should also briefly discuss the general amendment process. It might give the readers some perspective if they better understand just how significant and thing it is to "amend" the constitution. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already implicit in the article. The article also contains a wikilink to Article Five of the United States Constitution in the Introduction. This is standard for articles about Constitutional amendments. At most, a brief mention express reference to Article V. If a reader wants to know the details, he can go to that article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Is there any need to expand the Introduction? Introductions are supposed to be short summaries of articles. The proposed additions to this Introduction refer to everything in the article using multiple paragraphs. That's too much for the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct short "summeries of the article" but the key is that they should summerize. I agree the paragraphs was unneeded but one sentence doesn't summerize the article either. I think I have shortened it enough now to get the point across along with brevity. Please let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the proposed additions:
 * The text of the amendment was drafted by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1878. Forty-one years later it was passed by Congress in 1919 and over the following year it received the necessary two-thirds ratification by the state legislatures. By March 1920, 35 of the states had ratified the amendment with Tennessee casting the deciding vote in August 1920.


 * "Shortly after its adoption, the Nineteenth Amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court case Leser v. Garnett (1922) but the court struck down the claims that it was unconstitutional and the amendment was upheld." SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for extra info I reworded the first sentence as well. The bottom line is the lede should summarize the article. One sentence doesn't summarize the article. --Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * "Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment's text; they first introduced it in 1878. Forty-one years later it was passed by the Congress in 1919 and by March 1920, it had been ratified the requisite number of states needed for it to become part of the Constitution, with Tennessee's ratification in August 1920 being the one to put the amendment into the Constitution." SMP0328. (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good except I think the part that says "text; they first introduced it in 1878" is choppy. I don't think we need the space bad enough to need to bulletize like this. The rest looks good although I think we need to keep the sentence about the challenge and I added a couple small changes to your proposal. Thanks for the help good job. "The amendment was drafted by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and first introduced in 1878 but it was forty-one years later, in 1919, when it was passed by Congress. By March, 1920, it had been ratified by the requisite number of states needed for its inclusion in the Constitution, with Tennessee's ratification in August 1920 being the final vote needed to put the amendment into the Constitution."--Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Close, how about:
 * "Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton drafted the amendment and first introduced in 1878. Forty-one years later, in 1919, when it was passed by Congress. By March 1920, it had been ratified by the requisite number of states needed for its inclusion in the Constitution, with Tennessee's ratification in August 1920 being the one to put the amendment into the Constitution."
 * The emphasis should be on Anthony and Stanton; Tennessee's ratification wasn't needed, it just happened to be the one to turn the proposal into the Nineteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this last one is still unnecessarily choppy. I agree it needed to be shortened but I don't think we need to sacrifice grammer for a couple of words to allow the sentence to flow. I also think we should avoid starting a sentence with a link if possible (I think thats actually in the MOS somewhere too but I can't find it at the moment) I agree with the first part of your statement too that the emphasis should be on them but the article is about more than just them. I also think that the tennessee detail is an important one and since it really doesn't add much length to the statement I think we should keep it in there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just modified the lede with the above along with combining the last sentence about the challenge and some minor punctuation changes and I think it looks pretty good. What do you think? --Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, but I made a few very minor changes of my own. I hope you like them. SMP0328. (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

War of the Roses (Tennessee's ratification)
Tennessee was the state that put the amendment over the line and the story of how it happened is pretty dramatic. I was surprised that no mention is made of this story either here or at Women's suffrage in the United States. An overview of the story can be read here, although this probably isn't considered a reliable source and may have some errors. A better source is the 2nd half of this Tennessee Encyclopedia article. There's also some material at Harry_Burn. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Search for Supreme Court ruling style
Purging the Chief Justice photo as “irrelevant” to a unanimous Supreme Court surprises; see Bob Woodward, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court”, (1979).

A rationale for including it here:


 * Chief Justice Taft chose Justice Brandeis to write this opinion for the Court,

This was an area of Brandeis’ special interest and expertise. In the 1922 session, Taft and Brandeis had a 1.4% disagreement rate on 223 cases. This, even though Taft had opposed Brandeis’ Democratic nomination to the Supreme Court, noting that although of German (usually Republican) extraction, Taft saw him as pro-labor, even socialist in his thought (this during the Red Scare).


 * Republican Progressives like Taft were responsible for women voting in eight states before the 19th Amendment. (Unlike TR, Taft had opposed a federal suffrage for women.)

This was unlike Wilson’s consistent opposition until the run-up to the 1920 election. The 1910s Democrats nationally objected to full citizenship rights for women and blacks. Harding in 1920 will be the last Republican with substantial Jewish vote majorities ...
 * The decision, as written, had the 15th Amendment accepted and “acted on” for 50 years in law.

But it was still the time of “Jim Crow”, famous KKK parades in DC and Ohio, and Ida B. Wells’ anti-lynching crusade. Taft’s choosing Brandeis flew in the face of anti-Semitism, including that on the Court. One Justice, whom Taft could not dissuade, would leave the room whenever Brandeis began to speak in Conference.


 * A photo of Chief Justice Taft is not “irrelevant” here for the Fifteenth Amendment.

--I understand that our style in articles on the Constitution and Amendments may be to make no reference to Chief Justices unless they are writing the majority opinion.

--For an encyclopedia, leaving out concurring or dissenting opinions can be reasonable for conciseness -- unless they later become law.

--And it may be, that even those references need to be reduced to footnotes.

Any proposals for going forward? If it is to be case by case, I would have Taft pictured here for the reasons above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Justice McReynolds was who would leave when Justice Brandeis would speak in Conference. SMP0328. (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember the film "Amadeus"? It is as though McReynolds to Brandeis was like Salieri to Mozart. I pray that I, in my turn, can see a more brilliant man, woman, than I, and thank God, not curse Him. It is not that I must agree, only that I respect and admire world-class genius that I may be somehow privileged to glimpse. I do pity McReynolds. Whatever became of him? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced graph; with a source?
The graph at the right was added to the article recently. This graph lacks sourcing (note the cite tag). When reliable sourcing is provided, this graph should be restored to the article. Until then, the graph should only be here. SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The map added by another editor is taken from Wiki commons File:Map of US Suffrage, 1920.svg. In its description, it says Information was taken from | US Suffrage Map 1920 in the article "Out of Subjection Into Freedom" by Marjorie Shuler, published in The Woman Citizen, p.360, September 4, 1920) and "The Right to Vote" by Alexander Keyssar (ISBN 0465029698)
 * The SVG rendering at first glance seems to expand seven categories in the Shuler legend to eight. But the “primary suffrage in some cites” is noted on the Schuler map as a note: Georgia’s Atlanta and Waycross allowed primary voting. I could not catch any alteration of data from Shuler in the SVG map.
 * Alexander Keyssar is a Harvard professor. His “The Right to Vote: the contested history of democracy in the United States” (2000) perhaps confirms the Shuler map in the “Appendix: State Suffrage Laws, 1775-1920”. Can't we rely on the wiki commons page created by editor "Lokal Profil (talk | contribs)"? I don’t have access to this citation.
 * The “Woman Citizen” beginning in 1917 was published by the American Women Suffrage Association (AWSA) which replaced the Woman’s Journal, Suffrage News and Woman Vote by a bequest from Ms. Frank Leslie to Carrie Chapman Catt. Rose Young was the editor in chief.
 * The magazine's importance can be seen in a 1973 book by J. Stanley Lemons, “The woman citizen: social feminism in the 1920s”, published at the University of Virginia Press; excerpts are available from two online book sources. An article published in "Woman Citizen" may be source sufficient for the WP standard.
 * Since the Wikicommons rendering of the same information is clearer, can it be used in the article, but still reference the original citation, (ref) Schuler, Marjorie . “Out of Subjection into Freedom”, The Woman Citizen, Sep 4, 1920, p.360.
 * Is this sufficient? What is WP convention here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping chores
If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on this article during its time as collaboration over February, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it. I didn't work on it much so am not really familiar with it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed I didn't have more time for this article. Hopefully the next one works out better. —Designate (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was markedly improved. Before it look like little more than a stub; now it looks like a real article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Realistically, a question for those who've been working on the article thus far, how far off Good article criteria do folks think it is? I am unfamiliar with the subject so am no good on comprehensiveness. If it just needs a nudge to get it over the line there, that would be a great place to leave it. I can copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to believe this article is worthy of GA status, but I think you need to ask those who make such assessments. That doesn't mean you should make a GA nomination for this article. Find out what are the odds of success before making a nomination. SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was certainly improved quite a bit. But it needs more than copyediting, as far as I can tell. It meets all the GA requirements except the most important one (Broadness). The history is spotty and the sources are not broad enough for such a fundamental historical topic. The proposal and ratification section, in fact, is based almost entirely on a ten-paragraph essay from a website. It barely touches on the motivations of the proponents or opponents. It doesn't discuss any of the senators or state legislatures, all of which have their own history and motivations which should be addressed (especially Tennessee). The "Effects" section is three sentences long. I think we need editors with hard copies of books to dive into this, really, before it can hit the "Broadness" criterion for GA. I'm not saying it's incredibly far off, though. As long as it "addresses the main aspects of the topic" it'll suffice for GA. That means it doesn't have to be the size of the World War II GA, but it should at least be longer than Pikachu! —Designate (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution Calling for Suffrage
Created account today at National Archives wikipedia edit a thon.

Would like to add a paragraph to the background section BEFORE the last paragraph as follows:

There were several attempts to amend the Constitution, prior to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, to grant universal and limited suffrage to women. One of the attempts the "Petition for Universal Suffrage," signed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, among others, called for a Constitutional Amendment to "prohibit the several states from disenfranchising any of their citizens on the ground of sex" in 1865. In another attempt, the House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res.) 159, called for the limited suffrage of women who were spinsters or widows and owned property in 1888. Both attempts to amend the Constitution failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDinschel (talk • contribs)  19:01, 29 July 2016‎ (UTC)


 * ✅ Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Attempts to repeal
There is little he about the legitimate and noble efforts to repeal the 19th. I'll try to dig up some cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.169 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Women Voting in New Jersey until 1807
The entry is not correct. At the time there was a property requirement to vote in New Jersey. While many men could not vote in the state, because they could not meet the property requirement, some women could vote if they qualified as property owners in their own right. The change in 1807 barred women from voting, but also abolished the property requirement, so that all men could vote.

22:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Nofi (talk • contribs)

Recent Additions
This Wikipedia article is referenced correctly and provides accurate and sufficient information about the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution and its ratification. The article is well-written and unbiased, however, I believe that there could be more recent information regarding the 19th Amendment added to the page, such as, the hashtag created by Trump supporters in 2016, #RepealThe19thJohannaaguilera (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016
Information about #RepealThe19th must be added. Supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign have proposed repealing the 19th amendment, as there is a strong lack of support for Trump among women (NBC). This movement largely fueled by the social media site, Twitter, has resulted in a hashtag, #RepealThe19th (NBC).

Johannaaguilera (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Gender" and not "sex"?
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex ...

Seems to me that the word "sex" to refer to gender is outdated. It's the 1st sentence in the Lede, which is most critical. Should the word be replaced? Tym Whittier (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the Introduction refers to generally what the amendment does, which is prohibits States and the federal government from denying the right to vote because of a person's sex. The amendment is not using "sex" as a substitute for "gender." SMP0328. (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Project focused on improving this article
Hi page-watchers,

Since last fall, Wiki Education has teamed up with the National Archives and Records Administration to run courses helping independent and professional researchers and archivists to contribute to Wikipedia articles about women's suffrage in the US. This month, seven people who have already been through the introductory course are reconvening for an Advanced course, taking a deeper dive into content development processes. To be specific, we will be working to apply Good Article criteria to this article.

Our process, running for four weeks, will go something like this: (1) evaluation of current content and sources, research, and planning; (2) build out the article, emphasizing breadth of coverage based on reliable sources; (3) adding depth, with increased attention on style, organization, and quality of writing; (4) continue to polish, assess images. In other words, we'll see where things stand, come up with a plan informed by research, write for breadth, then go back to polish.

We will be using two pages in my userspace: a source collection page and a page for coordination and planning. These are in my userspace to avoid overwhelming this talk page, and for ease of short-term collaboration in ways that wouldn't be typical of talk page formatting/content. Input is, of course welcome, and we will be posting notices on WikiProject, etc. talk pages in the third week. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Tone/wording issues
There are several parts of this article that have certain issues regarding wording or tone: --Yair rand (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "the Nineteenth Amendment did little to improve the lives of...". (This wording is used twice in the article.) This is ambiguous and non-neutral. Perhaps it should say something like "the Nineteenth Amendment did not enfranchise...", assuming that's what it means? (Is that what it means?)
 * In the "African-American woman suffrage efforts" section:
 * "...intersecting issues of race, gender, and class...". I don't know how to read this sentence. Is "intersecting" a verb here, with women as the subject? I think this could use some rewording.
 * "While white women sought the vote to gain equality with their husbands and brothers, black women sought the vote as a means of survival as well." Problematic in several ways. Does "their husbands and brothers" mean anything more specific than the clearer "men"/"white men"? What does it mean by "means of survival"?
 * "advocated for their rights at both the local and national levels", "their rights" is ambiguous. Did they advocate for African-American women's suffrage? Or a broader set of rights?
 * "failed African-American women" - seems like editorializing.
 * "continued to oppose giving women—especially African-American women—the vote". The "especially" bit confuses me. I would think this might refer to specific proposals among the five votes regarding African-American women's suffrage that were rejected by larger margins, but it looks like all five votes were on the same amendment. The extra text seems out of place.
 * "A proposal brought before the House in January 1918 passed with only one vote to spare". I'm unsure of what exactly this means. If it means, that it passed by one vote, it should say as much. "the proposal fell two votes short of passage" could also be rephrased, perhaps ("was rejected by two votes"?).
 * "After passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, women still faced political limitations, struggling to serve on juries, run successfully for elective offices, and acquire full equality in the eyes of the law". This could use some rewording for clarity. What does "struggling" mean here? Were women not permitted to serve on juries? Is it talking about continuing political campaigns, or a lack of legal rights?
 * "African-Americans continued to be denied their voting rights"... This could use more neutral phrasing.
 * (Also, is it appropriate to have a reference to an opinion piece (Ref 32)?)
 * Thanks for the close read ! I've addressed about 75% of these issues; it'll take a bit of time to address the others. Appreciate your quick response! BonnieEllenBurns (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)BonnieEllenBurns
 * These issues have been addressed. Thanks! BonnieEllenBurns (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019
In section 6.4 (Legacy/In pop culture) the fourth bullet point refers to the 2004 movie "Iron Jawed Angels" and mentions that Lucy Burns was played by Frances O'Connor but the link for Frances O'Connor is for the armless entertainer who died in 1982 and not the actress in this movie. 69.74.24.88 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, ! It's been fixed. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019
REMOVE Even NAWSA’s more radical Congressional Committee, led by Alice Paul, which would later split to become the National Woman's Party, failed African-American women, most visibly by refusing to allow them to march in the nation’s first suffrage parade in Washington, D.C. While the NAWSA directed Paul not to exclude African-American participants, 72 hours before the parade African-American women were directed to the back of the parade; Ida B. Wells defied these instructions and joined the Illinois unit, prompting telegrams of support.[41]

ADD According to the detailed descriptions of the march in Tina Cassidy’s MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WE WAIT? and the report of Carrie W. Clifford in the NAACP’s newsletter, THE CRISIS, while is true that some of the organizers thought it would be best for Black women to walk separately in the back of the parade, that was in part because they feared that a mixed march would increase the chances that Southern men in the crowd, who had come to Washington, DC for the inauguration of a fellow Southerner, would endanger the safety of both black and white marchers. Three hundred people were injured and the police did nothing, so that concern was certainly justified. From the beginning, the inclusion of black women was a priority for the march. Suffragist leader Alice Paul had specifically invited black women to participate and encouraged other volunteers to do the same. As a result, in the delegations from at very least New York, West Virginia, Delaware and Michigan, black and white women marched side by side. Clifford identifies a “Mrs. Duffield who carried the New York banner.” Other African American women walked  under organized labor banners with their sister workers or with their professions. Mary Church Terrell marched by choice with her organization, The National Association of Colored Women. When Ida B. Wells reentered the march, she was welcomed by two white Illinois delegates who had defended her right to march with the delegation.

Source for Clifford information: The Crisis: A Record of the Darker Races Vol. 5, No. 6: Easter Number Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt (editor) New York: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1913-04

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.24.88 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: While I agree there are NPOV problems with this version, your proposal is clearly not an improvement. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019
37 Republican senators were joined by 19 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 ayes and 25 nays. Ffjxc (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor editing queries
In Ratification section: “House Speaker Seth M. Walker attempted to table the ratification resolution, but was defeated twice, with a vote of 48-48.” This is confusing; might help to explain how a tie vote defeated something. Jbox19 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine that the convention is that if a proposal doesn't command a majority then it loses. In the UK, if there is a tied vote in the House of Commons then the Speaker will cast a vote by convention to prolong debate or stay with the status quo (i.e. any proposal will be defeated). I imagine there is similar covention in the US to avoid any changes to the law etc. without a majority. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In Ratification section: “The ploy failed and when the House reconvened to take the final procedural steps that would reaffirm ratification, Tennessee suffragists sat at the desks of the missing Anti delegates.”[40] I need clarification about the Tennessee suffragists sitting at the desks of missing delegates—I assume the suffragists sat there as symbolic of their impending win? The wording seems to imply that the suffragists in those seats did something to make “the ploy fail,” but clearly they couldn’t vote. What happened? Jbox19 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I attempted to clarify this BonnieEllenBurns (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fairchild v. Hughes
Fairchild v. Hughes is about standing, not the Nineteenth Amendment. The case involved a challenge to the amendment's ratification, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case on the ground that the challenger lacked standing due to residing in a State that allowed women to vote before the amendment's adoption. This case should not be in this article, because the Court made no ruling on the amendment in Fairchild. SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I reverted because while the case is about standing, it's about standing... to challenge this amendment. Thus it seems like it makes sense to include here. If there's a way to contextualize it with more legal nuance, I'm all for that, but looking at the 19th amendment as a topic it seems relevant, if not technically a "legal challenge." Does that make sense? You're likely more up on the legal end of this than I am. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the case was dismissed for lack of standing means the plaintiff did not have the right to bring that case in federal court. So the Supreme Court was ruling that the party challenging the amendment's adoption was not harmed by the adoption and so did not have the right to bring the case in federal court. The Supreme Court ruled on the merits in Leser, while in Fairchild the Court ruled only that the plaintiff was not harmed and so couldn't bring the case (i.e., lacked standing). Fairchild did not involve a ruling on the Nineteenth Amendment's adoption and so does not belong in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What I'm saying is that since this isn't a strictly legal article, we aren't limited to including just cases that involved a ruling on the amendment's adoption. We're writing about the subject of the amendment (including its legal history, but also its politics, history, activism, social impact, resistance, etc.), and this is part of that. Among other sources, see e.g. this page in Votes for Women which talks about it in the context of the amendment. That the Fairchild case concerned the amendment means it should probably be included -- but how to include it is a separate issue. Maybe it doesn't need its own sub-section; maybe it goes elsewhere; I'm not sure. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a single sentence noting Fairchild and its dismissal for lack of standing? It could be at the end of the Leser material. SMP0328. (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you arguing that this should be the case because it has received significantly less coverage than Leser such that its representation is disproportionate? Or are you saying it's disproportionate to its significance, without regard to its presence in the sources? I don't think any particular type of outcome is to be privileged on Wikipedia if the history books talk about both to similar degrees in the context of writing about the nineteenth amendment. It's possible they do not do so, however. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fairchild is given undue weight in this article. Both Leser and Fairchild were challenges to the Nineteenth Amendment's adoption, but only Leser resolved that issue. Fairchild was rendered a redundant challenge and was dismissed for a reason unrelated to the Nineteenth Amendment. It is entitled, at most, to a short reference after the Leser material. SMP0328. (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020
Change "Within a few days, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan did so, their legislatures being in session."

To " Within a few days, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan did so, their legislatures being in session. It is arguable which State was considered first to ratify the amendment. While Illinois's legislature passed the legislation an hour prior to Wisconsin, Wisconsin's delegate, David James, arrived earlier and was presented with a statement establishing Wisconsin as the first to ratify."

Source: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/records/article/CS16091 WiscHistoryBuff (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Done GoodCrossing (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pardon
There's been some coverage of Trump issuing a pardon to Susan B. Anthony. Opening this discussion about how/whether to include it. A great deal of the press coverage of the pardon considers it to be [if I may summarize] pandering, without real concern for the meaning, with several historians arguing that she wouldn't have even wanted to be pardoned. This is the article about the amendment, not a biography of Susan B. Anthony (where this is undoubtedly relevant), so I'm not sure I'm sold on WP:WEIGHT. An awful lot of events have received some amount of press coverage connected to the centennial (and other milestones), but for the most part there's not reason to include material that's more about the person or organization doing the commemorating than it is about the amendment itself and its influence. Thoughts? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The president's motives as speculated and ascribed by pundits are not terribly relevant. SBA was a core actor in the movement for women's suffrage. Speculation about what the dead may or may not have thought about the pardon also doesn't really fall into the realm of fact. The President of the United States issued a pardon on the 100th anniversary of ratification of the amendment. Setting aside punditry and speculation, this is certainly relevant to the article. If a commemorative license plate is WP:DUE, then I don't see how this isn't. Anastrophe (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Journalism and historical context via journalists and historians working outside of the opinion columns are reliable sources on Wikipedia, not a kind of "punditry" that can just be waved off. The commemorative license plate can certainly be up for debate. As perhaps evinced by my most recent edit, I don't have super strong feelings about this, but would appreciate additional opinions. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020
Change "Ultimately, 76% of Republican Senators voted in favor, while 60% of Democrat Senators voted against." to "Ultimately, 76% (of 49) Republican Senators and 40% (of 47) Democratic Senators voted in favor."

Note to the editors: I cannot find full details of the vote on the web, but the following is clear: - There were 96 total Senators at the time of the vote, with 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats. - 56 total Senators voted in favor, and 25 voted against, leaving 15 that must have abstained! - 37 total Republicans voted in favor, and 19 total Democrats voted in favor. - 12 total Republicans did not vote in favor, either voting against or abstaining. - 28 total Democrats did not vote in favor, either voting against or abstaining.

From the data above, it is impossible to reconstruct how many Republicans voted against (vs abstaining), nor how many Democrats voted against (vs abstaining).

The current text basically assumes that all 28 Democrats who did not vote in favor actively voted against, when this cannot be true, as there were only 25 votes against in total!

The best and most fair solution imo is to state simply that 40% of Democrats voted in favor, because it is very false to say that 60% voted against. Purdue86 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best if we eliminate the percentages, which are synthesis, however minimal. Here's the actual vote details: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/66-1/s13  Simplest to just list them specifically. I'll have a look. Anastrophe (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would that not fall under WP:CALC? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When the percentages presented are clearly wrong/miscalculated to begin with (e.g. based upon assumptions), then it's better to go with simplicity. Anastrophe (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks to be answered as ❌. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Problems with 'queering suffragist history'
First issue - this was not an article for Ms. Magazine, it was a reprint of an article by the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission; it shouldn't be attributed to the former. The section is WP:UNDUE, it has only the one source - it should instead pull in sourced portions from within the original article. It's also not providing background to the movement per se, it's an interpretation of the personal behaviors of some of the people involved in it. It relies too heavily on the one author's perspective and narrative. I can certainly see some of the more direct details being incorporated into the biographies of those mentioned, and those details may be relevant to their inclusion in the suffragist background of the nineteenth amendment, but not as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe:


 * How can we resolve the issues with "Queering the 19th Amendment"?


 * Last time you took it down you wrote:


 * "as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources."


 * I have provided "wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources"


 * Perhaps there are others who would agree with the inclusion of the text I contributed. There is other material in the article that have "has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment" but discuss the suffrage movement and specific suffragists. The material I have provided is no different. Please refrain from these vague rebuttals and help make this contribution possible.


 * Also, your response could have been made in a more timely manner. My text was posted uninterrupted for a couple days. "please discuss on talk page. While sources have been expanded, the larger problem is that this is meta-commentary on some of those involved in the suffrage movement; it has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment. It may be appropriate to the larger Suffrage article as well as the individual suffrage actors"


 * "Queering the suffrage movement"[edit | edit source] “Queering the suffrage movement" is an effort actively underway in suffrage scholarly circles[1][2] Wendy Rouse writes, "Scholars have already begun ‘queering’ the history of the suffrage movement by deconstructing the dominant narrative that has focused on the stories of elite, white, upper-class suffragists.”[1] Susan Ware says, "To speak of 'queering the suffrage movement' is to identify it as a space where women felt free to express a wide range of gender non-conforming behaviors, including but not limited to sexual expression, in both public and private settings."[2] Suffragists challenged gendered dress and behavior publicly, e.g., Annie Tinker (1884-1924) and Dr. Margaret ‘Mike’ Chung (1889-1959); they also challenged gender norms privately in bi- or homosexual relationships, e.g., African-American activist, writer and organizer for the Congressional Union (later the National Woman’s Party), Alice Dunbar-Nelson (1835-1935).[1] “Boston Marriage” partners (women involved in intimate longterm relationships with other women) included Carrie Chapman Catt with Mary Garrett Hay, Jane Addams with Mary Rozet Smith, Gail Laughlin with Dr. Mary Austin Sperry.[1] Other known suffragist couples are Susan B. Anthony with Emily Gross, and National American Woman Suffrage Association president Dr. Anna Howard-Shaw with Susan B. Anthony's niece, Lucy Anthony[3]; Alice Stone Blackwell was "betrothed" to Kitty Barry.[2] Many leaders of the National Woman's Party co-habitated with other women involved in feminist politics: Alma Lutz and Marguerite Smith, Jeanette Marks and Mary Wooley, and Mabel Vernon and Consuelo Reyes.[4] There are also the significant same sex relationships of NAWSA first and second vice presidents Jane Addams and Sophonisba Breckenridge, respectively,[5] and the chronic close female friendships of Alice Paul.[6] "Outing" historic feminists is not the aim of "queering the suffrage movement," but identifying a broad range of gender identities within the suffrage movement attests to the diversity of those contributing to the cause.[2]


 * ^ Jump up to: a b c d Rouse, Wendy. "The Very Queer History of the Suffrage Movement". 1920-2020 Women's Vote Centennial: the official site commemorating 100 years of women's right to vote. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ware, Susan (20019). Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN 9780674986688. Check date values in: |year= (help) ^ Salam, Maya (August 14, 2020). "How Queer Women Powered the Suffrage Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Lillian, Faderman (1999). To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America--A History. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 3. ISBN 039585010X. ^ Jabour, Anya (January 24, 2020). "When Lesbians Led the Women's Suffrage Movement". The Conversation: Academic rigor, journalistic flair. Retrieved August 20, 2020. ^ Rupp, Leila J. "'Imagine My Surprise': Women's Relationships in Historical Perspective". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 5, No. 3 Autumn 1980: 61–70 – via JSTOR.


 * De Pisan (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)depisan


 * As I pointed out when I replied to the above commentary when it was posted on my talk page, and as you can see by my original commentary immediately above this, I brought up these matters back on July 27th, so I really don't understand the complaint that "your response could have been made in a more timely manner." Beyond that, we are all here as volunteers, and neither I nor any editors are expected to respond on arbitrary timetables presented ex post facto.
 * To the matter at hand. As I had pointed out, the material when originally posted was badly misattributed, and only to a single source. You've added further citations; thank you. However, the material is still a relatively fringe opinion - when taken within the entire corpus of suffragist history - and the sexual orientation of some suffragists has already been examined to one degree or another, long before this material you are bringing up. Thus, for the most part it's UNDUE, specifically within this article - the suffragist movement was a core component driving the 19th amendment; the sexual orientation of the suffragists is and was not. The material may be of interest directly within the suffragist articles here on wikipedia, both of the movement and of key actors within it. In this article - I see no relevance.
 * My penultimate commentary is that the hard label of "Queering the Suffragist Movement" smacks of advocacy, not encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a place for advocacy.
 * And my last comment, since we seem to live in a period of a Neo-McCarthyism, I have no animus towards the material itself. It may have a place in the suffragist articles themselves, but I would certainly hope it would be approached in a more encyclopedic tone. Anastrophe (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)