Talk:Women's poll tax repeal movement

Queries and comments

 * "the Supreme Court finally settled the matter" Which way did they rule? Any further details.
 * I've reworded it to explain. I'll rewrite the whole lede after I finish, as then I'll have a much better take on the subject. I start with only enough there that if I were to die, folks would know why its notable and it could move to mainspace.
 * Fair enough, you cheerful soul you.
 * Given expansion a first go. Will probably need tweaking. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "From the formation of the United States" Maybe give a date, or date range?
 * done


 * "Initially, from 1789". When was the first election where this was applied? Were there prior elections?
 * That was the first election after the establishment of the constitution. Clarified


 * Caption: "Texas League of Women Voter's poster, c. 1918" Just checking, if it was c, 1918 it would be from before women had the vote. Yes?
 * Good catch. The source says 1915-1918, but it must be from 1919, after Texas ratified the 19th Amendment.
 * Oh but wait, Texas allowed women to vote in primaries from 1918, so perhaps the original date was correct. I flipped it back.


 * "those who could not pay poll taxes were doubly discriminated against@. I think that something explaining why/how not serving on a jury was a discrimination or disadvantage would help.
 * done. I put it in a note. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "obtaining both an exemption for women from payment and its repeal from the state constitution in 1920." if it was struck from the constitution, then the exemption would have been of little utility, eh?
 * Yes, but at the time they got the exemption they didn't know the constitutional amendment would pass.


 * "the amount of tax was typically $1 to $2 dollars" per what time period?
 * Good catch, per year.

I have also lightly copy edited the first section. Is that and/or the comments above helpful and/or useful. Should I continue? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , very helpful. Very much appreciated. I've done the easy ones. The one I need a source for, I've marked so I can come back to it. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. I shall nibble away at the rest and comment as appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "had to acknowledge the racial component of the struggle." is a very strong statement. Perhaps 'acknowledged the ..."? I assume that this is solidly sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a strong statement, but I think it is true. The source says "a high level of involvement in the struggle for women's liberation gave rise to the eventual emergence of their own expanded racial consciousness, illuminated by their understanding of feminism"
 * It is the "had to acknowledge" that I am sticking on. Every single one of them. I just don't think that they "had to".
 * But maybe this is the place to segue into the part I've been struggling to decide where to put? Your thoughts?

White women used white men's fear of black votes [Freeman actually says negrophobia, so possibly not just votes?] in their argument for why they should abolish poll taxes.(Podolefsky 877)(Wilkerson-Freeman 342) Their reasoning was that if white women could vote they would outnumber black votes,(Podolefsky 877) securing white political power. If the number of white voters was not increased by repeal, they argued that white supremacy would still be protected by other "disfranchising devices, especially literacy tests" [and white primaries, Gunter, 2] which was proven by the example of states which had abolished the tax.(Wilkerson-Freeman 342) Activists "strategically deployed (and refrained from deploying) racial arguments when it best suited their cause".(Gunter 77) In Texas, there was a even broader disenfranchisement effort because of xenophobia,["arguments were infused with ethnocentric, xenophobic, and antidemocratic sentiments"(Gunter 10) "Every sixth man in Texas is an alien, and votes on "first papers", Being white, he votes in the Democratic primaries, and is a greater menace than the negro". (Gunter 76-77) also "Owing to the fact that over one half of the poll taxes in El Paso co. are held by Mexicans you can see that every other part of the state will have to get votes enough to offset these" (Gunter 137)] but it was compounded by the federal laws which automatically changed women's citizenship upon marriage to that of her spouse. Initially Latina women were considered to be white,(Gunter, 2) but unless their husbands were citizens, women could not vote, regardless of their husbands' intent to become a citizen.(Gunter, 3) Men could vote if they filed an affidavit that they had an intention of acquiring citizenship.(Gunter, 5) After World War I, legislation such as the Thomason Law, further targeted illiterate and non-English-speaking voters by preventing voter assistance like translation.(Gunter 136-137)
 * Rough outline of the discussion, but you get the gist. (Not sure if I need to discuss fluidity of employment across the border. Seems a bit off topic, but if you don't understand how fluid it was perhaps you don't get how hard determining residency was.) Bigger question is where to put the section and you may have solved that. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent. A separate short section somewhere summarising the non-womens' element of the repeal movement and the negrophicic (I would try to work that in as a direct quote) and anti-Mexican elements of the pro-poll taxers. What you have is a great start towards that. I would shove it in and we can work on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, gimme a minute. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in there. See what you can do with it. I followed the had to acknowledge statement with the quote Activists "strategically deployed (and refrained from deploying) racial arguments when it best suited their cause" to segue and then added the paragraph. Perhaps had to acknowledge is indeed not correct. They did acknowledge it and used it to their advantage. Feel free to modify it as you see fit. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "secured the call for a constitutional convention to be placed on the November ballot." This doen't quite work for me, but I can't think/don't know what a better wording would be.
 * changed it to read "secured the promise that ..." Better? SusunW (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A thought (gasp!) - consider dealing with the states in the order in which poll tax were repealed. This would give a quasi-chronological order and, I think, make it flow better.
 * I think I've done that, or tried to anyway, with the exceptions of the places where it wasn't really a women's issue and there was no prolonged fight, i.e. North Carolina, South Carolina seemed not to need a state discussion section, as they repealed early or were exempt. But, I realized Texas was out of order and had to shift it, so maybe there are others. Will check. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep Georgia, so shifted it as well. SusunW (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "They were successful in pressing for a constitutional amendment for the state which repealed poll taxes as a prerequisite to vote, implementing a new registration system." Can we give the year?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Initially Latina women were considered to be white". "Initially" - when did this cease?
 * Good question, probably in conjunction with the anti-immigrant rise after WWI. It was definitely in play by the time they started creating segregated "Mexican" schools. I'll need to do some checking. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is the answer "The involvement of the U.S. in international imperialism in Latin America, World War I, and concerns over Anglo Protestant "race suicide," prompted xenophobic measures against immigrants resulting in passage of the restrictive 1921 and 1924 Immigration Acts and English-only statutes in schools. Although Mexico was exempt from the strict numerical quotas placed upon other countries, anti-immigrant sentiments resulted in increased measures to segregate Mexican-Americans from so-called "white" public institutions such as swimming pools, parks, schools, and eating establishments".
 * You are a star. Good work.
 * Perhaps, but while I was sleeping it occurred to me we should check to see if this was when it applied to voting. Logic says yes, but that is technically OR. Okay, never mind, we're good. This doesn't say when, but it is very clear that Latinos weren't allowed. "One tool particularly favored in Texas was the "white primary," originally established by internal political party rules and later by state law. The basic idea was to explicitly prohibit non-whites (African Americans primarily, but also Mexican Americans in south Texas) from joining the Democratic Party or participating in its the primary elections."
 * I think this one is done, but please review what I wrote and tweak it as you see fit. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for how slowly I work. I read like 10 sources to come up with 1 sentence. Women's history is bloody hard! Its scattered all about and it is like you are collecting the puzzle pieces. I have also written Mona Siegel, a historian/academic in California to see if she can direct me to more sources on the black women's side of this struggle. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been concerned that I have not been keeping up with you because you seem to write so quickly. No worries. The more I work on this, the more important it seems. Just the same groups are having their votes suppressed (stolen) today. This is one that teachers will be referring classes to for a generation. Let's get it right, not fast. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are so funny. Thank you! My sentiments exactly. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Break

 * "an African American woman"; "black women from Hattiesburg". This appears to be inconsistent.
 * In the US these are typically used synonymously. It's simply a literary device to cut down on redundancy, but if you think it creates confusion or inconsistency, feel free to change it.
 * No - I thought that might be the case. Hence the "appears" and italics. While one should be wary of writing an article in too US-centric a way, even a very US-centric one, this usage does not seem to me to be confusing. It was more by way of a pro forma check.


 * I suspect that the paragraph starting "Also in 1964, Annie E. Harper ..." goes into too much detail and may be better summarised. (Which, if you agree, I am happy to do.)
 * Feel free. But, I gave it more space because it was the most important case in this list. It was the US Supreme Court's final death knell to the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting.
 * Yep. Even so. I shall see what I can do. Feel free to heckle from the bleachers.
 * OK. A very draft attempt is here.
 * Looks good to me except "child care, not Child...
 * Umm. Why not, it seems to be the one common feature from the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that it should be there, just that it should be capitalized in the middle of the sentence. That damn communication thing again. LOL SusunW (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. My bad. Sorted and inserted.


 * "poll taxes were repealed in Louisiana increasing male voters by 25% and women voters by nearly 100%". Registered voter, or the number actually voting?
 * I'm not sure what the answer to that is. The source says "When the poll tax was abolished in Louisiana [in 1934,] the number of men voting increased from 260,00 to 335,000, an increase of 25 per cent. However, the women's vote jumped from 135,000 to 260,000, an increase of almost 100 percent." Does "men voting"/"women's vote" mean who actually cast a ballot, or does it mean who were on the roles? Further down the page it says "Between October, 1934 and March, 1936, 123,000 white women were added to the rolls while just over 120,000 white men became voters". Which is clearly registrations.
 * Side note, going to that page I saw "In 1953, Alabama reduced the cumulative requirement of their poll tax from twenty-four years to two years", which seems monumental. Can you imagine being penalized interest for 24 years? No wonder women thought this was a huge victory. I think that needs to go in and I think I am going to have to re-read Podolefsky (unless you want to) to make sure nothing significant has been omitted. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I pretty much trust you on sources. I was going to check/research further a few things once the draft had stabilised. I'll put that on the list. (With luck, you will have saved me the effort by then. )
 * PS Is it known what effect the 24th amendment had on voter registrations and or voters voting?
 * Other than that it caused a flurry of lawsuits that finally ended it I am not sure. Will add it to the list of things to try to find out about.
 * Someone must have got a PhD thesis out of that!
 * One would think. I may have just found such a thing for Virginia, but as it was written in 1975, probably won't focus on women.
 * I think, this is immeasurable. Not in terms of how many people were able to vote, that appears to have been negligible, but because it resulted in federal oversight of elections being implemented. Part 1), the 24th Amendment only applied to federal elections. Part 2), "Specifically, even after the passage of the 24th Amendment in 1964 banning poll taxes, some Southern states continued to implement the poll tax until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1966. To cope with their noncompliance, Section 10 of the V[oting] R[ights] A[act of 1965] enabled the Attorney General to "institute", or challenge, the use of poll taxes, thus effectively restricting its use." "the VRA severely limited the ability of southern governments to discourage minority representation. African-American voter registration rates among VRA-covered states rose from 27.9% before the VRA to 54.7% after it passed." and Part 3) "Since 1975, under pressure from the Chicano movement, the law on electoral rights was extended to linguistic minorities. Section 4 now covered states and counties that had at least 5% of their voting age population belonging to a linguistic minority, namely: "Indians" and "People from Alaska", "Asians" and "persons of Spanish origin".4 If the ballots of those jurisdictions were in English and there were no translators (especially for languages ​​that are oral) then the elections are considered discriminatory. Congress in 1975 extended the VRA for an additional seven years and the law of electoral rights beyond the Fifteenth Amendment (racial discrimination in elections) and the South (it now covered much of the Southwest and West of the country)" ibid. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , woo hoo. Just what you needed. That will give additional solidity to the whole article and make it more difficult for reviewers to argue PoV. (I assume that this is going to FAC?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * in the back of my mind I say reluctantly yes. For now, just want to get it "finished." Still have to finish Virginia, search for more sources on black women's groups involved, find some photos of the black women involved, and am still hoping for input from Mona. SusunW (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I can ever get it to save the refs ("Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes"), this is in there and ready for you to tweak. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "After Georgia repealed the tax voter turnout rose from 16.9% to 30.3% of eligible voters." Is there information on whether the number of registered voters increased?
 * Not in Lackey, but maybe there is another source? I've marked it to come back and research further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This talks about increase in turnout, but not registrations. I can find information on overall voting registrations after the poll tax died, but not really any information on its impact on women. I also found these (which appear to me to be written in Greek) that perhaps might address the overall change in registrations? and  SusunW (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , look interesting. I shall dig into them, but possibly not until tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As you have time is clearly fine. I have finished re-reading Podolefsky and added info from Siegel's sources. Have also written to Evelyn Butt's daughter and am trying to work through any outstanding queries here. Still need to write the lede, ugh, but I think we are getting to the finish line. SusunW (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Joan M. Jensen and Lois Scharf's work Decades of Discontent: The Women's Movement, 1920–1940 (1987) characterized ..." It is not usual to give the names of works; perhaps 'In 1987 Joan M. Jensen and Lois Scharf characterized feminist activists during 1920-1940 as ..."?
 * done


 * "often characterized southern women". For consistency, should that be an upper case S?
 * yes


 * "often characterized southern women as apathetic and indifferent". This would work better with a 'during ...' after "women".
 * done


 * The first two paragraphs of "Historic significance" section seem to be almost entirely about feminism, rather that the historic significance of the "women's poll tax repeal movement".
 * They are but it is to my mind trying to place it in context in women's history, not just in the scope of US history. As a women's studies major, I was taught, as I am sure thousands of others were that the feminist movement in the US died immediately after suffrage was won and did not start up again until during the civil rights movement. What we now are finding out, is that isn't the case. It is the entire premise of Podolefsky's article, that the movement didn't die, it changed. The fight for women's citizenship (which I haven't written yet but still may) and this fight on poll tax continued their activism, but given world events, were not as prominently featured. Somewhere I read in the materials for developing this that the press actually refused to print information about their activities as it was deemed trivial. But, I don't know where I read it. Again, feel free modify it as you feel best. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is good solid stuff, but possibly needs to go nearer the start to set the context, rather than the end under significence? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Back to that original query of structure, LOL. As I said, that has been one of the hardest things to figure out in this article. What goes where, what is best for the flow, how do we tell the story? That paragraph we added yesterday about the racial aspects has been floating around in my head since I started, I just couldn't figure out where it should go. Feel free to move it somewhere else and we can see what we think. We can always move it again. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a great fan of just throw words at the page. They can be moved around later. Even if the original ends up being "grandfather's axed". I confess that this has sometimes led me to prematurely public with some right tosh. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources?
A bit of a rag bag, and possibly none of any great use, probably already noted by you, or even already used. (I find it almost impossible to read non-harv sourcing on Wikipedia.)


 * https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/geojpovlp27&div=30&id=&page=
 * http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DDXS200404017.htm
 * https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2008.0011?journalCode=elj
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/20141870?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=twenty-fourth+amendment&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dtwenty-fourth%2Bamendment&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_solr_cloud%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A875097052f0d7ffc1b2476f41af44962&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Mostly possible sources for adding to "Impact", or a possible new "Ongoing influence" section? Although they may all fall foul of not relating closely to the topic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Will circle back after I finish Virginia. Just wanted to get those two sections done this morning that I was able to source. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I spent a mostly fruitless afternoon "buscar no buscar" (which in Yucatecan means searching but not finding). I cannot figure out Mrs. C. H. Byrd's name to save my soul. I cannot find any newspaper articles which specifically mention either the National Association of Colored Women or the National Council of Negro Women, so unless Prof. Siegel comes through with something, I think we'll need to leave it. Tomorrow I will peruse these sources and see if we can wrap up the outstanding queries. Again, I really appreciate your help. Not an easy subject, but I think we are doing our best to present it well. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ha, I am doing almost nothing. But if I am contributing moral support while you do the actual work I shall try not to be embarrassed by how stereotypical that is. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your queries have helped shape it and certainly led to help me focus, which is huge. Broad topics are much harder IMO as the devil is in the details. Putting in enough so that the story is told but leaving out enough so that it doesn't become pedantic. I think you do not realize how much you are helping. SusunW (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * fair enough. I am IMHO not bad at cutting things out. I'll have a look at the licencing on the images. Probably tomorrow - it is late here. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * am still working on photos. see discussion. Also trying to determine if this photo is from a year book. From our article: "In 1923, White enrolled at Butler College in Tyler, Texas for a year before transferring to Prairie View College (now Prairie View A&M University) in Hempstead, Texas." If it is from 1924-1925 we can use it, but I haven't yet found The Prairie for any year except 1926.
 * Heard from Dr. Siegel and she gave me a couple of sources to try, so we'll see. Still need to re-read Podolefsky too. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Made it through one of the sources, pretty good stuff, IMO. Question: Do we need to include that the white primary died in 1944 by virtue of Smith v. Allwright (Johnson 2010, 17) Since all the major reforms to poll taxes came after that fell, it was significant. SusunW (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , IMO, no. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rereading I mean we don’t have to. We could, it is probably not too off topic. But if we chose to skip it, I don’t think we would be pulled up over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I put it in as a note. I am not sure that it adds anything to our article specifically, but it does provide context. SusunW (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

More

 * "The anti-poll tax movement began before the 1930s in Virginia." This reads oddly when your first actual example is from 1932 and the second from "the late 1930s".
 * I'm not sure exactly when it started. The 1945 article says more than 15 years ago. Perhaps just in the 1920s? SusunW (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't have specific examples to cite, I would take out the initial sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I am holding off making comments on big, "strategic" issues until you are near done adding material. (Ie, I don't want to backseat drive!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that. Moving sections we will have to reverify reference order in the article. I am also wondering about redirects. Some of these women are significant to this movement, but I don't know if we will find enough info to do bios. Do/should we do redirects for all of the names that aren't redlinks? Asking now so I don't forget to ask. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, red link them if they are notable. Ie, is there enough RS material about them to at least make a decent stub. If there is just a passing reference or two of their name, then no. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my issue with that, some of these women had a really significant impact on US history. For example, Annie E. Harper. She's a poor black woman. We have very few sources on prominent black women, so it seems totally logical to me that sourcing sufficient to write a biography for her will be really, really hard unless someone actually has access to primary records or the Associated Negro Press. If someone was looking for her, wouldn't it be better to have a redirect to this article where it talks about her historical contribution? SusunW (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. You are reasonably confident that RSs exist, even though you can't specify them, so I would red link it. Which may, as you say, inspire someone, sometime, to write her biography. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am not making myself clear. That communication thing again. I honestly believe that given the segregated times she lived in and the fact that she was poor, it is unlikely that there will ever be enough sources to write about her (and some of the others I haven't redlinked). So what I am proposing is to create a redirect from her name to this article. If I think there are enough sources out there, I have redlinked them and will ask at WiR for help in writing those up. SusunW (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got you. IAR IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And another style thing. I always use international dates, but I know that is a huge problem for purists. I used to have a thingy on my toolbar that would covert ddmmyyyy to mmddyyyy, but it has disappeared. Any idea how I get it back? SusunW (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. But I have one on mine and could run it. What format do you want them in? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * that is irrelevant (I want them in the format that I typed them, but the MOS gods will rain wrath as it is a US article). ;) mmddyyyy is what apparently it must be. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid that that is what the MoS requires. Try asking for the tool at the Help Desk. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is totally bizarre. I went there to ask, but as I was typing the request, I looked at the toolbar and the date thingy was there. So I didn't ask, came back to the article and it wasn't in the toolbar. Came here to type a message to you about the weirdness and when I opened the edit box it was there again. Apparently someone has now hidden the thing so that you can only use it if you have an editing screen open. Why would anyone think that is helpful? At any rate, I ran it. Technology on here is just baffling. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hadn't noticed that. One boggles at some people's thought processes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Numbers
Finally got round to looking at those sources you referred me to properly. Surprisingly, the most useful one is the Congressional Record - although the tiny blurred print is a pig. I have extracted the following from it. Sadly only one explicit reference to women's votes. I can also give you figures for the decrease in voters when the poll tax was introduced if you want them - and at risk to my eyesight - but I assumed that you don't as no women could vote then.


 * By 1940, eight states required payment of a poll tax in order to register to vote. The total number of citizens eligible to register in these eight states was 13.6 mn, but only 3 mn - 22% - paid the poll tax. In 1942 (a non-presidential election year) only 828,000, 8%, actually voted. In 1946 it was 9% in the by then seven poll tax states, compared with 13% in the four southern states which had repealed the poll tax and 47% in the non-poll tax states.


 * Florida abolished the poll tax in 1937, and the number of votes in the 1940 presidential election increased by 46% compared with 1936. The number of voters in Louisiana increased by 44.5% after it abolished the poll tax in 1932, the number of women voters increased by 77%. The vote in congressional elections in Georgia more than doubled immediately after its poll tax was repealed, compared with immediately before.


 * [All from Congressional Record August 3, p. 9706-7]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to stress your eyes . Top left of the page is a magnifying glass that will let you +/- the text size. (I cannot believe I know a technical thingy). I think any of that works. Again, the point is to give a scope to how many people were prohibited. Feel free to add as you wish, or I can do it, if you prefer. SusunW (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you. *smacks head*.
 * It seems to be settling down, So I will give it another copy edit tomorrow and slot the numbers in where appropriate. I may need a hand with your preferred style of referencing, but I shall shout if I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be settling down, So I will give it another copy edit tomorrow and slot the numbers in where appropriate. I may need a hand with your preferred style of referencing, but I shall shout if I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Red links that need to be done
NY Times and Taylor and Francis links will probably need to be asked for at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I don't have access. Links to family search will probably require signing up for a free account. Photos to some of the women are in the article. Ceola Wallace image from Ebony could be used fair use. Last 3 will be BLP, rest are deceased. Don't forget to put a link in each article to the Women's poll tax repeal movement. SusunW (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Louise O. Charlton
 * I'll take this one to start SusunW (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * May Thompson Evans ,,
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax,
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Joseph Gelders,
 * I'll start this! TJMSmith (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Frances Wheeler Sayler
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * League of Women Shoppers
 * I want. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay. it should also link to Aline Davis Hays. SusunW (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Aline Davis Hays
 * I'll give Aline a start. Penny Richards (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Susan B. Anthony II (FYI- grandniece of Susan B. Anthony)
 * Okay, I'm taking this one. SusunW (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Josephine Wilkins
 * I'll give Josephine a start. Penny Richards (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate your help . Josephine has a photo in the article you can use. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dorothy Stafford
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Louise Dietrich
 * I'm marking that you took this one. Let me know if it becomes an issue. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm starting work on it today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG she was so interesting and so deserving of an article! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought she would be up your alley. Glad you enjoyed working on her. SusunW (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nina Miglionico
 * I'll give Nina a start. Penny Richards (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, another one who should have had an article years ago. And could have an article twice as long. Thank you for the chance to "meet" her. Penny Richards (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, right? So many of these women are really interesting and notable. They add depth to what we know about the women's movement, as so many think it stopped with suffrage until the women's liberation movement. But many of them were also involved in so many other things and I'm hoping will be expanded once they actually get written. Thank you so much for helping with them. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Feels like it's also a very good time to highlight the diversity, perseverance, and progressive activism of Southern women. Penny Richards (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more! SusunW (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dorah Sterne
 * I'll give Dorah a start. Penny Richards (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delphine Feminear Thomas
 * I'll give Delphine a start. Penny Richards (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Minnie Steckel
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Naomi Cohn (obituary appeared 23 Oct 1982 in Richmond, VA) and
 * I'll try to whip something up about Naomi Cohn by the weekend. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che d*icono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Lois Van Valkenburgh
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ceola Wallace
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Lois Scharf
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ronnie L. Podolefsky FYI- her husband Aaron Podolefsky meets WP:ACADEMIC as the president of Buffalo State College and University of Central Missouri
 * Taking this one. SusunW (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sarah Wilkerson-Freeman and and
 * Begun at Draft:Sarah Wilkerson Freeman—NB, she does not hyphenate on her CV
 * Ok as advertised I’m afraid I’m not able to get much past gathering up refs. It seems to me she should meet NAUTHOR but it is quite a stubby entry and I’m afraid I haven’t found her connection to the poll tax movement. (It might be in a ref I’m having trouble viewing.) But for whatever this beginning may be worth. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting! I added education, reviews, and an infobox. Some additional details from the newspaper clippings of her curatorial would help round it out. TJMSmith (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much! It looks far more respectable now! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much . I got distracted by Florence Lewis because Yoninah was able to find me her maiden name, which finally cracked her bio open. Yay! We can add some of her other publications too and then I think she's okay to take live. She lists several in her CV, which can be confirmed with World cat here and here. I'm going to work on Alanna's queries, but I'll come back and check progress. Truly appreciate y'all taking this one on. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve added a sentence about what I think her poll tax article says but needless to say it’s difficult without the full text; I am relying on the title and first page. But if anyone has more access and could add more either to that or about other articles, I agree it would be good to talk more about what her work deals with. I tried to do the social worker article and the abstract was just too vague for me to feel like I had a purchase on it... Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added other publications. There is info that can be gleaned from here, here, and here. If you don't get to it before me, I'll circle back. SusunW (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added information from those sources. I think we have enough to take her live if y'all concur, though as TJ points out we could expand it a bit with her curatorial work, i.e. from here and here. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve added a bit although I feel like possibly more could be said. Or just more elegantly than I did! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it looks really good. I moved it to main space and really thank you for your work on it ! SusunW (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! The cache of internment camp photographs especially were so striking to learn about, I will look for whether she has done more with that. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking I wished I had found a link to her article on the Robinson photos, but I do think with all of us pitching in, its a pretty solid start. It'll be interesting to see if you are able to find information on her work with the internment camp photos. I have noticed that sometimes when we post an article, sources that did not show up in previous searches suddenly come to light, so fingers crossed. SusunW (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dale Baum meets WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of his 3 books/monographs
 * I'll start a small one on Baum. TJMSmith (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not related to this article, a female Dale Baum from Flint, Michigan/Mississippi likely meets WP:N. She was a 1950s stage actor and WJTV producer.

More queries and comments

 * "Georgia did not require women to pay poll taxes, unless they wanted to register to vote. The remaining Southern states required women to pay poll taxes before they could register." I don't see any difference!
 * What I understood from the source was that women who didn't register didn't have to pay. In other states, they were supposed to pay whether they registered or not, but I'll have to check on it. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to say "In other Southern states poll taxes were cumulatively due from the time someone was eligible to vote, prior to registration". You may want to tweak that. SusunW (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that you need something brief on Louisiana in the Florida and Georgia section; or in background after North Carolina. I have inserted a sentence in the lead - "Louisiana abandoned its poll tax law in 1932, and the number of women voters increased by 77%." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I put Louisiana in as a footnote, because as far as I can tell, women weren't involved. It was Huey Long's political gang that pushed for it and got it repealed. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the above.


 * I am giving this a fairly thorough copy edit. Wearing my GoCE, get it ready for FAC hat as it were. Please shout if I do anything you don't like or don't understand, and please shout loudly if I inadvertently contradict a source. Ta. I also intend to take my time and do the copy edit in stages - if I try to do too much in one go it tends to blur and I miss things. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am working on the redlinks, so that we don't walk on each other's toes. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In "Growth of the movement" the fourth paragraph, commencing "In Texas", arguably should be moved to the "Texas" part of "State efforts". It seems state specific and sits a bit unhappily in the more general "Growth of the movement".
 * I'll have to think on that because the issue is that xenophobia and those federal laws impacted brown people in other states, not just Texas. (I'd bet there were Latinos in Florida it effected, but I haven't found a source that indicates that.) SusunW (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but at the moment it looks as if you are attempting to stretch Texas-specific sources across the whole f the South.
 * Okay, I think this deals with Native Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics, more generally. Let me rework it using Texas as an example. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to move the section to Texas. While the Parks Service Piece makes clear that other brown people were barred from voting, it doesn't specifically mention poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Other organizations which took an active roll included: ..." It seems odd that the subsequent list includes five mentions of Alabama, two of Vitginia, one of Tennessee and none of any other states. Is this a fair reflection of activity within the various states?
 * I'll come back and look at this. These were all given by those sources cited, so I probably should have expanded it after I finished writing the various states. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Personally I would delete the state-specific organisations. If they need mentioning it should be later, under the specific states.
 * Okay, can do. I'll take the ones that are discussed in the state sections out. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, moved them to the state sections. SusunW (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you can cite directly to a legal judgement - you need a secondary source. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is simply a primary source? I'm not interpreting the case, the language specifically said the case was moot because the election she wanted to vote in had already happened. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, yes, it is allowed. But if you happen across a secondary source, best to replace it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the only source, there are two and one is secondary. I just thought that Koy made it much more obvious. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , leave it in then. At worst it gives a reviewere something to whinge about. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Nationally, 70% of voters from non-poll tax states voted in elections, but 25% or less of voters participated from states with the tax." I assume that these figures are for the [1936?] presidential elections?
 * No idea if this was for the state primary or national election. Source says "Alabama had only an 18.4 percent voter turnout in 1932. Virginia, another Democratic stronghold and a poll tax state, had a voter turnout of 25 percent. By contrast, North Carolina, which had abolished the poll tax as a requirement for voting in 1920, voted about 60 percent of its strength, a figure close to the national average of 70 percent for all the non-poll tax states". SusunW (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "published by Bontecou in 1942". First name?
 * At her first mention I added and linked her name, Eleanor Bontecou. Typically I don't use full names after introducing them, unless there is some chance they could be confused with someone else of the same name. Should I? SusunW (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I must have messed up my cntl-f search.
 * De nada, no need to apologize. I honestly am so thankful for the help. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have added some numbers to the penultimate paragraph of National efforts. Could you look them over and see if you are happy. If so, could you do the honours with the cite - I have put all of the necessary info - I think - at the end, but I really can't work out the referencing you use. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Okay, I think I got them all, but if not point me in the direction. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Gelders
I started an article on Joseph Gelders. The two potential sources I couldn't access I added to the further reading section. It would be fantastic if a picture and the DOB/DOD could be added. I have the years (1898-1950) but not a great source for the day/month. Find a grave has dates that don't match the picture of the gravestone. The stone also mentions he was a technical sgt in WWI and WWII. I found one source that said Gelders enlisted in the army in 1918 but nothing about a rank. One of his daughters, Blanche Hartman, already has a Wikipedia article. Gelders' other daughter, Margaret "Marge" Frantz was a progressive activist, academic, feminist, and lesbian. She might be independently notable or could be mentioned in Gelders' article. TJMSmith (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really, really appreciate it. It's what I love about doing red links, often leads to other notable people/things. Let me see if I can find you a DOB, not sure about a photo, but I'll try. You know you can always try the resource exchange, they are really good. SusunW (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is neat discovering new connections while making redlinks blue! No rush on the dates- they can be added at any time. I know you're working on many articles. It was neat to see how Gelders collaborated closely with other activists. TJMSmith (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Check your e-mail. I sent your dates. I'd also add Franz to our LBT list for June's editathon if no one gets to her before that. SusunW (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! I've added those details and uncovered a source connecting Gelders to his sister, Emma Gelders Sterne. TJMSmith (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , very, very cool. Obviously there are so many of these folks who were notable and who we can tie together and improve the links in the encyclopedia. I am hoping that after the main article goes live, some of the other names may eventually get worked up too. I only picked the ones I could fairly quickly prove were notable. Really appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * check your e-mail again. I found a couple of photos if you want to use them. SusunW (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks more or less GAN-ready to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'll nominate it at GAN. If it's not ready, I'll receive further guidance with how to improve it! TJMSmith (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

More more

 * "In some areas, suffragists worked across ethnic lines to help women register to vote." I am not sure what an ethnic "line" is. (US English?) But also not sure how to rephrase. Possibly delete this, given that there is a specific example in the next sentence?
 * Technically we would probably say "across the color line", but I thought that was really US centric. Maybe link to Color line (racism) SusunW (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That works, good.


 * I think that the text here on the "even broader disenfranchisement effort" and campaigns against it is highly likely to be challenged as not relevant to the article. Much is not specifically relevant to women, and some not even to the poll tax.
 * I disagree, it is context one has to know. An American woman lost her citizenship if she married a Mexican; but a Mexican woman could gain American citizenship by marriage. Sort of like "Mr. Crow" impacting black citizens, these policies (there isn't a catchy name for them per se) impacted other racial groups and made it impossible for them to vote. Just like blacks, they were intimidated if they attempted to pay poll taxes and just a Spanish sounding name, could trigger refusal to accept their poll tax payments. I can check again in Gunter if you think we need to tie it more closely to poll taxes, or I can move it to a note if you really think that it is irrelevant. I think without understanding it, you do not get a clear picture of Texas. SusunW (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's your call. I understand and was aware of what you say. At root I am concerned that some editors may feel that it is illegitimate to carve a separate article on women's opposition to poll taxes out from the more general campaign. And the more you include non-women's issues as background, the more difficult it is to defend against this. If you don't mind the article being retitled "Poll tax repeal movement" it's not a problem; if you do ... Of course, I may be being over cautious and it may not arise.
 * I know you are aware, but truly, very few people understand that most married women did not have citizenship anywhere in the world until after World War II. Well here's the argument in favor. 1) Women's suffrage has certainly earned its place in the history books separately from universal suffrage. 2) The article does not discuss the larger poll tax repeal movement, merely the women and their organizations involved. (Someone could conceivably write an article on the entire movement. But, I would venture to guess that if they did, they would not mention the women, because they are not typically covered in general academic works on topics and especially in this case, we know that historians and political scientists downplayed women's involvement.) 3) I'd also venture that such an article wouldn't address how poll taxes disenfranchised women or other racial groups, because truly, it is typically framed as an issue that only impacted black Americans. I don't argue that they weren't horribly treated; racist policies in the US are and were horrific. I think a broader understanding of how poll taxes impacted the poor, women, blacks and other people of color is important to fully understand the issue. 4) I didn't just invent the title 5) I am not sure how the fact that women lost their citizenship is not a women's issue. If a man ever lost his citizenship and thus his citizenship rights because he married a woman, I am unaware of it. Can you imagine being a white woman, born in the US, bringing your marriage license and husband's naturalization papers to the registrar and being told you could not pay poll taxes or register to vote because you were non-white by virtue of your marriage or being denied the right to pay taxes if your husband was not naturalized? Imagine you are a Latina and are married to a white American, expecting all the rights and privileges of citizenship, but being denied on the basis of your skin color? I think if women were black, they probably had a greater understanding of the limits, as their lives were truly more restricted. I could go on, but you know this is a point I probably won't give on. (Meekly steps off soapbox.) SusunW (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some good material for your third FAC there. Fine. Your view is entirely defensible, and I lean towards keeping it in myself. But as your copy editor I felt that I needed to flag up the issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "state and local statistics on Jim Crow laws and their impact." Perhaps a word or two explaining - broadly - what the Jim Crow laws were, lest non-US readers think that Mr Crow was a Alabama legislator.
 * Okay, I'll come back to it. SusunW (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have found a source and explained it. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you do understand that if I ever write that women's citizenship article it will be massive. It was an international problem and won't be easy to tackle. You'll probably have to move to Mexico to hold my hand through writing it. LOL SusunW (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , so long as you provide the wine! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course! Shall I send you my bootlegger's spirits list? SusunW (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A general point: should it be indicated somewhere that payments, at least in some states, were cumulative, per Anderson?
 * Yes, it should be in there. I'll add it. SusunW (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I reworked the sentence that said increased in some areas by interest and penalties for prior years to now say "increased in some areas by cumulative interest and penalties for each year that a voter had not paid but was eligible to vote" Better? SusunW (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And I am done. I think that you have a very solid article there. If you want to go via GAn, I suggest that you simply nominate it straight away. Any joy in getting someone to look it over? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, absolutely no nibbles. I'll try to answer the still outstanding things tomorrow and then assess where we are. Making good progress on the red links, but I still think more of them need to be finished before we can do FA. I truly cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a FAC coordinator, and I can assure you that the current number of red links is of no relevance to it passing FAC or not. And certainly not to GAN - stop prevaricating and nominate it! That said, I am truly impressed by the way solid articles on all f these women are being churned out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I'm not ready. Give me a week. Still have a couple of things to answer and I want to get a couple of people to look it over, if that's possible. Then a weird thing happened that I need to fix. Do you see the error on Lois Scharf's author-link? I cannot figure it out? SusunW (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback - Alanna the Brave
Hi -- I've finished an initial read through, and I have some comments/questions below (which you can take or leave!). It's an interesting article, and I think it's in very good shape. I like that you've included lots of information about Black women and people of colour in relation to the poll taxes and women's suffrage. As requested, I tried to keep an eye out for any material that could use expanding or trimming. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. This is very helpful. I may need a day or so to address your comments. FYI on coverture, it was practiced from the beginning of colonization until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and did not fully end until passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. I can put in a footnote. But will need to pull up some sources. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Background

 * "Coverture prevented women from legally accessing money" --> How so? Does this mean women were prevented from getting jobs, or getting loans, or withdrawing money from banks? Also, where/when was coverture practised in the U.S? I've read about it in the context of 19th-century Britain, but I was surprised to read about it being a thing in 20th-century America.
 * Such a thing existed everywhere in the world, particularly in former British colonies until the mid-20th century. (Canada gave women their own nationality in 1945, ahead of Britian, which didn't do it until 1948). I've added a fairly substantial note, which you are free to edit. will probably also want to put eyeballs on it. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note looks good to me! Helpful context. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The end of this section shows examples for the MEDIAN income for white men and the AVERAGE income for everyone else. This comparison might be tightened up if both examples used the same value.
 * The figures are all median income per the source. Clarified. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a fine Wikipedia article on coverture. The note looks got. I have tweaked a little, but feel free to revert.
 * "legislative variations among the states gave women extremely different civil rights from states within the federal system". I don't understand this, were there states not "within the federal system"? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's that federal versus state law thing. Anything that is not specified in the federal constitution is up to the state to decide. Thus, for example in this article's case, voting cannot be limited per the federal law by sex or race, but any other condition, can be legislated by the state, except charging poll tax for a federal election. States cannot make laws that violate the federal constitution (well they can and do, but they will typically be struck down) so within is not meaning the state is in or outside the system but the state laws have to be within the confines of the federal constitution, if that makes sense? SusunW (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that. But I was unsure that that was what you were trying to communicate. I have tweaked it a bit, but feel free to revert. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth of movement

 * "Tactics used to attain the repeal of poll taxes included both state agitation and..." --> What does "state agitation" mean?
 * Changed it to read applying pressure on state legislators SusunW (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It may just be me (I don't read much legal history!), but I'm finding it unclear what the significance of Breedlove vs Suttles was. What was the impact of this case on the women's poll tax repeal movement? Why is this important?
 * Changed it to read While individuals and groups attempted to sway legislators, many women turned to the courts after Breedlove v. Suttles (302 U.S. 277, 284, 1937) determined that though the Georgia election poll tax statute imposed the tax on both men and women, women who chose not to register to vote were exempt from paying.[42][43] The decision confirmed that voting rights were conditional to the rules established by individual states, rather than by the federal government. Thus, if states established paying tax as a prerequisite to registering, it was within their constitutional authority.[44] As Georgia law required payment of the tax for his spouse from the man who headed the family, paying tax twice was seen as an extra financial burden on him. Non-payment also allowed women to opt out of civic responsibilities to concentrate on motherhood. Is that more clear?
 * The impact was that they had to keep challenging the various state laws because the court had ruled it wasn't a federal matter. As for the second part, it was important because it reinforced coverture and simultaneously forced activists to use a state by state approach. Not sure where, or if that is still unclear? SusunW (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is definitely clearer -- thanks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

National efforts

 * You end by saying that 24th Amendment was finally ratified in 1964. For the benefit of us non-U.S. readers, I think you should briefly explain what this amendment is -- just use the line you included in the lead. :-)
 * Done SusunW (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Texas

 * The paragraph that begins "An even broader disenfranchisement effort resulted from the additional problem of xenophobia..." strikes me as straying from the article's topic. As a reader, it wasn't clear to me why this information was being presented to me. The poll tax was part of broader attempts at disenfranchisement, but that doesn't necessarily mean all background info about broader disenfranchisement is vital to understanding the women's poll tax repeal movement. I see you and Gog the Mild have already discussed this, so I won't press too hard -- just wanted to mention it. If you're feeling dead set on keeping this paragraph, maybe there's a way to tie it into the poll tax discussion more explicitly?
 * I'll try to rework it. I think it is very significant and needs to be in the article. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better? SusunW (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think that's a bit better (at least there's an explicit link now). Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Though the state legislature passed a resolution that year to abolish payment of poll taxes in order to vote, the amendment was not formally approved until 2009..." --> What does this mean? Were poll taxes still technically legal here until 2009??
 * In the US, states can have laws on their books that are unenforceable because they violate the US constitution. They are not required to overturn those laws because federal statutes prohibit them from being implemented. For example, Mississippi did not formally abolish slavery until 2013 SusunW (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Woah! Weird but interesting. Okay -- I don't think you need to add anything to the paragraph, it was just a question I had. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Mississippi

 * This section is oddly short compared to everything else. Is there any information about WHY there was so little participation in the poll tax movement here? Did local culture or history play a role?
 * Because it was Mississippi? It was far too dangerous. There is a reason the Freedom Summer project focused on Mississippi. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Well, I think it's good that the dangerous environment is now made clearer in that paragraph (for anyone less familiar with the state's history). Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Cases brought by women

 * Can you clarify why these chosen cases are listed? What is their significance to the broader poll tax movement? Some of them seem to have succeeded, while others failed.
 * Podolefsky says "Court challenges after Breedlove were brought by a proportionately large number of women plaintiffs". I added a sentence to that effect leading to the section. Though I attempted to find a list of all legal challenges to the poll tax, I was unable to do so. Ogden (1958) 272-279 mentions Breedlove, Pirtle v Brown, Jones v Settle (woman), Saunders v Wilkins, Evans (woman), Jones #2 (woman), Michaels v Cockerell, Butler v. Thompson (woman). Podlefsky mentions Breedlove, Jones x2 (woman), Evans (woman), Butler (woman), Gray and Wallace (woman) and Harper (woman). So the numbers do indicate that men filed 4 cases and women 7+. I am loathe to include that analysis as it borders on OR to my mind. SusunW (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I understand -- I had initially thought that these cases were listed in the article because they were somehow individually significant to the result of the women's tax poll repeal movement (i.e. they directly helped achieve the tax repeal), but you're saying that these cases are listed because they provide examples of how women participated in this movement. That makes total sense. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Impact of repeal

 * Any impact on Texas and Mississippi?
 * I found a source that gives information on Houston, but not the entire state and added information. But with the high Latino population there it is telling that there was a dramatic rise in registrations. I find nothing for Mississippi. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also found a couple of more general sources and have added material. Better? SusunW (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I find something on blacks in Mississippi. So have added that. Also a partial explanation to your earlier question "Mississippi, the state with the lowest median income, education, and previous registration of blacks and with the highest proportion of blacks in its population, jumped from a registration of 6.9% of blacks in 1964 to 59.8% three years later". Terchek, p 28
 * All good stuff! Interesting additions. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What was the impact on people of colour, more generally? Any impact on civil rights movements?
 * I am not sure that I can answer this because the poll tax repeal movement was a step in the process of attaining political and civil rights. The first one, but quickly followed by others: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed 23 January 1964; the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964; the Voting Rights Act on 6 August 1965. I am not sure how one can separate out a component from the sum of the actions if that makes sense? I mean, how does one weigh what impacted what or which of those effected the outcome more? Maybe I just need to make that more explicit in the historical significance part? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries -- I was just wondering about this, since this section had less information about people of colour than the rest of the article, but if there's no clear answer then I agree it makes no sense to cobble one together. Sometimes, when I review an article, I'll ask questions just to fish for possible information -- but it doesn't always mean there's something missing. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Historic significance

 * This is interesting information, but I feel like these paragraphs could potentially be better organized. The key information indicating the significance of the women's poll tax movement is hidden deep within each paragraph or slipped in at the end --> contrary to earlier academic beliefs, American women's rights activists continued their activism during interwar/post-war periods, and women/people of colour in the South were NOT apathetic in the fight for voting rights. A stronger topic sentence for each paragraph might help (tell the reader what's coming!).
 * Please feel free to jump right in and change what you think needs changing. I promise, any improvements are welcome. you're the guild copyeditor here, jump in if you feel you can improve it.
 * I think I have added information that answers most of your concerns . If not, just let me know. I will probably be in and out for the next couple of days. Gotta bake those Thanksgiving pies. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Article looks better! I hope your pies are going well. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much . Your comments were very helpful in improving the article. I truly appreciate your time and effort. And yes, 4 short crust pie shells are made and crimped. Now for the filling and baking—2 traditional pumpkin and pecan, and 2 a nod to Mexico coffee-anise-cream and sour orange meringue. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those pies sound great! I am on my way ;) Happy Thanksgiving! TJMSmith (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

State-level articles
Just some unasked for thoughts ;) If there are concerns about article size (WP:SPLIT), a possible solution could be to start separate state-wide articles when feasible. Texas, Alabama, and Virginia (potentially Tennessee) all look thorough enough that they could be standalone articles with a paragraph summary remaining in this one. TJMSmith (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep it all in one place, but totally understand the suggestion. Were it more states, it might make more sense to split it off. It seems better for cohesion to remain in one article, but if consensus suggests otherwise ... SusunW (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense. It's good to have options. I'm curious what feedback you'll receive at GAN/FAN. I think this article is impressive. Hard to believe it wasn't already here. TJMSmith (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

GIF
Copying from FAC discussion: Thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I don't have a problem asking the Graphics Lab. My thoughts for this article are that when poll tax was initially instituted is not critical, but rather when it became a prerequisite to voting. I also don't think it adds anything to the discussion of repeal as to whether it is cumulative or not (they wanted it gone regardless). So should we title it Poll tax as a condition to voting, make the changes I've indicated above, and change the colors to yellow (initiated) and blue (repealed)? SusunW (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this? I think it might be worth including in the article, though you'd have to check the sourcing for all the data.
 * I have no access to the V. O. Key book. I found the other one, so it can be checked. My question would be is red/orange a difficult color for those with visual difficulties? SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but I think that is indeed a bad colour combination to use., if you're not tired of being pinged on accessibility issues, can you comment?  SusunW, I'll leave this unstruck but it's up to you if you want to include it; I just mentioned it in case you wanted to use it.  The Key book is available very cheaply online and I'd be happy to pick up a copy if that's the only thing stopping you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be asked, so never worry about pinging me. In my view the red (#FF0000) and orange (#FF5E00) are just too similar to use without a lot of colour-impaired readers being unable to distinguish them. My recommendation would be to replace them with hatched shading with the hatching in opposite diagonal directions and by all means make use of colours, but choose opposites like yellow and blue. If you're thinking of using the image, let me know and I can make those changes for you. However, if you want to use the image, you will have to make sure that all of the information contained in it is repeated in the nearby text, otherwise you disadvantage screen reader users who can't see the image at all. HTH --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a bunch of analysis on the GIF (man is it hard to catch it rolling by, but I did it.) I am not sure that I understand the technical instructions RexxS, but yellow/blue works for me. As long as we can source it, does it have to be the same sources used to create the original? Because if that isn't an obstacle, then here's what I have:
 * 1868 Georgia — Not sure if this is correct. The Georgia Encyclopedia says the 1877 Constitution first granted the state the power to tax its citizens.
 * 1876 Virginia (yellow), repealed 1882 (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1877 Georgia — My reading is that the 1877 Constitution allowed for a collection of poll taxes to fund schools. But that it wasn't tied to voting until 1908. This begs the question do we leave 1877, replace it with and entry for 1908, or change the 1877 text to show legislation passed in 1877, but wasn't implemented as a voting prerequisite until 1908. However we do it, Florida and Tennessee should be treated the same, see below.
 * 1889 Florida (yellow)— Enacted 1885 effective 1889 per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) Do we make an entry that shows legislation passed in 1885, but wasn't implemented until 1889? I think we leave the entry at 1889 but state (enacted 1885, precondition to voting 1889).
 * 1890 Mississippi (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1890 Tennessee (yellow) — That year they activated a provision from the 1870 constitution (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471), which seems to be verified as well in the Tennessee Encyclopedia, "The Tennessee State Constitution of 1870 provided for a poll tax at the discretion of the general assembly, with revenues to be used for the common school fund. At the time, critics such as former president Andrew Johnson had recognized the potential harm inherent in the poll tax and vehemently protested it as a method to disfranchise the poor. Nevertheless, the provision remained in the constitution, and the 1889 legislature implemented the tax." The question becomes do we make a 1870 entry to the GIF that shows TN passed legislation but didn't implement? I think we leave the entry at 1890 but state (enacted 1870, precondition to voting 1890).
 * 189 3 1 Arkansas (yellow) — Doesn't look to be correct. (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) says 1891 and Branam, 2010, p 246) confirms the poll tax law was passed in 1891 by the legislature and approved by voters in 1892. Correct the date.
 * 1895 South Carolina (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1898 Louisiana (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1900 North Carolina (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1901 Alabama (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1902 Virginia, Texas (yellow) — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)
 * 1908 Georgia (yellow) — My reading is that the 1877 Constitution allowed for a collection of poll taxes to fund schools. But that it wasn't tied to voting until 1908. I think remove the entry at 1877, add a new entry for 1908 but state (enacted 1877, precondition to voting 1908).
 * 1920 North Carolina repeal (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 178)
 * 1934 Louisiana repeal (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 182, footnote 8)
 * 1937 Florida repeal (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 185)
 * 1945 Georgia repeal (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 187)
 * 1951 South Carolina repeal (hatched yellow) — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 188)
 * 1951 Tennessee effectively ended as a suffrage requirement (hatched yellow) — While (Ogden, 1958, p 193) confirms the 1951 information, he also says it was abolished 1953. Change the parenthetical to state, (effectively; abolished 1953).
 * 1964 24th amendment (blue and the remaining states turn blue) — I question the legitimacy of this in the timeline as it only repealed for federal elections, but it was a landmark, so maybe we do? If we use it, we need to make that clear. (Archer & Muller, 2020) I think we leave the entry.
 * 1964 Arkansas repeal (hatched yellow) — per DeSilver, 2014 I think add a new entry.
 * 1965 Voting Rights Act — Authorized the Department of Justice to litigate on state poll tax laws. (Richardson, 2020, p 456) I think add a new entry.
 * 1966 Texas, Alabama repeal (hatched blue) — by Federal court action per (DeSilver, 2014) I think add a new entry.
 * 1966 Harper — Okay per (Archer & Muller, 2020)
 * 1966 Virginia, Mississippi repeal (hatched blue) — by Federal court action per (DeSilver, 2014) I think add a new entry.
 * I think Mike will agree with me that we can't put an image into the article if the information in it doesn't match what we have in the sources. By all means, use your research to write what you've summarised above in the article. If you think a dynamic image would benefit sighted readers, then I could create one similar to File:Poll tax history.gif, but using your data. It would be icing on the cake, and I'd have to find time to create it, so let me know. (p.s. pardon my messing with your indents, but we might want a screen reader user to comment here and WP:INDENTMIX is relevant.) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , neverfear, I have no problems with you changing the indents at all :) and think that the gif is an interesting addition to the visuals, as long as it is accurate. Since I couldn't access the sources of the original, I just found others and when I noted conflicts did more research. I'd be happy to have you create a gif with the verified information. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Susun, can I suggest you copy this discussion to the article talk page? It's not necessary for promotion to FAC, and you have a couple of outstanding questions above which would have to be resolved before RexxS or anyone else could build the gif. You might ask at the Graphics Workshop for someone to put it together since RexxS may not have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think as long as we're designing a graphic for just this article, rather than modifying one that will also be used in the main article, we should limit it to the information that is relevant here. I think that means excluding states that didn't make voting contingent on paying the poll tax, and I don't think we need to distinguish cumulative from non-cumulative.  One colour could be used to indicate that that state required payment of poll taxes and that both federal and state voting was affected; a second colour could be used to show that just state voting was affected -- after the federal ruling.  I think the important date is when it was effectively abolished, not when it came off the books -- i.e. at what date did it no longer become necessary to pay the tax in order to vote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tweaked it again. As for the colors, what about solid yellow when it was imposed, hatched yellow when the state abolished, solid blue after 1964, and hatched blue when the federal govt overturned? In other words, yellow is for state actions, blue is for federal? I've indicated those above. I think what those changes will do is allow a visual of both state and federal actions. (As a bonus, it will clearly point out that it was tied to the populist movement and not so much Reconstruction.) SusunW (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Below is a table I think we can edit and then use to request the graphic at the workshop. A couple of points: The hatching RexxS suggested is in addition to the colours, so every reference to yellow should be taken as "yellow plus a hatching" and every reference to blue as "blue plus a hatching in a different direction". -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've used yellow to indicate "Paying a poll tax is required to vote in both federal and state elections", and blue to indicate just state elections.
 * We should include in the caption or title text that makes it clear this does not include every state that had a poll tax; it only includes poll taxes which were required for voting.


 * Good by me. (You knew I wouldn't have a clue how to make a table didn't you? ;) ) Requested . SusunW (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually tables are easy if you have Excel; the visual editor works very well for them, so I made it in Excel, pasted that in a sandbox and transferred it here. FYI I left a note at the request -- I couldn't tell if you were suggesting a new GIF or asking to modify the existing one.  If there's no response there you might try the commons workshop which I believe is more active. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That all sounds very technical. I have excel, rarely use it. No idea what visual editor is or how to use it. Far easier for me to simply avoid them, though I can usually figure out how to add an entry to an existing table. The link worked exactly as I intended, so that you could make comments if needed :). Thank you so much for your help. (I have no idea what commons workshop is). SusunW (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the request was archived without anyone taking it. I hope I have now requested it again from what you referred to as the commons workshop. If I did it incorrectly, will you advise? SusunW (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me -- let's hope it gets picked up this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a stab at creating the poll tax GIF - see here (on my Google Drive for now because I didn't want to fill out everything in Commons). Thoughts / updates / corrections? Best, DanCherek (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! I think that's great. I love that you were able slow it down so that the labels can be read. Let's give Mike Christie a chance to look it over, but I am happy. SusunW (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! If you could also help me figure out the list of references that should eventually be cited in Commons, that would be helpful. (Like how Key Jr and Kousser are cited at File:Poll tax history.gif). Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it looks terrific. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a few and I'll post the refs SusunW (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's the list:

Thank you so very much! SusunW (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Williams, Jr., Frank B. (November 1952). "The Poll Tax as a Suffrage Requirement in the South, 1870–1901". The Journal of Southern History. Athens, Georgia: Southern Historical Association. 18 (4): 471
 * Ogden, Frederic D. (1958). "The Poll Tax in the South". Birmingham, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, pp. 4, 178, 182,185, 187, 188, 193.
 * Archer, Deborah N.; Muller, Derek T. (2020). "The Twenty-Fourth Amendment". Interactive Constitution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center.
 * DeSilver, Drew. (23 January 2014). "Anti-poll Tax Amendment Is 50 Years Old Today". Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center
 * Richardson, Valencia (Spring 2020). "Voting While Poor: Reviving the 24th Amendment and Eliminating the Modern-Day Poll Tax". Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Law Center. XXVII (3): 456.
 * , see File:History of poll tax as a condition to voting.gif. Feel free to make any changes to the file page as necessary. Happy I could be of use! Best, DanCherek (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am so thankful that you answered my query. Great work! SusunW (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice job. For future reference when diving old images, the author is listed and you can easily check if they're active or not - in this case they are still active, I'd have been happy to have helped on this.     I will say that I'm definitely on the side of making these images scroll faster - readers are impatient and most won't necessarily actually read the captions, they just want to see a colored map expand and contract.  ;-)  (Flip side, that does mean that someone who does want a text table needs to rewatch it, per above.)   SnowFire (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will add as a thought... I suppose that having a slide for the 19th amendment might be relevant for this article specifically due to the connection to women's rights, but for the poll tax in general, I'd argue it's misleading-to-irrelevant since the 19th Amendment didn't really have a direct effect on poll taxes.  I think it'd be cool to start using the above image, or a variant, on some of the other poll tax articles, but would there be any objections to uploading a different version that skipped that slide?  In the same way, I'd argue that the Voting Rights Act, while surely a very relevant piece of legislation, didn't technically adjust the status of poll tax legislation in any state, so wouldn't need to be in a for-other-articles version.  SnowFire (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

US vs U.S. consistency
Minor observation- there are cases of both U.S. and US (without the punctuation). For consistency's sake, should it be either or? Perhaps it's ok, just thought I'd mention it. TJMSmith (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I fixed that. SusunW (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

TFAR for 8 March
Today's featured article/requests/Women's poll tax repeal movement --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Title
I'm hesitant to bring it up because this is a featured article and nobody else seems to have noticed in FAC, so maybe this is just me, but isn't the title a bit misleading? A casual look at it suggests that this is about a movement specifically to repeal the "Women's poll tax", i.e. maybe males still have to pay a poll tax but women are exempt. The article itself makes clear that this was a movement to abolish the poll tax entirely, and just focuses on the contributions of women. Would something like Women in the poll tax repeal movement or Poll tax repeal movement and women maybe make the subject of the article clearer? I see that Podolefsky seems to use the "Women's poll tax repeal movement " phrasing in the bibliography, but seemingly none of the other sources, at least in their titles. If the other sources echo this phrasing, I'll happily withdraw my objection, but if it's just Podolefsky, I wonder if a minor move would be appropriate. SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)