Talk:Women's suffrage in the United States/Archive 1

Illinois bill question
Is there anyone who knows the name of the 1913 bill that let women in Illinois vote in Presidential elections? Kennard2 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote results
--66.56.89.195 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate, and after a long discussion it was passed, with 56 ayes and 25 nayes." You are right Kennard2! {(Tlk42891)}

Isn't that supposed to be "ayes and nays"? I'm changing it--feel free to change it back if my guess isn't right. Kennard2 03:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection
I've had to semiprotect the article in order to deal with some persistent silly vandalism coming in from one person on many different IPs and ranges. To any constructive IP editor, I apologize for the necessity, but I think you'll understand if you take a look at the history tab. Please consider creating an account and logging in, and you'll be able to edit the article after four days. In the meantime, you can propose improvements on this talkpage, for established accounts to add into the article. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The vandalism was actually caused by many people on different IPs, not one. I found out the group doing this (because my computer was unfortunately used for their pranks) and I have asked them to stop the juvenile nonsense. I think (and hope) they've become bored with it.

--Lnkinprk777 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regional suffrage

Date of 1947 is a typo - it's 1847.

New Jersey, on becoming a federal state after the American Revolution, placed only one restriction on the general suffrage — the possession of at least £50 (~USD250) worth of cash or property. The election laws referred to voters as "he or she." In 1790, the law was revised to include women specifically. Female voters became so objectionable to professional politicians, that in 1807 the law was revised to exclude them. Later, the 1844 constitution banned women voting, the 1947 (THIS IS 1847) one then allowed it.

edit buttons
is it just me or is there really four edit links in a row making no sense at all in the article? -Kushalt 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) PS: i am on mozilla firefox on windows xp

this is under section "Illinois" --Kushalt 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Five in my SeaMonkey... lol. But they do make sense, after a fashion. It's the combination of the huge horrible box (it would be great if somebody could make a feminism box that sits at the bottom of the page, instead of messing up the whole page layout in this way) with the images, and the fact that the sections are so short, that's doing it. If you mouse over the edit buttons you'll see which section each of them goes to. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-19th-amendment.jpg
Image:Stamp-ctc-19th-amendment.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentance of the Beginnings section is wrong / misleading.
The first sentance, "American women were granted the right to vote with the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920.", in my opinion, is wrong. Many states granted the right of women to vote prior to the passage of the 19th amendment (just look at the rest of the article). The 19th amendment mearly guaranteed the right in every state. I suggest a rewording of the sentance. zimmhead 04:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Southern Strategy, Anthony/Stanton/Catt
The history of the Womans' Suffrage Movement is incomplete without details of the blatant racism engaged in by NAWSA and by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Carrie Chapman Catt in particular. After the passage of the 15th amendment and the split with the abolitionists, Anthony, Stanton and Catt embraced racism as a means to convince southern voters of the need to grant the franchise to women (to protect white supremacy). This is referred to as the Southern Strategy. It was ultimately unsuccessful, as southerners found disfranchising African Americans a more palatable solution than granting the franchise to women. See: Votes for Women, Jean Baker (ed). Gender and Jim Crow, Glenda Gilmore Skc1027 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing help - how to get rid of text?
Folks - under Civil War, the article reads:

"Another more conservative suffrage organization, the American Woman Suffrage Association, headed by Lucy Stone, was also formed at this time by those who believed that suffrage should be brought about by amendments to the various state constitutions. They supported the proposed 15th amendment as written. In 1890, these two bodies united into one national organization, led by Susan B. Anthony and known as the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Are the stupid people"

When I try to edit that portion of text, I cannot get rid of the "Are the stupid people" at the end. Can someone who knows more than I do about editing a Wiki entry please fix this? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.55.65 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification--States
Our section on the states that permitted women to vote before the nineteenth amendment does not say whether these women were voting for federal senators and representatives or whether their right to vote was restricted to in-state politics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge
Harry T. Burn cast the deciding vote for ratification in the Tennessee State Legislature in August, 1920. In the article about Mr. Burn, the section Harry T. Burn carries that history, but it is not really about Harry T. Burn; it is more about the 19th amendment and the contemporary attitudes of the times, in which Mr Burn played a part. In light of this, I propose merging that section into the 19th Amendment section of this article. Comments? Suggestions? — Gosgood 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AGREE - that section is an ungodly 20+(!) paragraphs long. But Burns needs to keep his article, casting that vote earned him his footnote-to-history. Without it, it would have been decades before suffrage passed (I'm a giant sucker for "One person can make a difference" stories LOL) RoyBatty42 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It definitely needs to be merged, at the moment that article is an extreme example of WP:COATRACK. I will hide it until it can be merged over, its ruining that article. If anyone prefers they can move it to this talk page if that is more appropriate. Jdcooper 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Burns should be mentioned and linked but the article itself should remain separate. Long as this article is, it is a real fly-over. Lots of things and people could (possibly should) be discussed in greater detail, many of them more meritorious of more paragraphs than Harry Burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.29.230 (talk) 19:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article and added some citations. The article should be kept separate.He was a member of the Tennessee General Assembly, served in the various Tennessee Constitutional Conventions, was a prominent businessman.This article should not be merged with the 19th Amendment article, it needs to be kept separate.Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifty pounds of cash or property needed to vote
I changed the inner workings of a currency conversion from one construct to another, with the hope of having the resulting number stay relatively stable as it advances each year in step with inflation.

Here is the former text, with its footnote:


 * "...the possession of at least £50 (about USD$6500 today[1]) in cash or property.
 * Expressed in 2002 dollars. For the value of a pound in today's dollars, see UK parliament inflation tables and convert to dollars using Tables of historical exchange rates to the USD

Here is my new text, using the formatnum, mathematical expression and inflation templates:


 * ...the possession of at least £50 (about $0 in current value) in cash or property.

Revealed in its full ugliness, here is the code: (about $0 in current value)

My version resulted in $7,500 (February 2010) whereas the previous version came up with an unchanging $6,500. Basically, my construction takes 50 pounds sterling from the year 1784 (after the American Revolutionary War) and inflates it to the equivalent number of pounds sterling of the current year, whatever it is. Then it converts Great Britain pounds sterling to US dollars using a multiplier of 1.5496, a number that is current as of February 2010, and rounds it to have at least two zeros at the end. The resulting number is then formatted to have a comma before each set of three digits, as is normal for large numbers appearing in prose.

If the GBP => USD conversion rate differs drastically in the future from 1.55, a new conversion rate can be inserted. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to tell you that the template already does this automatically. Good job, though. Scratch that, it doesn't. My bad. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

African-American Woman Suffrage Movement
Any chance of an interested editor doing something about this new article, either adding a lead and fixing other problems or merging it to this one? Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important that these two articles be merged, or for a lead to be added to this one. I would be happy to do it, but I am new and have no idea where to start. If I have time I will try to read up on it. Gwytherinn (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting idea, especially considering the fact that some white female suffragists had initially held an anti-slavery position going into the Civil War, however with the Reconstruction Amendments (the 14th especially) including the word "Male" for the first time in the Constitution, there was a definite break in ideology between white suffragists and African-American suffragists. It seems like a significant omission here. Are there are any plans to try and include information like this?U21980 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:I did not raise my girl to be a voter3.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:I did not raise my girl to be a voter3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 18, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Opposition and Results
I've added a brief section on the opposition to women's suffrage and also on the political results of it. There needs to be more of the same, without it it seems like the otherwise uninformed reader would think it passed without opposition and had no consequences of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop deleting material from these sections without a consensus or third party input. Brechbill123 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the Wiki rules require citations to RS and forbid original research and predictions of the future (as by Coulter). The material erased was copied from blogs that are not RS. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Coulter's "predition of the future" is just hyperbole, the point of the quote is that she is opposed to women's suffrage, not that the article is making a prediction of the future. Also, the point of the quote regarding socialism is in reference to socialist policy, not to votes for the Socialist party. You need to get some consensus or third party aid and stop just deleting text.Brechbill123 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Brechbill123 needs reliable secondary sources which he lacks--all his info came from miscellaneous blogs of no validity. Using Coulter instead of a reliable secondary source is forbidden by Wiki OR rules as well as Wiki prediction rules--and as Brechbill123 admits is merely hyperbole. I provided a list of RS and Brechbill123 has used none of them -- nor any others--in defiance of Wikipedia rules.  Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is using Colter 'forbidden'? The point of using her seems to be that there is still some opposition to WOmen's suffrage. On the other hand, "Other writers such as Helen Kendrick Johnson, who opposed women's suffrage partially on the grounds it was linked to socialism, proved more accurate in their predictions. Johnson, Helen Kendrick. Woman and the Republic. 1897. " not only isn't cited properly (no page number), there is no source for 'more accurate in their predictions' so I'm removing it. Dougweller (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki rules require using a reliable source to say there exists a movement to repeal woman suffrage. a) Coulter does not say (she talks about her personal "pipe dream") that b) Coulter is a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. (What we want is "New York Times Sept 31, 2011 report on Americans Against Suffrage national convention in Salem Mass") Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement "It has been argued that without women's suffrage, the Republicans would have swept every election but one between 1968 and 1974." seems odd. There were only 2 presidential elections during this time, both won by Richard Nixon. Perhaps this is referring to control of Congress as well or perhaps a longer time window was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyflower (talk • contribs) 01:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Effie Hobby
I have removed the following material from the lede:
 * Effie Hobby (who turned 107 in 2004) recounted the first time at age 23 that she had the right to vote. Effie grew up in Wurtsboro, New York with her three sisters and her father. She first cast her vote during the presidential election between Republican Warren G. Harding and Democrat James M. Cox. Effie voted for Harding, who won and became the 29th American president. Many women that year were able to participate in something so monumental. One woman, Catherine Lewis told a newspaper that her father was so proud this was the first time women could vote and that she was able to be a part of it.

which was largely added by this edit by User:CodayClarity (contribs) on 18:47, 8 December 2011‎. While this well written material would belong in a school essay on the personal effects of women's suffrage, such anecdotal narrative probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article, and certainly doesn't belong in the lede. -- ToE 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lott material
I've raised this at WP:RSN as I don't consider either of the reasons given for deletion sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

women suffrage right to vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.161.232 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul of article
I have posted a draft of a proposed overhaul of this article at User:Bilpen/sandbox. I will leave it there for several days for comments before posting it as a new version of this article. As much as possible, I am attempting to provide a complete and fully cited overview of this topic. This is a contentious field of study, so I have tried to present the consensus of scholars who specialize in this field.

I upgraded the citations in several cases. Five citations in the existing article are based on "The Split in the 19th Century Woman Suffrage Movement" an essay written by a high school student. (It was published in The Concord Review, which handles nothing but essays written by high school students.) I replaced the text based on those citations with text based on professional sources. Similarly for the quote "The law gives the husband power to use such a degree of force necessary to make the wife behave and know her place", I switched the citation from a book written for young people to a book published by a university press.

The new version corrects several errors and misconceptions that are in the current article. Here are some examples. The NEWSA was not reorganized into the AWSA; those were two separate organizations with overlapping leadership. The 1890 merger did not invigorate the movement; if anything, the opposite happened. Anthony led the NAWSA until 1900, not 1894. It's true that Stanton's activities in the 1850s were restricted because of family responsibilities, but they were still quite impressive. It isn't accurate to say that the NAWSA "after 1900, argued for reforms of the Progressive Era."

In the new version, the topics discussed in the "Internal divisions" section have been moved from their current location (after World War I) to their proper location (the 1860s).

In the new version, I propose to add images of the most important people in the suffrage movement, including Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Carrie Chapman Catt and Alice Paul, none of whom, strangely enough, are represented by images in the current article. (The description of one image in the current article claims that it depicts Alice Paul, but that is inaccurate.) To make room for them, I removed images of some of the more peripheral figures in the movement who do have images in the current article.

Per WP:SEEALSO, I propose to remove all entries in the "See also" section that already have Wikilinks in the main body of the article. I will also thin out some of the entries in that section that have little or nothing to do with women's suffrage in the U.S.

Before posting the new version of this article, I propose to move the "Woman suffrage in individual states" section of the current article to a new article called something like "Women's suffrage in states of the United States". Does anyone have a suggestion for a better name for this new article? "Women's suffrage in states of the U.S."? Is there any reason not to use the abbreviation "U.S." in the name of an article? This section actually seems to be about both states and regions, so should it be called "Women's suffrage in states and regions of the U.S."? That's more precise, but it's a mouthful.

I will not make any edits to the "individual states" section until the new article has been created, and even then I will make only minimal edits. I will create a small lead section for it. I will remove the discussion of the Woodhull and Lockwood campaigns that is in the current introductory paragraph of the "individual states" section because it belongs in the discussion of the national movement and will therefore be included in the new version of this article. Conversely, I will move the discussion of mid-western Norwegian-American women from the national section of this article to the new "individual states" article.

One reason for moving the "individual states" material to a new article is that there won't be enough room for it here. Also, the material for each state covers the same time period as the material for the national movement, yet in the current article this entire section is inserted into the national history at an arbitrary point in time, disrupting the flow. Bilpen (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The overhauled version was posted on September 29 Bilpen (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about force feeding poster


I would like to get opinions from others about a disagreement that Rjensen and I are having. I want to include this image in the article and he wants it out. It is a British poster that illustrates the practice of force feeding, which some imprisoned U.S. suffragists endured in 1917. The text that accompanies the image notes that Alice Paul, the American suffragist who is most closely associated with force feeding, endured that practice both in the U.S. and in Britain, where she first became involved with the suffrage movement. When Rjensen removed this image from the article for the second time, he said in his edit summary, "Poster is not about Alice Paul not about American experience and it was not used in USA".

Obviously it would be better to have a specifically American image to illustrate force feeding, but apparently there are none available. I don't think anyone is claiming that British force feeding was somehow essentially different from American force feeding, so I don't see any harm in using a British poster as long as it is clearly identified as such. I think some sort of illustration is important to illustrate a practice that is unfamiliar to most people.

Would it help to begin the first sentence with "British poster of an imprisoned suffragette” instead of "Poster of an imprisoned British suffragette”? Or, we could remove all possibility of confusion by spelling it out completely with something like "Poster from the British suffrage movement showing an imprisoned activist being force fed. American suffrage leader Alice Paul was force fed in both Britain and the U.S."

I think this image should be included in the article. I think the benefits of using it outweigh any possible harm, and frankly I can't see any possible harm. What do others think? Bilpen (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is such an overwhelming need for a picture of force-feeding that we must insert one from the UK, and work backwards to justify it. I think we should not have the UK image here. An American one would be appropriate since that is the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Authenticity is important. The British had their own suffrage movement with different principles and different publicity themes. The Americans did NOT, as far as I have seen, use this episode in the same way. Americans did not claim torture was used. The harm is for readers to think Americans saw or used or approved of this propaganda technique, when no RS says so. Rjensen (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)




 * OK, I see your objection now. Would there be any problem with using this image instead?  It is apparently from Britain also, but there is nothing in the image itself to identify it as such, and it isn't accompanied by objectionable wording.Bilpen (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should add these to the British article. British people, events, policies, propaganda, publicity etc was NOT the same as in USA. I think what happened is that Alice Paul wanted to use the horror stories but her colleagues would not agree this should be a major theme. If they had agreed there would be plenty of American posters about it, but the American theme was one of purifying corrupt politics using woman-as-purity theme. The British women on the other hand were much more violent (there was lots more violence in British politics, mostly because of the Irish issue--eg Easter Rebellion of 1916 where the protesters were hanged. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I continue to think that a British image is not appropriate in this Usonian article. Also, the force feeding of a prisoner was not the same outrage in the US as it was in the UK. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I will give up on this issue then. I must disagree with some of your statements, though, especially this one: "Alice Paul wanted to use the horror stories but her colleagues would not agree this should be a major theme."  By Alice Paul's colleagues, I presume you are not referring to other members of her National Woman's Party, who brought as much publicity as they possibly could on force feeding in a successful effort to get Alice Paul and other NWP members out of that miserable prison environment.  If you are referring to the rival NAWSA, however, colleague is hardly the right word to use.  The NWP and the NAWSA were bitter rivals at that point.  Alice Paul and the NWP did not care whether the NAWSA agreed with their militant strategy.  For Wikipedia, the issue would be not whether the NAWSA agreed that publicizing the forced feeding of imprisoned NWP members should be a major theme but whether historians consider force feeding to be an important topic in the history of the U.S. suffrage movement, and they certainly do. Bilpen (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Forced feeding then and now is used when a prisoner is trying to starve herself to death. The starvation tactic is used as a publicity device. It stops the minute the prisoner agrees to eat. Rjensen (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons like does not work
This link does not work on this page. Anyone know how to fix? Remember (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Resources for Educators
This section was created because thousands of educators each year use the film Iron Jawed Angels. Another editor modified the section based on criticism from an article called "Pinkwashing of Alice Paul." I read the article and its criticisms do not detract from the central historical truths of the film. Specifically, the article's criticism of the movie is based on scenes that do not relate to the demonstrations, the false imprisonment, the events in prison, or the political blowback from the mistreatment of the militants. The movie clearly shows women who stand up to power, who withstand torture as the government force-feeds them to try to break their hunger strike, and who eventually triumph. This does not "water down" their commitment or their feminism. The fact that it introduces a possibly fictional appreciation for a handsome man, a pretty hat, or a hot bath does not diminish the fundamental message of the film.

So, I have modified the section to take account of the criticism but also to reflect the educational strengths of the film. MovieTeacher (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wodrow Wilson, PHd Dartmouth college.
Women Suffrage movement. Stevenbauer001 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving "Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association" section
I am moving the newly added "Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association" section in this article to a new section the "Women's suffrage in states of the United States" article. See Women's_suffrage_in_states_of_the_United_States. Bilpen (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting some help
Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naylatohme.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kateset25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anagutierrez28, Jenbernal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KMmullins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meowzi. Peer reviewers: Plutoandcosmo, Nutella717, Jytweve.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)