Talk:National American Woman Suffrage Association
|WikiProject Feminism||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
The American Woman Suffrage Association and National Woman Suffrage Association should be seperate articles - They are NOT the same thing .. They have seperate viewpoints and are led by different woman-
I believe you should NOT merge the two.. as to make searching easier- If the title be National American it should be National & American Woman Suffrage Association to make a clear distinction- --220.127.116.11 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Lauren Litz (women's studies MINOR)
they are absolutely the same thing! I think you are getting the National Woman Suffrage Association mixed up with the American oman Suffrage Association.
I take back what I said just above... The two are different and should not be merged. The NAWSA was a merge of the NWSA and the AWSA. They are all different groups, from different times periods. -Mike, AP student
Please don't merge these, searching difficulty would be increased.
- I have a couple of points to make;
- First, an explanation of the layout of the NAWSA article: I included the bolded text within this article so that it would be clear, at a glance, that there are three separate organisations (AWSA, NWSA, and NAWSA) being discussed in this article - NAWSA is an amalgamation of the other two organisations, which is why the discussion on AWSA and NWSA is nessecary, to provide context and an explanation for the controversy that NAWSA's existence caused. Before this revision, the article was extremely confusing and misleading. I think the breif info on AWSA and NWSA provided in the NAWSA article should be left intact, as spreading this out into three seperate articles, with no unifying history provided anywhere, would be a totally unnessecary pain in the bum - it'd become a list of meaningless facts, rather than a contextualised history.
- Secondly, if you look up "American Woman Suffrage Association", it takes you to the NAWSA article (which is completely ridiculous, because the American Woman Suffrage Association link is included within the NAWSA article), so AWSA has apparently already been merged into NAWSA... this may be what was responsible for the initial misleading/confusing nature of the article. This argues against merging the articles. (Edited to add: i have removed the recursive AWSA link.)
- Third, I don't think the articles should be merged, the seperate NWSA article does contain extra information, and it is not a copy of the NWSA section of this article (which only really outlines those aspects of the NWSA relevant to the NAWSA). If a merger occurs, we should at least expand the scope of the NAWSA article to include all the extra NWSA information, rather than just deleting NWSA outright...
- Fourthly, If a merger doesn't occur, i think we should have a similarly informative seperate article on AWSA, as long as somebody can dig up some unique information and history to include in such an article.
- -- User:Dissembly
- I have a couple of points to make;
I agree that the two articles should not be merged, and that each organization (the NWSA, the AWSA, and the NAWSA) should have seperate articles. If this is done, History of women's suffrage in the United States should be updated to link to each of the articles. -timrem 19:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I may have done something radical. To take care of the orphan problem on the AWSA page, I redirected the AWSA links to that page (see the discussion page there). I then came here and read your discussions. All of you know more about this than me. I suffered from acronym overload just trying to change the redirects. Undo my changes if you like, but I think (1.) the AWSA should have their own page and (2.) someone needs to work on that page to focus on AWSA. Thanks, HornColumbia 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've written new introductory paragraphs for the AWSA and NWSA articles, and they are now clearly distinct from this article, which probably needs more of its own elaboration and less on NWSA and AWSA. And it needs more references (Flexner's Century of Struggle can provide many). But I may leave this to others with more expertise. Dwalls 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This is Terrible
This article is stupid because it did not talk about how the Congressional Union, and NAWSA differ their strategies. And that's what a really need. Thanks for no help at all. Oh and if you go to Congressional Union there is nothing there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwalls (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor who wrote the above statement has a point, but it was certainly impolite to place it in the article instead of on this Discussion page (so I moved it). It would be a good idea to describe in this NAWSA article the split of the Congressional Union and its evolution into the Women's Party, and to fill out the article on the Congressional Union. Editor "Terrible" might want to consider working on these as a starting contribution to Wikipedia. I hope the Alice Paul partisans can keep a balanced POV! Dwalls 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. We need to reconcile the National Woman's Party (NWP) perspective with this article, cover the outrage and movement in public opinion driven by the peaceful Silent Sentinels at the White House which were met with police and prison abuse, and include the defeat of anti-suffrage senators pushed by the NWP, which allowed passage in the Senate. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)