Jump to content

Talk:Women's suffrage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.51.93.165 (talk) at 07:04, 1 March 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Utah and (dis)enfranchisement

The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Is it misworded? Should the last sentence say enfranchised, not disenfranchised? I can't read the linked source to determine what was intended 2602:306:CC95:B20:BD47:E9E4:C102:E31 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disenfranchisement of *everybody*

User:MauriManya insists on including in this list a couple of countries which are not fully democratic, but disenfranchise women and men (more or less) equally. Surely this is missing the point. There are dozens of undemocratic countries in the world, are we going to list them all? – Smyth\talk 02:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong the way it is & has been for some time. It doesn't matter if a country is or isn't seen as democratic, but if the voting rights are still there to be used, even if a small number are able to exercise it. Are there any other sourced nations that are missing? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smyth insists on remove when this was discussed here Talk:Women's_suffrage#Women's suffrage denied or conditioned - Brunei, and has been in the article enough time. Besides, the table said that women's suffrage (for village elections) was accepted in 1959. In addition, the section says Women's suffrage denied or conditioned, is irrelevant if conditioned to men too. MauriManya (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that section above. Clearly there was no agreement there either. Whether something has been in the article for "enough time" is no argument at all for keeping it.
I would say it is highly relevant whether women's and men's voting rights are restricted in the same way. This entire article is about womens' campaigns to receive equal rights to men. In the countries at issue, they have already succeeded in doing so. Further democratic advances in those places are not a "women's suffrage" issue, they are a general democracy issue. Including those places in this list obscures those places where women are actually still discriminated against, and isn't discrimination against women the entire point of this article? – Smyth\talk 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you and maybe a few others might see this, but it's a very small & anomalous part of this article. In time they may all (possibly except the Vatican) be changed when laws to allow full & equal participation come about (S.A. for example would be taken out in 2015 IF the king's promise does happen). So rather than deleting these cases, would the heading be better to say 'restricted' rather than 'denied or conditioned'? Or would the issues with Brunei & even the UAE look better as footnotes? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that Brunei & UAE should be removed from the list, since they deny suffrage equally to men and women. Yes, this would leave a short list. That should be a good thing! Leave it to an article like Democracy Index to extensively classify voting rights. This article needs to focus on women's suffrage specifically. --Quantum7 21:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the whole point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then, should add a footnote to the case of Brunei? Because it is included in the main table. I think it should be clarified. MauriManya (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea is also included in the main table. Their "elections" only have a single candidate, and declining to vote for them will send you to a death camp. What about countries where there are racial restrictions on voting? Your argument would have us add footnoes for them too, since women of the disfavoured race are disenfranchised. This article just isn't the place to start commenting on the many states which are undemocratic for other reasons. The only question it should consider is whether men and women are treated equally. (For that purpose, of course, it can cover both de jure and de facto discrimination.) – Smyth\talk 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to list these countries (possibly with footnotes) in the main table, which is a inclusive list of when women achieved some voting right. Brunei and UAE should be dropped from the other table, which is exclusive as it lists countries where some women's rights are restricted relative to men. --Quantum7 08:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge the lists into a combined summary table, with colors to highlight the few countries where women and men are treated differently. I also suggest we remove the column for voting age, since, in the vast majority of cases, this is not sex-specific and merely duplicates the list at voting age. I'll replace it with a general "notes" column in which we can also indicate those places where elections are currently suspended. – Smyth\talk 03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the matter it was put into. A bit more info could also be added or taken out when appropriate. I also agreed on the voting age, since another article was done just for that. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Australia

A number of editors seem to believe that Aborigines were excluded from voting in South Australia. This is not correct.

It is not the case that only "white" women obtained the right to vote and stand for Parliament in South Australia in 1894/5. In fact the South Australian legislation did not discriminate on racial grounds. South Australia was then a self-governing colony, however in 1901 it was subsumed into the Australian Federation and became a state of Australia. Under Australia's Federal system, some other states and for a time the Federal government had restrictions on Aboriginal voters, but South Australia never did. For more see here.Ozhistory (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US/UK/Australia sections too big

I believe that when nations have their own articles about women's suffrage, the information presented on this overview page should be brief in favour of not excessively duplicating that information, so as to give greater precidence to other nations reflected on this overview page which lack their own articles.

To serve as an example, the nations of Japan/Kuwait/Switzerland all have their own articles and only a brief paragraph on this overview page. I think that is how the US/UK sections should look. There is a problem when the section on nations with their own pages are bigger than the sections on nations which do not.

For example, compare the size of the UK/US sections to the section about Canada, which doesn't yet have its own page. Ranze (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there are two problems here --a very short statement about each country means the reader will never be able to get a world-wide viewpoint, which is the main goal of the article. Second, it gives every flag equal space which means some movements get 10 or 100x more attention proportionate to their female population. I think each country where there is solid infotrmation should get a couple paragraphsRjensen (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the problems related to short statements about each country. Also, the endless listing of tiny places that were "first" to extend suffrage to women tells readers nothing about why it happened there or didn't happen elsewhere. Surely there can be some regional discussions - also, it is missing any reference to organizing activities/actions across Latin America, which had active women's groups in the early 20th century, who gained suffrage in numerous places.Parkwells (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze is surely right that ultimately, we do not need big sections for nations that have their own page, yet it is true that removing information that might give us a bigger picture might be a mistake. If for example the Women's suffrage in the UK or US was demonstrated to have a big influence on other countries, which I suspect to be the case, then perhaps we might need to retain a bit more info on this page about it. For the time being, it is usual for the main English speaking nations to put the work in most in their countries, but when the information comes in for the other countries, we should be aiming for a balanced world view.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The readers can skip over the countries that do not interest them in one second, so they are not inconvenienced by having a surplus of information. No change is needed, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Commune

The Paris Commune did NOT grant Women the right to vote. There were many women groups active, but suffrage for women was not an Issue. This sentence should therefore be cancelled (it's strange that it is in anyhow since there is no reference...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjeschrupp (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women sufferage effects / developments women sufferage

Hey I found an article on the effect of women sufferage. I'd like to recieve more sources so I may make this small headline, or create a different page if it'll be a large topic.Night-changer (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About China

Chinese people can vote but their vote have no meaning. they don't have the right of candidate eligibility either. China is not a democratic country. All the political decision are made by Communist Party of China, not their people.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important though these facts may be, they are not relevant to the article.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Feminism portal sidebar is inappropriate for this article

This is the second place in 2 days I have found the Feminism portal sidebar in an article where it is not appropriate. This is an article about the historical facts related to Women's suffrage, not about Feminism. If we are to include the Feminist portal sidebar, it would only be appropriate to include sidebars to all related portals that support women's suffrage including, but not limited to, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, etc. This would obviously be inappropriate as this is not an article about Libertarianism or Liberalism, but an article about Women's suffrage. Please reserve the Feminism portal sidebar to those areas where it is appropriate such as Feminist theory, or notable Feminists. I have removed the sidebar. If you feel it is appropriate for this article, please do not add it again without further discussion on this topic.A dc zero (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A dc zero: I've always though Women's Suffrage was part of feminist theory, as it was an important milestone in feminist history, I believe it would qualify for the feminism portal. Women's Suffrage is feminism in a way, as feminism is advocacy for women's rights, and that is exactly what women's suffrage is all about. Weegeerunner chat it up 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feminism is a political movement. Whether it is an important part of the basis of the movement is irrelevant. It is also an important part of Quakerism, Libertarianism, Anarchim, Communism, Egalitarianism, and a number of other political and philosophical views. However, as editors we must adhere to WP:NPOV and including this portal directly violates that principal. It colors what is a HISTORICAL article not a political or a philosophical one. The exact language you are using in your comment reflects this: "feminist history" implies history interpreted through a feminist lens. I am open to further discussion on this topic but if we are to re-instate the sidebar simply based on the fact that this historical series of events conflates with a political philosophy, I will have to move that we include portals to every and all political philosophy that it conflates with.A dc zero (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those other political views don't have a special interest in women's rights, feminism does. That's what makes it notable, and feminism is not a political view in the same way anarchism and communism are, and I don't get what they have to do with women's suffrage. Weegeerunner chat it up 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that you are conflating your own perception of a political movements views with the neutrality of historical facts. You do not BELIEVE that the political views I list have a special interest in women's rights, when in fact many of them do. Quakerism, Communism, and Liberalism advocated for women's rights long before Feminism as a movement even existed (and their right to vote in particular). And all have taken a special interest in women's rights in some way or another (which is an entire subjective measure anyway). From a historical context it would then be far more appropriate to have a sidebars related to these political philosophies than to feminism. And, again, it is your OPINION that Feminism is not a political movement in the same way as the others I have listed. However, you have not shown that this does not violate WP:NPOV or that it is in anyway more appropriate to include the Feminist sidebar than that of any other political movement. You have only offered your opinion. And, without being rude, your opinion is irrelevant to the neutrality of the article or the appropriateness of the inclusion of this sidebar. Further, I will challenge your claim that Feminism is not a political movement in the same way as the other philosophies I have mentions: Wikipedia's Feminism article itself mentions the connection between Feminism and political philosophies, Socialism and Fascism in particular. While the exact nuance of Feminism's relationship to any political movement (or it's political goals) are entirely beyond the scope of this discussion, it is clear from this that Feminism is a political movement with particular views and is incompatible with the historical neutrality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A dc zero (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, feminism's main goal is womens rights. And women's suffrage is about womens rights, all that other stuff about communism and fascism is irreverent. We are talking about feminism, not anything else. Weegeerunner chat it up 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main goal is irrelevant. Do you disagree that Feminism is a political movement? If so, please provide citations showing otherwise. Do you disagree that Feminism has it's own point of view, and one that violates WP:NPOV if applied to neutral, historical articles? If so, please provide evidence to this extent. You keep citing your opinion on this issue, but your opinion is irrelevant. If you cannot provide convincing arguments for the preceding two questions, and those coming from a reliable source, voiced with a neutral point of view, I will consider this discussion closed and removed the sidebar. If you continue to revert I will have to call for administrative appeal on this issue.A dc zero (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feminism is an ideology. Feminism and the Feminist Movement are different. Weegeerunner chat it up 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an ideology, then it has a point of view in the same way as any other ideology such as the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish ideology. Including it in the article then, by your own argument, violates the neutrality of this historical article. This discussion is closed. I will remove the sidebar and any further disputes to it's removal may be addressed here. A dc zero (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And people with that point of view made women's suffrage. That's my point. I believe women's suffrage was a movement created by feminists, so it wouldn't be POV to add it to the feminism portal because the movement was started by women's rights advocates (feminists) Weegeerunner chat it up 20:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion unsubstantiated opinion. Further, no one "made" women's suffrage, and at the time of women's suffrage, in most of the western world, the idea of Feminism DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. Many members of the suffrage movement may have formed what is now considered the basis of the Feminism but that is still irrelevant as Feminism is not the only ideology that advocates for women's suffrage. By your argument Monotheism should be a part of the portal on Judaism as the Jewish people "made" Monotheism (or whatever group were the first to practice Monotheism, etc. I don't actually know if the Jewish people were the first but that is beside the point).
Why are you so resistant to providing neutral sources to back up your arguments? I am attempting to assume good faith WP:AGF but it is seeming more and more like you are unconcerned about having a legitimate discussion and simply brigading on this issue WP:ADVOCACY. I have provided an argument that linking to the Feminism portal in a primarily historical article violates WP:NPOV, and backed it up with neutral evidence that Feminism has a clear bias and the Feminism portal does not belong in a historical article. Yet you have continued to completely ignored this time and time again, and are now attempting to side-step the issue completely. I am going to ask you directly: Are you actually going to provide neutral evidence to dispute my position? Are you actually going to have a discussion on this issue bringing up points other than your own opinion on this issue? If not, will you let me remove the sidebar without reverting my changes? Or do I have to bring this to the NPOV noticeboard. I am more than happy to discuss this, but you are evading discussion entirely. A dc zero (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course women's suffrage has everything to do with feminism. It's completely appropriate to draw a historical connection as they both concern women's rights in society. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't we include the Liberalism or Libertarianism portal as well? Both of these political philosophies concern women's rights in society. I understand that you may feel this way, but this does not address or dispute my original point. If we include one related philosophy, ideology, or whatever else supporting a certain political position it only seems appropriate to include them all. A dc zero (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why? 1) The quest for woman suffrage was the course central goal of feminism, which makes it appropriate here. 2) woman suffrage was not a core goal of any other movement. Liberals, for example, often opposed it as in the case of the Liberal Leadership in Great Britain ( in Britain it was the conservative party that supported Woman suffrage). Libertarians seldom mentioning issue. Communists don't actually have contested elections (the Party names the one candidate allowed to run), so suffrage for them is a minor technicality. Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly contest point #1 for reasons I have already mentioned. First, according to the Wikipedia women's suffrage article itself: "The suffrage movement was a broad one, encompassing women and men with a wide range of views." Those fighting for women's suffrage did not all share common views, and only a small portion of them influenced the feminist movement. Further, women's suffrage could not have been a central goal of Feminism for most of the western world as, re-iterating: FEMINISM DID NOT YET EXIST. I wouldn't link but a sidebar to Christianity on Monotheism simply because Monotheism is a central tenant of Christianity. Why? Because those outside of Christianity, who do not necessarily identify with Christian views can still consider themselves monotheists. It is inaccurate and colors the article.
Again, I contest point #2. According to Quakers in the World: "First Women’s Rights Convention....This meeting was instigated by five women...all but one of whom were Quakers." and "it was the actions and treatment of another Quaker woman – Alice Paul – which led at last to the passing of a Women’s Suffrage Bill by the US Congress". Wikipedia's Quaker views on Women: "Quaker views on women have always been considered progressive in their own time (beginning in the 17th century), and in the late 19th century this tendency bore fruit in the prominence of Quaker women in the American women's rights movement." and "Quakers were heavily involved in the 19th century movement for women's rights in America; the landmark 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration was in large part the work of Quaker women, and has numerous Quaker signatories, well out of proportion to the number of Quakers in American society at large." Now the notion of "core values" is rather subjective, but based on the above, it seems to me the idea of women's suffrage is pretty core to the Quaker belief. In fact, considering, to again re-iterate, that Feminism didn't exist during most western suffrage movements, it seems more appropriate put the Quaker portal (if one exists) on the sidebar.
I think, maybe, the wall we are running into in this discussion is this: Women's suffrage is at the heart of Feminism, but Feminism is not necessarily at the heart of Women's suffrage (See my point #1). The Wikipedians opposing my request seem to be addressing the first part of this while I am addressing the second. I am not concerned as to whether women's suffrage is a core part of the ideals of Feminism. I am quite aware of this and do not contest it. My issue comes in with the second part. It does not necessarily follow that you must be a Feminist to support women's suffrage. Women's suffrage is not solely a Feminist idea. In fact, there are a substantial number of people in this world who both simultaneously support women's and oppose the ideas of Feminism. This is not an issue that Feminists are singularly concerned with, thus it is inappropriate to label it as such. Further, Feminism, as mentioned by other Wikipedians here, is an ideology. This is a historical article which should be written and presented as having a neutral point of view. The other point that I am trying to get across is that by labelling this as a Feminist article colors the article: it changes it from a neutral article to an article with ideology slant. Whether you agree with it or not it is unquestionable that Feminists interpretation of history is not necessarily the same as the mainstream interpretation of history; the same could be said for any ideology. I would not put a sidebar to the Judaism portal in Circumcision. It would be inappropriate.
All this being said, could we agree to move the Feminism portal link from the sidebar to the bottom of the article? Previously I was unaware this could be done. I have absolutely no problem linking this article, or any other article about Women's Suffrage to the Feminism portable it is simply the prominence and placement that I find very inappropriate. A dc zero (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC
Before women got the vote feminists fought for it as a core issue (others sometimes joined them but not as their #1 issue). That does NOT say that everyone for suffrage was a feminist. (you have the British Conservatives who gave women the vote but were not themselves feminists--they saw they would obtain more votes from middle class women than their opponents would from working class women.) There was a strong historic link in all major countries from "feminism" --> to woman suffrage; note the direction of causation-arrow. The Wiki article does not have a POV--it tells us what was the POV of the activists at the time. So the link works just fine (and yes portal can go later). Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

This seems unnecessary. Is anyone other than A dc zero advocating for its removal? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still would like to follow through to get easily accessible proof of consensus if we ever need it later. Weegeerunner chat it up 02:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a weak reason to both keeping this open. This is in response to a query that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both WP:NPOV and feminism. "We might need this later", in this context, seems analagous to a hoarder saying "I might need this someday." VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Having registered my position that I don't think this is necessary... Women having the right to vote has to do with women having rights and thus is necessarily connected to feminism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping the Feminism sidebar. And the sidebar should be placed as high as possible, not down low.
    The above complaint is ridiculous. Women's suffrage has long been a central tenet of feminism, ever since the middle of the 1800s in the USA. Every reliable source I have ever seen on the topic of women's suffrage (and I've seen a lot) talks about the critical and crucial role of feminists in achieving suffrage for women. Somebody must have a political axe to grind or we would not be having this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments above. Suffrage was one of the first concerns of the what became the feminist movement. Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think I understand what A DC zero is saying and I see that s/he has a point in terms of the way his/her reasons have not really been dealt with and the evidence requested has not really been given. HOWEVER, I think that it doesn't matter when the actual named movement of Feminism started, one would reasonably describe anyone working towards women's suffrage as a feminist in the broadest sense at least- no? Most people would consider the right to vote to be such an important part of feminism that most people would expect the link to be there. Whilst it may be true that some other movements may have had a particular part in suffrage for women, I am certain that they do not have that natural connection in most of the public's mind that Feminism has. Whilst Feminism is indeed a political movement in one sense or another and, as A DC zero says it could be compared with other political movements in terms of POV, this is not a case where we should be worried about that as surely the person in the street would naturally connect women's suffrage with the idea of empowering women. Work towards women's suffrage may indeed have started long before there was the word Feminism, but the process of working towards women's suffrage is indeed STILL ongoing and surely no movement can claim an ongoing connection comparable to Feminism- do we really need to find evidence for this?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Turkey is in Europe. --Ail Subway (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is part Europe, part Middle East - a tricky one!--Aciram (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland in 1795?

The article's section of Poland says: "Previous to the Partition of Poland in 1795, tax-paying females were allowed to take part in political life." What does that actually mean, exactly? "Take part in political life" needs to be specified, as of course, any one could informally participate in political life, but the article is about formal rights and specifically voting rights. --Aciram (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant information creeping in

Whilst I can see the potential interest in such things as female political figures and racial suffrage, this article is supposed to be about Women's suffrage directly. I propose to remove any bits and pieces that are not about the sex of the voter.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

Can somebody clarify the situation in Lebanon? Currently in the section "Summary", in the table it states that women obtained the right to vote in 1952 and "In 1957 a requirement for women (but not men) to have elementary education before voting was dropped, as was voting being compulsory for men (but not women)". However, according to CIA World Factbook, voting in Lebanon is as follows "21 years of age; compulsory for all males; authorized for women at age 21 with elementary education; excludes military personnel" [1] (see section Government, subsection Suffrage).

There is also a discussion here:Talk:Human_rights_in_Lebanon. Can someone clarify (with reliable sources obviously)? 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F4 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Law of Lebanon article say about the Lebanese legal sources? Int21h (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's me being condescending. The best comment is "本末転倒" which roughly translates as "you're doing it wrong". You're asking for clarification (legal research, essentially) on an advanced topic of Lebanese law and yet you have completely ignored Lebanese law (the "reliable sources" which you refer) along the way. Int21h (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not that smart, but I've done research and couldn't find an answer. All I've found is that there have been constant attempts to reform the electoral law during the past years in that country - apparently the last major legal change took place in 2008. I haven't found much on women's suffrage, and sources contradict themselves. I could not locate the text of the law - maybe someone who reads Arabic language could help. 2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:F52C (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically sources agree that women got the right to vote in 1952, at that time on more restrictive terms than men (proof of elementary education was required for women but not men; and women's vote was optional, while men's vote was compulsory). Where sources disagree is whether this is still a requirement today: some sources state that in 1957 the gender differences have been removed giving women the right to vote on equal terms with men; while other sources state that the initial gender differences restricting women's vote continue to remain law today.2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:F52C (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could I trouble you to link the conflicting sources here? As a general rule if we have a reliable WP:secondary source that is otherwise high quality, we should be going with the assertions it makes, even if it seems to conflict with the explicit wording of the law itself as a WP:primary source, as otherwise we are engaging in WP:original research. There are any number of reasons why the law on the books might retain its original caveats and yet the reality of voting practice be quite different. That being said, some additional sources probably would not hurt. Once I've seen those we currently have at our disposal, I'll see about augmenting them to further clarify the issue. Snow let's rap 08:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First steps

This is to anyone interested and I'm pinging Snow Rise, because Snow Rise put a notification on WT:Feminism about cleaning up this article. I wanted to put this out there for discussion with editors more experienced than myself. I'm a pretty new editor, so whatever guidance others can give me would be greatly appreciated.

  • Lead: The first thing that jumps out at me is that the lead seems really long with really specific info and there's a lack of basic info for a general overview, so that's where I was thinking of focusing to start.
  • Sources: I've been listening to some good podcasts about women's suffrage on the podcast Stuff You Missed in History Class, which is put out by howstuffworks.com. Is that considered a reliable source? They always cite their sources, so I can always go to their sources and find the material and cite directly from there, but I sometimes those might be primary sources, but I think the podcast would be a tertiary source as long as it would be considered WP:RS.
  • Timeline: Holy cow that's taking up a lot of space. IMHO it would be to remove the timeline from this article except for the link.

Thoughts? Permstrump (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Permstrump; thanks for the initiative in opening this discussion. New or not I think you've identified two of the major problem areas most needing attention off the bat. As you say, the lead is in fairly miserable shape; it is poorly written, over-long and more a random assortment of facts rather than a general and over-arching summary of the process by which women's suffrage was achieved and the movements which supported it. This issue generally extends to the article at large, which was obviously created in a piecemeal fashion, with the history of agitation for the right to vote for each nation added in isolation, leading to an uneven, bloated and ungainly presentation of the core subject matter. There's been virtually no effort to avail the article of the massive body of research and other sourcing available to discuss the universal issues and principles involved, to contextualize the overall history of the global suffragist movement, to highlight many major figures, essential organizations, and landmark events, to consider the outlook of international law and bodies, to cover where the movement is an ongoing effort, or to discuss where the suffragists struggle intersects with other women's rights and human rights issues.
Meanwhile, the ad-hoc sections for certain countries contain far more detail than is strictly speaking necessary for an overview here. I propose that we spin out those sections which have enough material into their own articles, leaving summaries of a paragraph or two for each per WP:Summary style. Alternatively, we can remove all sections on the history of the movement in particular nations in their entirety and focus on the broader issues here. However, the latter approach is problematic in that it would be time-intensive and majority of those sections have zero sources supporting them at present, meaning as independent articles they would fail our WP:Notability guidelines. Of course, the fact that those sections are unsourced is a problem even if that content stays here, so another critical matter is providing sourcing throughout the article. I propose we get to work sourcing as many of the unreferenced claims in the article as possible--which, unfortunately, number in the hundreds...--and then we can decide how best to divide the content between namespaces. Of course, before we can even start the process of sourcing, some sections which seem to have been written by parties with limited facility in English will need to be cleaned up so that their claims are more cogent.
So, yeah, lot's to do! I'll start cleaning up the prose and adding sources, and maybe spin out some articles for the larger sections. After that, we can consider adding content to give an encyclopedic summary of the core topic. As to the lead, I'll take a run at it eventually, but you're free to WP:BEBOLD with it yourself if you feel that you are familiar enough with the history of the topic that you can summarize the most pertinent facts. As to the source you were inquiring about, my initial impression is that podcasts hosted on howstuffworks.com are probably not ideal as RS, but I'd have to see more on the specific entries to say for sure. You could always inquire at WP:RSN for further opinions as well. Certainly though, if they are well-referenced, I wouldn't dismiss the podcasts from being potential resources for non-primary sources. Anyway, as I said at the outset of this over-long post, we don't really want for sources on this topic by any means. It's more a matter of a lot of legwork to put all the materials together in an encyclopedic fashion for a large and complex topic. So I'm glad I managed to snare the interests of at least one comrade for this task, though you may well regret having spoken up in a couple of weeks. ;) Snow let's rap 05:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

I moved the timeline here, because I haven't compared it with the timeline in the link, so I wanted easy access to go back to it, but for now it was so distracting that it made it hard to make it through the whole article. Permstrump (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, but others may object that it clutters the talk page. If so, note that you can save a copy of it to your personal sandbox and you can create a permalink to a previous version of the page that still contains the table for reference. :) Snow let's rap 15:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the timeline on the main page--it's quite useful for comparative history and no one has called it faulty. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjensen: What do you think if I make the timeline on the main page collapsible? Snow Rise, this was my first attempt at making something collapsible. Did I not do it right? I was trying not to clutter up the talk page with the timeline either. It looks collapsed to me, but I wanted to check b/c of what you said. If it worked right here, I could do the same thing on the main page if others don't object. Permstrump (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to collapse it is to hide it for most users. Let them have an opportunity to read it or skip it. It is useful. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's useful, but I also think it takes up an excessive amount of space towards the beginning of the article, which, IMHO detracts from the experience of digesting it the whole thing. I realize it's a personal preference and I'm not sure of the best way to get a good sense of what most people would prefer, but I want to clarify that I'm not trying to minimize the importance of that information. It's kind of similar to how I like when articles on prolific actors keep a placeholder for their filmography with a link to a separate page for the full filmography (see Mickey Rooney for example). Personally, I'd rather opt in to see that amount of detail when I'm ready rather than have it interrupt the flow of an article. I'll leave it for now and go back to working on the lead, but I'll probably bring up the timeline again later to try to figure out something we can agree on. Permstrump (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that the timelines is useful, but given it's size, it wouldn't be inappropriate to move it to its own page, leaving a prominently-placed link and small summary section of it's contents here. Indeed, this is exactly the default approach used under WP:Summary style whenever a timeline (or for that matter, any section or element) grows to such proportions. I meant to mention that in my initial response, but neglected to. Again, I agree that our readers may find some utility in the table, but whenever a timeline grows to be 5 or 6 times longer than the average article, it needs its own namespace, for a great number of reasons, not the least of which is WP:Accessibility issues. On a separate note, yes you did implement the collapse function perfectly.  ;) Snow let's rap 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
move to separate page unfortunately loses most readers & esp loses the ability to compare counties. location at the end of the article is best--no one is inconvenienced that way. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly another option. Mind you, while I don't disagree that some people may choose not to follow the link, I think summary style policies are pretty clear on this matter, but I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the matter; I'd spin it out, personally, but if consensus is to move it instead to the end of the article, that works reasonably well. Snow let's rap 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think usage will be minimal if users do not see it here. Seeing it gives the reader the idea that they can compare their country of interest with all other countries circa 1910, or whatever time period they like. Without using the timeline comparisons are much harder. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, the idea would be to leave a couple of prose summary paragraphs on the timeline in their own section, placed prominently with a {{main article}} link. That would make access to the timeline fairly obvious and effortless. Anybody who can't be bothered to click on it probably isn't that interested in it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is standard and non-controversial approach which community consensus strongly recommends, via WP:Summary style; the demands of format, encyclopedic summary and especially the technical and accessibility issues that an over-long article entails are seen as much more important than trying to fit everything into one article when particular sections and elements could constitute their own articles. But again, I don't think it's the most crucial issue; I'm fine if the consensus is for keeping it at the end of the article; I'm just saying that the "people won't use it" argument is uncompelling to me, as it's existence would be obvious if we left the standard link and summary paragraph. Snow let's rap 21:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay granted women the right to vote in 1911 please include it

probably the first in america, and if not then likely in south america, please include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.61.90.36 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article from July 3, 2007 that was cited in the timeline says,
Today marks 80 years since Uruguayan women voted for the first time in our country and in Latin America. It was...in a local referendum, long before women's suffrage was ensured in national elections in 1938...The Constitution of 1917 gave women the full range of civil rights and voting power. A few years later, the 1932 Act regulated these rights, and in 1938, women voted for the first time in the Uruguay national election on March 27 of that year. But in Cerro Chato, the first time was on July 3, 1927.
If you have a source that says 1911, can you post it here so we can look into which one is more accurate? Permstrump (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Argentina

I am but a humble gnomer, and I am not particularly knowledgeable in this subject. Could someone please help with the quotes in the section on Argentina? It does not provide its sources, and the quotes attributed to Eva Perón are very difficult to understand – they appear to be machine-translated from the original Spanish, a language in which I am not at all fluent. It would be wonderful if someone could provide a better translation and rewrite the quotes. Me, Myself & I (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. I pretty much have the movie version of Evita with Madonna memorized, so I'm basically an expert. I wish there was, like, one source though! Permstrump (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Google refuses to tell me which speech that these quotes come from. Since User:Manu4pereyra added the section, should we give them a call? Perhaps they could give us the sources we need. (Although they're not very active. The only edits they have are to this section...not sure if they'd be checking their as of yet nonexistent talk page.) On an partially related note, do you have any idea what "aucasos" might mean? Am I correct to assume it is trying to say "in (the) case (of)"? Me, Myself & I (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came to similar conclusions to yours, regarding that section seeming to have been machine translated (or else written by someone with very little command of English), I've made a few tentative changes to parts of it to increase intelligibility, but much of it is truly garbled beyond and certain degree of reconstruction. Further, as you say, it is unsourced. I have satisfied myself with simply making some sense of the more easily credibly claims and statements, to the degree they are recognizable, and have not gotten yet to attempting to validate any of the material with proper sourcing, though I hope to get to it. In the meantime anyone who wants to delete and doubtful claims, statements that simply do not make any sense or just remove superflous material and generally economize is free to do so. As to those particular quotes, I have not yet looked into them. I hadn't realized the section was so recently added; it can't hurt to reach out to Manu4pereyra, though I'm not sure how likely he is to have the reliable sources we need. Snow let's rap 10:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to contact Manu4pereyra once I manage to word it correctly. If any of you would like to do it, please do. I am not good at this talk page business. Operating on the assumption that they speak Spanish, perhaps a message in Spanish would work better.
Try as I might, I cannot seem to find anything that corresponds to these quotes. Maybe I should focus on citing the content...that seems more feasible. Me, Myself & I (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to respond to this more than that first unhelpful comment, but it disappeared for a few days. Glad it's back. :) It would be really helpful if Manu4pereyra could remember what source he/she used. Between my rusty Spanish and wordreference.com, seeing the original would help me be able to tell if we're interpreting the computer-translated English in the right way. Until then, I agree it makes sense to find other sources supporting similar ideas b/c I keep getting lost trying to make heads or tales of most of it. At least this is a guide. More sources would obviously make it stronger anyway. From a quick search, I think there are plenty of English sources. Permstrump (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After half a month of waiting, and several fruitless searches, I finally came up with something: it's a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia's corresponding article, and here, it does have a few references. Manu4pereyra added it on around the same time the section here appeared. If anyone can read it, maybe we could resolve the confusion once and for all. Me, Myself & I (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican?

I have moved the following sentence here for discussion: "Vatican City is the only country in the world in which women cannot vote." The source quoted says "Until the opening weeks of December, two countries in the world still denied women the right to vote: Vatican City, where the franchise is restricted to cardinals; and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".(emphasis added) The Politics of Vatican City article states that the city-state is an "absolute theocratic elective monarchy". Apart from the Papal Conclave at which the cardinals chose a Pope, who then appoints people to various offices, it appears that Vatican City does not hold regularly scheduled elections. It would therefore seem to follow that if the only election held is to select a pope, and the only people who can vote are cardinals from around the world, most of the male residents of Vatican City also do not vote. Am I missing something here, or is the sentence in question more than a little disingenuous? Mannanan51 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's meant to be (or is) disingenuous per say, but it's certainly less than perfectly representative of what is going on in the case of this tiny state. For those unfamiliar the tiny state, Vatican City clears this up a little bit: at any given time, there are only a few "citizens" of the Vatican and this citizenship is granted not by heredity but by official decree and extends only as long as they are employed to some position or work for the Holy See. Most of these individuals are actually Italians or otherwise have normal citizenship with regard to another state. The great majority of the Vaticans citizens are clergy, and most of these male. But only some of these are bishops and vote for the pope. The pope, for his part, is the nominal legislative, executive, and judicial head of the state, but in practice these authorities are delegated out. Really, the relevance of elections (or rather the one infrequent election of a pontiff) is not as significant for the Vatican as it is for most states, because of the limited state structures and negligible population of those who are not in some way members of that government, but I don't want to say that they are completely insignificant, since the elected pope is invested with significant authority within the state. Still, the consequences of disenfranchisement are not what they would be elsewhere. We also have a Women in Vatican City article, although it does not discuss their context within the Vatican's extremely limited electoral system. Snow let's rap 04:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per our article on the Papal conclave, the citizenship of the electors is actually irrelevant. The rule states that only Cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote. All of these Cardinals are not necessarily citizens of Vatican City. Also the eligible Cardinals actually have to be present in the Conclave. Absentee Cardinals do not vote, regardless of their eligible status as electors.

For example, let us see the details of the latest election, the Papal conclave, 2013. There were 207 living Cardinals at the time of the conclave. 90 of them were above the age of 80 and consequently ineligible to vote. Of the 117 eligible Cardinals, only 115 actually attended the conclave and voted. Two eligible cardinals were absent.

Women are actually ineligible to vote in the Conclave, because there has never been a female Cardinal. With a few minor exceptions, all Cardinals are ordained priests and have previously held the rank of bishop. Per our article on ordination of women, the Catholic Church has no ordained female priests and is actively against the concept. In response to a minority within the Church that supports the ordination of women, recent Popes have decreed that "the attempted ordination of women would result in automatic excommunication for the women and bishops ordaining them".

There is actually a controversy over the status of some female ordinations in communist Czechoslovakia, when the local Catholic Church (which was under persecution) operated under its own rules. See the article on Ludmila Javorová for details. Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Vatican City needs to be mentioned in the lead and definitely not in the 2nd second sentence, but I'm also not sure it should be removed entirely from the article. All of the nuances described above should be explained further down in the article though. I don't think it's automatically completely irrelevant to this article just because it's an outlier and voting is extremely limited for most people, not just women. When women were first granted the right to vote in the US, there were still men and women that didn't have the right to vote for various reasons but we still talk about it in this article. It wouldn't have occurred to me if this Vatican City bit wasn't in the article, but since we're talking about it... Wouldn't the fact that women don't have voting rights within Catholicism be relevant in itself, even though it's not a country? Permstrump (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against including Vatican City in the article, I am pointing that citizenship is irrelevant in these elections and that the matter of suffrage in an elective monarchy is more complex that it seems. If you can find relevant sources discussing or criticizing the way elections exclude women in Catholicism, by all means cover it. The article on Women in Christianity could sure use some more critical views on how this religion has spend centuries excluding women from power. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out what I said because I realized there's a section for Catholicism, but I hadn't made it down that far in the article yet. It says women don't vote for pope, only cardinals, but doesn't mention vatican city specifically. I think it's a slightly humorous tidbit, "vatican city is the only country where women can't vote..." Harhar. Because it's hardly a country and they hardly vote. I'm hitting myself in the head though b/c I just remembered that I'm the one who removed the context from the lead. It was extraneous details in the already-too-long lead. I didn't like the Vatican City sentence being there either, but I thought someone else wanted it there. I think it belongs better at the top of the Catholicism section. Permstrump (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I've been making a draft of a new lead in MS Word because I don't know how/where to do one one on Wikipedia that everyone can contribute too. I think it needs to start from scratch. Do other people agree? If so, anyone mind linking me to an article that explains how I can make a draft we can all edit? Permstrump (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you, but the lead certainly needs to be reworked almost entirely. The paragraphs starting "In 1881,..." and ending "...in Saudi Arabia", so everything except the first and last one, reads like a trivia list. Since it is the lead, it should not lead readers to think that women began gaining suffrage from 1881 in the Isle of Man and continued in a haphazard fashion throughout the British Commonwealth until it spread to other countries, ending with Saudi Arabia last year. Obviously, it is more complicated than that and the lead should reflect this by discussing 19th Century suffrage in various non-sovereign and other subnational jurisdictions, then move onto national adoptions of women's suffrage around 1900, perhaps a bit on the Interwar suffrage laws, and ending with the post-WWII and post-UN charter expansion. 209.180.174.141 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline isn't a timeline

I could go into a long and detailed discussion of what a time line is and therefore the timeline being sortable and alphabetically sorted by default nonsensical. Instead I feel this page may explain the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline

Now I cannot claim to understand how the wikipedia sorting tables work but anyone's logical conclusion when looking at a timeline would be that, by default, it is in chronological order. This is especially important on a topic like this where the laws in various countries can flip back and forwards. It is not impossible to conclude that when skimming or scanning an article a person could assume there is a chronological order not otherwise specified.

Regardless of the small consequences of not having it in chronological order it is not, by any definition, a timeline unless it is in chronological order.

In addition it should also bare the title "Modern Timeline" or "Modern Timeline of women's suffrage" if this article is to include ancient historical accounts so to clarify things.

I believe the article needs a bit of a trim and a tidy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.113.152 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to look up the first jurisdiction that granted women's suffrage. I had to read it twice. Please trim and tidy. 76.14.230.138 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchies and Female Heirs to the Throne

I ran across an article that Japan has a ban on women becoming the Emperor.[1] Granted succession to the throne is not a discussion of suffrage. Should women's access to the line of succession within monarchies be its own article or should it be included in this article? Over the history of time, Japan has had 8 women be Emperess when there were no men "available" for the line of succession. Anyone got thoughts? TenorTwelve (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland

After a sentence telling us that women obtained electoral rights in 'some French-speaking cantons', we read of a woman being elected to the council in the commune of Riehen, which is in a German-speaking canton. Her name is also German. This section should surely be rewritten.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1.​After the World War I is a highly representative period of time of the rise of feminism.Artist always as the first group to rflect the social movement 2. In the period of Industrial revolution, female began to live on their own, the clothing and accessory designs for female became more simple and convenient for female. The representative example for the revolution in clothing design is the designs of Coco Chanel around 1910s. 3.The gender equality of women improved, with more education opportunities and working opportunities offered to women, female in the society became more capable. 4. One of the most valuable modification in design of Chanel is the improvement of female clothing that free women from corseted silhouette after 1910s.

  1. ^ http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/many-japanese-look-for-a-shift-to-female-heirs-to-throne/ar-AAmm7Nu?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_suffrage&oldid=768011694"