Talk:Iron Jawed Angels

Factual Accuracy

Well? How accurate is it? If we can get something good here we can put it in the article. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not all that accurate. The character Emily is entirely fictional.

Also, wasn't this originally a stage play? 12.144.50.194 18:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie is very touching and covers the main point. It is important to note that historical records show the food given to the women was not as depicted in the movie; it was colorless slop infested with worms. Their drinking water came wasnt clean and came from open pails. HOWEVER, one of the major events of the suffragists' imprisonment was NOT covered in the movie. On the night of November 15, 1917, the warden instructed 44 of his guards to "teach the women a lesson" about their place in the world. Those guards commenced what would become known as the "Night of Terror", during which the women were brutally beaten and most barely survived the night. Dora Lewis, another picketer, was knocked unconscious when thrown roughly into her cell against her metal bed. That is the night Lucy Burns was hung from the bars, arms above her head, bleeding and gasping for breath the entire night. Contrary to the movie, the other women did NOT assume the position as a sign of support. The women, as proven in historical accounts and documents, were physically beaten, choked, kicked, pinched, etc. that night; the oldest one tortured was 73 years old. Not sure why the truth of the Night of Terror was omitted from the film; it would have added more reality to what these women suffered for equality. All of this information can be verified through any history organization and The Library of Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.0.255 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article could be improved by pointing out these historical inaccuracies with proper citations. I have added a bit about the depiction of Alice Paul.--Biotech46 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pardon and also Supreme Court ruling

The article seems to state that the women were arrested outside the White House and that the arrests were struck down. Citation needed. On what grounds would they be arrested (this was before the days of CFR 7.96, as misinterpreted), and on what grounds would the courts say that the arrest was unconstitutional, rather than the law under which they were arrested was unconstitutional. Plus, if the women were pardoned, why would the Supreme Court rule? If the Supreme Court ruled, why would there be a pardon. I suspect that the assertion is untrue. Too bad, it would be nice to see what the (Taft?) court had to say. I have convinced myself that the comment needs to be deleted, not just questioned. Please add it back in with citations, if you find them. It would be very interesting to know more about this.

Deleted text is //The Supreme Court ruled that their arrests were, in fact, unconstitutional// ( Martin | talk • contribs 11:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Another factor that is all to easy (for me) to forget is that this article is about the movie. And a level of factuality is tied to what is in the movie. The movie ends with the women being released, and then some scene in a congressional-like setting. No Supreme Court. Of course I am more interested in the facts of the real world than the facts of the movie, but there are two levels of facts involved here: what is in the movie, and how much of what is in the movie happened.

A paragraph probably should be added to the article by a knowledgeable and careful writer, since the movie looks to be influential, about the major factual errors in the movie, such as they are, if any, and not with the intention of "taking anything away" from the movie. Just guidance to the reader who is looking for more. ( Martin | talk • contribs 12:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron Jawed Angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626151936/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ironjawedangels.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ironjawedangels.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626151936/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ironjawedangels.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ironjawedangels.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)