Talk:Women's suffrage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image copyright problem with Image:NewZealandTenDollarNote1.png

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilson and Suffrage

Currently, the article states that "Finally, President Woodrow Wilson urged Congress to pass what became, when it was ratified in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment which prohibited state and federal agencies from gender-based restrictions on voting." This is somewhat misleading -- President Wilson endorsed state action for women's suffrage, but did not go so far as to support a federal suffrage amendment because his party platform had not done so. So... maybe it would be more appropriate to remove Wilson? --24.93.30.106 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the Woodrow Wilson information is confusing. On this page it reads that he was against it. On the Nineteenth Amendment page it states that he was in support of it. And on Woodrow Wilson's own page there is no mention of Women's Suffrage. I don't know what the answer is, but I hope someone watching this page can find references needed to sort that all out. 64.222.104.140 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done some reading on Wilson's position and he did change his position towards suffrage due to the onset of WWI (he saw it particularly useful as a war measure). That would explain why the confusion. U21980 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Why does not Isle of Man not receive more credit? It was the first self governing nation in the world to grant Woman Suffrage, even if not independent. I'm not up to editing the page; but I feel as if the Island should receive more of mention, than just in passing.

Rigard (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Three dates for South Australian suffrage?

The references to South Australia's pioneering role in extending the suffrage are confusing -- three different dates are mentioned.

"Similarly, the colony of South Australia enacted legislation giving women the vote in 1894."

"Various countries, colonies and states granted restricted women's suffrage in the latter half of the nineteenth century, starting with South Australia in 1861."

"The self-governing colony of South Australia granted both universal suffrage and allowed women to stand for the colonial parliament in 1895." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geetsay (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not all that confusing, but it may by the way it's put forward. As that source given, it states "South Australia had granted voting rights in local government elections to women property owners in 1861", thus not with full rights to all women. The 1894 date is the year when the granting was made, but it wasn't until the next year when it became law (royal accent granted). It would be best if all those were put within one spot rather than spread out like it is now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The first nation?

To say that Sweden was first independent nation to grant female voting rights is little misleading, while Finland was the first independent nation to have female members of the parlament (1917/1918), before the Swedish women even got their voting right in 1919. --193.210.145.13 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Sweden in the article is about the Age of Liberty which is in the 18th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Swedish women had the right to vote between 1718 and 1771 - a conditional suffrage, but so was the vote of men also - a right which was abolished in 1771, and reintroduced in 1919. --85.226.45.101 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Women's suffrage denied or conditioned - Brunei

I think that we should remove Brunei from the "denied or conditioned" list. It is stated that both men and women are restricted. Thus Brunei is no different than Eritrea or Libya, where there are no national elections hold, but for local or past national elections there was full participation of both men and women. Otherwise we should add Libya and Eritrea. Additionaly it seems that in the UAE again both men and women were restricted in a similar way, thus the 2010 lifting of restriction is about voting in general, not about women participation.Alinor (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, what was said was correct before! Brunei is currently denied nationally, unlike the other 2 states. The way it got changed looks bad & confusing, so will be adjusted to what it was before.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What are your objections to this version: [1]? I think it is important to separate countries where voting is restricted for women only and countries where voting is restricted for both men and women. And if your objections are about the Brunei case facts - please correct it: had it in the 1962 election allowed full participation of women (and men)? Are there local elections held in Brunei after 1962? If there are held, is full participation of women allowed? Alinor (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about women's voting rights, not about men (although not inclusive, but shows to still be the case in 2 nations still). It's a small area that needs not to be split up even smaller just for the sake of it. The descriptions are suffice to the reader for those nations still affecting men on a national scale. It was fine before for years & not confusing as it now seems, thus it shall be reverted back for simplicity. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that this 'was fine for years'. Just because a page hasn't been changed in a while doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved. It is confusing to have a state with no voting rights on a list of countries lacking women's suffrage. Anyways, clearly we haven't reached consensus here so I won't change anything, but I'm siding with Alinor on this one. --Quantum7 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Samoa

The list says "Date listed is the first date women were allowed to participate (by voting) in elections, not the date that women were granted universal suffrage without restrictions." The date given for Samoa is 1990. 1990 was the date when universal suffrage was installed. Prior to that, only matai were allowed to vote. The overwhelming majority of matai were men, but some were women, and those were entitled to vote. Peter Larmour writes that the adoption of universal suffrage in 1990 "substantially raised the proportion of women in the electorate". (P. Larmour, "'A Foreign Flower?' Democracy in the South Pacific", Pacific Studies, vol.17, n°1, March 1994, p.68) Ergo, there were women voting before that. 83.114.52.163 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) (Aridd, not logged in)

Given the lack of comments one way or the other, I've removed Samoa from the article. I'm uncertain of the date of the first election in which women took part. There were elections under the Western-controlled "kingdom of Samoa" in the late 19th century, prior to partition and annexation, but I'm not certain who could actually vote at that time. Aridd (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Romania

I edited the introduction of women suffrage in Romania (1938, not 1929 as it was stated here, cf. http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/istorie/ciupala/includereaexcluderea.htm), but it cannot be seen. Someone please help me, I am bad at editing. Calusarul (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand NOT a Country when women were granted the vote; symptom of poor work

Please excuse any "maladresse" in adding this post, I am not a usual contributor to Wikipedia.

The wording of the opening paragraph is unclear, referring to existing countries, then discussing countries that do not presently exist, then claiming NZ was the first currently existing country... NZ was not a country when it extended the vote to women; NZ did not become a country (Dominion) until 1907 and more fully independent until 1947. The para moves on to compare NZ to Wyoming in 1869; it didn't even join the union until 1890. This makes the author appear very US centric; for no good reason.

Reading the paragraph over again and using only information within which is correct: the existing country first to extend the vote to all women was Australia in 1902. I don't suggest this is correct (I make no assertion either way); rather this is an indication of how poorly researched and worded this opening paragraph is.

Given the importance of the subject matter; someone in a position of authority please, please rework this.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.35.130.250 (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not New Zealand was a "country" in the 19th century is a matter of some debate, but most people would say that it was. It was not yet a Dominion, but it obtained self-government in the 1850s (along with the other Australasian colonies); it was autonomous in internal matters. Granting the right to vote was a decision of the New Zealand parliament, elected by the citizens of New Zealand. I've made a small edit to clarify accordingly: noting that New Zealand was self-governing, and linking to the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852. Aridd (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia could not have had female suffrage in 1946.. it didnt exist until 1991!!!!!

Macedonia as named here ... FYROM is a newly created slav state. It did not exist prior to its creation in 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.85.75.66 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany

So I take it Germany is either not a part of Europe or another continent or it's women never felt the need to have a women's rights movment? Thank you very much for your thorough research!!! --89.50.29.2 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Vatican

The way I see it, the Vatican doesnt explicitly forbid female electors. It is just structurally impossible for them to be one. If a woman could be a cardinal, then she could vote. Of course there may be an explicit ban on female electors I dont know of.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

The table heading specifically states: "Date listed is the first date women were allowed to participate (by voting) in elections, not the date that women were granted universal suffrage without restrictions." I suspect that only one date should be listed for South Africa, not two: "1930 (white women); 1994 (black women)". The 1994 is a racial issue, and it's bias to single out South Africa, without mentioning the United States restrictions on blacks until 1965, and Canada's requirement that First Nations give up their status before voting. SJrX10 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland: incomplete sentence

This is not a complete sentence: Switzerland was the last Western republic (although women could not vote in the constitutional monarchy of Liechtenstein until 1984).

"Switzerland was the last Western republic" to do what? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have searched in the article history, and it seems from this edit that it should have said: "Switzerland was the last Western republic to to allow women to vote". The last bit of the sentence was accidentally forgotten by the editor. I have added the missing part now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It could have also been vandalized by someone removing some words randomly. Most of the time someone else reverts it back, but it may have been overlooked. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Feminists?

"Women in New Zealand were inspired to fight for their voting rights by the equal-rights philosopher John Stuart Mill and the British feminists’ aggressiveness"

According to the article women in New Zealand got the vote in 1893.

According to Merriam Websters' the first use of the words feminism and feminist was in 1895. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

There were no feminists then, though there might have been people who would later be claimed by feminists as theirs. But as stated in the article "[some suffragists] believed that although a woman's place was in the home, she should be able to influence laws which impacted upon that home" This is not a feminist viewpoint. The article has not citations for the contention that New Zealand suffragists were more influenced by more radical people like Mill.

The reference to feminists should be deleted. I am not going to do it though because I assume without discussion someone would just change it back. 67.175.214.83 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, when a dictionary states the earliest use of a word or its meaning, they're only reporting what they know from their evidence, not that the word/meaning was invented then. For Merriam-Webster, you can probably confirm this from the preface in their hardbound edition. Their hardbound unabridged, Webster's Third New International Dict., wasn't giving dates when it was published. The Oxford Eng. Dict. (2d ed.), does, with examples, and on the same principle, i.e., merely the earliest they know of, not necessarily a date of invention: 1895 for feminism with the sense this Wikipedia article discusses, 1894 for feminist, and 1882 for another sense of feminism. If you read old literature and find an earlier use for a word or a spelling, for a given functionality or part of speech and a sense or meaning, editors of authoritative descriptive dictionaries generally want to know about evidence of antedatings. Language evolves. The error you made is commonly made, including by scholars in fields other than linguistics.

Claiming is separate from word/definition existence. Someone last week might have denied being feminist and then be claimed this week by someone else as a feminist. A great many fit that description. For example, many women who secured higher educations and developed executive careers said "I'm no feminist" or words to that effect to the annoyance of many self-identified feminists.

I don't agree that it's not feminist to have mixed views, in this case, on a duty to stay home but also to seek to influence laws. There may not be a feminist in existence who lives, or ever lived, solely by feminist principles. Most, at least, mix. Those who don't are likely to be locked up, killed, or otherwise seriously ostracized.

I haven't looked into the John Stuart Mill points.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New External Link added

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to images and videos for the Centenary of Women’s Suffrage 1908-2008.Eleworth (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Moldova 1978??

in the first moldova was not a state in '79 and second in soviet union/soviet russia there was women's suffrage since 1917 so there was in moldavia since 1940 when her'll came a soviet republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.225.41 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

women right to vote Armenia

Your reference listing countries and when they provided women the right to vote is erroneous in the case of Armenia. In that case you list 1921 as the year such a riht was adopted however this in incorrect for two reasons first the Republic of Armenia which was founded in 1918 made equal vote for women an original provision in its constitution in 1918 as did its's sister republics georgia and azerbajian. Second the Armenian Republic was subsumed and fully acquired by the Soviet Russia in December of 1920 thereby making a reference to it existing as a sovereign Armenian country in 1921 doubly dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.199.77 (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

East Timor

Shouldn't East Timor be listed under the Indonesia entry in the table, in the same way as Ireland is listed in the United Kingdom entry, rather than on its own line? I presume the 2002 date currently listed for East Timor is only due to the country's independence, rather than any change in legal status regarding women's suffrage. --David Edgar (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

end women's suffrage prank

Should the prank, where men exploit the similarities between suffrage and suffering to solicit signatures, from women, for a petition, be mentioned? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To what end will that help here? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose this prank would serve. Can you list the sample edit that you would want to contribute about this matter?U21980 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro/Con

In the United States this was debated for a long time, yet there is very little discussion in this article of the arguments, pro and con, for women's suffrage in the US or any other nation that has adopted this policy. There is also very little discussion of the political consequences of allowing this, eg what US presidential or congressional races have been influenced by this move, how has it affected public policy? Has it been a public good or not? etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I waited a good long while, but finally added some material on both of these. Please, others add more to make this a better article.Brechbill123 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Age?

What does "Voting age" in the table mean? The way the table is set up, a line like this

Country	Year	Voting age
German Austria	1919	16 years

suggests that in Austria, women of age 16 got to vote in 1919. In fact the voting age at the time was 20. In 2007 it was lowered from 18 to 16.

References:

• lates modification of the relevant line: diff
• age=20 years: History of women suffrage in Austria (de)
• age=16 years: Austrian ministry for family and youth (de)

--Austrian (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in Religion, section should be deleted

This article on Women's Suffrage should stick to suffrage as a civil right within secular governments with democratic institutions. The content on religious information is misleading and rests on a fallacious foundation. First off, with Catholicism, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't function on democratic principles; it never has, and never will as long as there is a papacy. Equating religious practises with secular government is incorrect. Members of the clergy within the RC religion are appointed, they are not "elected"; even the pope is technically appointed, he's appointed by the College of Cardinals (although laypersons commonly refer to the pope being "elected", this is not the complete process). No other members of the clergy are elected in the RC religion, so why is the appointing of the pope included in this article as an equivalent to a democratically elected politician?

The Judaism subsection is also misleading by providing incomplete information -- which Orthodox groups are being referenced? What is the practise in Reform Judaism or Conservative synagogues?

"Judaism--Women are denied the vote and the ability to be elected to positions of authority in many Orthodox Jewish synagogues and religious organizations.[65][66][67]" This is a ridiculous statement. In order for women to be "denied" those roles and positions, they would first have to request these roles and positions. Their request to do so would be inconsistent with the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. This statement implies that women have no religious beliefs of their own, and simply grasp after any power available to them regardless of their religion. It's offensive to women on its face, and needs to be removed or edited.Brechbill123 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And what about other religions? Buddhism? Paganism? In my opinion the religious information is pretty shaky and needs to be removed. OttawaAC (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this section should be expanded, not removed as it's not worth creating a separate page for suffrage in religion and women's rights in religion is too vast a topic. Most people would land here for this information about the women's vote. Also, Church of England and other Christian denominations and Islam have been completely missed. 77.100.17.220 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur, it needs more work & from other groups plus it should point on how it has influenced political actions. As long as there are sources to back this up, it has some validity here. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the section should be left in and expanded. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the consensus is chop it out, write a separate article. I'll chop it. It doesn't really make sense to write and article on "suffrage" with respect to religion, since so many religions don't involve voting.Brechbill123 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am looking in a wrong place, I don't see any consensus for removing the section. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I believe the subsection on enfranchising women in religions should be cut and pasted into the article Gender and religion, which is where it's more on-topic. Equating religious faiths with democratic politics is a false analogy, period. A "See also" template linking to Gender and religion can be easily inserted in one or two places in this article to redirect readers looking for information on women's rights in religion.

There are reams of academic material out there on misogyny and religion, and it could be expanded into a large article. I just can't accept this subsection staying here, though. It's inaccurate to automatically equate religious dogma to secular civil rights (however well-founded the feminist perspective may be). I think Gender and religion would be an appropriate place for this information, as well as information on theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, etc. that enforce misogyny through both civil and religious law. Any thoughts? OttawaAC (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, scratch what I said above. I think now that the best way to proceed would be to expand both the subsection in this article, and to expand the article Gender and religion. No need to remove information, just to add more. OttawaAC (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While some faiths, such as Catholicism, may never change, several have in recent decades accepted women into roles which would been impossible a century ago. These are classic examples of moves towards women's suffrage within religion. Don't prevent those examples being mentioned just because your religion isn't moving that way. (Or you don't want it to.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits on Results Etc. Suffrage in United States

First I had it chopped for heavy POV, then for RS. I'm checking the sources, but I really don't see a problem with the content or the sources. Recent good sources for recent events, contemporary sources for historical events--what is the problem?Brechbill123 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

there is a large, sophisticated scholarly literature on anti-suffrage. It comprises the RS, not sources like MSNBC or Washington Times (their reporters were not there in 1920). Likewise Ann Coulter is not a RS. A good starter source is Aileen Kraditor, Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement. Also Louise Stevenson, "WOMEN ANTI-SUFFRAGISTS IN THE 1915 MASSACHUSETTS CAMPAIGN" New England Quarterly, Mar1979, Vol. 52 Issue 1, p80-93, online at JSTOR. Also: also see the Green article in JSTOR. Jane Apostol, "WHY WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE THE VOTE: ANTI-SUFFRAGE VIEWS IN THE SOUTHLAND IN 1911" Southern California Quarterly, Mar 1988, Vol. 70 Issue 1, p29-42 on Los Angeles; Laura McKee. Hickman, "THOU SHALT NOT VOTE: ANTI-SUFFRAGE IN NEBRASKA 1914-1920" Nebraska History, June 1999, Vol. 80 Issue 2, p55-65; Elizabeth Gillespie. "CARETAKERS OF SOUTHERN CIVILIZATION: GEORGIA WOMEN AND THE ANTI-SUFFRAGE CAMPAIGN," 1914-1920. By: Georgia Historical Quarterly, Winter1998, Vol. 82 Issue 4, p 801-828; Tally Fugate, "WHERE ANGELS BELONG: THE OKLAHOMA ANTISUFFRAGE MOVEMENT" Chronicles of Oklahoma, June 2004, Vol. 82 Issue 2, p 200-221. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anne Coulter is a RS for current opposition to women's suffrage. Likewise the other sources for contemporary questions. If you have access to the above sources, you could certainly use them to expand the article, but they have nothing to say about current opposition to women's suffrage. Then, I don't see anything in these titles to indicate they would address the results of women's suffrage in the political arena, either. I am reverting the info, if you have a problem with it please obtain third party assistance. We don't want an edit war.Brechbill123 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"current" opposition to woman suffrage--2011--who's proposing that exactly? you need a RS saying there is a serious opposition to Woman suffrage in 2011. Just snide remarks is all that is cited. It's all a matter of pre-1920 history and for that you need historians as RS. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratification of 19th Amendment to the Constitution in the USA

The sentence in the early section titled History about the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution - "British women over 30 had the vote in 1918, Dutch women in 1919, and American women finally won their 80-year campaign for the vote in 1920, when the Tennessee state legislature became the 36th state to ratify women's suffrage, giving the 19th Amendment the required 2/3 majority." - is a bit wrong. Ratification of an amendment to the US constitution requires 3/4 of the states, not 2/3. See Article V of the US Constitution. 3/4 of the 48 states in existence in 1920 is 36, which is why 36 states were required. Ae1083t (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right. However, the problematic fact was too much detail for the surrounding text, so I deleted it rather than correcting it. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Feminism is an ideology. Feminism and the Feminist Movement are different. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Consensus

• Support keeping it in the feminism portal per the reasons above. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary. Is anyone other than A dc zero advocating for its removal? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Support - per above. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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" [2] (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)

What does the Law of Lebanon article say about the Lebanese legal sources? Int21h (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Monarchies and Female Heirs to the Throne

I ran across an article that Japan has a ban on women becoming the Emperor. 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)

Don't know it it warrants its own article, but examples can be found in Order of succession. (Also, I replaced the dead link in your reference.) Goustien (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Confused? you will be

This article is very confused. There is a section called Timeline which isn't a timeline at all but a list of countries in alphabetical order with a link to See also|Timeline of women's suffrage. Then there is a section called By country which is another alphabetical list but with a different arrangement from the first list and the a section called Timelines which has links to other timelines. I would make some changes but I have no idea what previous editors were trying to achieve here. Richerman (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Near enough

South Australia

Currently says;

The colony of South Australia did the same in 1895 and women were able to vote in the next election, which was held in 1896.

The Macquarie Book of Events, says 1894 (under “July”), my Year Book says 18Dec 1894. Timeline of women's suffrage says 1894 with 3 other references. A post in the Archives (here) (c2009) says it got royal assent in 1895.

So I’ll amend to 1894. Hope that’s not too controversial. MBG02 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Corsica

Corsica is listed as a contender for first suffrage. As far as I can tell from the references, Corsican women voted, but only locally in the villages. The constitution gave the right to males of age 25 to vote. The article would be clearer if this fact was included. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreed. It is not a timeline. Perhaps one should rename the list to... I dunno... "Current suffrage status in existing countries"? And add one or two timelines? One Timeline a starting with New Zeeland or possibly Finland and one Timeline with limited suffrage in history? Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaii - no references?

In a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#December_13, it has been discovered that the 1840 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom apparently says nothing at all about women's suffrage. Two assertions that it does appear in this article, using only the Wikipedia article about the 1840 Constitution as a reference. The editor who added the Hawaii claims to this article, User:Mikehaas, may be the Michael Haas who has written this book and I suspect he may be soapboxing. Hopefully I can be proved wrong... Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a little more in Kuykendall, R. S. (1953). The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. 1. pp. 231–2. I don't see anything that says women could not sign the petitions, and somewhere i saw that there were four women on the council that passed the first election law, but it's hard to call this suffrage. Universal male suffrage was enacted in law before the 1852 constitution

The system of voting by petition was done away with in 1850, and voting by ballot was substituted. For the first time the qualifications of voters were prescribed; the right of suffrage was conferred on all male citizens and denizens twenty years old. (Act of July 30, 1850.)

Spaulding T. M. (1929). "Early Years of the Hawaiian Legislature". Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society (38): 25. Here's the 1840 election law —eric 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The four women were nominees to the House of Nobles. See Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism by J. Kehaulani Kauanui (p. 187). Because women weren't specifically disenfranchised by the 1840 Constitution, therefore they must have been enfranchised? It seems a bit of a stretch. Kuani above calls this line of argument "perplexing". Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I support the idea that changes to be made now in the article to make it clear that there is no clear evidence for full suffrage. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed the section because of verifiability issues and undue weight. btw, couldn't a lot more be said about women's suffrage in the space taken by the long list of countries in the article?—eric 17:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

eric and Star Lord - 星爵; I have rewritten the paragraph about Hawaii in the "History" section as follows:

"The 1840 constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii established a House of Representatives, but did not specify who was eligible to participate in the election of it. Some academics have argued that this omission enabled women to vote in the first elections, in which votes were cast by means of signatures on petitions; but this interpretation remains controversial. The second constitution of 1852 specified that suffrage was restricted to males over twenty years-old".

I used the Kauanui 2018 book linked above as a reference. Trust this meets with your approval, feel free to amend if not. Thanks for your input on this. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

misleading description of russian suffrage.

While year of women suffrage in Russia is correctly dated to 1917, it is described in misleading way, both in article text and in the table. The text attributes the women suffrage to some obscure decree of the Provisional Government related to town councils (Городские Думы, Gorodskie Dumy) and Constituent Assembly (Учредительное Собрание) elections. However: 1) Town Councils have never been a part of state power. They were the class representation of merchants and urban bourgeosie. They had a very limited authority and their decisions could be at any moment overruled by tsarist administration. 2) Town Councils, in fact, had some representation of women even in the pre-1917 times (eligible women couldn't vote in person, but they can delegate their votes to male relatives). 3) Constituent Assembly was planned as supreme government entity, but in reality never was 2)There is no any heredity between town councils (Dumy), Constituent Assembly (Uchreditelnoe Sobranie) and subsequent governance institutes.

On the other hand, I do not know how to descibe the women suffrage in Russia in a manner consistent with the style of this article. The difficulty is that women suffrage was not established by the vote of a purely male legislative body, but was a result of competition between two rival centers of power, one of which (the Soviets) included women from the very beginning. The Petrograd Soviet, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee included women from the first days of existence.

Also, it is not clear why individual republics within the USSR was given table entries with dates as late as 1938. It is a error, IMHO. --Lqp (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. I came here looking for a list of countries that do not allow women the right to vote, but couldn't find it. If there are no countries that don't allow women the vote, I think there should be affirmation of that fact on this page. If there are countries that don't allow women the right to vote, I think this article should point them out, as that is why I came here. Or alternatively point to an article with a list of countries where women still can't vote.

2. This article is about popular elections, so the bit about the Catholic church's clerical elections aren't relevant to the issue. The Catholic church is a non hereditary monarchy, not a democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglewortz (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

I don't understand why china isn't highlighted red like other countries that don't grant people full suffrage through free and fair elections. Either the list should be what the law in the country actually says or what happens in practice but the way it is now some countries are highlighted for not granting women the right to vote and others for not having free and fair elections.Fjf1085 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

hi, i'm researching Chinese women's vote. what's follows "restricted" ? pls tell me. > Individuals can only vote through restricted indirect elections. The right to be elected is also restricted, and basically never have a complete and rational right to vote. Cartman0 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, that's the whole point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Discussion on this subject seems to be dead, or at least have dried up. I'm of the opinion that it's worth taking another look at the "timeline" and considering whether the labelling of countries, EG China, as being places where "Both women and men [are] denied full enfranchisement", is actually useful. I'd argue that it isn't. Rather, it's worth taking a look at whether women are enfranchised within the systems of those countries, and if they are, include the date as to when that occurred. In the cases of absolute monarchies like the Vatican City, Brunei, etc., they could be highlighted in grey or some other colour which doesn't necessarily have negative connotations to indicate as such. MxMorgan (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The article say women's suffrage in Afghanistan in 1965, but the article 1919 in women's history claim it was in 1919. Which one is correct? Did Afghanistan even have elections in 1919? --Aciram (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)