# Talk:Woman Suffrage Procession

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Official program - Woman suffrage procession March 3, 1913 - crop.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 3, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-03-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is titled "Woman Suffrage Parade", and until I edited it just now, it called the event only by that name. However, the official program, shown in the illustratation that will shortly be a Picture of the Day, calls it the Woman Suffrage Procession.  I've edited the lead sentence to give that name and describe it as the "official" name of the event.  But possibly there is a more precise way to put this.  For example, maybe both names were used by the organizers in different documents, in which case we might say "Woman Suffrage Parade (or Procession) of 1913".  Or maybe people only started calling it a parade retrospectively, in which case "Woman Suffrage Procession (now often called the Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913) would be appropriate.  I have no idea; I'm hoping someone will be interested until to research this.
I also wondered whether the article should be renamed.  Wikipedia policy is that the article title should use the name that, in reliable sources, the thing is most commonly called by.  But a simple google searche for non-Wikipedia uses of the phrase:

  "woman suffrage parade" 1913 -wikipedia
  "woman suffrage procession" 1913 -wikipedia

showed a higher count for "parade".  And when I changed -wikipedia to site:edu, which limits the search to the .edu domain (consisting mostly of US colleges and universities), the count for "parade" was markedly higher.  Therefore I think it's correct not to rename it. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 70.49.169.244. Thank you for adding the other name. I've redirected Woman Suffrage Procession to this article. It seems that's how NAWSA referred to it. I've also seen it referred to as the 'Woman Suffrage Procession and Pageant'. gobonobo + c 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The very awkward lower-cased name 'woman suffrage parade' seems a bad choice when the official and dignified name, 'Woman Suffrage Procession' - a name used in the movie about the event - is both a better descriptor and better fits what the lead describes as "monumental" ("The march and the attention it attracted were monumental in advancing women's suffrage in the United States"). Just another one of those dime-a-dozen woman suffrage parades, you had to avoid them on your way to lunch. Nothing special about this one, except for that pesky 'monumental' designation which, more or less, maybe deserves a proper name. A name actually used on a Wikipedia Picture of the Day. The same non-admin closer closed the seemingly incorrect 'manifest destiny' in about a minute. Asking for another pair of eyes or two on this one. Randy Kryn 3:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Newspapers.com, he was still on the job in early 1915, so I doubt he was "fired" after any investigation. I deleted that sentence and would ask for a source before it is put back. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who added that may have been confusing the superintendant of police for the District with the Washington police chief; at the time, they may have been different jobs. The superintendant *was* fired.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The District superintendent of police was Maj. Richard Sylvester. He was also called by the title Chief. He was *not* fired as a result of the congressional inquiry, but was censured for his actions/inaction. Alice Paul claimed he was fired, but that was not true. He was forced to resign in March 1915 due to accusations by a member of Congress from Georgia. The news cited his failures in the 1913 parade as contributing to his ouster. It is inaccurate to say the superintendent was fired in this context. As I make my extensive additions to this article, I will be deleting that statement.Biotech46 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am planning to do a number of edits to this article as part of my Wiki Scholars course focused on improving articles about women's suffrage. I am new to editing in Wikipedia and I want to be respectful of all who have contributed to this article previously. One thing I would like to do is create a section for the day of the event, since right now there is just a "Background" and "Aftermath." When I read this article, I ended asking a lot of questions that are not answered. Another thing I plan to change is the lead-in summary. The paragraph about the new currency is given too much space, as much as the rest of the article, and even more than is included in the section for that subject. I would like to expand that and move it to its proper section and then just have a single sentence in the leader. I'd also like to standardize the citation formats and I see that some sources are cited several times in different formats, and should possibly just be listed once and referenced multiple times (e.g. citations 1, 10 and 17 are all the same).--Biotech46 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool, go for it. If you get reverted on some things, and you think you're correct, please discuss on the talk page. Way too many new editors leave Wikipedia because someone reverts them, but you sound sincere and sincerely interested. Yes, just a bit too much of the currency plan in the lede, when the bill is both introduced and in circulation then that would be a good time for full lede history and descriptors (although the full information should stay deeper into the text). Good to "meet" you, and thanks for your interest in improving this page about one of the most important historical movement events in the 20th century and the people who designed it and carried it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement!--Biotech46 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Ditto on the "go for it". I wrote the original version of this article based pretty much on what I could find online, without access to journal articles and such. It has been improved, but not in a systematic way. A thorough rewrite would be good. One idea: perhaps we could split out a list of notable participants by state? People are starting to add them in to the text in random locations, when most of them are not really useful in telling the story of the event.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have several "offline" resources and a lot of great information about the procession itself. I think that's a good idea to have a section for notable participants. I did see one added recently, and I think there will be more given this anniversary of the 19th amendment.--Biotech46 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
There are people who seem to want to portray all the suffragists as racists. I'm glad to see that you are finding that not to be true in this instance.Brianyoumans (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I wish it were as simple as they were/weren't racist. No they weren't ALL racists. But in 1903, the national leaders of the suffrage movement chose to appease Southern white suffragists rather than standing in solidarity with black suffragists. The blacks saw this as tantamount to racism - and I can't say they're wrong to view it that way. As Neville Chamberlain's experience shows: Appease a force of evil and history will judge you harshly.
I will do my best to retain a neutral tone, using secondary sources, per Wikipedia guidelines.--Biotech46 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I am going to be moving my edits from my sandbox to the article today. These are not my final edits. I will be continuing to add material and refine what I have done already. In addition, I will be working on streamlining the notes/sources.--Biotech46 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks great! Brianyoumans (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I saw you added a second link for Hazel (There is one in the Planning section). Should I leave that?--Biotech46 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I took it out. I didn't notice the earlier one. It's easy to do on a long article, and probably doesn't do much harm, but it's probably better in order to avoid overlinking. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Really easy to get confused about links on a long article. Even my Wikipedia editor missed that I had a link in the beginning. I'm sure I might have missed some other duplicates. :-)--Biotech46 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of the images shown this article from the Atlantic magazine may available from the Library of Congress or open source from Getty, or this article could be added to external links for this article. Just a suggestion, leaving it up to those working on this article to decide. Here's the link:  https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/06/the-battle-for-womens-suffrage-in-photos/591103/ There are some wonderful images in this magazine article.Rosalina523 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This entry should definitely be called 'Woman Suffrage Procession' - plus any useful addendums, eg: (or Parade)
As per WP:OFFICIALNAME:
- Obscurity is not a relevant reason to use 'Woman suffrage parade', because someone has already argued that 'procession' is more frequently found than 'parade' outside of Wikipedia.
- There are no competing authorities, because 'Woman Suffrage Procession' is literally what they themselves called it, as per the programme, which makes it the official title of the event. In the English language, by default, the title of an event is a proper noun and therefore capitalised.
- Changes to name is also an irrelevant argument here, since the organisers can no longer change the name of this event. We literally have visual evidence of their publicised choice of event title.
There are no good reasons not to give this the name the organisers gave it, plus any redirections, addendums or qualifiers deemed useful according to Wikipedia's general practise and the excellent reasoning of her many editors.
Wherever possible, it is surely crucial that Wikipedia should capture the facts of women's history as lived in the first person by the women themselves, as opposed to someone else's third person description of their history.
BessieMaelstrom (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, and I wonder why it's taking so long to WP:Move this article to the name which was originally given it. 01:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Women4wiki (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Wondering what reason anyone can have for not using Procession, the word the women who organised the event used? What the media used in their coverage can be mentioned in the article but it doesn't dictate the entry for the procession.

There are a couple discussions above where editors have proposed moving it. Neither ended with a clear consensus. Following the above, someone else could try to propose it again, but it would be a good idea to review the arguments presented there first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The See also section has gotten out of control; this isn't an index to the subject of woman suffrage, it's an article on one event. I think most or all of these should be mentioned and linked in the text (if they aren't already) and then the section eliminated.Brianyoumans (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

10 doesn't seem particularly "out of control". After reading this, I figured some dozens must've been added since the last time I looked. Selma to Montgomery marches seems like it can be sensibly removed, but the others seem ok IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I added the notable suffrage marches and rallies, which seem appropriate for the See also of this page. The 1965 Selma to Montgomery march was the first major suffrage march since 1913, and seems to qualify for this See also section. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess I've encountered a number of other editors who seem to think that See alsos should be very limited, but, taking a look at the existing guidelines, they don't seem to be particularly deprecated. There does seem to be a range of opinions about them - see WT:See alsos. Some large and critical articles - like French Resistance and Socialism - have "see also" sections, but they are small (and in the case of French Resistance, a bit random, IMHO.) Capitalism, on the other hand, has a rather large "see also" section.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Limited but they don't need to be small. The added suffrage marches are directly related per topic and now include all of the notable ones, in chronological order. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)