Talk:Women's suffrage/Archive 1

message: Contray to what's said above, here there was a gender divide maintained. At this time in the Cape province, black and coloured men who owned sufficient property qualified for the franchise. In 1930 only white women were enfranchised on the same basis as white men; black and coloured women who owned property did not get the vote on the same basis as black and coloured men. The reason was that the non-white voters tended to support the South African Party and the Nationalist Party government wanted to water this down by increasing the number of white voters on the role.
I think this is very clearly not a case of the franchise being completely non-gender specific and have marked it as such. However I'm not sure when the non-whites in the Cape were completely disenfranchised - which would effectively mark total gender equality in the franchise by default. Timrollpickering 21:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Coloureds says "the political rights of Coloureds varied by location and over time ...(they) lost their votes largely in the 1950s, with the last municipal votes being removed in 1972."  The date may be complicated because it involved an entrenched clause and a Supreme Court dispute. --Henrygb 19:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa 1930

message: Wasn't suffrage to all granted in 2003? Dainamo
: I do recall that being the case. ;) That-Vela-Fella 13:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oman

message: The international movement for women's suffrage, led by suffragists (commonly called suffragettes), was a social, economic and political reform movement aimed at extending the suffrage (i.e. the right to vote) to women, advocating equal suffrage (abolition of graded votes) rather than universal suffrage (abolition of discrimination due to, for instance, race), which was considered too radical. A catch phrase was "one man, one vote!"''''
Surely "one man, one vote" refers to calls for universal suffrage (either for all men or for all) and the demands were actually for the gender distinction to be abolished - in the UK at least there wasn't universal male suffrage until 1918, with a strong property/rate franchise still in existance (and continuing for susbequent decades at local government level). Also would "one man, one vote" really have been used in calls for female enfranchisement?
:I find the opening rather confusing, in the UK a distinction is made between suffragist and suffragette whilst here it implies there is no difference. The point about eual suffrage v. universal suffrage is probably more relevent for America than the UK, where I don't think it was such an issue. The catch phrase I'm completely lost about, I suspect again it's an American thing. If I get some time I'll try to reword this. -- Joolz 13:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: I happened upon Women's suffrage in South Carolina (originally South Carolina Woman Suffrage) and moved it to its current location, but I'm not sure what to do with it. It looks like copyvio, but random Google searches say otherwise. It looks too specific for Wikipedia, but it's good information. I'm debating whether to put wikify, merge, copyvio, and/or vfd tags on it. Nifboy 05:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan article about suffrage in South Carolina

message: New Zealand wasn't even a "country" when this claims it became the first country to adopt universal suffrage. It was a colony until 1907.
:It was self-governing and had its own parliament, which is what counts. The change in status from colony to dominion had no real impact since New Zealanders had been running their own affairs since sometime in the mid 19th century. --Helenalex 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: This was published by the Finnish government.  It claims that "In 1906, Finnish women were the first women in Europe to receive universal and equal franchise, and the first women in the world to become eligible for parliamentary elections.".
Is this correct?  Have they not heard of NZ?  As pointed out above, NZ was still a colony when it granted universal suffrage in 1893, but by the same token Finland was still a duchy of Russia until (?) 1917. JackofOz 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim about Finish women becoming the first in Europe to gain suffrage (without caveat) may be true, but the latter is false. The right to stand for election (right to political candidacy) was granted to women first in South Australia in 1894. What I believe this Finish claim derives from, though I'm not certain, is that it may have been in Finland that women were first successfully elected to parliament (in 1906). --cj | talk 14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Zealand didn't give women the right to stand for parliament until about the 1920s, certainly later than Finland. --Helenalex 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish claims

message: Although slightly out of date, it has a huge list of the countries in order of their changing their laws, etc. If someone wants to import that (It'll take alot of plodding), it's there. I may get to it someday if noone else does. 68.39.174.238 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the Spanish version of the page 

message: Considering that the sultan of Brunei rules by decree, does anyone have the vote in that country? Durova 02:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, they did before but lost that right in 1962. Look at universal suffrage at the bottom of the list it has there. That-Vela-Fella 13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunei 

message: I think the sentence claiming that the first country to give Arab women the right to vote being Israel in 1948 is clearly factually incorrect. For example in the US Arab women got the right to vote in 1920; and there were some 10s of thousands of Arabs living in the US at the time.--jackbrown 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't Arab women get the right to vote in the US in 1920? 

message: The suffragette bit claims that suffragettes chained themselves to railings. Now, in the UK I know this to be a myth, it genuinely didn't happen, and more postboxes had acid poured in them than were set alight. Can somebody who knows about the American movement comment on whether this was the case in America? If not then I could quite easily ammend some of the protesting methods. Levi_allemany
:Myth?  Well, the BBC are reporting it as fact.
::1908 On 17 January a handful of suffragettes chain themselves to the railings of 10 Downing Street. The WSPU also introduce their stone-throwing campaign. Emmeline Pankhurst is imprisoned for the first time. 
:Perhaps it was not as common as is generally thought, but are you saying that it never happened? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaining to railings 

message: A lot of people are missing the point here that, when countries like Australia and some others (whether at state or federal level) gave women the vote, they were essentially only giving *white immigratns* the vote. This defies then definition of "universal suffrage" as it was anythign but universal, and only selective.
Australia only introduced universal suffrage late in the 20th century less than 50 years ago. I come from New zealand, while I am not an expert on the dubject what we are taught there at school was New zealand was the first "country" as such to unrestricted voting rights across to the entire population, regardless of gender ro race.
While not technically a country at the time, you could still argue "technically" it is not its own  country in it's own right at the moment... as the head of state is still british. Although you may be right to point that out, it's only a technicality.. We still had basically unreserved right to decide our own affairs. We still have that right, although the British Crown *still* has the right to dismiss parliament in New zealand - so it entirely depends on what your criteria is to meet to define yourself as a country (which differs between experts)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.215.242 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2006
:New Zealand is an independent country, and has been by any definition since the passing of the Statute of Westminster. In 1894, South Australia did grant universal suffrage: men and women of all races and classes could vote in general elections. However, voting for the  South Australian Legislative Council did remain restricted until 1973.--cj | talk 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia, South Australia etc 

message: I placed the  entry tag onto the United States portion of the page because the colored women were terrified of being lynched in 1913.  They were not politically active.  Whatever occurred involved actions between white men and white women.  The statement about "African American women" is bunkum.Superslum 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's "bunkum" is the slightly bizarre assertion that the KKK was all-powerful in 1913... Churchh 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynchers produced fear

message: Maybe we should add the dates when women were allowed to vote in individual U.S. jurisdictions to the nineteenth-century part of the timeline (though at the beginning, these were mainly territories, and women didn't have the right to vote for the national congress and the president until such territories were admitted as states).  Also, the first U.S. congresswoman was elected in 1916. Churchh 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add individual U.S. territories/states to timeline

message: Is the man show information really that important? Futhermore, I am 99% sure that the ending womens suffrage episode was released way before 2004 (I think it is probably from 2000 or 2001 at the latest). Flyerhell 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Man Show

message: I don't know if this edit, made on December 9, is a valid edit or vandalism. Anchoress 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the paragraph I was referring to. I re-added it as the role during war is not really covered anywhere else. There doesn't seem to be a valid reason to remove it. pschemp | talk 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure what's going on there because I don't know if it needed to be  2/3 vote or a simple majority or what. The math doesn't work for either of those two options at 6 or 7. This may need research. pschemp | talk 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or valid edit on December 9? And again on December 14?

message: I've researched it many times, but there doesn't seem to be anything on what was tragic about it. Getting in trouble with the law from illegal strikes and such, losing time, and hunger from the hunger strikes were bad about it. That's all I could come up with. Does anyone have any ideas on how it could come off as a bad thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.97.231 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were the cons of women's rights? 

message: What were the main arguments against women's suffrage? If there was a debate going on in the US during the early 20th century, there must have been arguments on either side of the issue. Yet I don't see the arguments against women's suffrage explicitly detailed here. Themeparkphoto 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See links to Wikipedia articles above.  WBardwin 04:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see anywhere sourced arguing anything tied in with respect to the military & what is asked on this. We're dealing here solely on the political aspect & anything opposite to these rights are just no longer valid since the nearly universal adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, etc. What is needed to be expanded on would be the historical/past arguments used. That-Vela-Fella 11:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against Women's Suffrage 

message: Who put in Iraq for 2008 when the nation had given that right back since 1964? I don't recall any restrictions being on there for women also. Anyone have a source for it? That-Vela-Fella 23:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: The Politics portal needs a format that can sit on the side or bottom of an article.  This pertains to the present article fits into the larger topic of political rights and political systems.
Dogru144 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Politics]]Format and side-box

message: It would be good to have something in the Australia section on women's voting rights in various states, since South Australia in particular was a leader in this. There should also be sections on more countries, especially those which gave women the vote relatively early on. Finland is an obvious example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helenalex (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the other countries...looking at this page, it seems like it might make more sense to have a separate section on each region, with further subdivisions for countries with more detail.  This would give us an intermediate level between the date of the timeline and the long paragraphs for, e.g., the United Kingdom.  Thoughts?  Starryharlequin 09:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would only work for regions which were relatively homogenous. While Australia and NZ could reasonably be grouped together, I'm not sure if the same applies to other regions, and it certainly doesn't to Europe - Finland was one of the earliest countries to give women the vote, and Switzerland was one of the more recent. Obviously if every country ends up with a paragraph the page will get unweildy, but perhaps we should wait until that starts happening before trying to fix it. --Helenalex 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and other countries 

message: Overall this looks like a very good article.  However, many of the sections of the article seem not to have proper citations.  (The introduction, for example; the section on Australia; etc.)  It would be great if we could flesh out citations for some things in the article, particularly dates.  Does anybody have access to sources for some of these?  (It would obviously be ideal if all the dates in the timeline list had sources.) wes 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The article seems to contradict itself with respect to New Zealand.  In the history section it states:
:The first unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights ... in a self-governing country was granted in New Zealand.
but in the NZ section it states:
:In 1893, New Zealand became the second self-governing country in the world to give women the vote.
If it really was second, who was first and what is the subtle distinction between the two statements that could make them both true?
If we are talking about the 'unrestricted' part, then the Timeline of women's suffrage seems to suggest there was more than one country before NZ that granted partial rights, meaning 'second' is wrong.  Either way I think some clarification may be required. BigBadaboom0 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion might be cause of the way it's put (thus the minor move I just did to the section of the paragraph below that 1st statement). Seems that it was the 1st "unrestricted" in that sense, but the 2nd to give that right due to "In 1886 the small island kingdom of Tavolara..." being the 1st, but with restrictions (although it's not stated as to what it/they may have been). That-Vela-Fella 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the first sentence of the New Zealand section.  It was the one that was most confusing in my opinion.  It now says: "In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to give women the vote — or the second if you count Tavolara".  I hope that is acceptable to everyone. BigBadaboom0 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article contradicts itself with respect to NZ?

message: An IP user left a comment in the 'History' section that "Some dates need correction".  I've commented that out using  this means that anyone wishing to edit the section will see it but passers by wont.  IP user please leave comments on this talk page or use "" to place them within the article.  Also for everyone else's benefit could you specify the inaccuracies in the article so that we can help sort them out quickly.  Thanks for your comment--Cailil  talk 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates needing correction 

message: This pages is using two infoboxes.   and   Due to their size and to the existence of alternatives (ie  and ) I'm suggesting we use the footer versions.  I made this change over a week ago but it was reverted last night by IP User:97.88.205.124 --Cailil  talk 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infoboxes 

message: This page is a regular target of vandalism for some reason. Can editing be restricted to registered users? This would probably eliminate about 95% of the vandalism. --Helenalex (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a preventative measure page semi-protection can be requested at WP:RFPP (see relevant policy at WP:PROTECT) if anon IP vandalism is considered to be accute enough--Cailil  talk 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's done, and now hopefully we won't have to waste so much time reverting vandalism. --Helenalex (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: According to their own website the Isle of Man granted women voting rights in 1881, not 1866 as stated w/o source. See http://www.gov.im/lib/news/mnh/125thanniversary.xml
Perhaps someone can fix that. 
Gerhard 2007-01-03
^from above^ So can the Isle of Man get a mention for being the first country in the world to give women the right to vote in a national election  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.14.33 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Isle of Man isn't a country. But this is information which should be added to the UK section. --Helenalex (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Isle of Man is most certainly a country we are dependent of the British Crown and not part of the United Kingdom or Great Britain. Rigard (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Fix it yourself... Wikipedia is not your mother. --Helenalex (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Man

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Women's suffrage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "history":
From Dominican Republic: "History of Smallpox – Smallpox Through the Ages". Texas Department of State Health Services.
From Guinea-Bissau: "A Brief History of Guinea-Bissau – Part 1". Africanhistory, US Department of State, at About.com. Retrieved 22 June 2013.
From World War I: 
From Suffrage in Australia: History Of The Voting Franchise In Australia
From Bahrain: Akbar Shāh Ḵẖān Najībābādī, History of Islam, Volume 1, p. 194. Quote: "Again, the Holy Prophet «P sent Dihyah bin Khalifa Kalbi to the Byzantine king Heraclius, Hatib bin Abi Baltaeh to the king of Egypt and Alexandria; Allabn Al-Hazermi to Munzer bin Sawa the king of Bahrain; Amer bin Aas to the king of Oman. Salit bin Amri to Hozah bin Ali— the king of Yamama; Shiya bin Wahab to Haris bin Ghasanni to the king of Damascus"
From Women's suffrage in Australia: Passports.gov.au Passport History
From Cameroon: 
From International Standard Book Number: 
From Moldova: 
From First Nations: 
From National Council of Women of Canada: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it does not in fact appear ever to have been a true reference, and I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Women's suffrage]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://www.jstor.org/pss/1946097%7ctitle=JSTOR%7cpublisher=%7ctitle=JSTOR%7cpublisher=%7ctitle=JSTOR%7cpublisher=%7ctitle=JSTOR%7cpublisher=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023230221/http://www.patrick-weil.com/Fichiers%20du%20site/2005%20-%20Le%20statut%20des%20musulmans%20en%20Alg%C3%A9rie%20coloniale%20(Doc.%20fran%C3%A7aise).pdf to http://www.patrick-weil.com/Fichiers%20du%20site/2005%20-%20Le%20statut%20des%20musulmans%20en%20Alg%C3%A9rie%20coloniale%20(Doc.%20fran%C3%A7aise).pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161009152036/http://www2.stevenson.ac.uk/comenius/articles/univsuff/ro_db/suff_1b.htm to http://www2.stevenson.ac.uk/comenius/articles/univsuff/ro_db/suff_1b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161009152036/http://www2.stevenson.ac.uk/comenius/articles/univsuff/ro_db/suff_1b.htm to http://www2.stevenson.ac.uk/comenius/articles/univsuff/ro_db/suff_1b.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60vtLtuca?url=http://blackstonedaily.com/Journeys/cm-lt.htm to http://blackstonedaily.com/Journeys/cm-lt.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216133450/http://fp.kross.ro/pdf/le_1939.pdf to http://fp.kross.ro/pdf/le_1939.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216133614/http://fp.kross.ro/pdf/le_1946.pdf to http://fp.kross.ro/pdf/le_1946.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114130058/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abbess to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abbess
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150309131216/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals12_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals12_e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306075818/http://www.onb.ac.at/ariadne/projekte/frauen_waehlet/index.html to http://www.onb.ac.at/ariadne/projekte/frauen_waehlet/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919043018/http://www.voceevangelica.ch/miscellanea/miscellanea.cfm?item=12470 to http://www.voceevangelica.ch/miscellanea/miscellanea.cfm?item=12470
*Added  tag to http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/01361697557806725311802/p0000001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113052/http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collectionsdelete/representation-of-the-people-act-1918/ to http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collectionsdelete/representation-of-the-people-act-1918/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904055106/http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203020826/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=8 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407131133/http://www.realclearworld.com/news/reuters/international/2011/Sep/24/uae_s_second_election_has_low_turnout.html to http://www.realclearworld.com/news/reuters/international/2011/Sep/24/uae_s_second_election_has_low_turnout.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020055356/http://www.rownetraktowanie.gov.pl/aktualnosci/otwarcie-wystawy-kobiety-w-parlamencie to http://rownetraktowanie.gov.pl/aktualnosci/otwarcie-wystawy-kobiety-w-parlamencie
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917143112/http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyId=1619 to http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyId=1619
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924004311/http://womenincongress.house.gov/ to http://womenincongress.house.gov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819080640/http://www.elections.org.nz/study/education-centre/history/votes-for-women.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/study/education-centre/history/votes-for-women.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=8dHBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA157&dq=women%27s%20social%20and%20political%20union%20emmeline%20pankhurst&hl=en&ei=H9CHTsvJCoPEtAbCyMTgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/saudi-king-women-given-right-to-vote-for-first-time-in-2015-nationwide-local-elections/2011/09/25/gIQAt4wwvK_story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218023529/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130225154468 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130225154468
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718133300/http://www.yachtingnet.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/pankhurst01.html to http://www.yachtingnet.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/pankhurst01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 ChessieClio (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Women's suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308193947/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/articles/womens-suffrage to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/womens-suffrage
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ::The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.
This doesn't seem to make sense. Is it misworded? Should the last sentence say enfranchised, not disenfranchised? I can't read the linked source to determine what was intended 2602:306:CC95:B20:BD47:E9E4:C102:E31 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah and (dis)enfranchisement 

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

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

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

message: Turkey is in Europe.
--Ail Subway (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey is part Europe, part Middle East - a tricky one!--Aciram (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

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

message: I believe that when nations have their own articles about women's suffrage, the information presented on this overview page should be brief in favour of not excessively duplicating that information, so as to give greater precidence to other nations reflected on this overview page which lack their own articles.
To serve as an example, the nations of Japan/Kuwait/Switzerland all have their own articles and only a brief paragraph on this overview page. I think that is how the US/UK sections should look. There is a problem when the section on nations with their own pages are bigger than the sections on nations which do not.
For example, compare the size of the UK/US sections to the section about Canada, which doesn't yet have its own page. Ranze (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: there are two problems here --a very short statement about each country means the reader will never be able to get a world-wide viewpoint, which is the main goal of the article. Second, it gives every flag equal space which means some movements get 10 or 100x more attention proportionate to their female population. I think each country where there is solid infotrmation should get a couple paragraphsRjensen (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the problems related to short statements about each country. Also, the endless listing of tiny places that were "first" to extend suffrage to women tells readers nothing about why it happened there or didn't happen elsewhere. Surely there can be some regional discussions - also, it is missing any reference to organizing activities/actions across Latin America, which had active women's groups in the early 20th century, who gained suffrage in numerous places.Parkwells (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:    Ranze is surely right that ultimately, we do not need big sections for nations that have their own page, yet it is true that removing information that might give us a bigger picture might be a mistake.  If for example the Women's suffrage in the UK or US was demonstrated to have a big influence on other countries, which I suspect to be the case, then perhaps we might need to retain a bit more info on this page about it.  For the time being, it is usual for the main English speaking nations to put the work in most in their countries, but when the information comes in for the other countries, we should be aiming for a balanced world view.
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The readers can skip over the countries that do not interest them in one second, so they are not inconvenienced by having a surplus of information. No change is needed, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: US/UK/Australia sections too big