Talk:Millicent Fawcett

message: when did she live?
who/what was she?
what did they fight for?
How did her and Emmeline Pankhurst differ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.186.93 (talk • contribs) 
:Erm, it's all there in the article.... Codeine 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like a homework request to me... Bluap 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Are we sure about that photo?  Fawcett was 64 years old in 1913: the woman in the photo looks much younger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.4.4 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. Did she have a daughter or niece for whom the date would fit? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Probably dates from 1870's see http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/75359137/Hulton-Archive  211.31.63.53 (talk)
That's the youngest looking 64 year old I have ever seen.  The 1913 date of the photo is clearly incorrect.  She appears to be in her early 20's in the picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.101.90 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The ifno givern in this article contradicts other wikipedia articles.
Does anyone has a reference on whether the NUWSS did or did not stop its campaigns on the outbreak of war.
Also, it seems to me that if the organization used the argument "look how useful women are to the war effort so we deserve the vote", this is called "supporting the war"! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vellacott  says "Expectations of a short war led all groups initially to suspend the suffrage campaign".  However, this is a somewhat separate issue from supporting the war, which of course could be at various levels. The leadership of both organisations broadly supported the war, but there were also splits in both over pacifism and support for international anti-war campaigns.  Don't forget the 1918 act was hammered out during 1915/6 so all interested parties would have been active at that time.  211.31.63.53 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: world war one

message: About her involvement in South Africa:
Millicent Garrett Fawcett was an investigative journalist who was pro-war. Fawcett justified the maltreatment of Boer women and children in the concentration camps by stating that they participated in war by supplying their men with vital British military information, making them part of the war effort and consequently deserving of the same war treatment as any enemy. She blamed the Boer mothers for the children’s deaths. She often emphasised “race” and described the unhygienic conditions kept by the Boer women, but failed to mention that they were not supplied with soap in the concentration camps. She compared Boers to 17th century English ignorant peasants.
Paula M. Krebs. Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire: Public Discourse and the Boer War. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999), 69.
Astator (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Boer war

message: It says here that Fawcett was granted an honorary LLD by St. Andrew's University in 1905. According to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, she was granted the LLD in 1899.
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/33096
Who's wrong? נועה קידרמן (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not "Who's wrong?", but is "What is cited?" That which is cited always takes precedence. Thank you for bringing this here. I;ve altered the article to reflect the additional piece of information. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorary LLD by St. Andrew's University - When?

message: Among the list of Fawcett's achievements, why is it mentioned that she was a 'mother and wife'? I've never seen any male figure introduced as a 'father and husband'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.17.227.66 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Job' description 

message: References 4, 6, 7 and 8 are various pages in 'Manton', but no details of who or what Manton is are given.
AFAICS, this has been so since 13 Nov 2016 at 15:43 - so over a year.
Can somebody who knows about this sort it out?
86.162.138.185 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that 'Manton' is a reference to Jo Manton's biography of Millicent Fawcett's sister, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, entitled Elizabeth Garrett Anderson: England's First Woman Physician. But I'm not certain. JezGrove (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I had guessed that, but that is the point. It was a guess. Once upon a time, over a year ago, an editor put those refs in and knew what they referred to!   86.162.138.185 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it looks like Nedrutland might be able to help? JezGrove (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Watch this space. 86.162.138.185 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was the biography of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson that was intended. (This page lacked info that was on Eliz's page). Nedrutland (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your prompt action! 86.162.138.185 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference details 

message: There does not need to be twelve "External links" creating a link farm. Otr500 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It seems out of order to mention "Later years", that include death, then carry on with "Political activities". I suggest these two be exchanged to follow a natural presentation.  Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: The "Marriage and family", "Later years", and "Political activities" needs to be reorganized because it is confusing. The death of her husband in 1884 should be covered in the "Marriage and family" as she was only 37 and not generally considered "later in life". There are other instances where reorganizing would ease navigation like the second paragraph in "Later years" should be under "Political activities" to begin the second sentence. I have to step away so am just listing things I have found to look at later unless someone else looks at these things. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: Am pinging editors active in the last two months here who might be interested.  This should be a good article and I suspect does not require a significant amount of work to get there.  A couple of quick thoughts of what is needed to get there.  Others who are interested please add, amend, correct.
:1. Second paragraph of lead needs development to cover life more adequately.
:(within the article):
:2. Relations with other parts of the suffrage/suffragette movement.
:3. Fawcett and the historiographic debate about success/failure of the suffrage movement
:4. Detail on role in pioneering women's access to education
:5. political views and political evolution (anti-labour, free-trading liberal, pro-empire)
:6. later years to expand.
:7. work in 1901 on reports on Boer War needs clarity. 
:8. There's some copyvio issues to clean up
:9. Only two references need clean up
--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: take to good article status?

message: An interesting aside and newsprint headline that Fawcett missed the actual passing of the Act by one minute.
https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2020/01/07/five-remarkable-women-who-shaped-the-1920s/ or source?
Kaybeesquared (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Minute Late

message: Made an undo-edit twice in order to remove anon.changes to her name as in the main section of the article. Hope this is acceptable as the anon. was not correct change.
Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted to original name version