Talk:Suffragette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women's Suffrage[edit]

If there is no more comprehensive article than this about women's gaining of the vote, then I suggest that this page be retitled "Women's Suffrage" and that references to suffragists and suffragettes be absorbed into it. It would benefit from a comprehensive timeline, the earliest historical references to women voting, countries that still do not have women's suffrage or less than full suffrage, etc.--Hugh7 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article called Women's suffrage and one called Suffrage - this article is specifically about the British suffragettes. BTW, new posts should go at the end of the page. Richerman (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Suffragette" vs "Suffragist"[edit]

In Britain the suffragette and suffragist movements were separate, suffragettes being more militant than the suffragists, they used speeches as ways of protest.(WSPU).

Author Rosalie Maggio in her terrific book The Bias-Free Word Finder: A Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language notes that women in Britian used the term "suffragette" while American women preferred "suffragist." People who wanted to denigrate the American woman's work used the "suffragette" label. I would hope that Wikipedia would use the more inclusive "suffragist" as the main listing and then refer readers to "suffragette" from that link. Jean Richards

Some time ago I added in that "suffragette" was coined because men who didnt want women to get the right to vote wished to make these suffragists seem petty and childish. It was later deleted in an edit. Was this information incorrect? Or was it accidentally removed? Edgecombe

I agree with your interpretation. Though I'm not sure why it your comment was removed, I see no problem with you putting it back into the article. Here's a quote:
The struggle for women's equality in Great Britain started long before the turn of the twentieth century. One of the very first "suffragettes" (the term coined as an insult by the London Daily Mail, but adopted easily by the female suffragists1) was Mary Smith, an unmarried property owner. In 1832 she quietly petitioned Parliament urging the inclusion of propertied women as those priveleged to vote for members of Parliament.[1]

BTW, Edgecombe: It has become customary around Wikipedia to enter new comments at the bottom of the talk page. By all means, go ahead and move this sequence there. Also, if you want to date your comment (a good idea) just add four tildes. Sunray 06:19, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

should the broken British Universities link perhaps link to List of British universities?

Excellent idea! I did it after seeing your suggestion -- next time, Be bold and make the change yourself! :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i've just come here trying to find out the difference between suffragettes and suffragists; i'm sure a distinction exists, but am surprised to see it go unmentioned.

Here's what the Columbia Guide to Standard American English says of the difference:

"A suffragette historically was 'a woman advocating women’s right to vote'. A suffragist is 'anyone, male or female, who advocates the extension of the right to vote to all, but particularly to women'. Some people objected to suffragette originally because it began as a derisive term, but the more important objection was and is that it is narrow in scope, since it can be applied only to women and not to all who might support the same political view. Suffragette is now archaic in the United States, both for those reasons and because women now have the vote. But in some countries the issue is very much alive, and Americans will find suffragist the more generic term to use in discussing the issue. http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/5827.html

I think that some of the articles in Wikipedia could be edited with this definition in mind. Sunray 02:34, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

In terms of women's suffrage in Britain, suffragettes took violent action to publicise and further their cause, while suffragists were only in favour of non-violent action. This is an important distinction. I hope to get a chance to have a crack at re-writing.
- 98.217.61.141 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Suffragette" was used as a term of derision in the US. The proper contemporary term was suffragist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.172.151 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Window smashing[edit]

Would someone please write here about window smashing and arson? I've found that that an a9.com search for "window smashing" suffragette gets good results if you click on the "book results". Everyone loves suffragettes but very few people knew they were so non-compliant as to break windows! Contemporary window smashers could sure be seen in a more historically honest light if more people knew about window smashing suffragettes. So please, would someone do a write up?

I've added "window-smashing" to the article based on a couple of accounts I found. However, I didn't turn up much on the strategy behind window-smashing. I assume it was to: a) show outrage and defiance, b) make noise, c) do minor property damage, and thus, d) draw attention to the cause. Please go ahead and add details to the article. Sunray 03:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

the window smashing was as part of the sufferagettes' campaign of property damage, whuich was done in the hope of drawing attention to their cause.--Sstabeler July 4, 2005 19:06 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

i noticed that this article had been vandalised,i dare not copy and paste what was said, and so i reverted to what seemed the last good revision. i thought it would be best to tell everyone why i reverted. sorry, i forgot to sign---Sstabeler July 4, 2005 20:11 (UTC)


You mean you can't withstand from reverting an article on accepting you can revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.153.163 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second section[edit]

"Suffragettes carried out such minor offences as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to the contents of mailboxes and window-smashing." The first is a very minor offence, and the last is petty vandalism...however, the second is actually illegal in Britain and I'm sure it's not just a minor offence. This is from scotsman.com, too: "In Britain from 1905 until 1914, the suffragettes mounted the most substantial acts of political violence that this country had ever seen. Most people will only think of the harm the women famously reported on themselves; they are often represented as gentle Edwardian ladies who hurt their own bodies as political protest, but did not transgress any other lines. Yet Christabel Pankhurst physically attacked men; Mary Leigh climbed roofs, brandishing hatchets and hurling tiles; they burned down pavilions and railway stations and threw weapons into the prime minister’s carriage. Post boxes were filled with kerosene and acid then set alight, telephone wires were cut between London and Glasgow, bombs were set off. In one six-week period, there were 43 cases of suffragette arson, including the destruction of three Scottish castles." (from http://leisure.scotsman.com/outdoors/justphenomenal_specific.cfm?articleid=1438) I don't know if it's really fair to say that the Suffragettes' actions were always "minor". --Dandelions 10:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Please note that I have removed the picture, as it is irrelevant to the title. Suffragette actually only refered to members of the Women's Social and Political Union. I am currently working on a history of female suffrage in the UK and I may chage this page further as I progress. 1955 GMT 26/09/05 Levi_allemany

I disagree, a Suggragette would be one intending on moving towards suffrage, which is not unique to members of the Women's Social and Political Union. To this end I have reverted the picture. Mallocks 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I do not wish to cause argument, and I am sorry if I have caused upset. Secondly, I am not a novice to the subject. I have studied an A level in it last year, and I recieved full marks on the exam, a particularly hard feat on a history paper. The main reason why I question the use of the picture is because of the complaint caused by the misuse of the term 'Suffragette' at the time of the campain. All organisations apart from the WSPU in the UK were under a larger umbrella group known as the NUWSS (National Union for Womens' Suffrage Societies), which was actually far bigger than the WSPU.

They called themselves 'suffragists' rather than suffragettes in order to disassociate themselves with the violent acts that the vast majority of them disagreed with. The NUWSS complained bitterly that the work of the suffragettes slowed the campain which they had been building for 40 years. They believed that the suffragettes did not demonstrate actions contrary to the emotional, irrational steiotype of the age.

I call for a change to this picture primarily because the woman pictured would have almost certainly disputed the term 'suffragette' prefering it for 'suffragist'. I propose that the picture is relaced with one of a member or members or the WSPU, in order to define the term as one for violent protestors, which it is now historically used as.

2014 GMT 26/09/05 Levi_allemany

However the article as written *at present* provides enough support for that picture in my opinion. I will not question you on an area of relative expertise, I merely go on the information available to me at the time. Were the page as it stands more similar to the facts that you lay out, I would agree with the removal of the picture, as it stands I cannot. Mallocks 19:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. Although I do not have time now, I shall rewrite the article soon. Also, this page has become somewhat of a history of the Votes for Women Campain in the UK. I am presently preparing to write a page on this, and so I will edit this page primarily to define suffragette. With a good page on the WSPU, it will not need to be so large, as the WSPU page will describe most events and the such, this page dealing primarily with the etymology of the term.

Sorry I I caused upset, it is a very common error to confuse suffragists and suffragettes, indeed one I myself made before studying the subject in depth. Levi_allemany 2030, 26/09/05 GMT

Thank you for this small lesson in the difference between a suffragette and suffragist, and their history, I appreciate it, and hope that some of it makes it into the relevant articles.68.147.13.95 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information in this article, I agree that this American woman is NOT a "suffragette" and the picture should not be here because it does not complement the article. I'm not taking it out myself, but someone should replace it with an actual suffragette as described by the article. In the meantime, at least it helps demythologize the supposedly great Woodrow Wilson whose many flaws have been glossed over by history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.5.146 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite?[edit]

Today, the term suffragette is considered to be diminutive and disrespectful. Suffragist is the preferred term.

This is incorrect.

Hunger strike[edit]

What is "garageroot"? Google turns up no hits. Amcfreely 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it, and added to the use of the emotive word "horrible" in the same context, and the fact that the sentence is a specific example not belonging in an overview, I suspect it is a hoax and have removed it until someone can provide evidence. BrainyBabe 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Confusion[edit]

I've read through this sentence several times, and am still confused about it. Does the list describe conditions which must ALL be met, or would any one of the conditions suffice for suffrage? "Political movement towards women's suffrage began during the war and in 1918, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed an act granting the vote to: women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5, and graduates of British universities. " Popher 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • As studying this is history, can perhaps explain what I understand to be the truth now. The 1918 Representation of the People act gave the vote to women who owned a house, married to someone who owned a house, or paid an annual rent of £5 or more.: 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suffragists/Suffragettes and UK/US[edit]

There is too much history regarding women's suffrage for it all to be contained in one article. There could be a general article Womens Suffrage movement but there would have to be short sections on the movements in all the different countries.

Then pages on the WSPU founded in 1903 and led by Emmeline, Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst, who later become called 'suffragettes' by the Daily Mail as this was a degoratory term and the suffragists or constitutionlists who were peaceful and led by Millicent Fawcett. Her organization was the NUWSS which was founded in 1898 and the Pankhursts belonged to this at first.

What is also necessary is pages on all the other movements which I do not know anything about. 82.35.184.195 10:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Artemisia82.35.184.195 10:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'll do some work on this when I have the time. I think that suffragists and suffragettes need different articles - by around 1912 the two groups had completely separated. Is this possible? Srxcef 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, Suffragette was a term used exclusively for members of the British WSPU. So the picture and much of the text really should be edited to reflect this. Members of the non-violent NUWSS were 'suffragists' - as were American campaigners, it seems. This article could perhaps be redirected to WSPU, and a note be left there explaining the differences between suffragettes and suffragists of various countries (as with suffragist). poorsod 15:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Removed redlinks"[edit]

I disagree with the removal of the red links, on principle: don't red links indicate a subject that merits the creation of a new WP article, thus encouraging other users to add material to the linked page (if they know something about the subject)? They're valid contributions -- not "dead" links that need to be deleted, but links to articles that have yet to be written. Should we revert these deletions? Let me know your thoughts. --Smobri 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree; but "Uda B. Ahoe" appears to be vandalism. There are no Google hits for it (other than Wikipedia!) and if you pronounce it phonetically it sounds like a prank. The other two seem valid, although I am not personally familiar with them. My argument against including red links here is because they are in a "See also" section. This refers the reader to "see" an article that does not exist. Seems like a dead end instead of soliciting someone to write a new article. --Jeremy Butler 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! I take your point.  :-) Best, --Smobri 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Infringement[edit]

The beginning of this article is identical to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm page.

I couldn't find any references or copyright notices to that url/site. Hence wasn't sure if everything was correct.

D.schorsch (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- byMoonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Election[edit]

In the article is written: "1912 was a turning point for the Suffragettes in the UK as they turned to using more militant tactics such as chaining themselves to railings, [...] This was because the current Prime Minister at the time, Asquith, nearly signed a document giving women [...] the right to vote. But he pulled out at the last minute, as he thought the women may vote against him in the next General Election". Is it meant the 1918 general election? And way he thought that the women would vote against him? Does anyone know more detailed information? Thanks in advance! --Dia^ (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grimké[edit]

Why has Angelina Grimké's name been omitted from the USA list?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosa Lichtenstein: Not sure if omitted or overlooked, I've added her name in now.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a bunch of names to the list. I hope this is okay. When i went to the page today there was only Anthony and Stanton. --Frederika Eilers (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a man claims women have husbands to vote for them[edit]

why is that man included in a list of suffragettes?

Frederick Douglass should be removed. He was an important figure in the movement mainly for his controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.172.151 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism vs. Women's Rights[edit]

The Women's Rights movement, including the Suffragettes, were not a part of the Feminist ideology. As feminists are a more malicious entity in modern days than they were before, they frequently like to claim that they were responsible for women's suffrage. Feminism is to be treated as a third party and the Feminism sidebar and categories have no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeissAllen (talk • contribs)

The women's suffrage movement is widely described as feminist by reliable sources. Here's one example: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174664 —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These reliable sources aren't so reliable, as the Women's Rights movement and Feminist ideology are two separate things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeissAllen (talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 January 2016

See first-wave feminism William Avery (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeissAllen appears to be unfamiliar with the RS that cover the topic. It's perhaps a matter of his POV re 2016 issues. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Who fought for women's right to vote in Britain?[edit]

This statement “British suffragettes were mostly women from upper- and middle-class backgrounds, frustrated by their social and economic situation.” is factually incorrect and not backed up by any references. Long before the 2015 film "Suffragette" serious women's historians in Britain (and of course not to mention Sylvia Pankhurst herself") were documenting working women's involvement n the movement - see notably "One Hand Tied Behind Us“, Jill Liddington and jill Norris, Virago, London 1978. Making a distinction between the WSPU and other suffrage socieites on the use of the term suffragettes is pointless here, the East End Federarion of Sylvia Pankhurst started off as a WSPU branch. it's just an incorrect and unfortnately widespread misconception. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scope of this article?[edit]

There are two hatnotes at the top of this article - one says that it is about women's suffrage in Great Britain and the other one says 'For the U.S. womens suffrage movement, see Women's suffrage in the United States'. Some time ago I removed the constantly growing list of suffragists in other countries but the American one has been added back and is growing again. As I understand it, the preferred term in America at the time was 'suffragist' rather than 'suffragette' and indeed our article Women's suffrage in the United States only uses the term 'suffragette' once and that is only in an image caption. I can see that the first hatnote on this article could be changed to read 'Great Britain and Ireland' as there were strong links between the movements in the two countries and the WSPU had an Irish branch, but shouldn't the American lists of notable suffragists be confined to the Women's suffrage in the United States article? Also do we need all that stuff in the lead about when suffrage was achieved in countries other than Great Britain and Ireland? Richerman (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic terrorism"[edit]

Looking at the facts mentioned, some of them alleged, isn't the term excessive ? --Japarthur (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colours[edit]

The Colours section of this page includes a reference to an article on http://antiquesjournal.com/ that is no longer online. As it isn't available, I'm unable to review a few claims made in the page about suffragette jewellery that I believe may be refuted by scholars. I haven't deleted the reference yet but will return and link the colours section to a new article on suffragette jewellery once it is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dma132 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VERY dubious source[edit]

Almost everything in the "Arson, property damage and domestic terrorism" section is sourced to http://www.heretical.com - a white supremecist / misogenist site run by Simon_Sheppard_(activist), which (after a brief look at the contents) appears to blame Jews and Feminists for everything wrong with Western society. Investigating further, I see that all the dubious statements were added on 9th Sept 2017 by User:Floofmaster (which constitutes his entire contribution to Wikipedia). I'll remove it all. Iapetus (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this out! I'm confused whether this article is for usa of UK. But, most of what I know about the UK movement comes from Hammond's book [[2]]. I agree with your edit to remove this content as it is not well sourced Fred (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Fred, suffragettes were a primarily a UK phenomenon. Emmeline Pankhurst went to the US and persuaded some women to join with her, as is evidenced by the photograph of the young woman selling suffragette papers in New York, but few American women callled themselves suffragettes. I keep meaning to add something about this to the article to make it clear but haven't got round to it yet. I've spent a fair bit of time removing lists of suffragists from other countries from this article as most of them didn't identify as suffragettes. Richerman (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[user: richerman]] perhaps the problem is that there is no suffragist page and wikipedia and google searches for that word redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederika Eilers (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Suffragette. 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:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source[edit]

I am intrigued by the claim that the (once derisory) term “suffragette” was adopted by the movement itself with a hardened “g”. The reference for this claim is Suffragette Sally a novel by Gertrude Colmore. Does anyone know a more authoritative reference? If not, I suspect this claim should be removed. TobyGoodwin (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


citation for period of violence[edit]

I have added a citation of the 2018 book by Diane Atkinson ISBN 978 1 4088 4044 5 which runs in chronological order, and has several chapters (pp listed on citation) which will support the statement in the text re 1910 - 1914. Have not removed the 'citation required' template in case that is not considered sufficient cite.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism[edit]

A question has been raised here on whether the Suffragette's were terrorists - additional voices would be appreciated -----Snowded TALK 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be a storm in a teacup - three socks blocked including the originator but it may be worth putting Terrorism onto a watch list in case it comes up again -----Snowded TALK 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK we need some more editors involved in this. The sockfarm may or may not be in operation but this is an active discussion -----Snowded TALK 09:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Banks is a fictional character[edit]

Edited by anon user has added Winifred Banks to the list of notable suffragettes in Great Britain. She is a fictional character.

I have added these words in front of her name on the listing but would support UNDO of previous edit.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaybeesquared: I removed her as being fictional before I saw this thread! DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill Thanks I would support that decision, Thanks

Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Historiology (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Historiology (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Voting in the US[edit]

I'm removing "white" in the sentence about the US in the Background section because there were no actual laws that restricted voters to one race. Black women technically had the legal right to vote in the territories of Wyoming and Utah, and there is at least one eyewitness account (by Justice John Kingman) of Black women voting in Wyoming in 1876. 2600:100A:B1CA:59C3:0:A:4562:E401 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suffragette&oldid=1218385652"