Talk:Timeline of women's suffrage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spain

The entry for Spain (year 1931) read previously like follows: "Spain (of practical effect until the Spanish Civil War)." I have removed the comment between parentheses because:

• It is not true. After the Spanish Civil War of 1936, Franco's dictatorship started. Evidently, elections were suppressed but, as happens with other dictatorships, an appearance of popular legitimacy was preserved. Several referendums were held and the so called tercio familiar was elected by married people (take a look at [1]). In both cases, men and women could vote.
• Other countries have also suffered dictatorships and nothing is said in the article. For example, Germany, Cuba. The countries invaded by the Nazis during WWII lost their right to vote, but nothing is said. I believe that the aim of the article is not to inform when women have had the opportunity of voting, but when they received that right. It is evident that women cannot vote if nobody has the right to vote.

Zapatancas 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag usage

I don't think that all these entries should show the flag, because what is shown is the current national (or sometimes subnational) flag, which is not representative of the original historical entry introducing women's suffrage. Some examples: Canada, Zimbabwe (in 1957 there was no Zimbabwe), New Jersey, Lesotho, Iran, Rwanda, Egypt, Comoros, Ethiopia, Belize, Grenada, Barbados, Niger, Surinam, China, Cameroon, Kenya ...

Another point: I seriously doubt, that Moldova introduced women's suffrage only in 1978, as it was an integral republic of the USSR then. I also have my doubt with some of the other Soviet Republics (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan ...)--82.135.28.22 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution might be to insert the flag used at the time? Punkmorten 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This looks like a great article, but we should really have sources for this kind of thing. I'm going to add an unreferenced tag to the page.wes 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IRAQ

how come Iraq is mentioned both in 1948 and 1980? --84.228.239.165 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the 1980s is wrong, there were no election or anything (no voiting rights for neither women or men) after 1958.--Maha Odeh 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not clear

In some of these lists, the year mentioned has given first time voting rights to men as well as women; since in some countries there was no voting at all and when it was allowed it was allowed equally. An explanation should be added.--Maha Odeh 06:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it more clear in the 1st paragraph that some nations had done it at the same time. That-Vela-Fella 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When Canadian women got the vote

Certain canadian women got the federal vote in 1917. The Wartime Elections Act of 1917 gave the right to vote to army nurses and the female relations of soldiers - mothers, daughters, wives and sisters. (Concomitant to that, the right to vote was removed from enemy aliens, recent citizens emigrated from enemy countries.) This right to vote was granted in advance of an election in which conscription was the key issue. It was thought that these women would vote for the governing party - which supported conscription - in hopes of 'bringing their boys home'. The conscriptionists won and the policy came into being.

-reference: "Women at War", Canada: The Twentieth Century (1995) Fitzhenry & Whitside Limited: Markham, Ontario

In 1918, as correctly stated, another law was passed giving all Canadian women the federal vote.

142.22.48.13 02:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweden

The passage on Sweden is incorrect. Universal proportional suffrage was introduced in 1909 for men. The first election held in which universal suffrage for women was in 1921. --Soman 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Belarus

The flag of Belarus that is present here cannot be right. It is the flag of present-day Belarus, since 1995.

In 1919, Belarus was not a stable country. There were different formations in its territory - Belarusian National Republic, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Litbel, etc.

If the suffrage was granted in the laws of the Belarusian National Republic, then the template should be {{flag|Belarus|1991}} (BNR used the same flag as Belarus in 1991-1995).

If the suffrage was granted in the laws of Byelorussian SSR, then it is hard to say what should the template be, because the BSSR didn't yet have a stable flag in 1919. {{flag|Belarus|SSR}} should not be used, because that flag was designed in the 1950's. See Flag of Belarus for more details. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, so which of the 2 flags in 1919 is best for it? I guess it'll have to be seen actually when in that year it was done. I'll try looking more into it & then go from there, unless someone else knows for sure.That-Vela-Fella 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem: i don't know which of the republics declared this - the Soviet or the National. I asked on Talk:Belarus. In the meantime i put the National Republic's flag, because there just is no icon for the 1919 Soviet republic ... --Amir E. Aharoni 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to find the exact date & government in 1919 that allowed woman suffrage to begin with. But if it is the correct year, it'll have to be one of the 2 red flags (Soviet) at that time used (as shown here List of flags of Belarus). Highly doubtful though it'll be the National flag since it preceded that year when they were in power. That-Vela-Fella 10:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Belarusian National Republic, it existed in 1918-1919, so it is possible. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Highly doubtful they enacted it at the start of the year when the Soviet government was established the day after New Year's (Lithuanian-Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) & the Soviets are seen as ones who believed on equality for the masses. Only possible way maybe for the Nationals to enact it was during the exile, but not likely. That-Vela-Fella 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I found who added it: diff for the adding of Belarus.

It wasn't sourced and the user doesn't seem to be contributing anymore. :(

We can both speculate forever, but until someone can find a proper source for it, i say that it is best to just remove Belarus altogether, 'cuz without a source it is meaningless. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still looking at Belarusian history now, but I have not found much about the female suffrage yet. It has been affirmed in 1994 with the passage of the State Constitution, but I don't know when it began. Regardless, I highly suggest to use the w/r/w tricolor as the flag if the date is 1919. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As much as i like it myself, we cannot use the w/r/w flag just because it's nice. We need to know which of governments passed this law, if at all. Were there any elections whatsoever in Belarus in 1919? --Amir E. Aharoni 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; from what I was told, a lot of their history has been lost due to the Soviets and due to the War. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From digging around, the only other suggestion that says when this occurred for Belarus is around the era when they were in the Russian Empire. However, there is no sources for it. I do wish to give a suggestion; can we use the confirmation date of 1994 for Belarus? Even if we do that, the flag does not change at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp-ctc-19th-amendment.jpg

Image:Stamp-ctc-19th-amendment.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal is listed twice. Also it was not even a semblance of democracy until 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Samoa

The article says that women obtained the right to vote in Samoa in 1990. I'm not entirely certain that's correct. What happened in 1990 was that universal suffrage was established. Prior to that, only matai (heads of family) could vote. While a matai is usually a man, a woman may be matai (cf. F.J.H. Grattan, An Introduction to Samoan Custom, p.13). If all matai had the right to vote, that would mean that some women (a minority) were able to vote long before 1990. No source is provided in the article, so that would need checking. Aridd (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweden in the 18th century

I've just inserted the fact that women were allowed to vote during the age of liberty, until 1771. This was just women who were members of the guilds, however, and usually, they sent a male to represent them. In another source than that I have referenced here ("Nyttan och nöjet" about the age of liberty by Herman Lindqvist), also mention this and claims that they were even female politicians in local parliaments, and mentions a "Mrs Strang" in the city of Köping, but I'm not sure I understood it correctly - it was very briefly mentioned - so I didn't include that. I don't know if that info belongs here? If someone know anything, perhaps that person could insert that! Best wishes! --85.226.235.171 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

I know that in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth women had the right to be elected King, but could they be elected to office (in theory), such as Chancellor or Hetman, could they vote in the Sejmiks (local Parliaments) or in the General Sejm (Parliament), did they partake in the election of Kings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move talk page after article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Talk:Timeline of women's suffrage worldwide → Talk:Timeline of women's suffrage – Just requesting that this talk page be moved. Not sure why it wasn't moved when the article was. Article is currently located at Timeline of women's suffrage. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Poland 1795

The article say: "Poland prior to the Partition of Poland in 1795, tax-paying females were allowed to take part in political life". What does this mean? It does not say that they were allowed to vote, and it should be specific, because of course, women everywhere "participated in political life" in one way or another. Should not this sentence be specified and referenced or removed?--Aciram (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I will remove this phrase now - I rephrased it earlier, assuming that it must be about voting rights, but as I was not the original author of the phrase, I do not feel entitled to change it. --Aciram (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand

I'm not quite sure where to put this so I'm adding it here. I'm sure it will make me very unpopular in New Zealand but - oh well.

"New Zealand in 1893 is considered the first major nation to give all women the right to vote." It may be considered that by some people but it wasn't. It wasn't a nation but a self-governing colony. Its parliament couldn't make foreign policy, or start or end a war, or exercise more than a limited control of its economy. In the above statement "nation" is doing duty for "sovereign state". New Zealand wasn't that until maybe 1931 when Britain passed the Statute of Westminster, or 1947 when New Zealand finally adopted it. Moreover, in 1893, with fewer than 1 million people, New Zealand wasn't a "major" anything. It was a small self-governing British colony. Also - I'm relying on my memory here - in 1893, the act enfranchising women only gave the vote to women 30 and over. Finally, in the early 1790s the French Revolutionary republic, at Olympe de Gouges's urging, extended the vote to all adult women. That was a vote for a sovereign assembly, not a colonial one; it applied to all women and France was a world power. OK it didn't last long enough to ever be used but let's get things in perspective. Women got the vote in New Zealand just as they had earlier been enfranchised for municipal elections in the UK. The following year South Australia extended the same right to its women. But women in New Zealand and Australia - and men - didn't have rights to vote for sovereign assemblies until their countries achieved full political independence from Britain, in both cases probably sometime after 1919 when Britain extended the vote to some women for its sovereign assembly.

I know many New Zealanders find this information unsettling because a generation has now grown up believing New Zealand was the first country in the world to give the vote to women. I've posted some further information on this matter elsewhere in a discussion on another part of this article. Peter Entwisle (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement about France is plain wrong. Olympe de Gouges did not manage to urge anybody to do anything - she was guillotined. “Sous la Révolution, à la suite du discours de l'abbé Sieyès (il quitte la prêtrise 6 ans après) du 20-21 juillet 1789, distinguant entre citoyens « actifs » et « passifs », les femmes furent classées, comme les enfants, les étrangers et tous ceux ne pouvant s'acquitter d'un cens électoral, dans cette seconde catégorie. Malgré l'appel de Condorcet, elles furent ainsi officiellement exclues du droit de vote par l'Assemblée nationale le 22 décembre 1789, exclusion maintenue par la Constitution de 1791 puis par un vote de la Convention nationale le 24 juillet 1793, quelques mois avant l'exécution d'Olympe de Gouges, auteur de la Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne en 1791.” (French wikipedia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_vote_des_femmes#De_l.27Ancien_r.C3.A9gime_.C3.A0_la_R.C3.A9volution). PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Graph / timeline

Would be good to show a graph of the progress over the years, either a timeline of countries that have adopted it or a graph of the population of those countries as the percentage of women who can vote increases over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.59.22 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Germany not mentioned at all

Why the complete silence on Germany? Norvo (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Write about women's sufferage in Germany after the fall of the Third Reich. Compare both Germany states. Was there a debate? Remember Hitler wouldn't have got elected without the male only electorate to give his party the requisite representation to seize power. Women didn't go to war and probably were less sympathetic to those coming out of the first world war to vote for the Nazis. Kylecrabtree (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

India

Why is India listed twice? Is this in reference to its constitution coming into force? The lack of context makes the double listing unintelligible to most readers. Panoramalama (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of 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/20080526121949/http://www.lomb.cgil.it/8marzo/8marzo99/voto.htm to http://www.lomb.cgil.it/8marzo/8marzo99/voto.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610120752/http://www.hist.uu.se/historikermote05/program/Politik/52_Karlsson_Sjogren.pdf to http://www.hist.uu.se/historikermote05/program/Politik/52_Karlsson_Sjogren.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania-- These countries gained independence in 1918. Before that regulations of Russian empire with regional exceptions were in force. Arvo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.165.108 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

--Belgium-- Vote in 1919 only for limited categories of women (widows of soldiers etc), vote on local level granted in 1920. I'll adapt the article in that way. 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElseF (talk • contribs)

--Kazakhstan--

I think the kazakhstan suffrage date is misleading-the date given is 1993, but this ignores the fact that until 1991 Kazakhstan was part of the USSR which did (on paper) grant women suffrage (certainly men could not be said to have the vote more than women). Can somebody check this? I suspect the date might be the date a Kazakhstan constitution was adopted or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.239.249 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

--Australia-- Australia didn't grant universal suffrage until 1962 with the end of legislative discrimination against Aboriginal peoples, which gave native women the vote. I've edited the page.

_______

Hello authors of this page - thanks

One suggestion ( I know I should do it) could you put in the dates of universal suffrage or any suffrage. This might give a better indication of what was happening. Chad

---

I've seen four separate dates for Bermuda's suffrage. 1968 was the year of universal suffrage. The date for property-holding whites only, however, has been given as '38, '40 and '44. The '40 date seemed a little suspect, but I've seen both the '38 and '44 dates in the same documents. '44 featured a parliamentary vote granting white women the right to vote, so '38 may have been "property-holding white women" only. ~Nitjanirasu

I added a little bit to Pakistan's date of suffrage, to clarify that it was in 1947 because that's when the country came into existence. I think it would probably be best to add similar notes for all countries as they come into being, as otherwise women's suffrage is an even more depressing tale than it actually is. --Tav

Use of a Table for the Information

I think that removing all existing sections and putting the information into a sortable table would be much cleaner. The huge number of tiny sections detracts from the information. Plus, having a sortable table would allow a sort by country, something that would be very nice to have. Suggested columns would be:

• Year
• Country
• State (part of a country)
  • This would allow things like US states to be listed under the US as a whole - Example would have YYYY USA Colorado Note
• Notes

RSStockdale (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Crimean Republic.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sub-titles

The use of so many sub-titles makes the article is unnecessary (see WP:PARAGRAPH}, hope you don't mind if they go. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand and Pitcairn Islands

The article states, “New Zealand: first self-governing colony in the world in which all women are given the right to vote in parliamentary elections.” While also saying that the Pitcairn Islands gave females suffrage earlier. Also, none of New Zealand’s sources directly state this. Pitcairn was a self-governing colony, so should I remove this sentence? KnolGua (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Australia vs New Zealand first country to give women the vote

So I think this should be in dispute. New Zealand was the first Self governing colony to give women the vote, but *not the first country*. The first country was Australia, in 1903. New Zealand, as a self governing colony, was indpendant in most respects, but actually moved from being a colony to a country in 1907. " New Zealand instead changed from being a colony to a separate "Dominion" in 1907, equal in status to Australia and Canada. Dominion status was a public mark of the self-governance that had evolved over half a century through responsible government " Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We should follow the weight of opinion in reliable secondary sources. Most sources acknowledge New Zealand as the first "nation or territory" or first "self-governing country" to allow women to vote in national elections. In Australia, Aboriginal women (and men) did not receive the vote until 1962. Australia cannot make the same claim to universal female suffrage without this caveat. [2][3][4][5] Whizz40 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes many sources do claim that New Zealand was the first country... but its a common misnomer, and they are incorrect. It also contradicts the Wikipedia section on New Zealand history, which also states that ... New Zealand didn't become a country until the Dominion Act was proclaimed in 1907. I agree, Australia does need the caveat about Aboriginal women not being able to vote, as this is an important detail (and is already noted in the article, in any case). Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We would need sources that say the NZ milestone is incorrect or there is a dispute. As things stand, we may be engaging in original research or departing from the mainstream view. In terms of the article content, I don't see an issue with the existing wording for the New Zealand milestone - it's clear enough and consistent with sources.

first self-governing colony in the world in which all women are given the right to vote in parliamentary elections. However, women were barred from standing for election until 1919.

If anything, the wording recently added (emphasis below) to claim a first for Australia may be undue because I don't see that in sources.

The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 made Australia the first independent country (non colony or territory) to give women the right to vote at federal elections on the same terms as men. Women in South Australia and Western Australia had equal voting rights prior to Federation on 1 January 1901, and were guaranteed the right to vote at the first federal election by section 41 of the Constitution of Australia. Women in the other four states acquired equal voting rights with the passage of the Commonwealth Franchise Act. However this excluded indigenous Australians (both men and women) in the states of Queensland and Western Australia. The 1903 Australian federal election was the first under the new legislation.

In terms of sources I have seen, NZ-authored sources acknowledge other territories came first and soon after but NZ was the first self-governing country/colony/nation/territory, which appears to be a balanced interpretation of history.[6] I don't think the exact specification of country/colony/nation/territory matters in this context. The point is the NZ Parliament was self-governing in respect of the parliamentary franchise.[7] Sources authored in other countries (examples above) do not dispute whether the NZ milestone is valid nor refer to a dispute with the Australia milestone or any other. Whizz40 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I added the wording there about Australia, I don't have a source for it, however, it appears to otherwise correspond with the information on the page, that is, that chronologically, Australia had women's suffrage from 1903 and it is the first country listed on the page to do so. However, feel free to take it out if you think it is controversial. I haven't been able to find a source, or any discussion of a dispute so far, apart from some online discussion which obviously work as RS. If I find some I will add it in, but it looks like its an original research viewpoint, with no mainstream support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Crimean Republic.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Dutch East Indies

The article claims that European women were given the right to vote in 1937 and 1941. Which is correct? Josh (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Lydia Taft noteworthy?

1) She's put after entire classes of women were given the right to vote. She may be a piece of american folklore, but is this significant at a global scale(the scale in which this is framed). I understand many readers may be american and america may have a particular interest to them, but it seems out of place, especially as even if we trust the sources linked, it happened once, and because she was permitted to vote on behalf of her son(something that semi-routinely allowed rulership, namely years prior maria theresa's ability to rule the holy roman empire on behalf of her son, and isn't mentioned in the "non sufferage" article). With reference to readers possible particular interest in the united states, this isn't even the united states, but pre-rebellion united states, and in leu of an entry on any indigenous/native-american record of voting rights in any way.

2) do we trust the source? The source itself seems to be essentially a 2009 posted blogspot entry, which lists no primary source, this is after the linked wiki article on her reports the Massachusetts legislature(two links to entries that resolve as 404) used this story as the basis for naming a highway in 2004. These three things together seem to point to the Massachusetts legislature trying to pat themselves on the back and say "trust us, we're totally better then New Jersey, texas and utah, please visit Massachusetts", especially given that lydia taft's article also lists two equally shitty looking blogs, with better sourcing, doubting the validity of this record.

Benjamintf1 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, It's a notable point. Wikipedia loves making the point that AA was the First XYZ, and woman suffrage is a major topic in historiography. In her case two dozen scholarly articles and books bring her up: see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q="Lydia+Taft"+women+vote&btnG= She also appears in widely used recent popular books like REMARKABLE LIVES: Leaders Who Changed History (DK Publishing, 2019); Deborah G. Felder. The American Women's Almanac: 500 Years of Making History (2019); and newe schoilarly books such as Johanna Neuman, And yet they persisted: how American women won the right to vote (John Wiley & Sons. 2020); and International Journal of Historical Archaeology (2020). Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, but she's the first singular women to be referred to and the only one in the entire article. I checked the link and all sources on google scholar are that show up in search are post 2000 as well, one of the listed sources is french wikipedia, with as far as I see, no links to any sources. And again, native american practices I suspect far predate this one-off occurance that maybe occured, and is largely referred to post when the massachusats legislature declared it was the case in 2004. Benjamintf1 (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that we have a 1200 word article on Lydia Taft & that means she meets the usual notability rules. Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I ask you, I no uncertain terms, why a singular person, maybe voting on behalf of their male relative, as a one off measure, in a town hall level meeting is significant both due to it being a list of worldwide state given and codified rights to vote, and given the long history of womans rights, including the ability to select and revoke representative powers, in the Haudenosaunee people nearby. Benjamintf1 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

the history of how American women got the vote is a major topic for historians. Lots of historians have looked and she is the only one in the colonial era. That's a big deal that the historians of suffrage frequently mention. That fact of coverage in history books is a strong reason for including her in Wikipedia. She did not vote as her husband told her (he was dead) but she inherited is money which gave her the right to vote. As for the Haudenosaunee women you can go ahead and add them if you find the reliable sources on women suffrage already include them as voting in colonial elections. Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"the history of how American women got the vote is a major topic for historians." I am not disagreeing here. This is why I didn't complain about the entries on NJ, Colorado, Texas, or Utah, for example.

Lots of historians [who?] and she is the only one in the colonial era [citation needed] (But also, it still doesn't answer the question I have been addressing at all)

"That's a big deal that the historians of suffrage frequently mention." [some historians and only after 2004]

"That fact of coverage in history books is a strong reason for including her in Wikipedia." Again, at this juncture, I'm not mentioning her existence on Wikipedia as being notable, I'm questioning her existence in this list, a list of codified rights to vote given to women.

"She did not vote as her husband told her (he was dead) but she inherited is money which gave her the right to vote" In the linked citation: "At this time in colonial history, only free male landowners were permitted to cast a vote. The estate of Josiah Taft was the largest in the area. Lydia, as a woman, was not permitted to vote and her oldest son at the time was not of legal voting age. Because this vote was so important, the townspeople agreed that Lydia could vote on behalf of her son."

"As for the Haudenosaunee women you can go ahead and add them if you find the reliable sources on women suffrage already include them as voting in colonial elections." It may be shocking for you to hear, but women existed in America before Anglo colonization.

All this said, and none of this is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States.

And again, did this have lasting impact? I now notice two other people have been directly mentioned, but they also directly led to the entrenchment or expanding of voting rights by doing so. As far as I can tell, at one point in time, one women maybe voted in a town election to raise a tax for war, and then nothing happened as a result of it. Was this cited by a pre-2000 piece of work? This may be good for the Massachusetts tourism board, but did it have impact in the broader scale of the global women's suffrage movement, or is this page a paid advertisement for the Massachusetts state tourism board?

If it's not clear at this point, I will be clear. I don't think this entry is relevent, especially given what I've heard from Rjensen here, and propose to delete the entry, as it is incongruous with the other entries in this list and the stated purpose and scope of this article. Benjamintf1 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

historians locally, statewide and nationally have spent a lot of attention on when women could vote in elections. Thus far Taft is the only women known to have done so in the colonial era. Her vote was discovered in recent years and so appears in recent history books. Wikipediia does not allow original research--we only publish what historians have discovered--in this case it was recognized by local government and reported in numerous popular and scholarly books (I cited a few above.) Were there Indian men and women before the Europeans arrived---yes in many hundreds of tribes or cultures and Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on them. Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Listen, despite my complaints about the way and reason it's sourced, I explicitly say I am dropping them for now to hope you will not be distracted by it. Why, since you seem to care a lot about this being included, is this date and piece of information relevant to this article, given the scope of the article, it's format, as well as the level of detail and scope of other entries currently existing in this article. This isn't a question of original research or not, it's a question of editorial judgement? If you have no reason, please, don't feel obligated to respond, I only ask out of polite deference and my fear I am miscommunicating, and to be clear to other readers of this talk page that I feel my question has gone unaddressed or misunderstood Benjamintf1 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

hmm, sorry for double posting, and for the uncivilness of how I may have previously asked some things, as well as the un-wikipedian way I may have referred to some things that may be confusing. As a new reader of the article, scanning through, it seems to place undue weight on the item "1756". I'm not sure what selection criteria(as this is a list item) would include the 1756 item, and not include many many more items across many other nations, local contexts, etc, that would balloon the article to a unwieldly length that would require splitting(given that there are already sub-articles, this seems unnessessary/bad). As for the linked article, I find it concerning that it contains a controversy section, it's my understanding that those things are undesirable in articles, that also questions it's inclusion and weight in this article besides my initial concerns of due weight. Benjamintf1 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Texas Republic

I added a citation needed flag. There's a entry for the texan republic in 1836. However, this contridicts the image in the headline. Either: The Texan republic didn't have women's suffrage in 1836, it was rescinded upon statehood, or the image in the header is inaccurate. Other wiki entries imply that it's the first. Benjamintf1 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it Benjamintf1 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)