Talk:Emmeline Pankhurst

Comments

When did England give the right to vote to women?

At the same time as Scotland, Wales and Ireland did. The initial date was in March 1918 when the Representation of the People act gave voting rights to women over 30 and men over 21. However the suffragettes still saw it as a great victory. In November 1918, women over 21 were given the right to become Members of Parliament. This led to a situation where a woman could be an MP even though she was too young to vote! Women finally achieved equal voting rights to men in the UK in 1928. -- Derek Ross

Were any of the Pankhursts born in Salford or did any of them spend a significant period of their lives in the city?

pictures

maybe a picture of Emmeline Pankhurst would be useful.

Dr. Who reference?

Dr. Who is the name of a British science fiction series, where "The Doctor" is a time traveler, and in the episode broadcast on 31 March 2007 called "Smith and Jones", he comments that his "laser spanner" was stolen by Emily Pankhurst - given that he is a time travler, who has met Shakespeare, Benjamin Franklin, Queen Elizabeth the first etc - it is not unlikely that it is Emmeline Pankhurst he is refering to.

Biographical sketch?

It would be interesting to have some biographical information in the article. Anybody has the knowledge and time to do it? Goochelaar (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

I'm not at all happy about this section, which seems to be pretty much a Trivia section in disguise. Does anyone really care that: "In Helen Fielding's novel Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Tom tries to convince Bridget to vote and says, 'Go on then. Remember Mrs. Pankhurst.'" Is that really important, relevant, or encyclopedic? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Major renovation

I'm beginning a full-scale reconstruction of this article, with the goal of taking it to FA status. I shall abolish the pop culture section, since that is strongly disfavoured by the English Wikipedia community. I will hopefully move the renovated article from my drawing board to the article namespace by 1 September. – Scartol • Tok 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have completed the aforementioned reconstruction and am now opening the floor for peer review. Thank you for any constructive comments you may care to make. Scartol • Tok 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to the folks more familiar with British English than myself who are correcting the slip-ups in my prose. Cheers, mates! Scartol • Tok 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! 68.5.138.151 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely splendid

What a terrific article - well done User:Scartol. I made a couple of Br Eng edits. What a pity User:Tttom who tagged the article didn't come here to discuss what he saw was wrong with it. It reads fine to me, and not weaselly at all.

One query - the Goulden house in Seedley is described as a cottage. Seedley is described on its page as being an 'area ... mostly made up of terraced housing, dating from the late 19th century and early 20th century' so it seems unlikley the house was a cottage, which is a term usually used to describe traditional rural housing. 81.156.175.153 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if Seedley was an old village/settlement which then was gradually 'suburbanised' in the 19 and 20 C, then there is the possibility that there would be old cottages in the original centre of what had been the village. 81.156.175.153 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my guess. Purvis refers to it as "Seedley Cottage", and it's by far the more comprehensive of the two EP bios. I don't have any first-hand sources to pull from, and I think the second comment above makes sense. Scartol • Tok 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cottage is also sometimes used to describe the 2 up-2 down style of terraced housing. David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

Slapping tags on an article should be accompanied by a thorough explanation, so I reverted the tagging. I encourage Ttom to motivate the tag with more than just "which historians?"[1] in the edit summary.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I suspect the "offending" phrase is "Although historians differ about whether Pankhurst's militancy ..." (in the legacy section - the same phrase appears in the lead - but since this shoudl sumamrise the article as a whole, we probably don't need to spell it out there) we really need to give some examples of specific historians who are pro- or contra-. David Underdown (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Her passionate work with the WSPU is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain, although historians disagree if she did more to help or hinder public support for it." - 'historians' used in this way are 'weasel words' it implies an authority for which no evidence is given. Since this is a statement in the opening paragraph it further lends a credibility to the unsubstantiate, unsourced and unreferenced idea that there is a serious debate over her legacy's effect (which I doubt there is, frankly). Therefore I'm going to tag that part again with a fact tag. Reference that statement or it can be removed.Tttom1 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From wp on weasel words: "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them."Tttom1 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead should sumamrise the article, the cite tag would be better placed in teh legacy section, if it can be adequately cited in there, it's mention in the lead is fine. David Underdown (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The footnote at the end of the paragraph which has been tagged refers the reader to the two book-length biographies that have been published about Mrs. Pankhurst (both in 2002, both published by Routledge, interestingly enough). The pages cited in the books by Bartley and Purvis contain an extended discussion about the contention among historians (including Pugh, Liddington, Phillips, and others) about whether her actions increased or decreased public support for women's suffrage. This wasn't an effort to put my opinion into the words of her biographers; it's an effort to represent the general opinion across the field of Pankhurst studies.

By the way: If anyone would like to contribute a more comprehensive peer review, I'd love to have in-depth feedback here. FA, we're on the way! Cheers. Scartol • Tok 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated the citation to replace the "fact" tag, although I was under the impression that a citation at the end of a paragraph is assumed to contain the totality of the information in said paragraph. I suppose this is a case where a specific extra citation is useful. Thanks to all for your input. Scartol • Tok 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the weasel words in question as they lack NPV and references. Article was tagged with the 2 paragraphs above providing explanation and tag was still removed without adding reference. If, in fact, there is a debate among historians, the editors working on this otherwise very well written article should be able to provide references to that specific claim. Policy is for tags to remain unless a reference is provided or statement is removed. Tttom1 (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have provided references to the specific claim of a dispute among historians. Bartley goes through every book (and most parts of books) written about Mrs. Pankhurst, explaining that some lauded her contribution while others argued that she didn't help the movement. Purvis' introduction provides a similar overview of the various books written by and about Mrs. P and her daughters, and concludes similarly – that there's no consensus about her net effect. I'm all for rewording the phrase in question, but I also feel that it's important not to portray this woman as someone whom historians universally credit with positive impacts when it comes to women's suffrage. Scartol • Tok 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If the editor has provided the reference there should be a number after the statement and the ref in the footnotes. If you cover this aspect in a later section with a reference, that's where the statement should be. Down in the legacy the statement is supported by a reference (and further qualified) which it was not in the lead. There's no problem with what is below, but up front without those refs its misleading and, as shown above here, the very definition of a weasel word. The 'weasel word ' is just the unfortunate jargon wiki uses for this type non-policy writing - its no reflection on the overall quality of this article or the general tone. In fact, removing it leaves the lead more in tone with the rest. If a reader has to get all the way to legacy to find a legitimate source for a statement - that's too late. Imagine all claims only being referenced the 2nd time they are mentioned a few hundred words and numerous paragraphs later. Why not say in the lead: "Pankhurst biographers Bartley and Purvis discuss the debate among historians as to whether her actions helped or hindered... etc" and ref it as in legacy sec. so a reader knows exactly where you're coming from? Tttom1 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus is that references are not required in the lead (the exception is for direct quotes which shoould always be sourced, as they are in this article) - by definiton it is repeating information discussed in more detail elsewhere. The fact it is referenced in the legacy section is quite sufficient to justify the usage of the words in the lead. David Underdown (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David, but let's look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

If it's the case (as it appears to be) that the bit in the lead about the dispute among historians is controversial and/or likely to be questioned, how about we replace the wording that was removed, and add the same footnotes from the Legacy section? Do you see that as a satisfactory solution, Ttom? Scartol • Tok 11:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)