Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Women's poll tax repeal movement/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2021 [1].

Women's poll tax repeal movement

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little known movement of feminists which occurred between the 1920s and 1960s. Because poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in the US is often viewed as a racist disenfranchisement method, scholarship on women and their activities to abolish the tax has only emerged since the late 1990s. When I began the article, I contacted Gog the Mild to assist me in organizing the material, as it covers a broad area of the Southern US. I sought his help because he is neither from the US (and thus would be likely to catch historic things about context that needed development) nor is he a women's scholar (and thus would be able to evaluate it from a broad perspective). I have also sought input from Ipigott both because he is a trusted collaborator and is experienced in FA. I sought reviews as well from Alanna the Brave and other editors because of their expertise in women's history and assistance from GRuban for many of the photographic images. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are freely licensed. I commend your attention to detail in documenting such! (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I am recusing from coordinator duties anyway as, as the nominator notes, I did a little copy editing, I shall now have a more formal look at it.

"eligible to vote prior to their registration." I think that non-Americans may struggle with this. Maybe 'to their registering to vote' or similar?

Voting eligibility varies, i.e. one could move into the state from another state; one could turn 21 years old; in some states prisoners could not vote, but were eligible after release. They had to pay from the time they were able to vote to present, so if someone was 40 years old and had resided in a state since they were 21, they would owe 19 years of tax plus interest and penalties. Perhaps for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid works? SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. Maybe put the example in the previous sentence in a ffotnote as well?

Well that was off the top of my head, so I don't have a citation for that example, but I can give one for Breedlove and one from Alabama. Done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Payment of the tax was difficult for blacks, Hispanics, and women, primarily because their incomes were much lower than those of white men; as for women, coverture prevented them from controlling their own assets." Optional: consider two sentences - For women coverture ...'

done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"By the 1950s, recognition of the intersection of women's and racial impediments in fighting the poll tax created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement." I think that this sentence is over long and trying do too much. Consider breaking it up. Like, what is does "impediments in fighting the poll tax" mean?

Changed it to read By the 1950s, the intersection of sexist and racist customs and law was apparent to those fighting the poll tax. This created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"After passage of the Constitution of the United States in 1789". Delete "of the United States".

done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"During the same period"> You are not referring to a period, but to two, seperate, individual years. Suggest 'For example, white men's median income in the US in 1949 was $2,255 and in 1959 was $3,734; while the median income of non-white males was $1,221 in 1949 and $1,906 in 1959, while white women earned $1,171 and $1,499 and non-white women earned $530 and $737.'

Just changed "During the same period" to In those years SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The national organization worked to organize Democratic women at the state level to fight for repeal with the aim of achieving an equal representation of women on all party committees." I don't see the connection between fighting to repeal (I assume, you don't state) the poll tax laws and the aim you give of achieving some internal party changes.

Wilkerson-Freeman says that the overall goal was in increase political power so changed it to read the aim of increasing their political power and ultimately achieving an equal representation.... Better?

"The reports compiled were distributed by the American Association of University Women to gain support against the poll tax." Optional: "to gain support against" jars a little. Could it be rephrased?

Changed to gain support in abolishing the poll tax. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked it. Revert if you don't like it.

"worked to organize registrations of black and Latina women, who did not fall under the restrictions of the Thomason Law, which targeted illiterate and non-English-speaking voters by preventing voter assistance such as translation." This only makes sense to me if the first comma is removed.

done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and lost their ability to vote". "ability" → "entitlement"?

done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You give "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)" at first mention, but then go on to mix the full name and the abbreviation, on one occasion in the same sentence.

I put the abbreviation in because that is how the organization is currently known, but its formal name is the longer. I only see one instance where I used the abbreviation and I did that because not doing so seemed particularly redundant, i.e. Lulu B. White, president of the Houston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the 1930s and state director of the NAACP in the 1940s. Perhaps I just replace the abbreviation with organization. If that works, done.

"Leaders from the Diocesan Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Virginia League of Women's Voters, the Virginia Teacher's Association, the Virginia Voters League, and the YWCA were among those who spoke on behalf of repealing poll taxes. Proponents included Adele Clark from the Virginia Council of Catholic Women; Naomi Cohn, representing the YWCA; Florence Lewis, a Miami, Florida activist and board member of the National Council of Jewish Women; and Lois Van Valkenburgh, director of the League's poll tax committee". There seems to be duplication here. Could these two sentences not be run together?

done SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A significantly large proportion of cases". I am not sure that "significantly" adds anything. (I assume that the actual proportion is not known?)

No, the actual number I was unable to ascertain, but in every source women's cases outnumbered those filed by men. Removed significantly. SusunW (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Among them were:" and you then only list one in the paragraph. Suggest 'An early case was' or similar.

That's a programming thingy I have no idea how to deal with. "Among them were" is the end of a paragraph. The cases that follow are all part of the list. How does one make the paragraph break? SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I figured it out. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"allowed the state to evade a federal hearing" Genuine question, would 'avoid' work better than "evade"?

Well it was a sneaky way for them to get around it, but avoid is fine. Changed. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link Companion suit to Companion case.

done. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and could not be conditional". But it is! On lots of things.

Well according to Ellis, the ruling "concluded by reiterating that the right to vote was a fundamental right. "Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned". So perhaps could not be conditional upon paying a tax? If that works, then done. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Of particular note was the dramatic rise from 1.6% to 7.2% in Mexican-American registrations. In Mississippi black registrations to vote rose from 6.9% in 1964 to 59.8% in 1967" Are both of these referring to the same thing? Ie, that groups proportion of the total of registered voters?

I'm not sure what you are asking me to correct/change? Nimmo/Mcclesky says "There was, however, a very spectacular increase in Mexican-American registration from 1.6 percent of total paid registrants to 7.2 percent of the free registrants". So clearly of total registrants. Terchek on the other hand is far less clear "Indeed, Mississippi, the state with the lowest median income, education, and previous registration of blacks, and with the highest proportion of blacks in its population, jumped from a registration of 6.9% of blacks in 1964 to 59.8 percent three years later". But, looking at footnote 12, which it is tied to, it is discussing a rise in total registrations, not the percentage of the population that was registered. Can you be a bit more specific about what you want me to do? SusunW (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to tell me what you just have. That's fine.

Okay, I tweaked the text to show proportion of total registrations. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the court refused to grant an injunction, but six days later ruled on a case" The same court? (Just checking.)

Yes, the same court. All 3 newspaper clippings show federal district court in Jackson; however, with different 3-judge panels. 1st hearing was made up of J. P. Coleman, Harold Cox and Dan M. Russell, while 2nd hearing was made up of Walter P. Gewin, Claude Clayton, and Harold Cox. Added "but six days later the same court ruled". Unless you think I need to confirm the panels were different? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO yes, but feel free not to if you feel that that is an unnecessary detail.

Okay, added "with a different 3-judge panel" SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"increasing the number of male voters by 25% and of women voters by nearly 100%." Regisered to vote, or actual voters?

Podolofskey says "When the poll tax was abolished in Louisiana [in 1934,] the number of men voting increased from 260,00 to 335,000, an increase of 25 per cent. However, the women's vote jumped from 135,000 to 260,000, an increase of almost 100 percent". The footnote says "Jennings Perry reported that the "number of women on the voter's lists increased seventy-seven percent". Taken together, it seems to me that it is actual voters, as otherwise wouldn't it have said on the voter's lists like the footnote? Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So what you currently have in the article is fine, although 'increasing the number of men who voted by 25% and of women by nearly 100%' would IMHO remove any lingering ambiguity.

Done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does much of the first paragraph of "Impact of repeal" repeat information given earlier in the article?

No. The only place which appeared to be duplicated was Florida, so I moved that out of the state section. I also moved a sentence from Georgia that had different statistics than those in "Impact". I think that it is easier to see how much of a difference it made to see them all under impact rather than dispersed through the state sections, where one cannot make easy comparisons. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In Arkansas, 80% of the adult population in the state had been prevented from voting by the poll tax prerequisite." This says nothing about the "impact of repeal". Perhaps move it to Background or State efforts?

Added however, when it was overturned, registrations for the 1970 general election increased by 23.18%. per Ledbetter SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a voter participation rate four times lower". What does that mean. I am guessing a quarter, but it ia a guess. Possibly the phrase is US English.

The source says "In 1952 there was a 21-percentage-point gender gap in southern registration and an 8-percentage-point gender gap in southern voting among registrants. However, the gender gaps in nonsouthern registration and voting were only 5 and 2 percentage points, respectively". 4 times lower seems perfectly plain to me, but if you want I can say "voter participation rate in the south among women was a quarter of women's participation elsewhere", but that seems less clear to me and somewhat redundant. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision seems crystal clear to me, while after reading the current version three times all I had was a good guess. But if the revision seems confusing to you, then we have a US/UK language thing, and as the article is about the US, leave it.

Kinda like Brits don't speak American English, Southerners don't either. So maybe what is clearer to you is clearer? I changed it. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"grandfather clauses". This has not been previously mentioned. Perhaps an in line explanation, or at least a footnote. Actually, the same for "literacy tests".

Okay, put in footnotes for both. You may want to read through and advise if I need to tweak. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the literacy test one.

"rising participation of women working outside the home" I am not sure that is grammatical. Perhaps 'increasing proportion of women working outside the home' or similar?

Done SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Contrary to early academic beliefs". Specify when "early" was.

Done SusunW (talk)

"A deeper look at the period confirms that" Optional: Should "confirms" → 'confirmed'?

I don't think so, but can be persuaded. Since scholarship is still on-going, more is still being learned about the period. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Societal concerns over the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War pushed women's issues into the background and left women in a situation where though they continued to function in an organizational structure, they were often doing so in a hostile environment and were perceived as threatening to the traditional way of life of Americans" I found this a little complex. Optional: split the sentence.

Split done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"V. O. Key, a political scientist and historian of US elections, who was a recognized expert of the era, and other academics, minimized the role of women and African Americans in the poll tax reform movement." Could we be given an idea of when this was happening?

Changed it to read during the mid-century period. If that is sufficient, then done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Abolishing the poll tax became the first step marking significant changes to voting rights which were enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Not grammatical.

Abolishing the poll tax became the first step in the significant changes to voting rights, which would be enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Better? SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would delete the comma, but that's fine.

done. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: "over an extended period of decades". Optional: clumsy phraseology.

through several decades. Better? SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Amendments to the Cable Act continued until 1940". What does that mean?

Very complicated and off-topic for this article, IMO. Amendments after 1922 addressed women who lost their citizenship because they married an alien who could not be naturalized; residency as a condition of citizenship; how women got their citizenship back if they had lost it due to marriage; etc. The amendment in 1940, finally provided that all women who had lost citizenship by marriage could repatriate. Advise if you think I need to explain, but I think people can go to the Cable Act article if they want specifics. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! Leave it.

" "disfranchising devices, especially literacy tests" MOS:QUOTE requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion", emphasis in original. IMO there is no harm in simply removing the quote marks.

changed text slightly and removed quote marks. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be scope to include links to Birthright citizenship in the United States and citizenship in the United States.

Ugh, neither of those articles mentions anything at all about how married women were excluded from having their own nationality/citizenship. (I know, I know, I need to write the article, but it will be an international affair and probably will take years since it happened everywhere.) Nor anything about the difference in legal requirements for a woman to bestow citizenship upon her child pre-1985. I'd rather not link them unless you think it particularly pertinent.

And, I think, that's it from me. A great addition to Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I could not stand the fact that the birthright citizenship article did not discuss the precarious nature of women's citizenship, so I am updating it and now have linked it to this article. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Gog the Mild. I really appreciate your help in improving the article. I am not sure I have answered all of your questions, so please advise after you check the responses above, what remains to be done. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great responses. My replies are above. If I haven't replied to a comment it means that I am content with your change and/or reasoning. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I think that I have adequately addressed what was left. Thank you again for your help. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

Hi Susun, I am very sorry that I didn't get to this in time to review it before the nomination. I still won't have time for a full review, but I was going to do a light copy edit, then I encountered a problem. This isn't clear:

For example North and South Carolina exempted women from payment of the tax while Georgia did not require women to pay poll taxes, unless they wanted to register to vote. In other Southern states, poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid, prior to their registration.

"Unless they wanted to register": signalling an intention in some way triggered the requirement? Or actually registering?
"poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote but had not paid, prior to their registration." I tried to copy edit this and found I didn't understand it.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are opposite sides of the same coin. In Georgia, one did not have to pay the tax unless they attempted to register. If they wanted to vote, they had to pay. In other states, they were obligated to pay whether or not they voted, from the time they were eligible as a voter, i.e. moved into the state, turned age 21, etc. (For an example, the first is like property tax, if you don't own property, you don't have to pay; the second is like school taxes, regardless of whether you are in school or have children who attend school, you pay the tax if you live in the district.) SusunW (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So "unless they wanted to register" means "unless they tried to register" or perhaps better: "unless they registered". And the second sentence means: "In other Southern states, poll taxes were due cumulatively for each year someone was eligible to vote." Is that correct? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) SusunW (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, another question. Sometimes you say poll tax, sometimes poll taxes. Do you mean poll tax throughout or is a distinction being drawn? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No distinction, simply singular vs. plural. SusunW (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should qualify that. It wasn't a federal statute, so there was not a singular poll tax. Each individual state had its own state statute, so there were plural tax schemes. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susun, just a note to say that I'll return to this. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SarahSV. Not to worry, I am working on other things. I appreciate very much your taking the time to evaluate the article. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Comment on prose. I haven't looked at any other aspect, but there are lots of nitpicky prose issues and paragraphs not written as clearly as they could be. Every time I glance at it, I see something. Some examples at the end of the page. Another one: "Unlike the single-focus": why the hyphen? Please don't fix only the examples I point out. The whole article needs a final run through. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC) (21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- Example: "Though the amount of tax was typically $1 to $2 per year[23] (equivalent to $30 to $60 in 2020[24]), increased in some areas by cumulative tax,[Notes 3] interest, and penalties for each year a voter had not paid but was eligible to vote, it disproportionately impacted women voters.[25][28] Coverture[Notes 4] prevented women from legally accessing money without their husband's consent and in some cases wages from wives belonged to their spouse.[40] As men controlled the funds available to pay poll taxes, they could withhold payment for their wives.[41] In cases where women had access to funds, they were disadvantaged as the proportion of their income required to pay the tax was greater as women earned far less than men."
  - Although, not though, and how does the rest—Although it was typically X amount, it disproportionately etc.—follow? Also "and in some cases", what does that mean? This sentence needs to be rewritten: "In cases where women had access to funds, they were disadvantaged as the proportion of their income required to pay the tax was greater as women earned far less than men." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I am happy to make changes or have someone else copyedit it. Obviously, the goal is for it to be as good as we can make it. As you are aware, in the review process many things often change, warranting a final text review. Thank you very much for you input. SusunW (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MOS:PERCENT: "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added "in" to "uninterested in and indifferent to", so technically it's fine, but what's the difference in this context between uninterested and indifferent? Make the writing tighter by choosing one (uninterested in). SarahSV ^(talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, I've struck my oppose, because realistically I'm not going to have the time or energy to follow up, and I don't want to hold up an excellent piece of work. So instead I'll just say that in my opinion the article would benefit from a final copy edit, and leave it there. Thank you for all the work you've put into it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SarahSV, I have just completed a copy edit of the article. I do not hold myself up as an especially good copy editor nor as having much of a grip on the MoS. Although, having pushed 31 recent FACs through the system and formally copy edited over 200,000 words for GoCE I am assuming that I haven't actually made things worse. I did most of the copy edit before reading your comments, and interestingly disagree with you on one. I do agree that the prose could do with tightening and with hindsight wish that I had done that a little more. That said, quite a bit got changed, see [2]. I am sure that regardless of your support, neutral or oppose SusunW would welcome any further suggestions for improvement. As I seem to have been given, or patriarchally seized, a free hand re copy editing I will either make any changes you suggest - including vague hand wavey ones if lack of time restricts you to that - or explain why I think they aren't needed. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I'm having health issues at the moment, and I won't be able to read through the article, but I did look at several of the edits you made, and they were good. You definitely fixed several issues, so I'm happy to trust that you've improved it overall. Thank you for doing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Resolved issues

I'm copyediting a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

Thanks for taking a look at it Mike Christie. When my anesthesia from the dentist wears off, I'll try to provide some feedback. Right now, I'm a bit too loopy. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Background" section, at the end of the first paragraph we say that one of the reasons for the adoption of poll tax laws was the rise of the Populist Party. The start of the next paragraph gives different reasons. I can see these might not be in conflict, but as written the two sentences seem to ignore each other; can we pull this together, perhaps by moving the sentence about the Populist Party to the next paragraph and adding some linking text?

Done. But you may want to tweak it. Feel free. I don't really want to go into the off-topic discussion of the ideological switch between the parties which occurred post-Civil War, but perhaps we should change the piped link for the Democratic Party to Southern Democrats? SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you've done is fine -- just enough to make the reader aware that the apparent contradiction is not one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, in order to maintain supportive constituencies for business and political interests: I'm mildly surprised that you're not citing post-Reconstruction racism as a motivation here, but I'm not familiar with the sources. So just checking: the sources don't deal with the disenfranchisement of blacks separately from poor whites?

Actually, they make the opposite argument, racism was a factor, but not the main factor. Black voting (typically Republican) was on the decline after abandonment of Reconstruction and 25 years had passed from the end of it to when poll taxes were introduced widely. Democratic power was on the rise. The threat to the Democrats was what pushed adopting poll taxes. Numerous sources, but Strong (693-694) makes the point most emphatically. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. I've struck the point; I was interested to see per Strong I'm clearly not the only one to make that assumption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see (still reading through) the article never explicitly lists the states in which women had to pay a poll tax for at least some time. Perhaps this could be added at the top of the "State efforts" section, where it would give you an paragraph you could use to introduce the state-by-state information.

Okay done. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~For example, I see now that you never say how South Carolina's poll tax was repealed; the article says it was still in effect in 1938 but it apparently had been repealed by 1964.~~

Good catch. While it did not involve a women's movement to repeal, I should have treated it like Louisiana and at least mentioned when it was abandoned. Added a note. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several court cases in the early 1920s resulted in a legal consensus that the Nineteenth Amendment allowed the enforcement of the national law without actually amending state law. In other words, the amendment automatically struck out the word "male" from any state law defining a voter by gender. This language doesn't seem quite right, or else there's some technical sense of "amend" which I'm not aware of. If the amendment strikes "male" from some state laws, it is effectively amending those laws, isn't it?

The key here is that federal law supersedes state law. When the federal law changes, it is not required for states to change their laws, they are simply "overridden" by federal law. The state law can and does still contain unconstitutional language until it is rewritten or overturned at the state level. The best example is that Mississippi did not formally abolish slavery in their own state laws until 2013. I've tweaked it a bit to make it clearer, i.e. "without actually amending state legal codes. In other words, the federal amendment..." SusunW (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it a bit more; see if that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the same paragraph, the third sentence seems to start over by saying The new entitlement for women generated several legal cases involving poll taxes. If these are the same cases mentioned in the first sentence that should be clearer.

Removed redundant sentence. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The source may not say but do we know why Eubank wouldn't accept Graves' payment? Nothing that's been mentioned so far implies that tax collectors had any latitude in this way.~~

I am positive tax collectors had the ability to refuse: 1948 Congressional Hearings,1965 Congressional Hearings, Koy refusal. As for Graves, Podolofsky 843 says only "He [Eubank] refused to accept payment and refused to give her the sought after receipt". The problem in documenting this, other than broadly, would be trying to discover what statutes in each state defined the roles and responsibilities of tax collectors. Open to suggestions. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, since what you have is accurate. I did find this -- see the summary section. I don't think anything from that needs to be added; I just mention it in case you haven't seen it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen it and found it fascinating. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By 1922, some women had begun to form anti-poll tax groups: seems out of sync with the earlier statement that women in North Carolina had already succeeded by 1920 in their agitation for a repeal of the tax.

Podolofsky 839 states "Evidence shows that women were actively fighting the effects of the poll tax by 1922". (North Carolina's action in 1920 was seen as tied to the women's suffrage movement. In essence, if men and women were to equally have the franchise, and since the attorney general had ruled that women were exempt from paying, then men shouldn't pay it either.) SusunW (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think if that's a distinction that is enough worth drawing to separate the North Carolina response from the statement that "by 1922, some women had begun to form anti-poll tax groups", we should make it clear in the article when we mention the North Carolina case, qualifying it as you do here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just make it easier By the early 1920s SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Richmond, Virginia, The News Leader carried a story: I think the year, or at a minimum the decade, should be given. The story would have carried a very different weight in, say, 1962 than it would in 1931.

According to the footnote, it appeared 17 September 1920. Added year. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the footnote"; I only see the cite to Schuyler. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear, Schuyler does not give a date in the article body p 25, but does in the footnote p 245 for the information. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the paragraph that starts "The motivations of women in the movement differed" we first say that there was a good deal of overlap between the women in the poll tax repeal movement and some earlier rights movements, but then we say that these women were unlike the elite white women of those movements. Why isn't this a contradiction?

It isn't that the women were different, it is that the singular focus was different. Suffragists ignored the drive for universal suffrage and refused to be involved in issues which might divert activists from securing the vote for women. Anti-poll tax activists knew there was no way to avoid dealing with the racial component. I've tweaked it. Better? SusunW (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is "negrophobia" the right word in that paragraph? It's not exactly the same as "racism"; do we need something from "negrophobia" that we don't get from "racism"?~~

IMO, absolutely. Racism is a byproduct of negrophobia, i.e. the development of systems and beliefs to counter the fear. Racism isn't about individual racial prejudice or discrimination, but rather the power and authority embedded in control mechanisms. Wilkerson-Freeman p 343 states "When southern opponents of woman suffrage argued that enfranchising women would threaten white supremacy, white suffragists responded that woman suffrage would actually ensure white supremacy because white women outnumbered black women. Similarly, vehement opponents of poll tax reform used negrophobia and white supremacist arguments to defend the requirement". Clearly she is making the point that women used men's fear to gain support for their cause, not that women used control systems. Women didn't have socio-politico-civil power, but they could and did strategically use fear to motivate action. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many activists, like Virginia Foster Durr, came into the movement from other women's interest groups. We've already mentioned that women in the movement often came from other women's interest groups, so perhaps "Virginia Foster Durr was one of the many activists who came into the movement from other women's interest groups."

done SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durr first became aware of the poll tax issue after going to work at the Women's Division of the Democratic National Committee in Alabama in the 1930s and later moved to Virginia. I had to read this twice to understand what was intended; at first I thought there was a tense conflict here between "going to work at" and "moved to", but I think it's just hard to parse. If we need to know she moved to Virginia, can we move that to later in the article, where it might be more relevant?

I moved it. I think it is critical, as her description of how one had to go about registering is all about Virginia and it would seem odd without mentioning she moved. SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does the source describing Durr's difficulties in registering to vote say whether these barriers were specific to women in any way? Or would men have been met with the same obstacles?~~

They were typical of anyone attempting to register who wasn't "in the loop" so to speak. Durr says, "I hadn't paid the interest because the people at the courthouse hadn't asked for any. They simply didn't want me to vote. If I had been a member of the courthouse ring, or somebody they knew, then they might have told me about the interest, but I was an outsider, a stranger. Now, I went to Wellesley for two years, and I had been working on the anti-poll tax legislation for five or six years. I was keenly interested in events and did my best to inform myself. But I still had a terribly hard time figuring out how to get registered to vote in Virginia". (Podolofsky 861) I've added "encountered by all prospective voters who were unfamiliar with courthouse processes". Better? SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics used to attain the repeal of poll taxes included: I think "attain" is not the ideal word to use; it implies we're only talking about successful tactics. How about "Tactics used by these groups included" -- there's no ambiguity about what the goal was, and "these groups" connects us to the list in the previous paragraph.

Done SusunW (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 1939, the League, led by women like Hazel Schaeffer and Violet Bray Lindsey: this is in the Tennessee section, just after a sentence about the Tennessee chapter of the LWV. Were Schaeffer and Lindsey leaders of the chapter or the national organization?

State. Added clarifier. SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest linking or glossing "tabled" since the US meaning is the opposite of the meaning in British English.~~

linked SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of things I don't follow in the first few sentences in the section about Texas. What amendment did the state Supreme court validate in 1920? This can't have been the federal 19th amendment; the state courts would have had no jurisdiction, surely? And just prior to that we talk about legislation for women's suffrage -- I think of legislation as not including constitutional amendments, so I assume this is something different from whatever the state Supreme Court examined, but if so the sentence about the state Supreme Court seems like a non sequitur.

The State of Texas gave women limited suffrage in 1918 before the 19th Amendment passed. That law was challenged and the Texas Supreme Court upheld its validity. I've added local and state to try to make it clearer, but am open to suggestions. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion of the Koy decision to here, which perhaps makes it clearer since the state Supreme Court ruling was on 28 January and the 19th Amendment was not ratified until 18 August 1920. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Thomason Law sounds like an extraordinarily bloody-minded piece of legislation. Is it worth a red link?~~

I've added the bill number, which might help someone find it. The footnote references "General Laws of Texas, Acts 1918, 35th Legislature, Fourth Called Session, Ch 30, 54-55." Perhaps it is the same law as referred to in this as the "Act of Mar. 23, 1918, ch. 30, § 1, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 54, but other than that I could find nothing on it. Web searches for me in Mexico are different from those of people in other places. (I had an army of folks help me create articles on the redlinks in the article for anything we could find sufficient sources to meet notability.) If you think we should redlink it, I am not opposed. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion; sounds like it's not guaranteed to have enough sources so let's let it go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~You link "Federal law" to Expatriation Act of 1907; I think it would be better to be explicit and make it "The Expatriation Act of 1907, a federal law which".~~

Okay, done. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men could vote if they filed an affidavit that they had an intention of acquiring US citizenship: perhaps not an issue for this article but I find this astonishing. So non-citizens could vote? When did that change?

Gunter p 81-82 says "Boss rule relied on Mexican immigrant men to file their intention to become citizens in order to vote, but did not actually encourage or support them going through the naturalization process. ... In March 1918, the legislature actually passed two primary suffrage bills. The primary woman suffrage bill enfranchised women in primary elections and nominating conventions; the primary alien suffrage law disfranchised legal resident alien immigrants in primary elections and nominating conventions. The legislature could not disfranchise immigrant aliens in general and special elections without amending the state constitution, which required a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature and a public referendum in a special election. They likely knew that they did not have the votes for a constitutional amendment, especially since alien immigrants would be able to vote in the referendum." It's actually in the article a couple of lines down...After World War I, legislation such as the Thomason Law[141] and the alien suffrage law of 1918, which restricted voting to citizens... SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, since there's no change needed to the article. Very interesting; thanks for the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~creating separate public facilities for other non-white groups: I don't know what "facilities" means here.~~

Everything? Water fountains, toilets, schools, transportation, restaurants. Even housing was redlined. If it could not be separated, things like movie houses or courtrooms were sectioned, whites on the main floor and people of color in the balcony. In Texas and most of the Southwest that meant Hispanics too, in California and the West that meant Asians as well. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was just me being thick, I think; your description brought back memories of reading Black Like Me a long time ago and I think it won't confuse other readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activists argued that areas where there were not large Mexican-American populations would have to redouble their efforts to keep voting predominantly Anglo. I don't follow this. Areas with small Mexican-American populations would be majority Anglo, so why would that require effort to keep the voting Anglo? And what does "Activists" refer to here? If it refers to activists working for more equal access to voting then I'm doubly confused.

Activists from the League of Women Voters who were registering voters. Sorry, it's not confusing to me... if places where there were not large numbers of Latinos registered lots of voters, that would offset the places where the voter pool was largely Hispanic. Perhaps you can suggest something? SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the intention now, but I initially read this as "Activists argued that in areas where there were not large Mexican-American populations, they would have to redouble their efforts to keep voting predominantly Anglo in those areas". How about "Activists registering voters argued that they would have to redouble their efforts in areas that were predominantly Anglo in order to prevent voter registration in areas with large Mexican-American populations from overwhelming the Anglo vote", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Changed SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though the state legislature passed a resolution that year to abolish payment of poll taxes in order to vote, the amendment was not formally approved until 2009, when reintroduced by Congresswoman Alma Allen. I'm not clear about this either. If the federal decision struck down the poll tax, what did the legislature abolish? Did they just resolve to abolish it but not actually abolish it? So it remained on the books until 2009?

See above explanation about Mississippi and slavery. Federal law does not change state statutes, it simply overrides state law so yes, the law remained on the books unchanged until 2009. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A word or two would help a reader unfamiliar with this. Could we do "... a federal three-judge panel declared that it violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Though the state law requiring payment of poll taxes in order to vote was rendered void by the decision, the legislature passed a resolution that year to abolish it, but the amendment was not formally approved until 2009, when it was reintroduced by Congresswoman Alma Allen."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Changed to your text. SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the late 1930s, individual white women working on abolishing poll taxes in Alabama recognized the benefit of black and white activists joining forces: just checking that the source here is specific that this is something that individual women recognized but that was not acknowledged by the organizations working for poll tax repeal?

Yes, it is very clear. Wilkerson-Freeman p 353: "During the late 1930s, with the introduction of federal anti-poll tax legislation and the first meeting of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare in Birmingham, the Alabama movement to abolish the poll tax became closely linked to even more controversial issues: racial equality and states' rights. The Birmingham AAUW refused to attend the SCHW as a group because the conference was racially integrated, but individual members, such as Dorah Sterne, attended".

OK; struck, but you might consider making this clear in the article -- it seems an interesting point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changed it to read "individual white women working on abolishing poll taxes in Alabama, but not the organizations to which they belonged, recognized the benefit of black and white activists joining forces to increase their political agency". Better? SusunW (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an inability to pay poll taxes as the reason for women failing to participate in elections: suggest "an inability to pay poll taxes as the reason women failed to participate in elections" or, perhaps better, "the reason many women failed to participate".

done SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the section on Alabama I think it should be clearer that the 1964 decision only nullified the Alabama law for federal elections. Or were there two poll tax laws in Alabama -- one for federal elections and one for state elections?

Only one law, modified it to read "it was partially nullified by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which barred a poll tax in federal elections, in 1964" SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Cases brought by women" section, the introductory sentence makes the list of cases feel like a bullet list rather than prose. Could we make the initial paragraph a sentence or two summarizing the kinds of cases that were brought, and then introduce at least the first case with a phrase that provides some continuity with that.

done SusunW (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~How does the SCOTUS decision on Koy's case, declaring that women could vote, tie in with the 19th Amendment, which came later?~~

Good catch, this was a state law and a state supreme court action. It is confusing here with the federal cases. Moved to Texas section.SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The district court ruled against her because the women's suffrage act was in violation of the state constitution: what does "women's suffrage act" refer to here? This precedes the 19th Amendment so surely there was no suffrage for women at the time Koy brought her case?

Moved to Texas section, and there was suffrage in Texas under state law. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling reaffirmed that the right to vote was fundamental and could not be conditional upon paying a tax. Why "reaffirmed" instead of just "affirmed"? Was there a prior ruling that voting could not be conditional on paying a tax?

Ellis p 1049 "The Court concluded by reiterating that the right to vote was a fundamental right. 'Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned'". To my mind reiterating says there was a prior determination (at least on voting), but I see no conflict with the source if we simply say affirmed. done SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but it works with "affirmed" too, so striking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~which more directly exposed inequality in sociopolitical systems: I don't know what this means.~~

Members of these groups were seen as radicals, out and out feminists, willing to rock the boat, call out inequalities, demand change. Fullerton & Stern, p 162 "newer organizations, such as the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus, had a "sharper edge." These groups drew directly on the power of exposing the historical inequities of the sociopolitical system to politically activate women". I can link to Women's liberation movement if you think that helps? SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase is opaque. The previous sentence mentions "increased political engagement by Southern women"; could we just make it "In part, greater political involvement had to do with the efforts of new groups like the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus"? Does a reader of this article need to understand how NOW and NWPC differed ideologically from the earlier organizations? If you want to include it I think it should be phrased more plainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn you that I analyze everything ;) and so little is generally known of women's history that it is hard for me to evaluate what is over-explaining and sufficient to explain. Used your phrasing. SusunW (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using that power, in 1966, the federal courts nullified the remaining state statutes which used poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting: Mississippi is mentioned as a case of this happening, but you say "statutes", plural; were there other states where Harper did not eliminate the poll tax and the VRA was needed?

Richomme says "...some Southern states continued to implement the poll tax until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1966. To cope with their noncompliance, Section 10 of the VRA enabled the Attorney General to 'institute', or challenge, the use of poll taxes, thus effectively restricting its use". We know from other documentation that Texas (9 February) and Alabama (3 March) were overturned by 3-judge panels assembled under federal oversight of the VRA. Harper decision was 24 March 1966, Virginia law was nullified by it on 25 March and Mississippi ruling by a 3-judge panel assembled with the authority of the VRA on 8 April. By the time Harper happened, only 2 states still had a valid poll tax statute, but provisions of the VRA overturned 3 state laws. I've added Texas, Alabama and Mississippi. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~spanning from the 1850s to 1920s: "span" needs a direct object. I'd suggest either "spanning eight decades from the 1850s to the 1920s" or "lasting from the 1850s to the 1920s".~~

done SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A deeper look at the period confirms: I don't think this should be in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly for n 1987, historians Joan M. Jensen and Lois Scharf noted that feminist activists between 1920 and 1940 lived complex lives full of hidden barriers: "note" implies a statement of fact rather than opinion, so perhaps "argued" or "asserted".

Changed noted to asserted, and a deeper look to "Scholarship on the period" SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dating of the change in attitude to the significance of women's rights activism starts with "contrary to pre-1970s academic beliefs", but then cites a 1987 source as an indication of the change. Can anything be said about scholarship closer to 1970 than 1987?

I'm not sure why the dating of the source has any bearing on it's assertion, especially when they specifically list earlier attitudes and works? Podolefsky p 840 "... this movement evidenced women working together across racial lines, contradicting another widespread assumption about the women's movement. The women's rights movement didn't end after suffrage. Instead, it survived, shaped by the relative friendliness and hostility of the political, social, and economic environment of the mid-twentieth century". Her note goes on to say "Authors Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor [1987] challenged the assumption that the women's movement died in 1920 after passage of woman suffrage and that it was not resurrected until the mid 1960s". Benson p 119 says "It is therefore not surprising that those who first turned to the interwar decades tended to see them as an afterthought. J. Stanley Lemons (The Woman Citizen, 1973), Anne Firor Scott (The Southern Lady, 1970), and others looked at this period through the prism of progressivism, seeing women carrying the tattered banner of reform through the indifferent 1920s and passing it on to the New Deal". and continues on p 124: "Women's historians have fallen rather easily into using the Nineteenth Amendment as a point of demarcation, but these books [Lois Scharf and Joan M. Jensen, eds. Decades of Discontent: The Women's Movement, 1920-1940. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983. viii + 313 pp. Illustrations, tables, reading list, and index. $35.00; Judith Sealander. As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983. xiii + 201 pp. Appendixes, essay on sources, and index. $27.95.] should encourage us to see a more gradual and comprehensive transformation later in the decade rather than a dramatic denouement after 1920". I made a minor change to the sourcing, but if you think something else needs to be done, just tell me ;). SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading I think it's OK as it stands; I was taking the sentence about Jensen and Scharf as the primary evidence for the change in academic views post-1970, but it isn't; it's simply later scholarship on the point. I'll strike, but first I just noticed that you cite the sentence about Jensen and Scharf's opinions in 1987 to a 1984 source, so surely there's some mistake here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! If you look at the review by Benson quoted above, she is reviewing the first edition, published in 1983. I didn't have access to that volume, only the 1987 edition, thus the confusion on the dates. Changed year. SusunW (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in part because their focus was on school segregation: for or against? Perhaps it doesn't really matter for this article but it would give their reluctance to take up poll tax repeal quite a different flavour if they're distracted by a different progressive cause instead of a racist one.

Well now the article doesn't say, Ogden 215: "However, due to the re-agitation of the race issue as a result of the school segregation controversy and due to lack of congressional interest in an anti-poll tax measure, there is little possibility of poll tax repeal in Virginia in the immediate future.", but I can assure you they were for segregation and against desegregation. Perhaps linking to Massive resistance instead of school segregation helps? Ive changed the link. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it might be enough to make it "prevention of school desegregation", which would make it clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Changed. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maternal birthright for women born abroad was not confirmed until 1989. I'm not sure what "maternal birthright" means; can we get a link?~~

Changed to "Birthright citizenship derived from the mother". There is no article on disparity in citizenship, and until Gog pointed me to the birthright citizenship article and I started making changes to it, it did not indicate that married women were ever treated any differently from men with regards to their citizenship. I am working on adding various laws that explain the legal history of women's citizenship, but have only managed to get to 1924 so far, then had to rewrite the Cable Act, so there is more to do. This article is linked to that page already. (Sigh, some day, if I have the energy and loads of time, I am going to write an article on married women's citizenship, as it was unequal almost everywhere in the world until after 1957. The handful of places where women had individual nationality I am aware of were Guatemala 1851, US 1922 (limited) 1940 (unlimited), Ireland 1935, Canada 1945, UK 1948, Norway 1950). SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Maybe a list article, listing for each country on what date women gained individual nationality, would be a good way to accumulate that data for a future article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishing the poll tax became the first step in the significant changes to voting rights which would be enshrined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965: "first step" doesn't seem quite right, since in fact the VRA was passed before the very last vestige of the poll tax was eliminated.

I would agree if it said "eliminating the poll tax", but Terchek p 25 says "After the federal government mandated changes in the rules governing voter registration in the South in 1964 and 1965, black voter registration significantly increased. The first change was the elimination of the poll tax; the second was the abolition of the literacy test, proof of good moral character, and other devices designed to bar the registration of blacks; and the third was the dispatch of federal examiners to register blacks in counties designated by the Attorney General as particularly discriminatory. The poll tax was eliminated in 1964 by the twenty-fourth amendment to the Constitution and the other two changes were incorporated in the Voting Rights Act of 1965". SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think just making it "abolishing the federal poll tax" would address my concern; at the time the VRA was passed the state poll tax had still not been declared unconstitutional in Harper. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I misunderstanding something? I see at the end of the lead you say "Passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave federal authority to the Department of Justice to institute lawsuits against the four states that still used poll tax to disenfranchise voters in state elections", so the VRA allowed the DoJ to take action against state poll taxes even before Harper? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "federal" You aren't missing something, the VRA allowed the DOJ to target specific states that had especially discriminating statutes that disenfranchised voters. They had the power to determine that a law on the books was unconstitutional and clearly they did that in Texas and Alabama. They did not have the power to keep the state from passing another law that was also discriminatory, so Harper was crucial to putting an end to the practice entirely. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granting women the vote had undermined the separation of the races as white women registered and voted in the same election facilities as black men and women. I don't follow this. Were black men registering in a separate facility? If so we should say so; if not, how was the separation of the races undermined more by granting women the vote, given that black and white men would have already been using the same facilities?

(Clearly you did not grow up in the segregated South, so I'll try to explain and then give an example, which may then help us arrive at a solution for the article's clarity.) It's a power dynamic. White men had the power (socio-politico-civil) to control blacks, but black men had the power (physical strength) to manipulate white women. So segregationist laws were as much about controlling blacks as they were about protecting white women (p 192). Schuyler p 24 says " If the feminization of the polls threatened white southern manhood on a psychic level, many white men believed that the feminization of the polls threatened white supremacy more concretely. The disfranchisement of African Americans rested on violence, or at least the threat of violence. Yet it was assumed that white women could not be counted on to defend the polls with force, and the feminization of polling spaces made it increasingly unlikely that white men would exercise such violence in white women's presence. Moreover, some African Americans believed that white men would have more difficulty keeping black women from the polls than black men. As one observer put it, "Not even the 'cracker' can treat a woman with quite the same brutality with which he treats a man". In other words, white men could threaten/harm black men to keep them from the polls (same facilities were used by both) but they could not do that to black women, or in the presence of white women. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is this an argument that is generally accepted by scholars of the period? If so I think a word or two of additional explanation (e.g. "... as the presence of white women, registering and voting in the same election facilities as black men and women, had a restraining effect on white men's intimidation of black would-be voters") would help those who like me grew up in London. If you feel it's a position that is not universally held, you might consider qualifying it a little -- "It is argued that" or some such. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is definitely both generally known and accepted by scholars. But I also think it is more broad than just curtailing violence or women "mais l'utilisent pour exercer leur autorité morale sur les hommes blancs censés les protéger" [using their moral authority over white men who are supposed to protect them]. The reason white women were to be protected was to avoid "mongrelization"; she is the "gardienne sacrée de la civilisation blanche" [sacred guardian of white civilization], the key to preventing miscegenation.Stefani,Oh Simply allowing races to mix threatened racial purity. The two articles are an interesting juxtaposition, as Oh p 1341 makes the point that "Jim Crow operated to keep white women from black men, and white men from black women" but Stefani paragraph 4 makes the more nuanced argument that white men could act with impunity against black women and paragraph 5 but white women became the focus of "chivalrous acts" (violence, lynching) to prevent sexual threats against her. (Interestingly, Stefani also ties the beginnings of the breakdown in segregation to women's suffrage.) Perhaps I am simply overthinking it, as often happens when one's thinking is not linear but more encompassing. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything ramifies if you let it .... I think here some extra wording is needed though it doesn't have to be what I suggested. I would avoid the miscegenation/purity/"chivalry" line; it's interesting but here I don't think it would help the reader's understanding -- I'm just trying to make it clear to the reader that there was only one facility, and hint at why the presence of women made a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just went with your proposed text. SusunW (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? I think it might be worth including in the article, though you'd have to check the sourcing for all the data.
I have no access to the V. O. Key book. I found the other one, so it can be checked. My question would be is red/orange a difficult color for those with visual difficulties? SusunW (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert but I think that is indeed a bad colour combination to use. RexxS, if you're not tired of being pinged on accessibility issues, can you comment? SusunW, I'll leave this unstruck but it's up to you if you want to include it; I just mentioned it in case you wanted to use it. The Key book is available very cheaply online and I'd be happy to pick up a copy if that's the only thing stopping you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie and SusunW: I'm happy to be asked, so never worry about pinging me. In my view the red (#FF0000) and orange (#FF5E00) are just too similar to use without a lot of colour-impaired readers being unable to distinguish them. My recommendation would be to replace them with hatched shading with the hatching in opposite diagonal directions and by all means make use of colours, but choose opposites like yellow and blue. If you're thinking of using the image, let me know and I can make those changes for you. However, if you want to use the image, you will have to make sure that all of the information contained in it is repeated in the nearby text, otherwise you disadvantage screen reader users who can't see the image at all. HTH --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie and RexxS: I've done a bunch of analysis on the GIF (man is it hard to catch it rolling by, but I did it.) I am not sure that I understand the technical instructions RexxS, but yellow/blue works for me. As long as we can source it, does it have to be the same sources used to create the original? Because if that isn't an obstacle, then here's what I have:

1868 Georgia — Not sure if this is correct. The Georgia Encyclopedia says the 1877 Constitution first granted the state the power to tax its citizens.

1876 Virginia, repealed 1882 — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1877 Georgia — My reading is that the 1877 Constitution allowed for a collection of poll taxes to fund schools. But that it wasn't tied to voting until 1908. This begs the question do we leave 1877, replace it with and entry for 1908, or change the 1877 text to show legislation passed in 1877, but wasn't implemented as a voting prerequisite until 1908. However we do it, Florida and Tennessee should be treated the same, see below.

1889 Florida — Enacted 1885 effective 1889 per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) Do we make an entry that shows legislation passed in 1885, but wasn't implemented until 1889?

1890 Mississippi — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1890 Tennessee — That year they activated a provision from the 1870 constitution (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471), which seems to be verified as well in the Tennessee Encyclopedia, "The Tennessee State Constitution of 1870 provided for a poll tax at the discretion of the general assembly, with revenues to be used for the common school fund. At the time, critics such as former president Andrew Johnson had recognized the potential harm inherent in the poll tax and vehemently protested it as a method to disfranchise the poor. Nevertheless, the provision remained in the constitution, and the 1889 legislature implemented the tax." The question becomes do we make a 1870 entry to the GIF that shows TN passed legislation but didn't implement?

1893 Arkansas — Doesn't look to be correct. (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471) says 1891 and Branam, 2010, p 246) confirms the poll tax law was passed in 1891 by the legislature and approved by voters in 1892.

1895 South Carolina — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1898 Louisiana — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1900 North Carolina — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1901 Alabama — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1902 Virginia, Texas — Okay per (Williams, Jr., 1952, p 471)

1920 North Carolina repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 178)

1934 Louisiana repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 182, footnote 8)

1937 Florida repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 185)

1945 Georgia repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 187)

1951 South Carolina repeal — Okay per (Ogden, 1958, p 188)

1951 Tennessee effectively ended as a suffrage requirement — While (Ogden, 1958, p 193) confirms the 1951 information, he also says it was abolished 1953.

1964 24th amendment — I question the legitimacy of this in the timeline as it only repealed for federal elections, but it was a landmark, so maybe we do? If we use it, we need to make that clear.(Archer & Muller, 2020)

1966 Harper — Okay per (Archer & Muller, 2020) Thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW and Mike Christie: I think Mike will agree with me that we can't put an image into the article if the information in it doesn't match what we have in the sources. By all means, use your research to write what you've summarised above in the article. If you think a dynamic image would benefit sighted readers, then I could create one similar to File:Poll tax history.gif, but using your data. It would be icing on the cake, and I'd have to find time to create it, so let me know. (p.s. pardon my messing with your indents, but we might want a screen reader user to comment here and WP:INDENTMIX is relevant.) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, neverfear, I have no problems with you changing the indents at all :) and think that the gif is an interesting addition to the visuals, as long as it is accurate. Since I couldn't access the sources of the original, I just found others and when I noted conflicts did more research. I'd be happy to have you create a gif with the verified information. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Susun, can I suggest you copy this discussion to the article talk page? It's not necessary for promotion to FAC, and you have a couple of outstanding questions above which would have to be resolved before RexxS or anyone else could build the gif. You might ask at the Graphics Workshop for someone to put it together since RexxS may not have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused about copy, did you mean move? But at any rate, I have pasted it to the talk page of the article. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Campbell Amendments, there's an NYT article from 1949 giving some additional details about the reasons for the opposition to the amendments from groups opposed to the poll tax; it's here. If you don't have access email me and I can send you a copy.

I don't have access. Just tells me to subscribe. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're curious email me via the link on my user page, but I don't think there's anything in it that has to be included. I found it interesting because it gave additional reasons why the anti-poll-tax movement might oppose the amendments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am always curious and eager to learn new things. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voters in Alabama could be charged up to 24 years in arrears, as they were required to pay from the time they became eligible to vote at age 21 until they reached age 45: just checking this is correct, since according to the Alabama section the law eliminating the poll tax after age 45 also shortened the arrears period from 24 years to 2 years.

Added "prior to the arrears being amended to 2 years in 1953". SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But does "until they reached age 45" apply before 1953? Didn't that only come into effect in 1953, at the same time the arrears period was shortened? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know when 45 was put in place, but clearly prior to 1953. Wilkerson-Freeman, p 333 " In 1937 Minnie L. Steckel, a sociologist at the all-white Alabama College for Women in Montevallo, made the following observations...Fourteen years later, Katharine Cater, the dean of women at Auburn, wrote: "Why have women not taken better advantage of the vote for which they worked so diligently? There are a number of possible reasons, but one of the most obvious is the poll tax. The Alabama poll tax very clearly discriminates against women between the ages of 21 and 45. Veterans of World War I and World War II are exempt from paying the tax. This includes many men. But it leaves most women with a tax to pay, one of the worst features of which is the fact that it is cumulative". SusunW (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we have a contradiction that needs to be addressed -- in the "Alabama" section you have "In 1953, the state legislature passed a bill exempting Alabamans over the age of 45 from having to pay the tax and shortened the cumulative collection period from twenty-four to two years", cited to Podolefsky and Wilkerson-Freeman. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an error in Wilkerson-Freeman as both citations are to her. She sources her information on the 1953 amendment to Ogden, pp 233-235. On p 230 Ogden says "No action resulted until 1953 when the cumulative period was reduced from 24 to two years by adoption of a constitutional amendment". On 233 he says "Poll tax opponents aimed for outright repeal in 1953. Unable to get the legislature to agree, they compromised for reduction of the cumulative period". Reading through the entire section on Alabama 230-237 I see nothing that indicates the 1953 amendment had anything to do with anything other than the cumulative period. I've changed the citation to Ogden and removed the bit about exempting Alabamans over the age of 45. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the first section of "Growth of the movement" seems a bit of a mixture of topics. We get tactics, a note about the NCAPT's formation/organization/demise, the impact of the Depression, Breedlove v. Suttles and its impact, Georgia law, the Voting Rights Act, and the final resolution in 1966. Some of this could be redistributed elsewhere in the article --e.g. the NCAPT's structure and important role is a fit for the previous paragraph; the issue of the impact of the Depression could go earlier in the section where there is other discussion of the impact of the poll tax, and is repeated, compressed, in the first paragraph of the "National efforts" section. Why is the Voting Rights Act and the 1966 SCOTUS decision mentioned here, though? What's the basis for putting something in this section rather than the "National efforts" or "State efforts" section? Would it make more sense to combine the first section of "Growth of the movement" with "National efforts" merging them to be a chronological overview, and then use the "State efforts" section to highlight particular cases? I'm not advocating that, but I don't quite get the current division of material.
The third paragraph of "National efforts" seems out of place -- the rest of the section tells a fairly unified story of the Women's Division studying, advocating, and writing reports, with the last paragraph telling the final chapter at the federal level. The third paragraph doesn't give dates or relate its material to the rest of the section. Again I think a more chronological sequence might be better.

Mike Christie as you will see from my answers, I'm kind of slow and meticulous, sorry, meaning I won't finish today. (Clearly I cannot just answer, everything requires contemplation, review of the sources, and analysis. ;) The structural part is difficult. It was initially why I contacted Gog, so I will need to ponder how to best address your queries and come up with a solution. This means that I will skip these questions, answer the rest and come back to them. Basically the current structure is devised to explain the scope, then discuss national efforts, and finally individual state efforts. Growth deals with the scope: Why were women involved, what women were involved (who were their partners--labor organizers, civil rights leaders), what was the problem, and why did the movement evolve as it did. This last part isn't just about changes in the movement because of related developments, but how world events, i.e. Great Depression, War, Cold War, forced them to change tactics. National efforts should only be about efforts toward a federal law and a constitutional amendment to my mind, whereas the state sections deal only with legislation at the state level. Because things were happening at a national level and state level simultaneously, I am not sure how one could make it purely chronological without being confusing so to my mind, these need to remain separate sections. SusunW (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with delaying to get it right. I will go through your answers probably first thing in the morning and strike everything that's done or leave additional comments. Re the structure, I'm open to being convinced it's correct as it stands and I do see that a purely chronological approach would be difficult. I'll sleep on it and see if I can come up with anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've taken a stab at this. Can you review it and let me know if you think it is better? SusunW (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but probably not tonight; I'll knock off some of the easier strikes below first and will look when I have time to read thoroughly -- in the morning, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the final 1966 SCOTUS decision is a bit distributed through the article -- it's mentioned in a couple of places, then we get a bit more detail in the section on Virginia, and finally more details in "Cases brought by women". This reinforces my feeling that a bit more of a chronological overview would be helpful before going into the details at the state level and the individual cases. I think merging "National efforts" with the paragraphs above it as an "Overview" section would not take much surgery.

Maybe that is indeed how we unify it. Instead of growth of the movement, overview? Still pondering how to best structure that. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections is the landmark case, why was an additional federal decision necessary in Mississippi? The lead, for example, says that the Virginia case "finally settled" the struggle. Ah, I see in the "Impact" section that the VRA was necessary to enforce the 24th Amendment. I think that could be clearer.

It went further than that. The VRA did not just allow them to enforce no poll tax in federal elections, it gave them oversight on discriminatory state laws. After Harper, it allowed them to nullify the state statues and eliminate poll tax in all elections. Open to suggestion on how to make this clearer. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understood this better by the time I finished the article. I'll have a think and come back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an impressive article. Most of the points above are fairly minor and just need rewording or some clarification; the only one that is a bit of a concern is the question of organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your reviewing the article Mike Christie. Very complicated subject, very complicated period of history. My brain needs a rest, but I'll come back to the structural part in a bit. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now addressed everything. I've retitled growth of movement to overview, moved the paragraph from national efforts to there and rearranged it a bit. I am sure you may have other changes, but I am beat. Will be back tomorrow and await your advice on how to proceed. SusunW (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything I have the energy for tonight and should be able to pick this up again tomorrow. Yes, complicated; fascinating material and since I lived in Texas for 20 years it doesn't feel that academic a topic. More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through your replies above and am now rereading the article with an eye to its organization, though I don't know if I'll have time to finish it this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a suggestion, though I'm open to discussion on other approaches. I think the main problem for me is that it feels like key information is buried. It's not so much that the article needs reorganization, it's more that when we get down to the detailed sections -- "State efforts", "Cases brought by women" -- I want to feel like I already have the basic scaffolding in place so I know where to put this information. I think this can be achieved with a couple of small changes:

Promote both "National efforts" and "State efforts" to a level 2 section heading, taking them out from under the "Overview of the movement" section (which I agree is a better name than "Growth of the movement").

done SusunW (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add a bit more on the key moments to the "Overview" section, naming the cases but not giving all the details, which can be left to the later sections. Specific points that I think would need to be added are the 24th Amendment, Harper, and a couple of sentences on the final cases that eliminated the remaining poll taxes for state elections.

For example, Harper is one of the most important moments in the repeal, but it isn't named outside the lead till the end of the "Cases brought by women" section. If we name it at the end of the overview, without giving all the details, the later discussion will tie back to it in the reader's mind.

Okay, I think I have done this, better? SusunW (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, I have a different question. How are you deciding what material belongs in this article and what belongs in Poll taxes in the United States? Without realizing it, I think some of my comments have been made in the expectation that this article would cover all the relevant information about the poll taxes, but since this is clearly not the summary article on US poll taxes, can you say what the appropriate degree of overlap is? For example, I was about to suggest that you add a sentence at the top of "State efforts" giving the date of repeal in the three states without subsections there, but if women were not involved in the repeal, I can see that information doesn't belong here. On the other hand, if the majority of the repeal effort was handled by women, so that this article contains 90% of what the parent article would contain, would we better off moving this article on top of Poll taxes in the United States and adding that last 10%? I'm definitely not suggesting that, just trying to understand what the difference would be between the articles if the other article were also brought to a high standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed everything to this section "I've finished going through your replies above" and while I've read what you said and agree that's a good path, I have no brain left tonight to do it. Tomorrow... But, in answer to your last query, if you look at the history of the article Poll taxes in the United States you'll see that I've tried to add to it as I discovered missing information while writing this. This article is not a history of the poll tax in general, only that part that has to do with poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. The poll tax has a long history that has nothing to do with voting and our article on it is very lacking in that regard. This article also has a definite beginning point and ending point, but the general article on poll tax doesn't necessarily. There is no discussion here about those whose motivations to eliminate the poll tax had to do with eliminating the ability for operatives to manipulate party power, nor any discussion of the concessions made to veterans (not really a women's issue as women were not generally allowed to serve in the military). It also has nothing in it about the scholarly debate as to whether paying for voter identification cards amounts to a new poll tax. I cannot really answer the how much overlap question as our poll tax article is so poorly written, but it would seem to me that there would not necessarily need to be a large overlap, except of course in the chronology for voting. SusunW (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also am out of brain power for the evening. I think your comment on the overlap convinces me; I was just checking. I will try to follow up on what remains tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've struck a couple more points and responded to a couple more. Since you say above you'll have a go at the slight reorganization I suggest, I'll hold off on commenting again till you've had a chance to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything, but advise if I've missed something. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved the resolved issues into the collapsed section; will look at the restructure tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through again and I think the tweaks you've made resolve the organizational question. I spotted two minor points that I'd like to address before I support:

Do we still need the last sentence of "National efforts", about the 24th Amendment? Now that the overview section covers the last few steps of the repeal, I think this could be cut.

done SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the introductory sentence to "State efforts", could we add "Most, but not all, of these states saw efforts by women's organizations to repeal these taxes over the following decades". This would remind the reader that this article is specifically about the women's repeal movement, not the whole history of the repeal of poll taxes in the US.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thank you. Added. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in adding women's different citizenship laws to the birthright citizenship article, I discovered that prior to 1934 American women could not pass on their citizenship to their children, so the 1989 amendment in the footnote allowed children born prior to 1934 to finally obtain derivative citizenship from the mothers. I tweaked the footnote. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your efforts to improve the article. I truly appreciate the collaboration and opportunity to make it better and more accurate. SusunW (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is an outstanding article, very much worth the FA star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias

Going into this I had no idea about any of this, and am quite happy to have learned something here. I don't see anything major that needs to be addressed, but do have one suggestion: the "Overview of the movement" section is a little long; is there any thought to adding subheadings to it? Not a huge issue of course, but it may help readability if that can be added. Either way I'm happy to support. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Kaiser matias. I often say that in writing articles I learn far more than I impart. That was certainly the case here. I've added subheadings. Better? SusunW (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

Amazing work, Susun, glad to see this here. I'm not a subject-matter expert, so I'm mostly commenting on prose. I will do some copyediting as I go. Feel free to disagree, as always. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here. Thanks for the opportunity to work with you again on improving articles. Always enjoyable. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This created cross-overs between activists involved in the poll tax movement and those active in the broader civil rights movement"; I wonder if a more elegant term than "cross-overs" could be found; perhaps collaboration?
done SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"From the formation of the United States 1776–1789" the date range is grammatically awkward; is it necessary?
Perhaps, "From the formation of the United States, governing documents created between 1776 and 1789 established prerequisites for casting a ballot"? If that works then done. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party had traditionally been the party with which blacks affiliated, it was the rise of organized, discontented small farmers that was seen as a bigger challenge to political power at the turn of the century." I don't see how the second piece follows from the first...
The point being made here is twofold. 1) Poll taxes were not implemented per se to disenfranchise blacks because the Republican party was in decline. 2) They were implemented in the Progressive era (when Democrats were stronger) not the Reconstruction era (when Republicans were stronger) to keep Populists from siphoning off the power of Democrats. The farmers were the Populists. Maybe it is solved if I add agrarian to the first sentence in the paragraph? SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920, which enfranchised them" at the risk of stating the obvious, might be worth clarifying (in a footnote, if necessary) that this was only legal enfranchisement for women of color, and did not work in practice until 1965...
It was only a legal enfranchisement for any woman, regardless of color, living in the south who had the ability (cooperation of her spouse and sufficient assets) to pay to vote. I've added legally and tweaked the text, but since the whole focus of the article is from 1920-1966 seems to me that it is obvious that is when the problem of not being able to exercise their legal right (my personal opinion is that voting in the US is a privilege as it is always conditional) to vote. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the paragraph after "In North Carolina, women agitated for the abolition of the tax" strikes me as belonging further down the article, but that may just be a matter of preference...
It is in this section to show how responses varied to women's suffrage and payment of the tax. North Carolinians abolished the tax at the same time women got suffrage and South Carolina decided that women didn't have to pay the tax at all. I'm not sure where else they would logically go, as they weren't fighting to abolish taxes that did not apply to them from 1920-1966, unless they were working in the national movement. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dollar values of the taxes would benefit greatly from those templates giving a present-day value
Oh lordy, a technical thing. I'll try, but no promises. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have no clue. I am sure I have the right template, but totally unsure how to make it work. I'll just do what I always do...Gog the Mild HELP! SusunW (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done. Gog saved the day. SusunW (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a list of states with a poll tax would be helpful, perhaps in a note?
There were poll taxes which were not conditions to voting registration in many states. The sourcing I found did not list them, but said 22 states. The only ones that required it as a precondition to voting are listed at the beginning of the "State efforts" section. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy, apologies. Resuming: I'm wondering why Breedlove vs Suttles is mentioned where it is; that material isn't about the tactics; might it fit better in "Development"?
No need to apologize, it's the holidays. Hope you and yours are having a lovely season and wishing you a better and less stressful 2021. Moved it there. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the material in the last paragraph of "tactics" seems more concerned with legality...I'm wondering if "legal chronology" or equivalent makes sense as a separate section, but we can revisit that later.
Changed the section title to "tactics and outcomes". Does that work? Mike Christie thought that the overview should let the reader know from the beginning what the following sections were going to lead to. So the synopsis of the section shows they used the national and state legislatures as well as the courts. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still a little unhappy about this, but willing to defer to Mike...
"had even been "forbidden" by Democratic National Committee chair James Farley"; wondering about the need for quotes here; also, is any more detail available? Specifically, I'm wondering if he intended to forbid it, or whether it was intentionally in name only.
He definitely intended to do it and the quotes are from the source. Wilkerson-Freeman p. 344: "When the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, James Farley, got wind of the women's activities, he met with the head of the Women's Division, Dorothy McAllister, and insisted that the women end their work on the poll tax. Farley then had a meeting with FDR, where he reportedly told the president, "You've got to shut up these damn women in the Democratic Committee because it's making trouble on the Hill with the Southern senators and congressmen." ... "Even though the Women's Division had been "forbidden" to work on the poll tax issue, May Evans nevertheless disobeyed Farley's orders..." SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"New Deal liberals" this link goes to the policy; folks may wonder how this constituency was different from labor unions; is there an easy way to specify this?
Nope, no easy way. LOL Basically, the New Deal created public works and infrastructure, i.e. policy, programs, and alliances, to reorder society and create an environment of greater equality. Labor unions focused on the conditions and needs of the people who worked on those projects. Group A then is politicians and policy makers, whereas group B are advocates and policy proposers. Maybe this captures what I am saying. "The New Deal differed from previous eras of state activism not only because of the relatively more favorable political and legislative environment it created for organized labor but, perhaps even more important, because the New Deal provided a set of semipermanent political structures in which key issues of vital concern to the trade union movement might be accommodated". So maybe "The organization united New Deal policy-making liberals for the first time with labor union advocates as a means of developing strategies for rebuilding society". Better? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little better, yes...
Can you link/explain "failed in committee"?
It means that they sent it there to die. The policymakers wanted to look like they were responsive to their constituents so they sent it to committee, with the understanding that the chair would never bring it up for discussion. In other words, they took no action, so it died. (Searching WP for failed in committee, died in committee, killed in committee, I find lots of hits but nothing to link it to. There is no article on the topic.) If "for lack of any action" works, I've added that. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I knew what it meant; but the general reader may not...
I'm wondering a little bit about the weighting of the "State efforts" section. You list eleven states there; only eight get subsections; of these, four are very long, and four are quite short. I appreciate that you're likely limited by source material here, but as it was it leaves the impression that the movement was stronger in some states than others. Can you comment on this? It seems to me we need some explanation of this imbalance...I did a quick google scholar search for Florida, for instance, and I found this, I wonder if it would be of use...
Basically the states not mentioned Louisiana, North and South Carolina, didn't have a women's movement to repeal the taxes and repealed fairly soon after suffrage. It may well have been stronger in some states than others, but I cannot verify that. My guess would be that is logical, but I found no academic treatment that focused specifically on Florida, Georgia, or Arkansas' poll tax repeal movement. For example, Ogden says Arkansas women were very active, but provided no real details, thus, I am left with what I can access or what I can get from the Resource Exchange. As I am in Mexico, that often means newspapers, but even for my subscription accounts I must constantly negotiate the IP being whitewashed to allow me access. Even with access, the issue is, of course, how representative are the collections that have been digitized of the news available for a state. (In other words, for example, I know that the Oklahoma coverage in newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com are very poor. I spent years of my life researching in the collections of the Oklahoma History Society and know that there are far more titles available than those digitized on either of those websites. And don't get me started on the lack of access to the Associated Negro Press.) Between lack of academic will to study women's issues and lack of sources because of the passage of time, lack of digitization, or historic trivialization of women's news, there just aren't a lot of sources available, but I have tried to use everything I had access to. (Thanks for the Florida piece. It was interesting to read, but doesn't really say anything about poll tax repeal efforts). I can only hope that eventually more sourcing will emerge. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've to work with what you have...I don't have much to add to this; I may do another sweep for sources, but it looks like you've done what you can. As an aside, feel free to ping me for access to scholarly sources; I have JSTOR and Project Muse access, and some other academic databases; print sources are tricky, of course, but if there's a scholarly journal article online, odds are I can get it for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"curtailed the participation of women, as well as black and immigrant groups." you're referring to immigration laws; it's not clear why they apply to black people specifically.
Added an explanation. because prospective voters who had been citizens for at least twenty-one years, were over age sixty-five, or were disabled could receive assistance even if they were illiterate. Better? Feel free to tweak it. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the information (which you may well not) I wonder if a table or image of the dates of abolishment by state would be a useful addition...
I am trying to get the graphics lab to put together a GIF on it, see here. I was told in my previous FA nomination that the format precludes tables. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Poll taxes specifically disenfranchised Mexican Americans because their low wages made payment of the tax a hardship." I know what you mean here, but I think the wording conveys a meaning you do not intend. Unless I'm missing something, poll taxes did not specifically target Mexican Americans; it just affected them disproportionately. There's a subtle difference that the word "specifically" confuses, and this may be something to check for throughout.
Deleted specifically. I find no other instances of its use in the document. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"examining commonalities in sexism and racism" Miglionico was not the very first to do this at all, surely? If it was specific to electoral research, or some such, we should say so
It wasn't specific to voting, Wilkerson-Freeman p 357, mentions voting as well as jury service and "Jim Crow ordinances", she also says "At this point, few Alabama AAUW women seemed to question, much less reject, racial segregation, but Miglionico's decision to examine the related issues of women's curtailed voting rights and race-based injustice was a prelude to discussions concerning the commonalities of gender and racial prejudice". Perhaps adding by the American Association of University Women solves the dilemma? SusunW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" the Alabama Legislature introduced" unless I'm missing something, legislatures don't usually introduce bills, do they? Individual legislators do...how about "In 1947, a bill to eliminate poll taxes was defeated in the Alabama Legislature", assuming the year is the same?
done SusunW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The political climate did not allow reintroduction of anti-poll tax legislation" does the source elaborate at all?
Wilkerson-Freeman, p 360 "By 1956 the women's organizations had been fighting for twenty years; most leaders had been in their forties when they started. With the election of governors John M. Patterson in 1959 and George C. Wallace in 1963, hopes that the Alabama legislature would make further concessions on the issue of suffrage rights strained reality". Basically two back-to-back very pro-segregation governors were elected. But of course the source doesn't say that. Okay, I've found a source and added with the election of successive pro-segregationist governors SusunW (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, again, for the delay. Almost done, now; however, the last section bothers me. First, I'm struggling to see the connection to poll taxes in the first paragraph.
Added as is demonstrated by their involvement in the movement to repeal poll taxes to the first sentence, to demonstrate the tie. SusunW (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I think the last two sentences of the second paragraph would fit much better at the head of that paragraph, which should also perhaps go at the beginning of the section.
I tweaked the text and moved a sentence. Better? SusunW (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: I still think the last sentence feels like more of a topic sentence, and should be moved to the head of the paragraph; but it's not something to hold the article up over. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a remarkably detailed article, and the prose has been, I believe, brought to standard over the course of this FAC. To be completely honest I'm still a little uncertain about its structure; see comments above re: significance, placement of legal history, and historical significance; but I cannot at the moment think of a better way to do it, so it would be unfair to withhold my support. @Gog the Mild and Ealdgyth: apologies for holding this up as long as I did. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Several of the captions contain information which is not in the text, and so need separately referencing.

Sorry, but I have no clue what you are asking. Are we speaking about the photographs? Perhaps you speaking British, or perhaps I am just tired from real life stuff today? I'll hop on these first thing tomorrow. And thank you so much for looking at the umpteen sources here. I truly appreciate your help if I have not already said that enough. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the photo captions.

Nope, you've not said that enough yet.

I honestly have never been asked (and I have been writing for many decades) to cite a photograph, thus my confusion, but that was easily done. I am assuming that it is not required for those with just a name and date? I learn much from you and I truly, truly appreciate your mentoring. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the captions, the writing underneath the images, contain information which is not also covered, and therefore cited, in the main article. Eg that Dorothy Stafford was elected president of the East Tennessee League of Women Voters in 1937. So where this is the case, could you add a cite to the end of each "set of words under the photos"? (Similar to the way I have done for the "caption" for the coin image towards the end of First Punic War.)

done SusunW (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 31: the source only refers to New York, it explicitly rules out other states. Suggest a minor tweak to the text. (Or a different source.)

I'm confused. It says is Married women had an obligation to permit their husbands sexual access to their bodies in every state until New York's marital rape statute of 1975. [my italics] I see no conflict with that and with the article text "Until 1975 married women were legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex." In 1975, 49 states still required women to have sex with their husbands and only New York did not; before that, all 50 required it, according to the source. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In footnote 4 you write "Until 1975 married women were legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex." That this was only referring to the US is a given. My reading of this is that it clearly implies that after 1975 married women in the US were not legally obligated to allow their husbands access to their bodies for sex. But the source, to my reading, implies that even after 1975 this was still the case for most married women in the US.

Got it. Okay, I've tweaked it. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Until the mid-1960s and early 1970s, academics did not focus on women's history, their issues, or their political cultures." The source you cite says that academics didn't focus on this until the early 1970s. (On, IMO, a generous reading.) The "mid-1960s" bit is specified as non-academic.

Cut mid-1960s.

Fine.

SusunW (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, barring the trivial exceptions above, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

@SlimVirgin and Vanamonde93: What are your updated thoughts? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I'll have time and energy to do a review. The prose needs a copy edit. Two examples from the Background section (this is after a ten-second glance): "The ramifications were deeper than political disenfranchisement, as in states where serving on a jury was determined by those on the electoral rolls, those who could not pay poll taxes were doubly discriminated against, being denied the opportunity to serve or have their case evaluated by their peers": "as in" and "being denied" need to be fixed. And "As women could not vote, the tax did not apply to them until 1920 when the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, legally enfranchised them." Could use a comma after 1920; should not have a comma after "Constitution". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the first to read The ramifications were deeper than political disenfranchisement, because in states where serving on a jury was determined by those on the electoral rolls, those who could not pay poll taxes were doubly discriminated against and were denied the opportunity to serve or have their case evaluated by their peers. Better? and fixed the second. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better, thanks, but reviewers can't highlight everything, so the best thing is for the article to undergo a copy edit, either by you or someone else. Someone needs to go through the text and fix any problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is after another glance: "Women and people of color in the South were not apathetic in the fight for voting rights,[276] though historians and political scientists before the 21st century often characterized Southern women as uninterested and indifferent to political matters in the interwar and immediate post-war periods." (a) although, not though; (b) what's the difference in this context between uninterested and indifferent? (c) you can't say "uninterested to". SarahSV ^(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! I am awaiting the nominator's permission to give this a root and branch copy edit. Although that is worth pretty much what I charge and comes completely without warranty. I hope to get this done on the 28th, but it's a big article and, you know - RL. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there's no rush for a copy edit. Better to do it well than quickly. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I will try to complete my review within the next few days. All my comments thus far have been minor, and I don't think I'll have major comments on anything except structure; so if I'm all that's standing in the way of promotion, you don't need to wait for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde, just checking how this one is going. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.