Talk:Mud March (suffragists)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Garbled quote?

"posies bound with red and white handkerchiefs programmes" doesn't seem to make sense. Some words missing from the quote? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No longer in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Observer

I'm going to combine three references if there's no objection, because one Observer article has been cited as if it were three articles ("Titled Demonstrators", "Mr Hardie's speech" and "The Procession"). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's three subarticles, and it will help anyone investigating the sources if they kept separate. So please leave as is. Brianboulton (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

They're not sub-articles. They are three paragraphs of one article, and giving readers the impression that they're three articles is the opposite of helpful. I was about to ask Schrocat to send me the other two. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

They are separately headed, and as I say, keeping them separately cited is helpful. There is no rhyme or reason to change it, just for the sake of it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking at a different copy? I'm looking at one Observer article called "Titled Demonstrators", 10 February 1907. It has three sections and two subheads, which is common in newspaper articles. But it's one article. Citing it as if it's three is confusing; anyone trying to find an Observer article with the title "The Procession" from that date will have no luck. I was confused and nearly asked Schrocat to send me the ones I was missing. It's also misleading because it makes the article appear to cite more news sources that it does. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone looking for The Procession or Mr Hardie's Speech simply clicks on the link and scrolls down. That's easier and more convenient than you would have it. I don't accept your "misleading" argument. Rather than continue this squabble, the article has open peer review and I'll raise the subject there and abide by what they say. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I only mentioned it here to be polite because you'd asked me to discuss my edits on talk. Normally I would just have fixed it, which is what I wish I had done. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've come up with a compromise. I've adjusted the citations to the subsections so that they now read, respectively, The Observer, "Titled Demonstrators" ("The Procession") 10 February 1907" and The Observer, "Titled Demonstrators" ("Mr Hardie's Speech), and I've amended the sources section to reflect this. This should overcome the objection that " anyone trying to find an Observer article with the title "The Procession" from that date will have no luck", and also preserves my concern to direct our readers to the appropriate section of a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Overseas coverage

Two sentences in the article say there was coverage overseas, but I can't find reference to that in the sources:

• "The march was widely reported, at home and abroad, mostly in sympathetic terms." Sourced to Pugh 2000, p. 182.
• "Newspapers and magazines in Europe and in the United States noted the march's diversity ..." Sourced to Tickner 1988, pp. 75–76 (page 76 is all photographs from the Daily Mirror).

Apologies if I'm overlooking it. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am investigating this, along with a few other issues which may be carry-overs from the initial article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I also can't find in Foot that "the issue of women's suffrage in England had been considered, though not adopted as a principle, by the Levellers". Sourced to Foot 2012, p. 10. And is Foot an RS for the Levellers? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Foot's history of "The Vote" is a respected historical account of the franchise in Britain and undoubtedly meets our RS criteria. To cast doubt on it in this way is frankly absurd. For the benefit of those who don't have access to the book, the first paragraph on page 10 tells us that the "royalist hack" Francis Edwards had accused the Levellers of wanting to extend the vote to women. But, says Foot, although this would have been acceptable to some individual Levellers – he mentions William Walwyn and Edward Sexby – the Levellers' pamphlets indicate that they would be satisfied with a wide extension of the male suffrage. Our article is not about the Levellers; they warrant a brief mention as part of the historical background, and I believe the sentence you quote does this and satisfactorily reflects what the source says. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian, you said above that it's a pity we're at odds, and you seemed perplexed by it. But look at the way you're responding to me: my questioning your use of Foot for the Levellers is "frankly absurd".

Edwards accused the Levellers of wanting votes for women, and in Foot's view it "would not have worried" Walwyn, and Sexby was an Anabaptist. But it doesn't say or imply that "the issue of women's suffrage in England had been considered ... by the Levellers". If I'm missing something, please quote the sentence you're relying on. Or can you supply a second source to support it? I've looked but I can't find one. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my choice of word, but I did find your casting doubt on Foot as a RS somewhat odd. If this article was a history of the Levellers I wouldn't base it on Foot, obviously, but it isn't, and the reference to them could be very well left out altogether. However, I thought it worth noting that the possibility of women's suffrage was unobjectionable to at least some of the Levellers, though not taken up as a cause. That's how I interpreted the source. I've now amended the opening sentence with a stricter interpretation; you are welcome to tweak it further, if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. That sentence is about the Levellers, and so the source needs to be an RS, preferably a scholarly source, for that topic. Foot doesn't say it was unobjectionable; he says "would not have worried" (conditional). My recollection of the Levellers (admittedly this is going back many years) is that they didn't ever consider women's suffrage, and that included the women among them. So if they're going to be mentioned—even if it's only to say that the idea of it was unobjectionable to some of them—I would like to see a scholarly source. But I would also support removing that sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If the point about the Levellers was critical to this article we might well require a specialist source, but that's not the case. We can assume that as a general historian of the franchise, Foot will have done his research and not made this bit up. The sole point that I am trying to convey is that as early as the 1640s the possibility of women's suffrage was in the air, else why would Francis Edwards have made his accusation? Or why was the woman question "a difficult one"? There is a strong inference that such as Walwyn and Sexby ("who had a proud record of egalitarian treatment of women") would not have objected to women being enfranchised, although you are quite right that even the women Levellers opposed the idea. I've tweaked the sentence again to more accurately represent the source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

We should choose a different lead image; the current one seems to have mostly men in it. The poster is a strong one. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The men are bandsmen, whose presence at the head of the march is fully covered in the article. The banner makes the nature of the march abundantly clear. However, you could swop it with the image included later in the article, of the march stretching down Rotten Row, or perhaps with one of the other PD images that captures the march's character. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried this and it works OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's an improvement, thank you. I'm not that keen on it because the quality is poor and it doesn't show much. I realize that the poster isn't ideal either, but it's a stronger image, and it shows who organized it, where and when, and some names, so it's quite interesting.

The poster was my original choice for the lead, but I thought it a little uninviting to the general reader. I'm open to any reshuffling of the images, but suggest we leave this issue until more urgent questions have been settled. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem with the Pippa Strachey image? There is also the image of her in the ODNB as a possibility. The Hirtle chart is helpful for working out whether images are free. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See what Nikki says in the peer review. The basic problem seems to be that the NPG claims copyright on the image, as it does on the ODNB one. I'm not an expert in this field, which is why I raised the matter with Nikki. I would guess that we need the NPG's permission to use either image, or to show that either was published before 1923. But do take up the matter with Nikki if you are unsatisfied. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As a trial, I've put the poster back as the lead image - the former one survives in the article as the top half of the Daily Mirror front page. I've put another notice in the Organisation section, pending the availability of the Strachey image. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that looks better. I may ask on Commons for help with the Strachey image. There are earlier images of her that we could upload, but it's a question of using the right template. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Source request

Regarding this:

In her account of the suffrage campaign of 1907–1914, Lisa Tickner observes: "The Mud March, modest and uncertain as it was by subsequent standards, established the precedent of large-scale processions, carefully ordered and publicised". The march contradicted the images in the public mind, popularised in parts of the press, of suffrage campaigners as strident, hysterical, fanatical women, and showed "that all sorts and conditions of women wanted the vote". According to Tickner, this social mix was a foretaste of the effect the suffrage movement would have on the future interactions between classes in society.

Gardener 1989 is Gardener, Deborah S (December 1989). "Review: The Spectacle of Women: Imagery of the Suffrage Campaign 1907–14 by Lisa Tickner". The Art Bulletin. 71 (4): 702. Tickner 1988 is Lisa Tickner, The Spectacle of Women: Imagery of the Suffrage Campaign 1907-14. University of Chicago Press.

What does Gardner say to support "The march contradicted the images ... of suffrage campaigners as strident, hysterical, fanatical women ..."?

The paragraph is oddly sourced. Tickner 1988, which mentions the idea of "hysterical" women only to criticize it, is used for the first and last sentence. The second sentence with "hysterical" is sourced to a review of Tickner's book, but the quote "that all sorts and conditions of women wanted the vote" is from Tickner. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Daily Mirror called the marchers "suffragettes" at the time, and indeed one of the photographs in the article does too (File:Mud March, 1907; ILN.jpg), so the text about suffragettes needs to be adjusted. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Sarah, thanks for your interest. The Daily Mirror refers to the "suffragette movement", as a sort of blanket term, rather than to the marchers. No doubt at this stage the term "suffragette" was used loosely by the Mirror and other papers to describe all women campaigners, but all histories of the movement draw the distinction between constitutionalist suffragists and militant suffragettes. I don't myself see the need to adjust the text: have you a suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have a suggestion at the moment, but it does need an adjustment, and the Mirror did call the marchers "suffragettes". See Tickner, p. 76. The relationship between the WSPU and others was not as simple as this article implies. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've added a footnote which explains that the distinction between suffragist and suffragist was not universally made at the time of the march. I don't see a need to change the text to make this rather minor point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV, and thanks for chipping in. The Gardner info comes from page 702 of The Art Bulletin (Gardner includes a quote from Tickner, p 59 in the section below):

Both the constitutionalists and the militants understood the value of such reportage in conveying the message "that all sorts and conditions of women wanted the vote, and that women who wanted the vote were not as they were popularly conceived to be in the public mind or as caricatured in the illustrated press." This is a particularly important point to which Tickner returns over and over - the suffrage movement's capture of the image of "womanly" women, in contrast to popular images of "shrieking" or hysterical women.

Brian was the main writer, so I'll defer to him on the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

On the above, I'm not sure if Sarah is objecting to the text as it appears in the article, or to the lack of clarity in the attribution. If she can clarify, I'm sure we can work on this. Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat and Brian, it's the phrase "strident, hysterical, fanatical women" in Wikipedia's voice that I object to, and I'm wondering why we cite a book reviewer instead of the book. The book doesn't use the term "hysterical" in that way (no one does now). I see now how it happened. A quote from the review had been in the article for years (e.g. see February 2008), then in March 2018 Brian tightened it and removed the quotation marks, so now Wikipedia is calling the women "hysterical". I'd like to remove it and cite Tickner directly, but I'll have to read more first.

One problem with the article is the heavy reliance on original reporting. It means the article reflects the language and tone of contemporaneous reporting. That would be like basing an article on the American civil rights movement on newspapers from that period. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice is not calling the women "hysterical", nor strident or fanatical. It is referring to this depiction of some women in certain sections of the press, and to how the march contradicted that image. But I'm quite happy to reword to avoid any impression that this is Wikipedia's voice. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have revised this pararaph, citing Tickner directly for the "all sorts and conditions of women", removing the reference to "hysterical fanatical women" and adding something said by Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence. Also retain the extra quote from Tickner that you inserted.

This article is not about the entire suffragist struggle, but about one incident in it, so the comparison you make with the 1960s Civil Rights struggle doesn't really hold. Modern histories of the women's suffrage struggle tend to deal with the Mud March very briefly, without the detail provided by contemporary accounts; we need that level of detail, to get the proper flavour of the march. The Historical and Appraisal sections are largely based on modern analysis, not contemporary reports. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Take any event that was part of the civil rights movement—e.g. the Montgomery bus boycott—and imagine how it would be written if sourced to the press of that period. Communicating the flavour of the march via press reports means communicating the flavour of the press, and in this article that seems to be "nice lady marchers = good; suffragettes = bad". I've added some details and a quote to show that, by the time of the march, the division was not as some of the press portrayed it.

Could someone send me "Lady Day". The Observer. 10 February 1907. p. 6; "Mr Hardie's Speech". The Observer. 10 February 1907. p. 7; and "Untitled". The Manchester Guardian. 11 February 1907. p. 6? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. I would expect an article on the Montgomery March or similar event to use much of the contemporary coverage in its description of the event itself; likewise I would expect the background and analysis sections to be based on more up-to-date analysis – just as here. I don't accept for a moment your "nice lady marchers = good; suffragettes = bad" depiction. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It would use contemporaneous accounts, but it would not reflect them. I don't understand what is happening here. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I've emailed you on this: if you could reply, I'll send the articles through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you. Can I add two? "The Women's March". The Daily News. 11 February 1907. p. 6; and "Women's Suffrage Demonstration". The Times. 11 February 1907. p. 11. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Now sent Sarah. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I see The Observer called them suffragettes too. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Lady Day" article is absolutely stunning. More of that needs to go into the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as a gesture of courtesy to the editors who have worked hard to create/improve this article, please discuss any further information you wish to add from this article, rather than simply adding it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The press coverage section needs to be rewritten. The second paragraph currently focuses on criticism of the suffragettes, but the newspapers don't focus on that at all. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You should be looking at the section as a whole, not just the second paragraph. The first paragraph quotes from The Times and the Daily Mirror, with no criticism of the sufragettes. The second paragraph quotes from four newspapers. The Guardian article, from 11 February, is rather more critical of WSPU tactics than the given quote indicates; it includes this comment, which I have not put in the article: "If the WSPU like to do these things, let them. They will, we fear, defeat their own ends, and if the Sufrage party as a whole were to be led by them they would invite disaster for their movement." The Observer "Lady Day" article, apart from the quote included, refers to "the expediency of changing the tactics of unseemly behaviour in public for the more dignified form of seemly public manifestation". The Daily News says little beyond the quote as given – that article is mainly about Keir Hardie's difficult position vis à vis his party. The Sphere is a mere headline and indicates no judgement either way. Thus of six newspaper quotes, I've included just two which are specifically critical of suffragette tactics (and excluded another). Of other newspapers not mentioned in the section, the brief Daily Mail report doesn't say anything that qualifies as an opinion. I think the section as a whole is a fair summary of general press reaction and does not need to be rewritten – thoughtful amendement after discussion is of course possible.

The Lady Day article is interesting, and we should summarize more of it. It's a long article, but the only part our article highlights is the criticism of the WPSU. That isn't a fair summary, and it omits the most interesting points. I can't think of any reason not to use more of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The first part of the Lady Day article gives a lively account of the march, but doesn't give any significant detail that isn't covered in other reports in the same paper's news pages of that date. Then follows the section from which I've quoted, which includes the comparison of the march with more militant activities. The final section of the article reads as a general disquisition on the ethical question of women and the vote, and contains some quite insulting stuff: "If women had the vote tomorrow, how many would use it, but still more, how many would be able to use it to any honest intelligible purpose?" (my emphasis). This section of the article is discursive, provocative, and not a reaction to the march, rather a comment on the whole suffrage movement and its motives. Maybe something could be added to the Appraisal section, if you have a specific suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It was part of the press coverage, and was indeed a reaction to the march, so I would like to cover it in the press coverage section. It describes their attitude toward the women, which included that "the vital civic duty and natural function of women ... is the healthy propagation of race". It would be misleading to quote part of the article without making clear to the reader what else it said. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view the press coverage of the march was in the paper's news section; "Lady Day" is a separate feature which had a rather different purpose beyond reporting the march. That's what concerns me – there's a danger of the article becoming too generalised and losing its specific focus – it was never intended as a study of Edwardian attitudes to women. I'm having real difficulty with this, but say what you think should be included, and we can discuss it and where it might best go. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Morning to you both. I have limited time again today (sorry, but work is intervening heavily at the moment), but a few points from my read through of this.

The suffragette v suffragist point is one of those areas where I think we should avoid the contemporary press (although cover what they say). While many newspapers began calling all supporters of women's suffrage "suffragettes"; it is the hindsight of history that has clarified the distinction. Thus while The Observer of 1907 may have classed all marchers as suffragettes, the 2017 version of the paper would correctly make the distinction between suffragette and suffragist. I think we've followed this distinction properly, although the addition of FN2 to clarify things is a positive one.

I think we have - as far as we can - covered the press reaction properly. There is little 'emotive' language outside the Press coverage section, and we give adequate examples of the way the press reacted. As the march was a small but important part of suffrage history it does not receive much coverage in the published histories, and much that has been written is a rehash of the newspaper reports (March, Women, March, for example includes the entire report from the Manchester Courier, but little else). Many of the papers used the march (as they did with nearly any suffrage activity) as an opportunity to repeat the same attitudes. The "Lady Day" piece is, I think, the leading article/editorial, which explains why it drifts into what is obviously a well-rehearsed opinion comment. Short of examining the thoughts of all the papers to women's suffrage in general, I'm not sure that the opinion side belongs in this article. (There is a question of whether an article about Attitudes to the suffrage question in the UK press, 1867–1918 would be beneficial, and I think it probably would be an excellent addition, into which such opinion pieces could and should be examined more closely).

I'll try and pop back in later to have a look at the thread and any further developments. As there is a PR underway, would it be useful continuing there, to get a wider input of opinions from other reviewers? I think if we get others chipping in, it could provide a little more clarity or alternative suggestions? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that further discussion should take place within the peer review where other reviers are more likely to participate. Sarah began the thread with a note on the PR saying that she was raising a sources issue on the talkpage. But the thread has developed far beyond that initial query, to become an alternative forum for improving the article. All such discussions should be in one place. Meantime, while we await what Sarah wishes to say on this, I have a couple of concerns relating to her additions to the article:

• The Phillipa Fawcett image. I initially removed this, because the source image indicates that its copyright belongs to the NPG. It has since been reinstated On the source page is an online application form for requesting permission to use the image. This as far as I'm aware has not been done, so I don't think we should be using it. Because of my uncertainty I am asking NikkiMaria for her view.

• Nikki has replied on the peer review page, and in the light of what she says I've removed the image again, until its US-PD status is established. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned by the added (indirectly cited) Morning Post quote. As given it implies that scoffs and jeers were a major factor in the march, while other sources, including the one quoted directly before the added one, say that such conduct was rare. Thus the article contradicts itself. I've temporarily resolved this by inserting "although" between the posts, but we need more context for the Morning Post quotation. Does Chapman give any more from the article? Better still, is there any chance of getting hold of the actual article? Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed a copy to you both. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The quote is fine in the context of the Morning Post article. I've now cited it directly to the paper, otherwise no change required. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you for sending me that article. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• But the thread has developed far beyond that initial query, to become an alternative forum for improving the article

I'm sorry that I gave the impression I was taking part in the peer review; I left a note there only as a courtesy (I've since removed it to avoid the misunderstanding). I came to the article and talk page as an editor, not as a reviewer, because I saw errors, misunderstandings, points not supported by sources, and a book review used as a source, instead of the book itself, to support a remark about "strident, hysterical, fanatical women" (language the book in question would not have supported). This is the page for discussing edits to the article; it isn't "an alternative forum". I've been wondering why the article was taken to peer review so early in its redevelopment. I can't find any discussion about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Wikipedia peer review process is clearly different from mine; perhaps you should re-read the Wikipedia:Peer review page. I see the process, as do many others, as an important part of article-building, giving editors the opportunity to help improve it. It is a great pity that more use is not made of this process. The distinction between editors and reviewers is artificial; the reviewers are all editors, but in that forum they can work collegially, something you choose not to do. As to the point you raise above re sourcing, it is perfectly acceptable to use a book review in a scholarly journal as a source. Tickner didn't use those words, but the reviewer clearly thought they represented the sense of what Tickner wrote. I withdrew them, not because the source was invalid but because they caused you offence.

It is a pity that you and I are at such odds. In the past I have worked with you and given considerable help on some difficult articles, out of a respect for you as an editor, a respect which does not seem to be reciprocated in the general tone that you have brought to this discussion. It is wearing and distressful to have to battle constantly, but unfortunately I see no alternative while you present yourself in this way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian, you've been kind to me several times over the years, and I've always been grateful for it. But you've been snippy with me lately, on several occasions, and have twice appeared to suggest that I not edit a certain article. I haven't said anything out of respect for you, but I won't keep letting it happen. As for the article, it looks as though you're hoping to get a quick FA out of it, and I feel that I'm having to rush to work on something I'd prefer to take more time over. And regarding peer review, it doesn't work well when people need to have read the sources but can't access them easily. What is the value of a review if reviewers aren't familiar with the issues and don't check the sources?

This article, when I found it, misrepresented relations between the groups, and still does to some extent. It's based too heavily on primary sources and not enough on the scholarship. It omits key points. It tries to maintain rigid distinctions that didn't exist. In several places it seems to go beyond the sources. None of this matters so long as it's recognized that the article is at an early stage of development. But suddenly to go to peer review suggests you think it's further along than it is.

I am very willing to return to a more cordial relationship, but it has to work both ways. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Good, let's see what we can do. But I'd like you to reconsider your unfair comment that what I'm after is a quick FA. That really is insulting, given the time and effort I have always put into preparing articles for FAC. And why at this stage in my Wikipedia career would I be wanting "a quick FA"? Content creation is no longer my main activity – most of my time is now spent in source reviewing, mentoring or doing detailed content reviews. I have one or two articles that I've worked on for a long time which I may bring into the FAC process in due course, and I am from time to time tempted to assist others when a subject takes my fancy, as with this one. You can criticise my work, but have no right to question my motivation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, if you're not planning to nominate it soon, I'm pleased, because I'd like to work on it, but I need time to get to the library and that may mean interlibrary loans. I wasn't questioning your motivation, by the way; it just seemed that this was being rushed. I see Victoriaearle has edited today, and I wonder whether this is the kind of thing she might enjoy working on too. Victoria, if you have no interest or time, feel free to ignore the ping. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah and Brian. This ping caught just me as I was logging out, but I've taken a quick look. Yes, it's an interesting article and the Artists' Suffrage League has some great images. Off the top of my head, with probably fewer than five minutes of skimming, it feels a little Edwardian to me, if that makes sense, which maybe can be attributed to the primary sources. There is a large body of scholarly work to siphon through but my Wikipedia time is very limited. I will take a look to see what's easily available online. Fair warning though that I might not get back here. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Victoria. We would very much welcome your participation if you have the time. The use of newspaper sources in the march description is somewhat inevitable, given that most of the scholarly sources do not describe the march in any detail. Personally I think the old images, and selected quotations from contemporary reports, give an excellent flavour of the event, though perhaps we are overdoing it? it will be good to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Victoria, thanks for checking in and for the link to the Artists' Suffrage League. I wonder whether we can find any of the images they made for the march. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

if we can, one might make an excellent lead image. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian, yes I think to some extent the Edwardian flavor is introduced via the primary sources. I'm wondering whether there's a way to frame them better, so as to keep the interesting tidbits, yet to avoid the tone. That said, I've not thought of a good solution. One thing that struck me is that more analysis might be gained via secondary sources to frame the quotes. Another thing that struck me is the courage needed to march (that holds true today as much as then), and I did find this source that uses the Manchester Guardian quote but with some framing.

Sarah, it seems the inception of the Artists' Suffrage League was to create posters, etc. for this march. I might work that article up if I get some energy. I spent some time trawling for images. The best I can find is this blog that has some of the ephemera - finding the originals has so far eluded me. Apparently the Getty has some images as well but I've not been able to uncover anything there yet (it's a difficult website to navigate). Haven't read beyond here on the talk page yet, nor the article in its entirety. Once I do, I might post some points in a separate section. Probably won't be for a few days. It is a very interesting topic. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Adding, according to Tickner there's an illustration in The Graphic (Feb. 16, 1907 ed) but I've been through the edition a few times and can't find it (good pictures of curling on ice though!). Anyway, maybe someone else will have better luck. I found that edition here. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've been through several subsequent issues of The Graphic without finding this illustration. Perhaps Tickner got the name of the publication wrong? In any event, lifting a good quality image from there might be a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I looked for these when doing my initial research, and found out that it came from a supplement, rather than the main paper. The archive I use (British Library) only holds the main papers, rather than the supplement, which is a shame. – SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've been giving further thought to the issue of the "Edwardian flavor" that Victoria mentions, and how we can resolve this. I think the main problem lies in the "9th February" section which describes the march itself, and is perhaps too reliant on verbatim "colour" quotes from press and participants. Verbatim quotes are to be expected in the "Press reaction" section, but the march description should be presented more neutrally. I'm working on this. We will still be largely reliant on contemporary sources, but at a slight remove. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Now done this. Sorry to lose some of the stuff but probably necessary to achieve the more neutral tone. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Huge apologies for lack of responses here. I've been unwell again but will try to get back to this later today or early in the week. In the meantime parking this link [1] that analyzes the press coverage. I wanted to read it before posting but I'm so slow, decided to post it before giving it a thorough evaluation. If the link doesn't work, I've downloaded the pdf and can send on to anyone. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Victoria, thanks for finding that; it looks very interesting. Hope you feel better soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to read it through, but I hope it will allow for framing some of the press reports. I've not looked yet at all of the changes; will try to do so during the week. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

ODNB

I'd appreciate it if someone could email me Caine, Barbara (23 September 2004). "Strachey, Philippa [Pippa]". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - I've sent this to you now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, got it, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The ODNB says Strachey was with the London National Society for Women's Suffrage. Our article says she was with the London Women's Suffrage Society. According to Tickner, the march was the idea of the Central Society for Women's Suffrage, and their name is placed first on the poster. The Central Society for Women's Suffrage became the London Society for Women's Suffrage in 1907, according to Crawford. We should make clear that Strachey belonged to the society that suggested the march, and that's probably why she ended up organizing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The nomenclatures are confusing, and not helped by varying usages among the sources. I imagine that the London Women's Suffrage Society, the London Society for Women's Suffrage, and the London National Society for Women's Suffrage were all one and the same. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree the nomenclatures are very confusing but it's important to determine which branch of which organization conceived of and organized the march. There was also that artists league that publicized it, which deserves mention. The splinter groups are part of the story. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lady Day, Observer 10 February 1907

I'm concerned by the recent addition to the article of this, in the "Press reaction" section:

The Observer argued that "the vital civic duty and natural function of women ... is the healthy propagation of race", and that "what is aimed at is nothing less than complete sex emancipation". The "small section of women" who want the vote ignore that women, the "embodiment of the lighter side" of life, are not educated in politics, science, history and so on, just as they ignore "the natural laws of physical force and the teachings of history about men and Government".

This quote comes from the latter part of the "Lady Day" editorial, which is a general soliloquy on the role of women and the wisdom or otherwise of giving them the vote. Its relevance to this particular article is tenuous. I don't object to its inclusion per se, but feel that it shouldn't be treated as a comment on the march. It might be a useful addition to the "Aftermath" section because it highlights an attiude that helps to explain why the post-march parliamentary efforts met with little immediate success – The Observer was a leading Liberal organ. I won't disturb it for the moment, but I would like some further thought given to this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It was part of the press reaction to the march. It makes no sense to quote one part of the Observer article (attacking the suffragettes) but not the part that demonstrates their views. And they were right, of course, to fear that "what is aimed at is nothing less than complete sex emancipation". Readers will find it interesting, and the section isn't neutral without it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your quote says that "what is aimed at is nothing less than complete sex emancipation". Full stop. In the article, your full stop is a semicolon, followed by the words: "the right of women not only to vote but to enter public life on equal conditions with men". That's an important qualification – both the NUWSS and the WSPU wanted sex emancipation on this limited basis, which would do little for most working-class women. (The People's Suffrage Federation, which did not exist in 1907, believed in universal adult suffrage, a much more complete form of sex emancipation. See Smith 2014, p. 40.) This section of The Observer leader is if anything a warning against where women's suffrage might lead, expressed often in quite lurid terms, perhaps unsurprising when you realise that at that time the paper was owned by Lord Northcliffe. None of this is comment on the march, but might be a useful reminder of establishment attitudes at the time of the march, without getting into a general commentary.

I'm personally unconvinced that we should use this stuff, but if we do it needs to be in a clearer summary of what the article actually says and the point it is driving at. I've posted an amended, slightly extended summary in the article. My concern now is that we may be giving too much emphasis to a single newspaper. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian, please don't keep removing that quotation. I've left the material you added to that section (as I recall), so I'd appreciate being allowed to add some text too. I've also added a footnote (for now) containing the two Observer paragraphs in question so that readers can see the text in context; most won't have access to it. We should also add something to that section about the views of the newspapers at the time regarding votes for women, based on the scholarly literature.

Re: the position of the Mirror image, I placed it on the right because it looked odd on the left with the blockquote.

I'd also appreciate it if we could leave the citations in the lead. They were removed on 5 March, but they're helpful to readers who only look at the lead. They also help to make sure that nothing goes beyond the sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made some other changes, including adding something about the newspapers' positions, thanks to the European Journal of Women’s Studies article Victoria found (above). As a result, the blockquote has gone, and the image looks fine on the left now. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts so far

In no particular order:

• I've changed the lead so that it no longer says the march was organized by the NUWSS executive committee to "raise its public profile". The sources say it was organized to create support for a new suffrage bill.
• I've changed that the NUWSS "met with its parliamentary committee" after the march. The source said that it met with the Parliamentary Committee for Women's Suffrage. But if something else was meant by "its parliamentary committee", please restore.
• I'm concerned about the "Historical perspective" section, and why those issues are mentioned and not others. Any such section should be based on recent scholarship because it involves analysis. The sources include the ODNB x 3, Paul Foot, British government websites, and a 1907 news report.
• Secondary sources should be added to the Aftermath section.
• Neutrality: the Aftermath section seems biased against the suffragettes/WSPU. For example (here), the final paragraph said "the NUWSS continued its programme of peaceful demonstrations in London and provincial cities; on 13 June 1908 more than 10,000 women took part in a London march.[66] In the "Great Pilgrimage" of April 1913, women marched from all over the country to London for a mass rally in Hyde Park, where 50,000 attended." (But no mention of Women's Sunday in June 1908, attended by up to half a million, which was organized by the WSPU.) Then: "Their struggles [presumably referring to the NUWSS] were rewarded after the First World War, when women were partly enfranchised ..." (No mention of the suffragettes, direct action, prison sentences, hunger strikes, force feeding, Emily Davison.)
• Does anyone mind if I move this to Mud March (suffragists)?

Will add more as I think of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read this before posting below. It looks as though there might be some overlap. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

---

In no particular order:

• I've changed the lead so that it no longer says the march was organized by the NUWSS executive committee to "raise its public profile". The sources say it was organized to create support for a new suffrage bill.

• That is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've changed that the NUWSS "met with its parliamentary committee" after the march. The source said that it met with the Parliamentary Committee for Women's Suffrage. But if something else was meant by "its parliamentary committee", please restore.

• That's OK too. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the "Historical perspective" section, and why those issues are mentioned and not others. Any such section should be based on recent scholarship because it involves analysis. The sources include the ODNB x 3, Paul Foot, British government websites, and a 1907 news report.

• These are perfectly good, reliable sources for the information we need to give. If you can find good alternatives, fine, but this section is not and must not become a detailed history of the women's suffrage struggle up to 1907. This section should be a brief outline, using a few typical events to show how and why the movement began; the focus of this article has to be the march itself. There are plenty of undeveloped WP articles that could be expanded to deal with these issues in detail, (including the articles on the WSPU and the NUWSS) I would very much oppose any significant expansion of this section. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Secondary sources should be added to the Aftermath section.

• Where possible, yes. The attitude of Labour MPs to the 1907 suffrage bill is quite well documented.

• Neutrality: the Aftermath section seems biased against the suffragettes/WSPU. For example (here), the final paragraph said "the NUWSS continued its programme of peaceful demonstrations in London and provincial cities; on 13 June 1908 more than 10,000 women took part in a London march.[66] In the "Great Pilgrimage" of April 1913, women marched from all over the country to London for a mass rally in Hyde Park, where 50,000 attended." (But no mention of Women's Sunday in June 1908, attended by up to half a million, which was organized by the WSPU.) Then: "Their struggles [presumably referring to the NUWSS] were rewarded after the First World War, when women were partly enfranchised ..." (No mention of the suffragettes, direct action, prison sentences, hunger strikes, force feeding, Emily Davison.)

• The aftermath section should deal primarily with things that flowed from the march. WSPU activities, such as the parliamentary lobby on 13 February, or the 1908 Women's Sunday event, or any other of the later suffragette activities, are not in any sense consequences of the march, while the NUWSS events can be considered as such. I agree that the sentence beginning "Their struggles..." should be redrafted to be more inclusive, though there was no intention on my part to confine credit to the NUWSS. Sarah, your sympathies with the suffragettes are obviously profound and sincere, but I think you are in danger of unbalancing the article by your insistence on "bringing them in" whereever possible. It's not a question of one-side-good, the other-side-bad, but this article is about an NUWSS event – if you look at the Women's Sunday article that you refer to above, it doesn't refer even to the existence of the NUWSS. I have kept to myself my own view about the limitations of both organisations, in seeking the vote for their own class rather than for all adult women.Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone mind if I move this to Mud March (suffragists)?

• Good idea. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Will add more as I think of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

To both of you: it's a good idea to get your ideas down in this way. I have to go to bed now, but I'll try and answer some of Victoria's points in the morning. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Points

Adding these thoughts as I read through and will try to reply to some of the talk page discussions:

• The split/schism between the WSPU and NUWSS does need to be explained, but it seems if the march was a NUWSS event the lead should focus first on that organization and then perhaps draw the necessary contrasts with the other organization.

• The article is supposed to be primarily an account of the Mud March, and needs to keep its focus on that, rather than on the generality of issues affecting the women's suffrage movements in the Edwardian era. The object of the "Constitionalists v. militants" section should be to explain in brief terms the difference between the two main factions, but not to analyse it in detail. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm wondering whether it's in the scope of this article to summarize centuries of philosophies leading up the event, and if so, then Mary Wollstonecraft deserves a mention, or if it's best to work forward from Wollstonecraft to the various organizations, and then the event itself. Probably it's best to follow whichever format the scholarly sources present.

• I don't think what you are suggesting is within the scope of this particular article. It could very well take place in others of the undeveloped suffrage articles in the encyclopaedia. The section, is in my view becoming bloated with too much detail designed to play down the differences or pretend that they didn't really exist. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not quite clear to this American reader why the Labour victory in 1906 is a cause for the march (cited to a primary source); that point needs more context and, again, maybe follow the direction of the secondary sourcing.

• It was a Liberal Party victory; Labour, though vociferous, was a small minority party at the time, because its working-class supporters were largely disqualified from voting because of the property qualification. The significance of the Liberal victory was that the party had committed itself before the election to the support of women's suffrage, and was expected to deliver. Its reluctance to do so was an issue at the time of the march, hence Eve MacLaren's speech in Exeter Hall. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• The section header "Constitutionalism versus militancy" bothers me - it's a little loaded. But, again, keep in mind that "militancy" has a different meaning in the US than in the UK (I think guns; well to be honest, I think women with guns).

• The term "militant" is widely used in British politics to refer to those who take direct extra-parliamentary action in support of their views. It has nothing to do with guns etc - that would be "military". The word is routinely used in suffrage histories without any pejorative inflection, and is generally well understood. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Will add more as I work my way through. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That section header bothers me too. The sources do use those terms, but in this context it looks like "good versus bad". Several scholars point out that the historiography of the suffrage movement was written initially by historians who shared some of the views of the earlier commentators, so we should be careful not to reflect that vocabulary. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What bothers me is not the heading, but the way that the section is being distorted as if to show that there weren't any significant differences between the factions. It would be quite enough to say that despite their different tactical approaches the NUSWW and the WSPU remained on reasonably cordial terms, but it's a mistake to imply that Fawcett's apparent personal endorsement of the WSPU's violent tactics was representative of WSPU policy. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

Note: I am withdrawing from this page, and from further editing of the article, at least for the time being, and have accordingly notified SchroCat, who initiated the article's expansion. At present, unfortunately, I see no basis whereby any collaboration can proceed productively, which is a pity, because I don't doubt for a moment Sarah's commitment to this topic. But I find her approach too dogmatic, assertive and agenda-driven, not a mixture likely to result in a neutral encyclopaedia article. Even so I don't question her motives, although she seems to doubt mine. I think I can be engaged more profitably on other things. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I admit that I do share some of Brian's concerns here. The march was an undertaking by the constitutional suffrage movement, and I think we are in danger of moving the focus too far away from their decision to hold a march, and the repercussions of that march. The militants that attended the march did so on an individual basis, rather than marching as an organisation (as many others did). (Victoria, I use the word "militant" deliberately here: it's what the reliable sources use, and it's how the suffragettes used to describe themselves—as Sylvia Pankhurst's autobiography makes very clear). This march was a small but interesting part of the NUWSS's 30-year history, and while background and aftermath sections are important, they should contain very little information about the WSPU's role and its activities. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I regret having done this, but there were a few points that jumped out at me when I read the article (not as closely as I would have liked) and yesterday I simply wanted to mention them, assuming I wouldn't be back for a few days. Perhaps I did a poor job? Who knows, but here are a few clarifications:

On the first point: the second paragraph of the lead mentions the WSPU first and then the NUWSS. The march was a NUWSS event, so it would make more sense to me to swop there and start the para with NUWSS.

On the second point: I'm not sure it's important to mention Levellers (apologies, I only have one window open and am prone to mistakes. I am, however, not stupid), Mills, etc. If the sources give the background, then yes, follow those. But it seems to me odd to leave out Mary Wollstonecraft. I'd simply swop. But, no big deal.

Apologies for getting the party wrong. The issue is that the previous para discusses the two organizations, then there's a para, cited to a 100 year old source, about the election. In a very quick read, I couldn't see the connection. If I can't, others won't either. That said, I'm not suggesting action. Simply stating what jumped out.

Militancy > yes, I noted it in the sources and it seemed odd to me there. I think it's an Engvar issue. I simply mentioned it. No need to take action.

As I noted above, I spent part of the weekend in the hospital and simply wanted to finish up a task I'd begun before stepping away, mostly because I have so much respect for all of you as editors. I apologize deeply for any upset I've caused and hope you all can see your way to working together. I'll be stepping out now. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding pings: Sarah, Brianboulton, SchroCat. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Victoria, please don't feel upset. My comments, and I think probably Brian's, were not aimed at anyone in particular, but at the general scope of the article. I've split the comments off from your previous thread, as I can see how you could have got that impression. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: this is an article about the history of first-wave feminism, and it has to be based on the modern scholarship, not on the views of the day.

In a sense I agree with your point above: "I think we are in danger of moving the focus too far away from their decision to hold a march, and the repercussions of that march." I've been adding material only to counter the strong bias against the suffragettes. My preference would be to focus more tightly on the march.

From its creation in 2006 until 5 March 2018, when the rewrite began, the article focused mostly on the march. By 11 March, a large background section had been added (860 words out of 2,928 overall), along with an aftermath section, both slanted against the suffragettes, using lots of original news reports (including for analysis), not reflective of the standard historiography, and misunderstanding the relationship between the groups at the time of the march. When secondary sources were used, on several occasions that I found the text did not reflect what they said. The secondary sources were also not the most appropriate. None of this was picked up during the peer review.

In the meantime, this Guardian article explains something about the gendered reporting of that period—the "masculinist perspective that was so evident in the newspaper reporting of the day", which was basically "we support the cause but not the shrieking women". That was the tone of this article when I found it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)