Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States
United States portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Human rights      (Rated Start-Class)
Human rights portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: May 29, 2008

Contents

[edit] The challenge?

I'd be curious to know the nature of the 1922 challenge to the 19th amendment. I am willing to do some research and add a short section about it, unless someone reading this knows of it already, or objects. Tarc 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite serious also! I hope you'll do the research, Tarc! Jwrosenzweig 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC}

[edit] Alice Paul

I'm not quite clear what the trivia item about Alice Paul means. Does it mean that she was opposed to allowing "women of color" to vote? Thejaysch 07:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to, though it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's unreferenced. Ral315 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of states passing the amendment

Does anyone have access to a list of the order of states in adopting the amendment? Also it might be an idea to show which of these states still had laws denying female suffrage (the basis of the second objection in Leser v. Garnett; and also it'd be interesting to see the balance between state legislatures just agreeing with what they already had and those who voted for the Constitution to impose female suffrage on them). Timrollpickering 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See the page http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendments.html#f11 for a list of state ratifications. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any relation to Voting Rights Act?

Just off a random hunch, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 deals with voter discrimination... Do you think it might have had relation to the whole woman vote question at the time? Regardless if that particular act was related, I'd like to see specific instances where it was and wasn't upheld. Congress only passed this thing under considerable legislative pressure. How long did it take for it to create real change? (I'm especially interested in how it related to women who, well, weren't white. Jim Crow, anyone?) Kennard2 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALL OF THE ABOVE IS INCORRECT

this amendment never existed!
->here there was no sig' - here it is now made by someone else ... time zone [he thinks, but doesn't know for sure] must be some default - UTC?: 71.250.185.54 2007 March 25 20:26)

And you, Mr. or Mrs1) "User:NoName", only identified as one writing on computer 71.250.185.54, do you exist? (would you allow to be made "non-existent" just by being labeled such?). BTW you "forgot" to sign - I have done it for you (look just under your statement) - how do you look now when you read this?

1)which is your sex? isn't it M ? if F, why did you write such a thing ? (the - often not so good - past cannot be erased just by labeling it non-existent) ... my sex is M, BTW --UKe-CH 04:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

There seems to be minor vandalism on this page ever so often. Does anyone think something should be done to prevent it? There's an appropriate template at http://en.wikipedia.org/description/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Protected_articles.2C_pages_and_images, but thought I'd check first before plopping the "semi-vandalism" tag down. Kennard2 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not quite clear to me what your mean by "I'd check" - may-be ask other users' opinion ? For the moment, I'd say, yes, add the tag. Just before you inserted this § someone has inserted the § containing the statement that the amendment never existed - may-be this was the motive to suggest the deposition of the tag? As I understand that it's bad practice to delete entire §s from a disc. page, I have now added to that § some sarcastic comments [how do you find them?] Newer vandalisms of a trivial kind did not resist prompt reverting (well I haven't verified for sure all the corresponding time delays) - is this a reason to not insert the tag? The § I augmented (as said) because of its silly-shocking content is border-line as to vandalism or not ... and protected (?) by having been added as a new § ... to prevent repetition of such, the tag might help. But .... may-be your suggestion in itself has stopped repetition? Now decide yourself what you do. --UKe-CH 06:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I should just leave it alone unless I actually stick to the same page enough to notice a pattern. On a side note, your comment got glitched or something, though it could be just my computer's prob. Kennard2 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the standards or criteria for promotion to GA. It consists at present of a detailed listing of states' ratifications of the amendment, preceded by a brief outline history. The single section in the article has less than 300 words of text, which might be adapted to form the basis of a summary lead, but in no way represents a developed article.


Most of the statements in this "history" suggest that they are capable of being expanded, and it is possible to see a proper article emerging through the development of this material. My suggestions as to the structure of this article are:-

  • Lead, summarising the article’s content
  • Background - developing your statement that the amendment was the culmination of the work of many activists
  • Process – dealing with the process of the amendment within the political system, including the US Senate
  • Ratification
  • Consequences

These are only my suggestions – you could come up with something better.

In formal terms, a summary against the GA criteria is:-

Well-written: Fail – insufficient material, does not comply with WP requirements concerning lead section

Reliable: Defer opinion until more of the article has been written

Broad Coverage: Fail

Neutral:Pass

Stable: Pass

Images: Defer opinion until more has been written. There may well be appropriate images which can be incorporated into a fully-developed article.

I would certainly like to see the article developed in future, as it deals with an important and interesting subject.Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Stuff

Can someone clean up the gigantic ginormous space in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.40.89 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific? SMP0328. (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo