Talk:Jeannette Rankin

---

WOW i never knew that much before about her. just more details

Jeannette should be a recognized and honored American historical figure but the liberal establishment has abandoned her and never speaks of her because they would have to admit that she was a lifelong Republican!!

--Yes, that makes a lot sense... (sarcasm)... apparently you're not aware that many of the progressives of the first half of the 20th century were Republicans (La Follette, etc.)... and OF COURSE the "liberal establishment" doesn't want you to know about a reknown pacifist and anti-imperialist. Gosh, if that's true, the "liberal estabishment" might be conservative enough for your tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.212.39 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they ignore her because she's a strong argument that women don't have the guts to defend the country. She voted against declaring war on a nation of head-chopping theocrats who were at the time committing mass murder in China and every other country they'd conquered, and had just carried out a sneak attack on Pearl harbor. If I'd ever met her, I would have slapped her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i never knew that they didn't want to show that she was a lifelong republican... i would figure that it would give the Republics more credit... because shes was an amazing person and all....

Don't think that lifelong Republican actually applies. I think that research would show that she attended some Democratic National Conventions later in life, at least 1972 in particular if I recall correctly. In any event, she doesn't seem to be embraced as much as she should by either party, perhaps because of her anti-war vote after the Pearl Harbor attack, which is hard for anyone but committed pacifists to accept. She had too much of a Republican past to be accepted by some modern femminists and it seems pretty safe to say that she wouldn't fit into the modern Republican Party, where apparently no one identifies with pacifism anymore. Glad to know that she is now in Statuary Hall; I visited there many years ago, before her statue was erected, but she belongs there as the first-ever female Member of Congress so I'm gratified to learn that she is. She's also historic as the only Member of Congress to vote against U.S. participation in both World Wars; she is certainly sui generis there, as no one else in Congress voted against World War II. Rlquall 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody added a line "I like men" and appears to have changed the number of votes that Rankin cast. I don't know the correct number, so I'm leaving that unchanged, but the nonsense is out! John Elder 08:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition

Although she had been a firm advocate for individual rights and peace, she supported alcohol prohibition, which is inconsistent with civil liberties. It's not written on this article but it is true. Anyone knows more about the reasons? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A Republican

I removed the section in the introduction stating she was a Republican. According to "Jeannette Rankin America's conscience" by Norma Smith, a biography published by the Montana Historical Society Press Rankin herself stated "I was never a Republican. I ran on the Republican ticket"(pg. 99). With this quote from Rankin herself I do not think it is proper to classify her as a Republican. However it is most certainly true that she ran on the Republican ticket and was elected as a Republican from Montana.Bored college student 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Four days

The article currently states that "On April 6, 1917, only 4 days into her term" Rankin voted against WW I. This is surely wrong. Having been elected in 1916 she would have been sworn in March 4, 1917 - over a month before the vote. John celona (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a conflict in Congressional records. from [1] the information in the article is based on:

RANKIN, JEANNETTE. Republican; Montana, Congresswoman-at-large (65th Congress) and 1st Congressional District (77th Congress). Elected to the 65th Congress November 9, 1916; sworn in and seated April 2, 1917; term expired March 4, 1919. Elected to the 77th Congress November 5, 1940; sworn in and seated January 3, 1941; term expired January 3, 1943.

But from [2], this agrees with you.

elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fifth Congress (March 4, 1917-March 3, 1919); was the first woman to be elected to the United States House of Representatives

Jons63 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is almost surely correct: H. Doc. 108-222 "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774-2005" shows the 65th Congress' term as "March 4, 1917, to March 3, 1919" but its First Session as "April 2, 1917, to October 6, 1917", with a "Special Session of the Senate" from "March 5, 1917, to March 16, 1917". It is likely that the House of Representatives didn't convene until April 2, the day President Wilson "called the Congress into extraordinary session", as he said in his opening speech before the joint session, to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. They debated the declaration (S.J.Res. 1) from April 4 to April 6, then passed it (65 Pub. Res. 1 (not Pub.L. 1), 40 Stat. 1). I haven't found any explicit sources about what was going on during the month of March, but I'm sure there must be some, as the Senate had a special session in March. --Closeapple (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Career

The section (right near the top) entitled "Congressional Career" began with the paragraph:

"of Representatives]] as a Republican from Montana, becoming the first female member of Congress. The Nineteenth Amendment (which gave women the right to vote everywhere in the United States) was not ratified until 1920; therefore, during Rankin's first term in Congress (1917-1919), many women throughout the country did not have the right to vote, though they did in her home state of Montana."

I've removed it, not because of the content, but because of the box it created that shot almost all those words off the edge of the screen. Please correct the design before returning the text to the article. Thank you. jg (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but the answer to layout problems on Wikipedia is not to remove valid well-written text. There might not even be a layout problem for somebody who was viewing the article with a different browser and/or under a different "skin". In any case, you seem to have been editing a vandalized version of the article (see edit history). AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Only woman elected to Congress from Montana

Is there actually some dispute over whether or not she was the only woman elected to Congress from Montana? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, just per WP:Verifiability, this should be cited. Its one of the 3 core content policies and should be strictly enforced. The lead is a summary of the whole article, and this isn't even in the article. All I am doing is trying to add a cite tag, and do not understand why the cite tag keeps being removed. If it cannot be verified by third party reliable sources, then why is it in the article? If its true, then why doesn't someone just go ahead and add the source. With all the effort its taken to continue to remove the cite tag, the source could have been found and we could have moved on by now.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious from this navbox, though, doesn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 20 August 2010

To whom, you or the casual reader?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Could only a specialist then discern from that list that all the other people on it are men? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That list only contains last names. Last names are ambiguous to sex.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't contain only last names. Please stop wasting everyone's time. I'm reverting you again. -- Y not? 18:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are the first names?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you see them when you click on the links. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we get to the heart of the sourcing problem. You believe that a reader should click on 40 seperate articles to confirm information, that a simple reliable source would clear up in an instant? That list in its self is unsourced and after going through many of those articles, some of those articles are also poorly sourced. That is why wikipedia articles cannot be use as sources per WP:Circular. Also, the unsourced statement claims that she is the only woman from Montana to be elected to Congress. Yet the "list" only provides names for members of the House of Representatives. Isn't the Senate the upper house of Congress? Where are the Senators in the "list"?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user has just gone and sourced it for you. And you, my dear sir, are an asshole. Now go report me for NPA. Asshole. -- Y not? 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)