Jump to content

Talk:Jeannette Rankin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJeannette Rankin has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2019Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 7, 2016, November 7, 2019, and November 7, 2023.

Vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

Prohibition

[edit]

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? WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in the late 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century thought that an anti-alcohol position was for women's well-being... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Womans-Christian-Temperance-Union Correct. Prohibition was primarily a woman's cause, apparently on the theory that drunken men abandoned their duty to wives and children. But there was definitely a puritanical Miss Grundy edge to Prohibition, largely the victory of the harpies in the Womans Christian Temperance Union. See also Carrie Nation (six feet tall, 180 pounds) who became famous for entering saloons with a hatchet and chopping the place up. Some inspiring pictures of her on Wikipedia and her story is at http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/carry-nation-smashes-bar Profhum (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Republican

[edit]

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)[reply]

I think this is at least worth a footnote. The quote is also mentioned on page 13. [1] Knope7 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four days

[edit]

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)[reply]

There appears to be a conflict in Congressional records. from [2] 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 [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congressional Career

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Only woman elected to Congress from Montana

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That list only contains last names. Last names are ambiguous to sex.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where are the first names?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you see them when you click on the links. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

A voice from another party... This doesn't need to be footnoted, in my opinion. United States congressional delegations from Montana indicates very clearly that there are no other female Representatives from Montana. But, in the name of peace, love, and understanding, I'll footnote to this page. Carrite (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you've already got a footnote up in the lead. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was Rankin's option?

[edit]

After her stance against war in 1941, did Rankin suggest what Roosevelt should have done following Pearl Harbor? The article doesn't say, and apparently it's not addressed anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.6.222 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless reliable sources have discussed it, Wikipedia has nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

The paragraphs are too long and dense and need to be broken up to improve readability Jean Friedberg (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1940 or 1941?

[edit]

First paragraph: "she was elected statewide in Montana in 1916 and again in 1940". Second paragraph: "she was first elected by her home state of Montana in 1916, and then again in 1941". --Morinox (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive

[edit]

There has been chat over at my talk page about working on this article to bring it up to GA status. To that end KingJeff1970 posted this new resource. Anyone else who wants to add more resource/research material, please do so! Montanabw(talk) 18:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through a couple of relatively new books at present. I've worked on this article, on & off, for some time, & will continue to do so. Should be ready for GA review fairly soon, methinks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Rankin

[edit]

(Moved from my talkpage). Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what "left-justify an image under a level three header" means, and who forbids it, and why. There are no hard & fast rules, yes? I've done a lot of work on that article, and it looked better the way I had it, IMHO. Also, please explain "caption was too truncated", when it's too truncated now -- captions are supposed to explain what the subject is doing, unless they are simple mug shots. Thanks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in 1917" is not a caption. I shortened mine a bit to "Rankin in 1917" to make it shorter but still a proper caption. As for the left-justification under level 3 header, I have sympathy for your views, and WP:MOSIM no longer prohibits it, but it is still discouraged as it can give odd results in some screen readers and allegedly creates WP:ACCESS problems. the old version of the MOS stated "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." I've been smacked for doing it a few times, even now. Relevant discussion is old, but the issue is discussed here and previously here, and here. It's a no-win, IMHO, so I just avoid it. But if you really want the left-justified image under the level three heading, I won't edit-war over it because it look fine in my browser, I'm just tired of arguing about it. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm more confused, because I moved the photo to right justification, precisely because it was sitting on the left under the header, and you reverted it back to the left. Also, I was speaking about that photo's caption, not the one in the box. In any case, I will move the photo back to the right, along with another one that is also left-justified under a heading. What we had here, I suppose, was a failure to communicate. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 1942 news article on Rankin

[edit]

Here it is[4]. There are some good quotes in it, I am just not sure how to work them into the article. Feel free to add them, if you think it would improve the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. She just keeps getting more interesting to me. Yes yes, the gist of what she said here should be in the article. Also the first ever live broadcast of a session of Congress... even Walter Cronkite years later couldn't touch that rail of what she might have said live on Mutual radio that day, if they had let her. I see from the infobox that was a cooperative radio network (kind of like Wikipedia) until 1952, when it became corporate-controlled. And the FBI kept files on her in the McCarthy era - should be in the article too. Inquiring minds want to know: were other (former) members of Congress monitored by the FBI at that time?
History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme. I'm reminded about how we supported and nurtured Saddam until, well, we didn't.
I'd order a copy of the movie about her, if the preview looked more enticing and the critics hadn't panned it so bad. Sad to see that Jeanmarie Simpson was unhappy with the film, and called it probably the biggest disappointment of her life. I've got to find a good book about her, though. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just sort of randomly discovered the bio of John Van Antwerp MacMurray. Take note of the section on his 1935 Memorandum. It certainly supports what Rankin said in the congressional record, and likely would have said on the House floor if she was allowed to. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but can't be used in the Rankin article, unfortunately, per WP:SYNTH. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I own a copy of Flight of the Dove and am also easily able to access anything at the Montana Historical Society, though KingJeff1970 would be even better for that. There is interest here in bringing this article up to GA status... ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA push?

[edit]

Hi to all who have been regularly editing this article, with a ping to KingJeff1970 and Wehwalt as well. I mentioned either here or on someone's talk that this article, of significance to WikiProject Montana, is a good candidate for GA and maybe even FA. I see a couple areas that need to be fleshed out, and some need for cleanup on a few citations (one links to an 8-page work, needs more specificity. Any thoughts or comments? Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthwhile. Do you need her American National Biography article, or can you get it online? I'm available once I finish up current work, this is a very worthy project. Rankin is a common trivia answer, but people in fact don't know much about her.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it available online? URL?? I'll see... Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On an initial lookover, while footnoting exists, I'm seeing a lot of wikignoming needed to get consistent citation formatting, some need to go back into books for specific pag # cites, and there are an awful lot of cites to a single book written for juvenile readers, which might get us past GA but will be a problem at FAC. There are a lot of good scholarly sources out there; I'd like to see if KingJeff1970 has URLs to the Montana The Magazine of Western History articles noted. I added a few more resource materials to the Further reading section and consolidated some of the book citations. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won't even touch a kiddie book. I'll send you the ANB, I was just wondering what online resources you have access to through your university connection so I know what to send you and what you can send me. I really won't be focusing on this until Mason is done and that's still several days work (bio is done in a rough form, but there's some hard work to be done on lede, views, and legacy).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the idea of pushing this article to "Good Article" status, especially with the United States 50,000 challenge happening. I would gladly to support one of the longtime editors of this page in making that happen. I'll try to look for a few more sources. Knope7 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source

[edit]

One of my co-workers put me on to this source on JR: A Chronology and Primary Sources for Teaching about Jennette Rankin. It was produced by the authors of Jeannette Rankin: A Political Woman as a guide for educators teaching Rankin's story. It's hosted by the Montana Historical Society at the Montana history textbook (Montana: Stories of the Land) teachers pages, so it's pretty buried. Let's use this where it's helpful.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How shall we source that, i.e. the "publisher=" or "website=" parameter. The authors clearly are acceptable, just want to have a proper citation. I also have the textbook. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe State of Montana? They're hosting it, thus "publishing" it. And the .gov helps make it a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, State of Montana (Dept. of Education, if you want to get specific). Some good stuff that I hadn't seen before; interesting that the suffrage people, whose cause she promoted so passionately, threw her under the bus in 1918. Bibliography also has some useful material, though some may be difficult to track down. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Office of Public Instruction, not Dept of Education, to be totally correct. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to add even more reading to your weekend to-do list, here are five more free articles (a couple are on the Further Reading list) on JR from Montana The Magazine of Western History over the years:
These come from a list of dozens of articles from the Montana Historical Society magazine on women's history topics, and all are freely available on the Women's History Matters Research page. Some of the weaker sources in the article could be replaced with refs from these. I have a busy weekend, but I'll try to do this, too.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAS ANYTHING CHANGED FOR FEMALE POLITICIANS? from the New Yorker may be helpful. Knope7 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of election

[edit]

Hi DoctorJoeE, I see you reverted my edit on this article in which I added the date of Rankin's election. I added this information as I have also added this event to the relevant "on this day" page November 9 in the interests of promoting this significant piece of American history. If you would like to re-word the way the date is included in this article, please feel free, however it would be preferable to have the date so that the event can be listed as mentioned. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thank you for the explanation, MurielMary. I've added it back. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Woman Elected to Congress BEFORE Women Had the Right to Vote ?!?

[edit]

Apparently Ms Rankin's 1st term in Congress was in 1916 and a Woman's right to vote was not ratified until 1920. How is it possible for someone prohibited from voting to run for office and to be elected? Further, if women can't vote, then how can she vote on congressional matters?

These are topics that should be covered in this article.

(Thank you.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.206.231 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

States set the qualifications for voting, as the Constitution says that the qualification for people to vote for the House of Representatives is the qualification needed to vote for the more numerous branch of the state legislature, and Montana had allowed women to vote as of 1914. The only limits on running for the House are in the Constitution, that you have to be 25, a citizen of the state you want to represent, and resident in the US I think for 7 years. I believe voting in the House of Representatives is subject only to the House's rules. I would tend to agree, it should be at least a footnote, at least on the Montana point.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does already say that Montana allowed women to vote as of 1914. Some detail as to Rankin's reception as the first Congresswoman might be helpful, as I would assume there was some resistance and then push back against the resistance. Knope7 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt is essentially correct; while woman may not have been able to vote in federal elections until 1920, they had been organizing politically for years and had the right to vote in Montana before they had the vote nationally. Beyond that, neither the Constitution nor the House rules prohibited women. I'd favor explaining this, but we need solid sources, may have to ping KingJeff1970 as to what archival material on Rankin exists in terms of whether their was any public opposition to seating her once she was elected; I don't recall hearing of any, but I'm not a Rankin scholar. Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a common misconception. During the recent election night coverage, Chris Matthews alleged she was elected to an office she could not vote for herself for.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article already tracks (briefly) the history of universal suffrage in Montana, and does explain that by the time Rankin was elected, women had been granted some form of voting rights in about 40 states -- and that Rankin introduced the legislation that eventually became the 19th Amendment. I have not found any evidence in RS regarding resistance to her taking office, and I doubt that there was any, since she was duly elected by the citizens of Montana; but if anyone knows of anything, with RS support, please share. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeannette Rankin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current recognition

[edit]

She was highlighted on One American News (OANn) network today. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Good Article push 2019

[edit]

I've started to try to get this article to Good Article status. So far, I've added some citations and a few details. Anyone interested is more than welcome to join me. I would be happy to discuss co-nominating or any sort of collaboration. I'm also a member of Women in Green, which has a goal of nominating 20 articles on suffragists for GA status in 2019. This article is a great target for that project because other editors have already done some stellar work improving it. Knope7 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake

[edit]

Senators were elected by the popular vote after the 17th amendment had been ratified. I believe the section where she detailed how she intended to run in the Senate because of the State Legislature is wrong as State Legislatures no longer decided Senate Elections. Dogblock (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct. I have removed that sentence. Knope7 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeannette Rankin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 14:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. This article is well written.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I would like to see a use of sources in the lead section, as while many of the points are sourced later on the lead should be sorted as the rest of the article, it currently contains no sources, although this is not a requirement to be given good article status. The other criteria are met to a sufficient standard.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The article is sufficiently referenced.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The inline citations are generally good, with a balance of sources of high credibility.
2c. it contains no original research. I am confident that this is true, as it is well sourced and leaves no space for original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. I am confident that this is true, having read through the sources I do not perceive any such violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article sufficiently addresses the topic at hand.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article does not make unnecessary tangents and remains to the point throughout.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. They are in order.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. This is also true, the photos are highly relevant.
7. Overall assessment. This article meets the criteria of a Good Article, congratulations.

Comment

[edit]

The standard for the lead section referencing is different from the body of the article; as MOS:LEAD, one of the "well-written" criteria, concludes: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Basically, if there are any points in the lead section that you believe are controversial or likely to be challenged or are a quote, then they should be sourced per the MOS:LEADCITE subsection, and you should note what they are so the nominator can add sources; if not, then the lead section can in fact be entirely free of citations and still meet the full GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, the way I had read it had placed greater focus on the prior paragraph, I feel that this article would still benefit from citations in the lead section, I have accordingly amended my initial review.AlastairJHannaford (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeannette_Rankin&oldid=1253778816"