Talk:2017 Women's March/Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Vikkibaumler (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC) I will remove the citation to the NY Times article --but thought I was supposed to include it.

Secondly - this walk will be a historical event that should be captured on Wikipedia for historical reasons.I can remove the Facebook links if that's considered promotional.

How do I go about making those edits? Struggling to figure that out.

vikki Vikkibaumler (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Vikkibaumler (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC) I will remove the citation to the NY Times article --but thought I was supposed to include it.

Secondly - this walk will be a historical event that should be captured on Wikipedia for historical reasons.I can remove the Facebook links if that's considered promotional.

How do I go about making those edits? Struggling to figure that out.

vikki Vikkibaumler (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Vikkibaumler (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC) I removed the reference to the NY Times article (which I thought was only a citation) and removed the links to the Facebook event pages -which may have appeared to be promotional. I left the content simply recording what is to be an historic march in political history that deserves a page in Wikipedia for historical purposes.

VikkiVikkibaumler (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vikkibaumler: The problem is that you have copied word for word an entire paragraph from the NY Times article that was previously linked to. Furthermore, this article contains negative WP:BLP material against Donald Trump without sourcing from reliable third-party sources. Also, there is the problem of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, because this event hasn't happened yet. The WP:CSD nomination only has to do with the first concern though. With the removal of the promotional Facebook links, the promotional issue isn't really there anymore. I would suggest that you, as a new editor, take a look at some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so that you better understand the concerns that I am expressing here. Thanks, Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 20:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

NPOV dispute

OK, I've lost control of this article. While updating some of the details and logistics about the upcoming Women's March, the user Gandydancer didn't forget to load up the page with political propaganda. --Jbfair728 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand...please explain. Gandydancer (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the tag since I have no idea just what changes the editor expected. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Long quote from website and Commentary section

I am returning the Commentary section since it is quite the norm to include. See for example the Reactions section of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article. On the other hand, to include the lengthy quote from the march website is unusual and perhaps should be deleted or adjusted. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK?

I think that this article looks pretty darn good. I've asked Wukai to do a copy edit and I'm going to ask Montana if she thinks it would make a good DYK article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Response: Looks Good! Agreed

This last edit looks good. It had news, facts, and clarifications. This *is* a political event and so the commentary is important. Looks good. Last edit good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evergreensummer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I added author names to the news articles. In footnote 14, I was unable to fix the Guardian code problem, defined multiple times, etc. Can someone fix that? Other needed fixes: footnotes 10 and 15 are the same WaPo article. And footnotes 13 and 16 are the same Guardian article.Bjhillis (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the footnotes, fixed coding errors and formatting.Bjhillis (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)]

Added more news cites, cleaned up footnote coding, updated Facebook rsvp's. The page is functional now, and is ready for its founders to re-emerge and shepherd it. Hello @Jbfair728: and @Evergreensummer: and @Vikkibaumler:?Bjhillis (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Look what you started! And they wanted to delete it! 120k visits yesterday, you should be proud! @Jbfair728: and @Evergreensummer: and @Vikkibaumler:. Bjhillis (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Wiki warning: "This article relies too much on references to primary sources"; 13 of 16 footnotes are to secondary sources, so the call out seems misplaced.Bjhillis (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Does the first sentence under "Organizers" repeat the info in the 2nd para under "Background" Phrasing edit needed?Bjhillis (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Maher's tweet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we add that Katherine Maher, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, tweeted a picture of her mother at the march? Her account says, "opinions mine and likely ", which suggests she may not be trying to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I would argue that we should include at least one sentence about her tweet because of her high profile and visibility.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this could be seen as a point of view issue.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; seems a bit self serving unless we add a mention of the thoughts/tweets/attendance of every other notable person who marched, which I don't think is necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

How would that be POV?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Because we'd be prioritising covering someone from the WMF over all the other celebrities/notable people who marched, who are actually covered in reliable sources, unlike Maher (as far as I can see). Sam Walton (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, it would show that Maher - or at the very least her mother - support the march. And, then, the objectivity of this page may come into question. People that don't know how Wikipedia works might assume that Maher had something to do with this page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually think hiding the information makes things worse, in this case.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, the answer is simple - has her presence and attendance been covered to a significant extent by reliable secondary sources? If yes, then include, if no, then don't. Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

In theory. But that doesn't always work. For example in this case, she is high profile on Wikipedia but essentially a non-entity in real life/the media. I think just one line saying, "Katherine Maher, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, tweeted a picture of her mother attending the march, several hours after retweeting a post warning against the rise of populism", wouldn't hurt.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be completely NPOV of us to highlight that tweet when it wasn't covered in any reliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We have used tweets as sources. Not ideal but it has happened. (I've never done it though.)Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To make routine statements of fact, not to uniquely highlight in an article on a subject that is not directly related to the Tweeter (Maher) or the organisation of which she is the ED. Sam Walton (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is drawing inferences or connections based on primary sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marches format

Should we keep the article having sections for every state / country's march, or can we do something better? It seems a lot of headings considering the amount of content in each. Perhaps we could have a table with "state/country, approx. attendance number, notes"? Or we could have headings for Continent rather than each country? Open to ideas. Sam Walton (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I started an example of a table format at User:Samwalton9/sandbox. Sam Walton (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I like this format! Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to reformat, the list is unwieldy now. I thought about collapsing California (San Diege, SF and LA), but that doesn't help with the other cites...regions? Move the list of marches to the bottom, beneath all the text? Bjhillis (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the sandbox table format. I also agree it would be better to have the long list at the bottom of the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved locations to the bottom - and will work on the content to clarify what is related to the central D.C. march - and what is regarding the world-wide marches.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Samwalton9. There has been no further feedback, so I suggest we move ahead. It would be nice to add a column for photographs - perhaps at 150px - or perhaps set up a gallery section. There are a ton of subfolders in commons by location. I'm happy to start with the states.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Great :) Yes, a column for photographs would be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time this morning to work on the countries, if someone wants to tackle that, it would be great. Otherwise, I can work on it later today.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it later on if you haven't got to it yet. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Started work in my sandbox. Sam Walton (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And done. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So many section headers

Anyone up for turning the list of states into a table or something more manageable? Separate subarticles or sections could be created only for the better-covered events. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see #Marches format.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I missed it. I moved this section up to be a subsection of that one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

International and US sister women's marches, January 21, 2017

I don't see anything that summarizes that this is occurring in other countries and in sister marches around the country. So, I thought I'd take a crack at starting International women's marches, January 21, 2017.

Am I missing an article? Is there a better title?—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've created the disambiguation page Women's March for now. Sam Walton (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

At what point would included other marches in different cities/countries in this article? -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't that info be added here? I added a sentence on the Chicago turnout. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I might work on worldwide/countrywide protests if time permit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be back in a bit and can chip in, too.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange to have archived an ongoing topic from this talkpage

I find this edit inappropriate since it was not irrelevant (she tweeted about it and she represents the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia) and this edit even more strange. It looks like there was no consensus to add this content to the article, which is fair enough, but there is no need to hide/censor the discussion.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving is not hiding or censorship. Beyond that, I have no particular opinion on that tweet. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Could this be unarchived? The discussion was not necessarily over. As I said, I am fine with not adding this content if there is no consensus for inclusion. What bothers me is the fact that no other editor will be able to see it here now. That seems unfair on the editing community.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There have already been many reasons stated why it should not be included, particularly that it does not meet the test of significant media coverage.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It obviously wasn't going anywhere, best to keep this talk page as tidy as possible. It's still visible in the archives. Sam Walton (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Along with other positive additions that I have made to the article, l have returned the content from Fox News regarding the walk with this edit. It is an attempt to not have an WP:UNDUE balance from a positive perspective.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, you can't put that in there in Wikipedia voice. Or really, at all. First, the source is dubious in this context. Aside from the fact it's Fox news it mixes commentary and opinion with reporting. The thing about it being "inappropriate" is an off hand remark by one person which has not received widespread coverage in sources outside of this one. Which makes it UNDUE. Same for Moore and Madonna (and these are just the author's opinions, which unless they themselves are covered in reliable sources are not notable enough to include).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

you can't put that in there in Wikipedia voice - It started out "Fox News reported...."

First, the source is dubious in this context. Aside from the fact it's Fox news it mixes commentary and opinion with reporting. - I worked on two controversial articles about Trump and our goal was to try to ensure we used Fox News as a source for balance.

All articles are written from a journalist's perspective. For a lot of people using New York Times, CNN, etc. are skewed too far to the left.

I have heard these statements on CNN news today

I have seen someone mark the section as needing more content - and I'm done for the night. Maybe someone else will tackle it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I edited the two sentences into one para, dropped the "Fox News reported" as you see that from the cite, and changed to "Other critics contend". Obviously, the Critics and Controversy sections should be combined, perhaps into a new "Critics of the March." Recall we had a "Controversy over honorees" section we cut, see Talk above. It seems these are all related, so if we want this material, we should add back the substance of the Hillary snub material. As I stated above, conflict within the women's movement is noteworthy. But it is simpleminded to say the only controversy is between organizers and the anti-abortion groups. It's OK for this page to focus on the successful expression of ideas at the march, and then move the debate on conflict among factions to a page on the women's movement, or Feminism.Bjhillis (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested format:

Criticisms, organizing controversies and reactions to the march

a. Criticisms of political ideas and goals

The 2 cites we have on march will do more harm than good, and NY Post editorial

b. Organizing controversies

1. Hilary Clinton role

Her platform was cited as inspiration but she was not listed as an honorary co-chair.

However, her role as former first lady carries a protocol of welcoming any incoming president, so her role was necessarily limited.

George Soros is a big Hillary donor and he has ties to over 50 of the partners so her ideas played a role even if her name did not appear, NY Times cite (currently in the Partners section, but doesn't belong there)

2. Pro-life groups role

Some groups were partners then they were removed.

Other groups participated in march anyway.

d. Reactions to the march

Trump's Twitter comment Bjhillis (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: added a new section, "Responses" and placed a Trump tweet response there. I think that should be combined with criticism sections, per above format.Bjhillis (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bjhillis

Regarding the "two citations will do more harm than good" - this an encyclopedia site, we're supposed to present varying opinions and not be exclusively tied to a particular viewpoint WP:V.

Some of this seems to be original research.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to leave the Criticism section as is, but the George Soros quote under Partnership needs adjustment. It reads like nobody know if it means something, or is just pure coincidence.Bjhillis (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

News Reporting and Sources Added

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting from New York Times, The Guaurdian, Washington Post, and the group statement have been added to make it a reported article and NOT an essay. These edits should not be removed as they are authoritative and reporting.

Article should now be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evergreensummer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this info:

"Trump has praised Planned Parenthood for providing birth control and paths to breast cancer screenings," the Washington Post reported. "But, he said, it should receive no federal dollars.'We're not going to allow, and we're not going to fund, as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood,' Trump said. 'We understand that, and I've said it loud and clear.'"

"Trump told reporters he was pro-choice for years before changing his stance. His view on abortion now, based on recent interviews: The procedure should be provided only in cases of rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies.That’s where Trump’s Planned Parenthood message hits a logical snare," the Washington Post reported. "Under federal law, not a penny of government money can be used to cover abortion — except in cases of rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies. Planned Parenthood says it complies with that rule. It receives about $500 million annually from the government and would likely enter dire financial straits if that money dried up. Beyond birth control, the clinics also offer STD testing and treatment, sex education and preventative health care — the services Trump says he applauds."[16]

This article should be mainly about the march, not the abortion issue which this goes into a little too much for this article IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I found this on Wikimedia Commons:

Women's March mentions on cable news

Perhaps it's useful for describing media coverage of the event?Victor Grigas (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pussyhat image needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm just crocheting away like crazy Anna. Maybe I can get my daughter Jane to model it tomorrow if I finish. So anyway I'm working on it. We'll all be going to Augusta, Maine for our state march. So nice to hear from you! Gandydancer (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, dear! Well done! I hope it turns out well! Crocheting is fast, especially with thick yarn, so I'm sure it won't take long. So, is a photo upload coming? I'm sure it will be lovely! :) And Augusta! I've been there. Being a Montrealer, Maine was a great place to freeze your feet off in the mid-summer ocean. :) Good on ya going to the march. You are vital! Be seen. Could you be another Medea? I hope so! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Added image. Now that is what happens when editing gets in the way of your crocheting. :) Don't stop though. I want to see that hat! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that is a good thing Anna. Interesting, in between my furious crocheting, I spoke with my daughter Jane and she has mixed feelings about the pussyhats. But not to worry as she said "I'll bet Ken (her husband) would wear one, and Helena (her daughter) too...". So I made three. We'll see... Hopefully I will be able to get a few photos on Saturday.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. You made three? Fantastic! A piece of history to be sure. Consider sewing the year inside.

If you do not get a photo uploaded, not to worry. A few days ago, Commons category:Pussyhats held a single image. Now, there are many. And out of all those choices, the first image uploaded is still the pick for the article. It's a gem. Many thanks again to GorillaWarfare for that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm working on a draft article about the satellite event in Portland, Oregon. We'll see if a standalone article in the main space will be possible, based on coverage of the event, but folks are welcome to contribute to the draft for the time being, if interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Another Believer I do not believe the creation of another article separate of this one is appropriate because then sister articles could be created for each major metropolis. It would be better served to be listed on either this page or have a sub article developed that lists these events in more detail. An entire new article takes away from the main article. ---  Jrobb525 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The Portland event received a lot of coverage. I've not even done expanding the article, but already there is enough detail to justify a standalone article. I am not suggesting that there should be separate articles for other cities, too, unless they've received similar coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New "Controversy" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure about the new Controversy section at the bottom. First tendency is to tone down the word "outrage" as inexpressive. But having read the source, it may be better to let someone re-write the entire paragraph. Excluding Hillary is worth mentioning, but topic needs wordsmithing.Bjhillis (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. A Google search brings up next to nothing so it could be considered not newsworthy, I guess. I'd guess that today will bring a swift reaction. Wait and see? Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Portland march had a similar conflict among organizers over who was included, so the underlying subject of conflicts within the ranks of the march organizers, or between the organizers and some participants, is a worthy subject, but I don't have a handle yet on how to summarize it.Bjhillis (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The conflict is basically between Bernie supporters, who constitute the leadership in the march on DC, and Hillary supporters, who feel snubbed by the March using Hillary's speech as a rallying cry without listing her in the group of leaders to honour or even attributing it to her. I'm not sure if any articles on the connection has propped up yet though. Rmdsc (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The section was just re-organized under "Participants," and that works, no need to pursue it further. The Adelman op-ed in the NY Times touches on the Hillary-Bernie issue.Bjhillis (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Honoree List Controversy" is a better title. Still not sure "outrage" fits. And we're missing elements of the conflict within the so-called women's movement: (1) Progressive left vs. Hillary Clinton, essentially a tug-of-war over the best strategy for the Democratic party; (2) Racial conflicts, see, e.g., Portland march controversy; and (3) Gender conflicts, e.g., men's role in the march. No need to cover everything under the sun here, but just noting this potentially is about more than a snub to Hillary. Bjhillis (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another aside: I do know that Dolores Huerta is a very strong Hillary supporter and I'd guess that she is not too happy... Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been a day and this info has not been picked up by reliable sources. I agree with the editor that removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

How is Fortune, TIME, or New York Times not a reliable source? If you still take issue with specific statements mark it for citations needed, stop trying to delete the whole section without discussion. Rmdsc (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think at this point it's WP:UNDUE. If anything more comes out of it then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between elements of the march organizers and the movement is noteworthy, and was covered by the cites. No need to dwell on it but it was a valid topic to include. Maybe we hadn't articulated the issues with sufficient clarity.Bjhillis (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was saying it shouldn't be covered, I think the issue was without wide-spread coverage, it's placing undue influence on a few sources. There may be more coverage now regarding Hillary, I don't know. But if it's added, I think that there should also be mention of why she might not have been publicly invited. I have heard (on the news or one of the online news articles) that it's due to optics - i.e., the awkward position it puts her in as a former first-lady and candidate for the office, who in both cases are expected to support a smooth transition of power.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Several people were literally saying it shouldn't be covered, and repeatedly dismissing the multiple sources cited for each sentence. Anyway, it's not about an invitation, but rather a list the Women's March organizers made of "revolutionary leaders" that they are "honoring". The reason wasn't about smooth transition of power at all; the "optics" you mention was an argument Co-Chair Linda Sarsour made that: "It's too close to the election. This is not about women being upset that Hillary didn't win, it's about a crazy man who is about to roll back all of our rights. Why let her be the story and erase millions of women who will be impacted? This is about optics." Sarsour incidentally was one of the Bernie delegates who called for superdelegates to overturn the primary results at the Democratic Convention. It is disappointing albeit not surprising to see Hillary's name completely scrubbed from an article that was in large part a response by her supporters to her defeat. 1.34.177.152 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.34.177.152 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've added an image of the sister march I attended as a stopgap until we have an image of a bigger and/or more prominent global march. Feel free to replace it when we have a better one. Sam Walton (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just found 36 free images to use. They're here. APK whisper in my ear 19:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recommend we add one on those great pics to the pussy hat section.Bjhillis (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Women wearing pink Pussy Hats on a flight from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. to attend the march (Photo: Ted Eytan)

@Bjhillis: It's a great picture, but I think the current pussy hat image is better (because it shows the hat more closely) and the section is currently far too small to have two images. Sam Walton (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Estimates of worldwide marches attendance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The expansion of the article to mention all marches looks great. Anyone want to take a stab at estimating worldwide attendance at all the marches? Put in the opening para something like, "Altogether, more than one million women joined the Wash DC, U.S. regional and international protests..."Bjhillis (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"millions" seems to be the best we can do for an overall number right now unfortunately. I'm sure by tomorrow a news org will do a roundup and get a better sense of the numbers. Sam Walton (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"estimates have ranged from 2 million to 3 million." ^Falling_Gravity 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Once the numbers are fully tallied, the march should be added to the List of largest peaceful gatherings in history article. Just in terms of the USA, it should already be on the list, but I'm not going to add it because we should have full idea first. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone added more detail on attendance, largest protest in U.S. history, looks better. Last nit missing is a total worldwide participation, no rush to add.Bjhillis (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Millions of people is just a anti-trump media hoax, just add up number of demonstrators in other countries, you can't even reach a half million.Nochyyy (talk) 22 January 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious, we don't even have all the numbers for the other countries. Please provide a citation. ^Falling_Gravity 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

At the end to the table listing marches, I added a row with "Total attendance from above," and the sum "3.196 million" (found by scraping each city's attendance into a spreadsheet). Where there was an estimated range, e.g. Chicago 150k to 175k, I used the lower number, e.g., used 150k for Chicago. I have not added up the international marches attendance.Bjhillis (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) As more cities are added to the table, the Total attendance figure will be low. Will update it later in the week.Bjhillis (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw the Infobox added an estimate on worldwide attendance. It says 2-3 million in U.S. but note the table below of local marches sums to 3.2 million. BTW, not sure of value add in listing Trump and Pence in Infobox, crowds the format. Seems more relevant to list Michael Moore and Scarlett Johansen. And no need to footnote Dolores Huerte in Infobox, leave that for the body of the article.Bjhillis (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Estimates of attendance need to be better sourced, with some discussion of how the estimate was made. Just citing the Washington Post's estimate of 500,000 people is not sufficient, given the Post's polemical anti-Trump position during the election campaign. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice it's just been removed, but I think we should hold off on a total attendance from the table - it's close to original research and will be out of date each time we add a new march. Best to go with the totals being published in reliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the totals, 1) it is only as good as all the info in this table and doesn't include any cities that haven't been added, 2) as the numbers changes in the table, this total would not be accurate, and 3) it's a sum of just the low values.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

4.8 million is the estimate produced by https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters as of Jan. 23. I'm sure they have overlooked ways to get a total count, but it is certainly higher than the other estimates on the page.DRieselman (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC) DRieselman

'Millions'

Article says "millions of people worldwide." This sounds rather slap-dash. AP on Jan. 22 says "more than 1 million," which seems more prudent.

Re "millions," the NYT article cited in Note 15 does not mention "millions" of participants worldwide. The USA Today piece cited in Note 16 seems to rely on "projections" for its 2.6M figure. Note that cutline says, "Early projections show that over 2.5 million...." Sca (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

How many million is "several million" – 2 million, 3 million, 10 million? Nebulous. Sca (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Due to the time sensitivity of the event and possible posting on WP:ITN/C, it's best to do this as soon as possible given that a consensus has emerged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Note: fixing templates to officially close this RM discussion. Please use {{RM top/bottom}} instead of {{archive top/bottom}} when closing move discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Women's March on Washington → 2017 Women's March – According to PolitiFact, "Women's March" is the collective name of protests. I added "2017" to the proposed title to help with disambiguation. Additionally, this would help create a page with the current title that totally focuses on the march in Washington, DC (if such a page is desired). ^Falling_Gravity 01:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support: There was a similar march called March for Women's Lives, which took place in 2004. Several news sources can be seen here There are also many similar marches in 1913, 1970, 1986, 1989 and 1992, as seen Here. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is an additional Report regarding the 1992 march: [1] Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I'm seeing multiple news outlets using the general "Women's March" to talk about marches if different cities/countries. Since the article is also focusing on these other protests, I think moving would be the right idea. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although maybe Women's March (2017) or (2017 movement) might be better GeekInParadise (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know a lot of articles titles that are formatted like that, though I guess it could work. ^Falling_Gravity 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support I'd like to see a few more sources to justify a name change Victor Grigas (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The common name of the protest is known as Women's March on Washington.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 05:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Fundude99: Is that the common name for all the protests covered in this page? ^Falling_Gravity 05:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I misunderstood.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 07:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I support the naming of the article to be broader than Washington, because this is widely reported as a world wide event, whether it's "2017 Women's March" or "Women's March (2017)".—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This happened in multiple locations.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The official name of the grassroots effort is titled Women's March on Washington. Therefore, the article that correlates to this event should be named as such. This event spurred the development of sister marches in other cities around the world. The fact that it the name is on Washington is significant because the march coincides with the inauguration of Donald Trump in Washington. The sister march section of the article can be better defined to expand the information on other marches in major metropolis cities / if extensive enough, could be developed into a listed subpage ---  Jrobb525 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I misunderstood. The collective name of all the marches is Women's March. Therefore, this article could be a collective for all of them. No need to create separate pages for each march. ---  Jrobb525 06:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question What are the organizers calling them? What is the press calling them? I think I know what Donald Trump is calling them, we can't use that as a title. Carptrash (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. –Buffaboy ^talk 05:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support with no objections to individual articles being created on specific, more notable, marches.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Year dab before or after?

Does Women's March (2017) make more sense than the current title? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

One other thing to consider is whether it makes more sense as Women's March or Women's Marches, regardless of where the year is placed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That would perhaps be "Women's marches", not "Women's Marches", since it would not be a proper name anymore. Alternatively, perhaps it can be thought of as a single march that took place at multiple locations. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

How common is placing the dab after the event in parentheses? ^Falling_Gravity 09:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, putting the year first is the typical practice for articles about events on Wikipedia, unless there is a well-established common name for the event, per WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. But if "Women's March" is the well-established common name, then appending the year in parenthesis seems appropriate as a disambiguator. Personally, I'm starting to think that this topic does have a well-established common name, and that the article should be at "Women's March (2017)". —BarrelProof (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not understanding the specific quotes added for the commentary for Michael Moore.

It would be nice to find some quotes that hone in on the specific messages - about not rolling back rights, concern about the way that Trump has described women, people of color, etc. It seems like it would be also good to mention that there were varying viewpoints. In other words, the common messages + that there were also a lot of varying viewpoints.—CaroleHenson (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole "criticism" section was/is a bit weird and POV. The decent part is that it was an "anti-Trump" protest. The rest is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Two things:

Regarding my Michael Moore comment above - that's  Done. I still want to add the bit about "not rolling back our rights" - and that there were a lot of varying opinions, which is being reported on the news.

Regarding the criticism section, I had mentioned that I was going to post a message on the talk page, which I did at #Criticism.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PoliticusUSA

Can someone please find a better source for the end part of the lead section? I do not currently have the time to do so and will not for at least several hours, but perhaps someone else has this time. Dustin (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it for the second time. It is not a reliable source. APK whisper in my ear 08:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I may have gotten it confused with another fake news site with a similar name. Does anyone know if it's legitimate? I'm not familiar with it. To say this was the largest protest in US history needs a very strong source(s). APK whisper in my ear 08:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

After some research, I found this article from PoliticsUSA that's completely false. I remember when that came out and having to remove the libelous claims from the BLP pages. We need a source that has a better reputation. APK whisper in my ear 08:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that doesn't look like a hugely reliable source. This says over 2 million people, but seems to be based on an early projection; I think it's the best we can do for now. Sam Walton (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I also think it's best to just say millions right now and not add the claim it's the largest in US history until a reputable source is found. APK whisper in my ear 09:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am archiving this, because I am not seeing that Politicus is used as a source any longer.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead figures

The infobox divides the Trump administration and the leaders of the march like they are warring among themselves, while we don't even have confirmation that Trump and Pence reacted to fight against the march. This seems to be a breach of neutrality and original research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a similar reaction, noted above, not so much that it violates neutrality but what's the explanatory value add? Maybe add a section, "Reaction to the March," to throw all the Fox News stuff in. The NBC news coverage this morning mentioned the anti-abortion people excluded angle, so that would go in this section. There is already a "Criticism" section, so maybe Reactions would fit there.Bjhillis (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, will remove the Trump administration. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree w/ the current format. The current format implies that the chairs & co-chair are on different sides. While there is a handful of ways to use the 'Parties to the civil conflict' & 'Lead figures' fields, I see this method as unconventional and sending the incorrect message. I would like to see displayed either just the one primary side (protesters), or the two sides of this civil conflict. I see the two sides as: (1) the people protesting for human rights (women's right, lgbtq rights, etc) and against the policy and rhetoric of Donald Trump, etc; and (2) the govt and people whose policies are being protested, eg: Trump administration. The parties to the civil conflict do not need to be an active participant. See examples of the separation: Montgomery bus boycott, Orange Revolution, 2015–16 protests in Brazil, 2015–16 Lebanese protests, Chicano Movement, Lawyers' Movement, 2015 Bangladeshi political crisis, Selma to Montgomery marches, December 2016 Polish protests, Qidong protest, Sunflower Student Movement, 2015–16 protests in Moldova, 2015–16 Iraqi protests, 2016 Zimbabwe protests, & 2016 Ethiopian protests, 2016 Kashmir unrest. Justin Ormont (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Table. Sorting the numbers in the attendance column

See Help:Sorting. Sorting works now in the attendance column after adding data-sort-type="number" in the header.

Sorting only works for the first number in a cell. A number has to be first in a cell for it to sort correctly. Text, references, and anything else must follow the number.

Example:

1000s (thousands)

Note that there needs to be a number in front of "thousands".

< 2,000 is tricky due to the "less than" symbol <. That requires this wikitext:

| data-sort-value=2,000 |< 2,000

{| class="wikitable sortable" ! data-sort-type="number" |Approximate attendance |- |1000s (thousands) |- | data-sort-value=2,000 |< 2,000 |- |100,000 |- |50,000 |- |20,000-30,000 |}

Approximate attendance 1000s (thousands) < 2,000 100,000 50,000 20,000-30,000

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: This is a nice idea that should definitely be implemented. Might be worth holding off for a day or two until the article has calmed down though. Sam Walton (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: This was implemented by me for the USA table just before I wrote my message here. I wanted others to understand how to continue keeping the attendance column sortable. You may be referring to the worldwide table. That did not exist at the time of my original post. I am implementing the fixes now for that table. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Table. Increase state rowspan number when adding new city

When adding a new city to the table, please remember to increase the rowspan number for the relevant state. Or the table will be messed up until it is fixed. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I thoroughly recommend using the visual editor for working on the table; it makes it 100x easier. Sam Walton (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is buggy. In fact, visual editor is crap. Can't even type in cells without the cursor being moved around outside my control. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's strange, I haven't had any issues with it here. You should report your issues here. Sam Walton (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I gave up long ago on the Visual Editor. The developers don't listen, and have bizarre reasoning for many of their decisions. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should do a protest march and stick it to the developers. That'll learnz 'em. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks for such a good laugh Lugnuts.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeshifter — What browser are you on? That seems like a very odd bug. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: Firefox. I am talking about the attendance column. When trying to type in "100s (hundreds)" for example. It is iffy. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Instead of typing it in, I now paste it in. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Are photos really necessary in the "Location" section's table?

Are photos really necessary? They take up a lot of space, and photos are somewhat similar from city to city. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the touch, but they could be smaller. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the photographs serve to illustrate the numbers of people that attended the events, which demonstrates significance. I support use of photos in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Smaller is easy. If someone hasn't done so, I could make them 125px and see how that looks.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I love photos. Smaller is OK with me... Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it's done.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I love the photos, too, and I'm uploading dozens from the event I attended. I'm just trying to make this article as readable and accessible as possible. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the rectangular images in the tables (those with longer width than height) are a bit too small now, imo; difficult to make out what's actually in some of them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's true. People can click on the image to see a big one. I am happy to switch it back if it's too small, though.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I enlarged a few images a bit that were minuscule. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible navigational box?

Just throwing this out there; I've noticed a few cities have their own page (i.e. Women's March on Austin, Women's March on Portland, Womxn's March on Seattle, etc.). Would it be beneficial to have a navbox to sort all of these under the main Women's March 2017 page? This also could be incorporated into a larger navbox for protests against Donald Trump? It just seems like there is some disconnection between different pages. Just a thought! Scott218 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea Scott218. I'll draft something. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wave Feminists controversy

This should be separate from the Criticism section. It's a distinct controversy, and the paragraph in question does not describe critiques directed at the Women's March in response to the controversy.

It also garnered a significant degree of attention in media outlets such as The New York Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges (talk • contribs)

—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

RaymondCHedges It sounds like you saying that 1) there should be section for controversies, 2) this section should be rewritten, and 3) you have a New York Times article as a / one of the sources. Do you want to rewrite it?—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

—RaymondCHedges (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I don't think a controversies section is necessary, since this is the only major issue I can think of. But I do think that this particular controversy shouldn't be lumped as a subheading under Criticism. —RaymondCHedges (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Responses

I think it would be good to get more reactions... and I am thinking that key political figures, like majority leader, etc. would be a good place to start... perhaps Bernie Sanders. I thought I'd check in her first so that there's an approach for what goes in that section. Any other thoughts?—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but you're not going to find much just yet. Sanders, etc., like most others, other than the new administration, do not shoot from the hip in such matters. Nor should we... Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Get the too soon part of the comment... totally lost be the last part.

I bring this up because Bruce Springsteen's comment at one of his concerts was added - and it's the only one besides Trump, which seems a little odd to me. My point is it would be good to have a framework for the types of responses that are added.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is some feedback from Bernie here from CBS's Face the Nation. I'll add that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Crowd Size Estimate

Does anybody have a better estimate for the crowd in DC than the estimate as of 9:00 am? The rally didn't start until 10, so many people arrived after 9:00 am. AIN515 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the march's co-chairs has endorsed Sharia law, which is contrary to women's rights

This should be added to the criticism section: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/figrues-organizer-dc-womens-march-linda-sarsour-pro-sharia-law-ties-hamas/

Also, she was photographed with a guy who had been previously convicted of funding an Islamic terrorist group: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/

71.182.240.235 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the tone of the comment, Sasour's background is properly part of the "controversy" section, if we said words to the effect: "In creating the event, groups within the women's movement worked together while not sharing all of the political views of other partners. For example,..." etc. But we haven't really tackled this topic. I think we've decided to leave it underdeveloped in a two sentence Criticism section, and a perhaps overly long New Wave feminism section. See Talk, above. Calling out Sarsour alone as an outlier doesn't capture the scope of the issue, which is factions having very different views of what the movement should be. The best Wiki approach would be to compare the March to other historical movements that also had big differences in views, e.g., Civil Rights, anti-Vietnam War movement, or even to explain that the enormous outpouring of support for the March swept along in the current and forced groups that openly dislike or distrust each other to work together. Bjhillis (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well the first source used also says "Approximately 200,000 people participated " about the Washington event, so how reliable is it. Not very, I say. Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who The Daily Caller is, but am not impressed with it either. This looks more like trying to create a controversy than there is on. Carptrash (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither appear to be reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news alert. Gateway Pundit is for sure not RS, Daily Caller is better at times but not always trustworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Quite some vandalism occurring here, I'm trying to revert it. Sorry if other editor's changes are being caught in the fray, I've applied for page protection. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping Northamerica1000 — I think I may have caught some of your stuff accidentally. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for the lead

I incorrectly wrote in the lead's second paragraph about D.C. that the march drew three times as many as the inauguration. Now I believe that statement should be in the third paragraph. Would anyone here be able to fix my mistake? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who fixed this. It might have been User:2601:98a:0:402:ec21:e7fd:4c0:a129. This article looks much better now. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert or otherwise replace "men in pussyhats" photo?

Northamerica1000, I noticed you just replaced the photo of a woman wearing a pussyhat with a photo of two men wearing pussyhats. To my thinking, it would be more representative of the event to have the archetypal pussyhat image for the article involve a woman, because the event was conceived and organized predominantly by women, focused on women, and attended by a majority of women (though with a great many men, children, and others in attendance). Can you explain your thinking for the switch? What about including both photos? Do others have views/ideas? Thanks, W.stanovsky (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Noted that change below. Strength of pic of the two male marches is the juxtaposition of the men wearing the pussy hats. Strength of the previous pic is it was an early contribution to the page, and the woman pictured had knit the hat, so it emphasized the arts and crafts aspect.Bjhillis (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I also think the previous image did a better job of showing the actual hat, which is presumably the point of such an image. Sam Walton (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, so it must be resolved. I did remove the pussyhat cartoon from the {{Protests against Trump sidebar}} - it is not representative of all of the protests - and simplified it to one photo.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fort Atkinson, WI

Not sure how to add this to the table, but 200 people participated in a march in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. http://www.dailyunion.com/multimedia/collection_ef47d9e2-e016-11e6-acfe-3fc05da771cb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.146.22 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy, clarity, and totality missing from lede as currently worded

In lede: "goal of promoting women's rights" -- this makes little sense in a vacuum. Promoting it -- how, why and in what way? From what purported danger? There also were clearly numerous other coattail-riding lobbyists and special interests (LGBT, BLM, teachers unions, etc). Quis separabit? 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to document the resolution, this has been changed in the lede.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Source POV

A number of sources used in the article to justify factual points are in fact opinion pieces.

• For example, the New York Times post, has words like "it's a nice idea", "the election taught Americans", "it is easy to see how complicated", show that this is an opinion piece.
• Another example, the New Yorker, uses phrases like, "to many it feels welcome", "horribly fertile soil", "tad overdetermined", etc, which shows the author's opinions again as opposed to fact.

While I'm not saying that these sources should be excluded, I believe that it is Wikipedia's policy to attribute opinionated points to the source as, "ABC of The New York Times states that XYZ was a symbolism of 123" instead of simply stating the point itself as though it was fact, like "XYZ represented 123".

The key difference between factual news reports and opinionated pieces is that the news agency/newspaper is responsible for reliability/verifiability (and in the case of certain agencies like Reuters, the neutrality) the information in the former, but the latter merely reflects the journalist's personal opinions, and does not represent that of the company. Can we have better sources, preferably written in an objective manner please? --42.60.174.22 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you find some good sources and provide the links here, I'll format the citations.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamic rally

It was Gloria Steinem who told her supporters "we're all Muslims". --74.190.108.3 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits calling this rally "Islamism" pushing Sharia Law are vandalism and have been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour is a known Islamist organizer of the rally.--74.190.108.3 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

undid move

Saul Grant moved the page to 2017 Women's Marches. As it's a proper [collective] noun, I've restored the previous location. At very least it should go through the formal move process. I see it came up in the previous requested move, but things have been moving pretty quickly on this page, so apologies if I missed something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks, @Rhododendrites:. I for one, think of it as one very spread out demonstration. Carptrash (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Background >>> Policy Platform last section

The Section Background >>> Policy Platform ends with the following statement as of 2017-01-23 1439 EST:

"The resistance to Trump's kleptocratic seizure of power by force despite the loss of the people's vote and lack of prior governing experience, and on a heavily etho-nstionalist, anti-immigration platform, has often been compared to Adolf Hitler's rise to power, with which the parallels are obvious, and the protests of Trump draw spiritual and tactical inspiration from La Resistance, the French resistance movement to the occupation of France by Nazism, on which the resistance to Trump's autocratic rule is explicitly modeled."

No citations or quote marks are included. It doesn't seem to fit with the tone and formatting of most wikipedia articles I read.

Longtime reader, often tiny editor (spelling, grammar, etc). First time on a talk page, so please forgive my ignorance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.169 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh protests

I note the Edinburgh protest is mentioned twice in the list of Worldwide locations, under Scotland and United Kingdom. Since Scotland is not a sovereign state and the article is 288K long, I propose we merge these together. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds pretty logical (and non-controversial). I say go for it! JeffConn (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged with the United Kingdom too, since it's a constituent country. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Homer, Alaska

We had an estimated 905 marchers here, but our local papers only come out once a week, and radio reports usually don't happen too quickly on the weekend, so the only documentation at the moment is a local reporter's facebook feed where he already shared images and a preview of what to expect from his reporting on it. Didn't know how many examples would be desirable but htis was bigger than some of the other current examples. Expect reporting later his week from the Homer News and KBBI. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

When the report comes out let us know! I'll add it in Victor Grigas (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I put it on the chart, you need to add reference later. Carptrash (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

c-span video

Is this public domain?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?422332-1/womens-march-washington-protests-new-trump-administration

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No: C-SPAN is a private not-for-profit. Only its coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives chamber or U.S. Senate chamber, which is controlled by each house and therefore a work of a U.S. federal employee, is public domain. C-SPAN claims the rest of its output is copyrighted. (If they just put a camera in the spot the news media is allowed, and leaves the camera alone, maybe public domain could be argued; but if there's a cameraman using some sort of creativity to determine when to adjust the camera and when not to, it's likely to be copyrighted.) See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/rights and related Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/C-SPAN television photos from User:Evidian8. Also, the speeches themselves are copyrighted at creation, and are being discussed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm. --Closeapple (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Largest marches in US history for various cities, and combined one-day total

Google and Google News searches for largest marches in US history:

• Google News: https://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=largest+marches+in+US+history
• Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=largest+marches+in+US+history

There are many articles listed that discuss how the marches were the largest in US history for various cities. And especially for the one-day total. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

3 to 5 million worldwide. Article and Google Docs spreadsheet with many cities, numbers, and references

A Google Docs spreadsheet lists hundreds of cities worldwide with attendance numbers and references:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

It is linked from this article:

• Women's March Is The Biggest Protest In US History As An Estimated 2.9 Million March. By Jason Easley. Jan 21, 2017. Politicus USA.

US cities are listed first. Followed by a list of cities outside the US. Use your mouse scroll wheel to move up and down. Or click on the page, and then use your page up and page down keys.

The low and high total attendance numbers at the top (3 to 5 million) are for the USA only.

There are also total attendance numbers for cities outside the USA. They are at the top of that worldwide (outside USA) table at the bottom of the spreadsheet. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I integrated a large amount of the content from the Google Docs spreadsheet in to the US section, and checked many of the references. Justin Ormont (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Justin Ormont: Thanks! I guess others will need to add the references. I noticed a lot of "citation needed" notices. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Country flags

Moved to Talk:List of 2017 Women's Marches. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See also: List of 2017 Women's Marches

This needs to be at the top of the article. The number of edits of the list has gone way down since it was moved. So I added this to the top of the article:

See also: List of 2017 Women's Marches

Otherwise the average reader will have no reason to believe there is a comprehensive list. Especially if they are just doing a quick scan of the article. Which is all most readers do with a Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox error?

The info box says this was an anti-Trump rally. But, the source cited does not support that. The rally was explicitly NOT anti-Trump (I participated; we were briefed on this) but was intended to have a positive, pro-women's rights message. Nothing in the cited source mentions Trump at all. I realize it's obvious to anyone who was there that this march was in opposition to trump, but, that is not sourced and my say-so is not a source for wikipedia. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You can look at a multitude of sources, most say it was anti-trump. Anecdote is not substitute for sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not suggest substituting anecdote for sources - that is precisely the opposite of what I wrote. I said the cited source does not support the 'opposition to trump' statement of cause in the infobox. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Locations Section

The section about "Locations" is pretty long. In fact, it's over 220 KB. This significantly slows down the loading of this article, and anyway, I'm not convinced a full list of locations is needed anyway. Maybe we can create a list article for such locations? epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Add your vote in the talk section higher up:

• #Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Total

Hi, the total is on Wikipedia's home page, and it's too low. The best academic source, the one being cited widely in the media is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

This source tabulates between 3.5 and 5.0 million participants. I think we should use this number, and keep an eye on the source as it is being updated. I know this is a lowly Google Doc, but the researchers are top quality academics. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Thanks for changing it, I was just about to revert that edit myself. Sam Walton (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Need more people reverting vandalism

There is crazy amounts of vandalism and inserting of WP:BLP-material right now. Please keep track of the IPs. All types, from those saying Trump's speech was the worst ever to those trying to make it look like the protests were unrelated to Trump. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like Cluebot is picking up some of the vandalism after a while, but we need more people in there making sure the acceptable parts of the text don't deteriorate into oblivion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 

I keep reverting and they keep coming. Dylan? "The pump won't work cause the..."Bjhillis (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Video as citation

While trying to find citations for the smaller more remote marches, i came across a YouTube video of the march in Floyd, Virginia, USA. As Floyd's newspaper hasn't published a story (online, at least) about the march, this is the closest thing i could find. I hope that raw video can be used as acknowledgement that the march actually took place, so that subsection won't be removed. JeffConn (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeffconn, See WP:YTREF regarding usage, which I interpret to mean that if it comes from a secondary source / reliable source, the information about the video who produced the video, it's title, et. can be used as a citation - then remove the link to youtube.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems pretty silly

to have "initial estimates put worldwide participation at more than 2 million" in the lede when Washington, LA, New York and Chicago probably have around that many people and we have dozens more cities in the US alone that will certainly take us over that figure. However I am reluctant to "be bold" and slash and burn it out, so what do you think? Carptrash (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It makes sense to push the number above 3 million, since the table of local U.S. marches adds up to over 3.5 million, plus the international marches.Bjhillis (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the number is probably greater than 3 million for worldwide participation. We should document the numbers with citation footnotes for specific locales using their own numbers as reported in the news. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bare URL references. Fix with reFill

Please paste in Wikipedia article name here:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill

It fills out reference info for bare URLs. For a whole Wikipedia article of bare URL references at once.

But first you have to clear our some of the bizarre reference formatting so that reFill can see the bare URLs. ReFill can see bare URLs in this format:

<ref>BARE URL</ref>

So save yourself some time by clearing out the formatting underbrush, and then let reFill do some of the heavy lifting of filling in reference info. You can manually add more reference info later if you want to. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Separate articles for the "movement" and the DC event?

Should we have separate articles for the movement (2017 Women's March) and the DC event (Women's March on Washington)? Seems the parent article should provide a global overview, and a DC-specific article include more of that specific demonstration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The Chicago and LA ones might merit separate articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes also. This movement is not going away and it seems that there will be more than enough fuel to fire the protests, what with "alternate facts" as just one example, and all... (What a very strange time to be alive...) Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we're all thinking the same thing here, is there a template we can add to attract more attention to this discussion? I don't want to start forking content over to Women's March on Washington without clear consensus. The current article has become a bit of a mess. I think having a parent article with sub-articles for Washington, D.C., and select other cities, might be the best approach. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. This article currently does a lot of confusing mixing of details about the move generally and details about the Washington march organisation. Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the early editors to this article, all things considered it's still not too bad at all, IMO. I certainly do support an effort to see this as a parent article with splits. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Example: This would be similar to having Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street, among other articles (see Category:Occupy movement). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll see, I don't think it's merited right now — but if it swells more it may be reasonable. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that if anyone would like to start sub-articles that would be fine, but for now let's not split. Give it a few days and we can judge the size of the protests. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks---I'm thinking that my use of the term "split" was not correct. "Sub-articles" seems more correct. I agree with the thought that a few days wait is a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Well, maybe, as long as we don't have too many articles talking about the movement. Let's wait a few days until Talk:2017 Women's March#Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches is finished. If this alternative is chosen, the list of protests would probably go into a third article. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a banner to encourage editors to contribute to this discussion, but my edit was undone by User:Randy Kryn. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just put it back, the discussion link didn't lead to this section, just to the long talk page, and it looked like a renaming discussion had closed. Please fix the link so it leads to this discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just did the same thing. I eventually found the split discussion but it was not well labelled and the template did not direct people here. I've fixed the template. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, and apologies for not knowing to do so earlier. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree to the seperate articles. 71.179.136.243 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, it started out as one event but the overall event now historically contains all of the marches of the day. Separating them actually would now distort the history. The Washington march should be highlighted and have a line in the infobox title, yet the D.C. core march grew in an unprecedented way to inspire international and wider US marches. Randy Kryn 01:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn: I see what you mean, but also think more of the D.C.-specific details could be forked in a way similar to the articles about satellite events (Women's March on Austin, Women's March on Portland, and Women's March on Seattle). These articles don't take away from the parent article, and let some of the details exist outside the parent article while still supporting the movement's overall impact. I'll point to the example of Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street again. I also acknowledge that forking the massive list of events might help separate some of the movement info from the DC details, and help reduce the article's size. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The infobox title on this one now gives a good overview of how the march evolved, with the overall taking top billing but the D.C. march still the focus of much of the page. Hopefully a split won't take readers to one and then they won't bother with the other. Having the two main topics on one page shows the reality of the situation. Occupy is different in that Wall Street was a long-term but eventually ended-action while occupy was a very related but longer lasting organization. This article is about the one-day event which was centered in D.C. but emulated around the world, and, again, hopefully a split, if it comes to that, will be done to enhance the topic and not dilute it. Randy Kryn 13:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate

"Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March (pictured) protesting Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States." -- The title is not accurate. Most were protesting against hate, bigotry, and Theocracy among many other things. The election of the horrific buffoon was only part of why so many millions of people were demonstrating around the world, but it was not just because of Trump winning the electoral vote. Damotclese (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The blurb needs to be concise. It gets wordy to say that they were protesting the "hate, bigotry" etc. embodied by Trump's election and inauguration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Were they protesting theocracy though? We don't live in a theocracy in the United States (& our founders specifically put barriers to creating such in the Constitution)... and I don't recall much of the protests mentioning anything about the existing theocracies around the world (particularly the ones hostile to women's rights), such as Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. Maybe I'm just applying too much logic to a situation of subjective emotion where logic is thrown out the window, but it seems to me rather difficult to protest X, when X is not a thing that can be objectively proven to exist. I mean, I suppose one could, but they'd look rather silly doing it - like a crazy person ranting about lizard-people. Although I have noticed a peculiar pattern of people both online & those I've spoken to IRL about this having no clue what the march they were attending was actually about. I, for one, would like to find out what the heck it was actually about, but Wikipedia at the current moment seems hardly more elucidating on the matter than the march-goers I've spoken to.CitationKneaded (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I took the original poster's meaning to be the creeping Christian fundamentalism that tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ohh, ok, I think now I see where they're coming from (while maintaining civil disagreement with their assertion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Summary of overnight changes

The changes from last night are:

1) @Mark Miller: split off the list of locations to a new page (should the Infobox on the list page use "2017 Women's March" as header?);

2) Lost pic of honorary co-chair Dolores Huerte;

3) Criticism section re-worked: "anti-abortion group" paras put into its own section; and criticism of march put into "Responses/media" with better quotes from Shikha Dalmia and NY Post;

This morning @47.32.123.122: moved "anti-abortion" material into "Partnerships" and condensed two paras into one.

4) @Anna Frodesiak: formatted left/right placement of pics of protest signs and woman wearing pink hat (she now looks into/across the page);

5) Infobox back to stating "Estimated 2,600,000 worldwide" while article text says: "The march drew at least half a million in Washington, and some estimates put worldwide participation at 4.8 million";

6) On the list of locations page, @Northamerica1000: and others fixed the hundred or more bare links, properly formatting the cites (yea!).

I suggest "Speakers and attendees" section be renamed "Speakers," cut the celebrity list (it's now done below, under Celebrities attending), and move "John Kerry walked his dog" to "Politicians". Bjhillis (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we collapse "Speakers and attendees" and "Commentary" into "Speakers and Commentators". Open with the official list of speakers, then Gloria Steinem quote (could point out this quote was prior to march, or could replace it with a snip from her speech at the march). Fold the celebrities list into the below list of celebrities attending. Move John Kerry to end of the para, or cut him.

How it currently reads:

Speakers and attendees

The official list of speakers included Cecile Richards, Ilyasah Shabazz, Janet Mock, LaDonna Harris, Janelle Monáe, Maryum Ali, Rabbi Sharon Brous, Sister Simone Campbell, Sophie Cruz, America Ferrera, Angela Davis, Gloria Steinem, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johansson, Melissa Harris-Perry, Michael Moore, Randi Weingarten, Van Jones, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Roslyn Brock, Muriel Bowser, Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, and Ai-jen Poo.[57][58][59]

Celebrities including Amy Schumer, Samantha Bee, Olivia Wilde, and Lupita Nyong'o declared their intention to attend the Washington march.[4][60] On January 10, organizers announced that America Ferrera would serve as chair of the "Artist Table", and that Zendaya, Rowan Blanchard, Katy Perry, Madonna and Cher would participate.[61] John Kerry joined the march while out walking his dog.[62]

Commentary

Honorary co-chair Gloria Steinem commented

How it should read:

Speakers

The official list of speakers included Gloria Steinem, Scarlett Johansson, and Sophie Cruz. Others who spoke are Michael Moore, Cecile Richards, Ilyasah Shabazz, Janet Mock, LaDonna Harris, Janelle Monáe, Maryum Ali, Rabbi Sharon Brous, Sister Simone Campbell, America Ferrera, Angela Davis, Ashley Judd, , Melissa Harris-Perry, Randi Weingarten, Van Jones, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Roslyn Brock, Muriel Bowser, Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, and Ai-jen Poo.[57][58][59]

Speaking at the march, honorary co-chair Gloria Steinem said: etc.

Speaking at the march, Scarlett Johanson said:

Speaking at the march, 6-year old Sophie Cruz said:

Commenting before the march, Michael Moore said:

Bjhillis (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes Bj, I agree...still a little work to do. However, I find the work that has been done in the last few days stunning--what an excellent article! I'm having connection problems today and think I will quit for now. Thanks to you for all the good work you have done for these last few weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I folded the two celebrity lists together. John Kerry is now mentioned under "Other locations/Politicians" (even though he was at DC march). So we are free to delete the celebrities para under "Speakers and attendees", and then combine it with Commentators into one section, "Speakers and Commentators", or simply "Speakers". The Steinem and Michael Moore quote are from before the march, but we can swap them out for lines from their day-of-the-march speeches.Bjhillis (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename as "2017 Sister Marches" ?

• An editor supporting the reverting of an earlier move by somebody else to 2017 Women's Marches has commented that s/he views it all as one big demonstration, but that sort of personal opinion looks like unacceptable WP:OR, all the more so when it runs counter to the normal English meaning of the word "march".
• 2017 Women's March makes little sense for a large number of marches, and is seemingly not the term used by the organisers, as can be seen from the following text at https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters/ :

SISTER MARCHES

Sister Marches are solidarity events inspired by the Women's March on Washington, and organized by volunteers around the world. If you can't make it to Washington, D.C. on January 21, join or host a Sister March near you.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SISTER MARCH PRESS ROOM

CLICK HERE FOR A STREAM OF PHOTOS AND VIDEOS FROM SISTER MARCHES AROUND THE WORLD

NUMBER OF MARCHES: 673

SISTER MARCHERS (EST): 4,814,000

• Note that the term Sister Marches can be backed up by using the above as a citation in our article text.

• The current name currently has no such citation backing it and just might get into serious trouble if somebody adds a Citation Needed, as they are fully entitled to do under our rules.

• Sister Marches also has other advantages, notably that it doesn't imply there are no men on the marches (it is the marches which are the sisters, not the marchers), while retaining the broadly feminist tone of the current title.

• Some might object that Sister Marches excludes the Women's March on Washington, but that seems an implausible interpretation (if Brenda is Anne's sister, then Anne is also Brenda's sister), and I'd be very surprised if they omit the Washington Marchers from their above estimate of 4,814,000 Sister Marchers.

• However "2017 Women's March on Washington and Sister Marches" is a possible alternative title (though I currently prefer the shorter title).

• Do we need a full proposal and discussion before making this change, or should somebody just do it under WP:BOLD, perhaps after first waiting a little to hear a few reactions here? (As a male I'm reluctant to be bold myself when it comes to this largely feminist issue). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As nobody has commented yet, and the problem has not gone away, I propose to await comments and responses for a reasonable period of time (12 to 24 hours), and if I hear nothing more I will perhaps reluctantly attempt the name change myself per WP:BOLD (except that by then I may well no longer be bothered).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Few people, media and public, are referring to them as the "Sister Marches". Surely we should use the name people actually refer to it by? The article on "water" isn't called "dihydrogen monoxide". (For the record, maintaining an encyclopedia is not a feminist issue at all. Even men can edit pages on Wikipedia!) 5.65.129.208 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I may have missed it, but I have yet to see a reliable source that refers to this collection of marches in the singular (as in our current title 2017 Women's March), while the attempt to call it 2017 Women's Marches (in both the title and the start of the text) has repeatedly been reverted. Nor has any citation yet been given for 'Women's Marches' (possibly because the marches include men, or possibly for other reasons such as that there are no reliable citations, or because there are plenty but nobody has bothered to look). But personally I'd be happy with 2017 Women's Marches. I'm primarily suggesting Sister Marches because others seem to constantly object to 2017 Women's Marches (though Sister Marches has other minor advantages as well).
• Only humorists call water "dihydrogen monoxide". By contrast Sister Marches appears to be the official term used by the organisers, and I'm not sure that the media and public have any agreed term for the collection of marches (if they had, then quite likely the article would already bear that name and there would be no need for this discussion).
• But if you know of such an agreed term for the collection of marches, please let the rest of us know what it is, preferably backed by a few citations from reliable sources.
• (For the record, I did not intend to say anything about men not been able to edit pages on Wikipedia, as distinct from this particular male being reluctant to perform certain kinds of edit; my apologies if my actual words conveyed some other impression)
• (Also for the record, how women's issues are presented on Wikipedia is a feminist issue as far as many of Wikipedia's feminists are concerned (and quite a lot of other people too, both feminist and non-feminist), and understandably so - see WP:GGTF for details)
• (And also for the record, Wikipedia is not compulsory and therefore I am not obliged to attempt edits about which I don't feel comfortable, all the more so when my discomfort is the result of rather distressing previous experiences, and it is sometimes useful to indicate this discomfort to others so that they can choose to do the edits themselves rather than assuming that I'll be doing them) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet that for the people adding content, we have never googled or searched for "Sister marches", but searched for "Women's march" - the movement is the Women's march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, CaroleHenson. I'm perfectly happy to agree that the movement is the Women's March (or anything else) if you can find a reliable source that says so. I got Sister Marches by googling Women's March (or perhaps Women's March on Washington, or Women's Marches). And googling Women's March is an excellent way to find out about individual Marches such as Women's March - Boston, etc. But at the moment (as frequently before) we have "Women's March" in our title and "Women's Marches" in our opening sentence, and that's an article quality issue that needs fixing, preferably once and for all. That seems unlikely if people insist on saying March when they logically mean Marches, and insist on reverting those who try to make sense of it by changing the title to Marches, unless of course somebody can supply a reliable source which says that the movement is called the Women's March, or indeed the Women's Marches. At the moment Women's March is simply a name invented by one editor here who suggested changing Women's March on Washington to Women's March and got agreement from a few other editors (partly because most weren't marching on Washington, and partly because the worldwide aspect needed to be emphasized to get it into In The News). Personally I don't really care what we call it as long as it's backed by a reliable source cited in our article and is used consistently; right now what we have is basically illegal WP:OR, and a kind of low-level edit war between supporters of March and supporters of Marches.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about march vs. marches. I think the use of the singular march is because they are not independent marches... They all grew out of the Women's March on Washington. So, it's like there was a world-wide collective march.

I edited the intro, though, see what you think.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, CaroleHenson, though I'm not sure that what I later found was still the changes you had made. At any rate I've added 3 citations in support of the current title, 2 alternative titles with 1 citation each, and added 'worldwide' in front of 'protest'. All 3 suggested titles actually have support ranging from 400,000 to 4 million hits on Google, or 19 million for the current title (though half of that is 'women's march on Washington' and much of the remainder relates to single marches, or is ambiguous as to whether it's one or many). But at least we can no longer be accused of WP:OR, and it will be hard to demonstrate the alternative possible charge of WP:UNDUE, so I think I'll leave any further arguing to others.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Piles of Trash

Are we going to talk about how, despite at least one of the sister-march websites having a no-trash rule, the marches left piles of garbage for others to clean up? For a movement that ostensibly claims to be at least in part about Environmental protection, they sure have a funny way of showing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

When hundreds of coordinated events are organized for the same day, and they routinely end up attracting two to three times more participants than expected, then it is to be expected that garbage cans will overflow. This is a routine byproduct of very successful events and is neither surprising nor is it encyclopedic information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL, the photos that show the signs laid out and overflowing garbage cans are real but the rest are fakes, some even going back to Woodstock... See for example [[2]] Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No, why should we? Every weekend we have piles of trash left behind in the mountains, pile sof trash left behind in the beaches and deserts. If you want to pretend that for some reason progressives demonstrating against Theofascist Christian hate and bigotry are some how worse than the average human all around the planet when it comes to litter, try Conservapedia. Damotclese (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the signs were intentionally left at Trump's hotel. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Damotclese, I have to thank you for my first laugh of the day at "Theofascist Christian hate and bigotry". I would love to see the citations of credible sources & logical arguments that would lead a reasonable mind to employ such a word-salad. Care to share with the class? CitationKneaded (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is actually commentary from a Fox News contributor on air that states they picked up their trash and remarked on how that is one thing they always look at I other marches.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary of overnight edits

Rather than continue the circle of edits and reverts, thought we could discuss a few choices. I listed the changes overnight I could spot. Feel free to chime in on which version you prefer.

1) opening paragraph

Currently:

The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017, with the goal of promoting women's rights, immigration reform, and health care reform; to counter Islamophobia, rape culture, and LGBTQ abuse; and to address racial inequities (e.g., Black Lives Matter), workers' issues, and environmental issues.

Earlier version was simpler: The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017, with the goal of promoting women's rights

Edit war in the opening paragraphs unhelpfully leaves us here:

"Trump's speech at the inauguration was widely regarded as, by far, the worst speech of all-time, and has been called an "epic disaster" which many fear portends the end of Civilization and the beginning of a process of Human Devolution."

I see that someone has made some slight edits like "take a stand" vs. "promoting" - which is more accurate. It's the fear of losing rights that is the driver. And, people were coming for a lot of reasons, so I don't see a problem with having the other reasons mentioned.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

2) Format pic of Dolores Huerte

Currently her pic is format left.

Earlier editor put pic on right, saying Wiki format prefers not to lead a section with left format pic, and pic should face inward.

(We lost the pic of co-chair Harry Belafonte a few days ago).

There are a lot of photos in the article. Because there are several short paragraphs, if we didn't left justify the images at the top of a section, they would scoot down the page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

3) Pussy hat project

Someone swapped out the original Anna pic wearing a pink hat with a pic from two male marchers wearing hats

That looks to be resolved.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

4) Commentary section

Videos of speeches by Gloria Steinem and Scarlett Johannson were removed

I know, I'd like to return them... but I hope it doesn't make the article too crowded with photographs and video links.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I added them back.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

5) Criticism section

Someone added a sentence: "Female politician Pauline Hanson, leader of the Australian right-wing party One Nation, has criticized the march for it's failings to address the mistreatment and limited rights of women in many Islamic countries."

I agree, I'm not sure that this statement is appropriate. It gets to a very importnat issue, but it's off-track for the intention of the march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed this sentence and the one about "white feminism" which the article reported to be a historical issue, not an issue with this march. In fact, the post-march article said that it was a contrast to the inauguration which was attended by mostly white people.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw that, this section looks good now. Conveys the idea without bogging down.Bjhillis (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

6) Responses/Politicians

This sentence was added: "Meanwhile, the Trump administration criticized the March for not welcoming anti-abortion members, and criticized Madonna's comments that she 'thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House'.[72] The Secret Service has reportedly said it will open an investigation into Madonna after the singer told the crowd that she had thought about 'blowing up the White House'.[73]"

7) Notes section

A new Notes section was added at bottom of the text to emphasize quotes that previously were buried in the footnotes.

That seems fine.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

8) Pic gallery

As was previously suggested in Talk, someone added march pics to a gallery section

That seems fine.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

9) Footnote formatting

As the list of local and international marches grows, there are now 622 footnotes. Roughly 100 notes need formatting, e.g., raw URLs need to be converted to newspaper cites listing author, date and publisher. Bjhillis (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I know. It's an awful mess of incomplete citations.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at fixing some of these from the top down. If someone doesn't mind helping from the bottom up, that would be great!

I think I know what's happening. Someone came along and started adding citations for the numbers - using the same source, but not formatted. We don't need to have a citation for the numbers if the citations at the end of the comments were the sources that were used.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem speech copyvio

Regarding #4: Per this edit, the Gloria Steinem speech is a copyright violation. I don't remember seeing it on the talk page, so I'm adding it here.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see:

#Voice of America videos and stills are in the public domain

User talk:Jimbo Wales and the section currently titled "All public-domain videos of speakers at public events are being deleted from the Commons".

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales talk page discussion is archived here.

@CaroleHenson and Rms125a@hotmail.com: Thanks for noticing out that the speech videos are copyright violations. I removed the videos 3 times. As you know, there is already a copyright discussion about these at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm, which is still open for comments. The first time it was re-added, I think the user just didn't know or care that it had been removed; the second time I think was just an edit conflict/timing issue. The third time, I put the comment in each place to tell people not to do that until the Commons discussion was settled, and put a link to discussion. Timeshifter intentionally removed the comment, with the discussion link, because it does not fit his views, even though he's in the discussion, and put the videos back in. I'm considering removing it again, since it's a copyright violation right now, and the only question is whether one of the women will grant a license in the future. According to WP:NOT3RR, "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" can be reverted repeatedly without violating the three-revert-per-day rule, but re-adding the content of course is subject to the three-revert rule. Do we have consensus that this is a "clear copyright violation"? Any suggestions on where else this should go if this keeps happening? --Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. So there was no need for your possibly inaccurate hidden comment in the article. The files have not been deleted from the Commons. No decision there yet. I don't believe they are a copyright violation. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations in the celebrities section

Only one citation is needed per celebrity. And, social media doesn't count as a WP:RS.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find a source for Chris Colfer and the closest that I can find to a reliable source is an Entertainment Weekly article that shows that he tweated that he was at the march. I wouldn't think this would be a reliable source, and should be removed. There's also a youtube video, Bustle - which I wouldn't consider reliable sources.

Input would be helpful.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can check here: [[3]] Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think most of those are in the speakers section. I'm just trying to sort out if we are lowering our standard for use of reliable sources for the longer list of celebrities. For the moment, I am going to assume, no - we're not lowering our standard, unless someone says differently.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I should have put a little more time into understanding what the issues was. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that each celebrity should get a single cite. I started with a simple Google search, adding Washington Post and Elle. I appreciate people's efforts to expand this section. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

These are the 14 celebs lacking a citation who could be cut (list needs pruning anyway): Connor Franta; Will Kopelman (no Wiki page); Green Day; Josh Hutcherson; Jidenna; Tea Leoni; Macklemore; Marina and The Diamonds; Maia Mitchell; Tyler Oakley; Cierra Ramirez; Seth Rogan (New Orleans); Mike Shinoda; Aisha Tyler.Bjhillis (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Only cite I can find for Mike Shinoda is a website, not a news source (http://thehundreds.com/blog/womens-march/). Reliable?Bjhillis (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I added citations for some of these folks, and removed those I could not find a citation for. Yep, the blog isn't a reliable source.

I would like to expand the politicians that attended. I think that is even more meaningful. I'll work on it this afternoon. Have to fly right now.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References for total participation numbers

These WP:RS articles all reference the Google Docs tally of cities and numbers:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/edit#gid=0

Articles:

• The Women's Marches may have been the largest demonstration in US history. Vox.
• The Exhausting Work of Tallying the Women's March America's Largest Protest - The Atlantic.
• Women's March Drew 3 Million to 4 Million Americans, Researchers Say. Fortune.
• More than 1 in 100 Americans marched against Donald Trump Saturday, say political scientists. Yahoo News.

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

These sources should be added to the article since they all source the Google doc, which is quite famous now. That last one is quite an interesting statistic. To put it another way, "More than 98 in 100 Americans didn't march against Donald Trump Saturday." Including more than 9 in 10 people in my hometown. epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Toronto attendance

The Toronto Star article states, "Organizers estimated a crowd of more than 50,000, a number the Star could not verify.". CBC News, The Globe and Mail, and Global News all cite attendance at 60,000 and in the case of the Global News and CBC News articles, they also both cite [the] organizer [as the source]. Numerous sources have put it at 60,000, and only one source has put it at 50,000 in which they very specifically indicate their number is not verified. The 50,000 number is unreliable and in contradiction to other articles that cite the same source. It seems likely that the Star has incorrectly cited organizers (or cited them at an early point). Mkdw ^talk 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And here's the social media account for the organizer -- so directly from the source: [4]. Mkdw ^talk 19:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We need a secondary source, like the one's you mentioned above. I'll look for it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the punch, it's done.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I provided the sources in my initial comment and I included them in the in-line citations in the article. The CBC News article does not cite the organizers in their number which doesn't specify their source. I only added the twitter announcement from the organizer as a primary source for the purposes of this discussion. I mostly commented here to open up a discussion if the 50,000 number gets reintroduced (which has occurred once already). Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha!—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@70.55.49.134: Re: this edit - the only source that varies is the Toronto Star which acknowledges the number it uses is unverified. The Star also says it's from the organizer but as other sources have quoted including the organizer, 50,000 is not the number they reported. It's just wrong and it's been verified by numerous other primary and secondary sources. Mkdw ^talk 08:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

70.55.49.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Continues to edit war and leave disparaging remarks about "Torontonians". Based upon comments like this which have been reverted from this talk page by numerous editors as inappropriate, I would say they have an axe to grind about Toronto. Samwalton9 has had to revert them again on the list article. The number the source cites is clearly not reliable, the source even says so, but I hope this TORONTO STAR article dated 24 January 2017 will put the issue to rest; it's more recent -- the same publication -- and states 60,000 which is in line with all the other sources and publication. Mkdw ^talk 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)