Jump to content

Talk:March for Our Lives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Secondary sense (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 7 April 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50

Sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 United States gun violence protests

Reminder to summarize this event at 2018 United States gun violence protests. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci

Sources:

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

I propose creating subsections for U.S. states hosting 3+ marches. I've already created subsections for California and Texas. May not seem necessary now, but will be helpful once the bullet list is converted into prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Organizer

Which source credits Kasky as the main organizer of the event? Some sources covering the event don't mention him by name, some mention him when he was making the announcement, but we need a citation for the note that says he is credited as main organizer, with others as contributors. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am able to find, Kasky announced it, as well as created the gofundme for it. On the gofundme he says that he created the #neveragain movement as well as the march for our lives event.QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that he announced it, but that or the gofundme, doesn't equal a source to comply with WP:V. If we can't find one, the infobox should change to members of Never Again MSD, and the note removed unless we can find a citation to use. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would definitely agree with removing it until a better source appears.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the infobox to just members of Never Again, and left the note with a citation needed added to it. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyft

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "Enough! National School Walkout" in "Planning" section

Should we trim or remove the paragraph in the "Planning" section re: Enough! National School Walkout? There is already a section for this at 2018 United States gun violence protests. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say we leave it it, but trim it, possibly just mentioning it by name? I agree that we don't really need it since it's mentioned on the other page.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I added a location map, which has most locations as far as Georgia. I would like to get any feedback on content or formatting before investing a couple more hours completing it. Please share your thoughts.- MrX 🖋 15:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it smaller if that's okay! The map just seemed to take up a big portion of the page! Feel free to change as needed!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
400px will be far too small for all of the major cities. I am only putting a dot for the smaller cities. I've changed the size to 600px, but that may even be too small after I add the other cities.- MrX 🖋 16:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Not My Presidents Day to see how the map could be separated into multiple illustrations. There are going to be way more March for Our Lives events than Not My Presidents Day events, so fitting all pins on just a couple maps will be difficult. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are many more (800+) events, we can decide what to do when they are verified. We should probably only include major events on any maps. I'm open to any suggestions on where we might draw the line.- MrX 🖋 21:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the current U.S. map is already too busy to view all city names. You might consider working on the map here on the talk page, like we did for the Not My Presidents Day article, where we created a complete list of cities hosting events and then struck them out one by one, to make sure all were included. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are complete inasmuch as they represent the cities already listed in the article. You may think the map is too busy, and I'm happy to discuss how to improve it, but it should not have been removed from the article on such thin reasoning. One solution is to make the map larger. Another is to only label major cities. I do not agree that we should break the map down, as it would tend to confuse readers not familiar with US geography.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you disagree with me moving the maps here. I just felt there's plenty of work to be done on the current article in terms of sourcing and prose construction, let alone also asking editors to focus on reconciling and working around maps. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works in progress...

United States maps

class=notpageimage|
Map of the contiguous United States showing cities with March for Our Lives demonstrations
class=notpageimage|
Locations in Hawaii
class=notpageimage|
Locations in Puerto Rico

@MrX: First, thank you for your work on these maps. I think they are great!, but as I suggested above, I think we should work on these here on the talk page first. The event has not even happened yet, so we'll need to confirm all of these cities actually host events before implementing maps. I'm transferring the maps here. Please don't be discouraged from continuing to work on these, and I hope other editors will help as well. You might consider creating a simple list of cities, and striking ones after a pin has been added. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: We don't need to "confirm" events already verified in reliable sources. I don't understand the rest of suggestion about making a list and then striking cities. This is already done. It would be senseless to create another list with the same information! I will await your further explanation before restoring.- MrX 🖋 21:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: Just because events are planned does not mean they will take place. We should confirm events take place before we say they did. As for list-making, not required. Was just trying to make this project one where other people could reconcile was has been done and what work remains, so you're not working alone. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some work is needed around the DC/Baltimore area. The text is too cluttered to read. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 pins near San Francisco, but only one label... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I am curious, is there any rhyme or reason for the order in which cities are displayed in the map's markup and/or why some have position fields and others do not? I'd recommend placing the cities in alphabetical order and giving position fields for each city, but I don't want to start doing this if you've structured them this way for any specific reason. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: The two pins for San Francisco are for San Francisco and San Jose. They are too close so the labels tend to overlap. Same for Dallas and Fort Worth, and I think a couple of others. We could do the same for the Washington D.C./Baltimore area. I added the cities roughly in the order they appeared in the article. The parameters have to be numbered sequentially, so listing cities in alphabetical order would create a maintenance nightmare. I only used position parameters where needed to prevent overlap caused when using the default. - MrX 🖋 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: Hmm, ok. I don't think there should be any pins without labels. I'd prefer the cities in alphabetical order, but seems I'll have to work on this myself when I have more time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Yeah, I would prefer it too, but I don't see how it could work. Some cities are simply too close to each other. As far as alphabetizing, the parameters will have to be renumbered and any new entries will not be able to be inserted into the correct alpha order; they will have to go at the end. Please consider this before you expend a lot of effort.- MrX 🖋 23:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning, but actually, I would convert the map to one created in the form seen here: Not_My_Presidents_Day#Locations_and_activities. This one is not numbered the same way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to have separate maps for regions of the U.S., and there are several ways to divide the nation. The article could also be structured with similar divisions, instead of by U.S. state. Just a thought... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that could work, but I'm not aware of an US regional location maps in Category:United States location map templates.- MrX 🖋 23:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering about locator maps for regions. Gosh, that's a shame. I think they'd be helpful for more than just this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Europe map

class=notpageimage|
Locations in Europe

Ditto above. I've moved the map of Europe here for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map currently displays:

  •  Done Barcelona
  •  Done Belfast
  •  Done Berlin
  •  Done Bordeaux
  •  Done Brussels
  •  Done Copenhagen
  •  Done Edinburgh
  •  Done Frankfurt
  •  Done Friedrichshafen
  •  Done Geneva
  •  Done Hamburg
  •  Done Heidelberg
  •  Done London
  •  Done Munich
  •  Done Paris
  •  Done Reykjavík
  •  Done Stockholm
  •  Done Wiesbaden
Resolved discussion re: Brussels, Friedrichshafen, Heidelberg, and Wiesbaden
Resolved

I'm not seeing Brussels and Wiesbaden... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article's prose mentions Friedrichshafen and Heidelberg (both unsourced), which are not displayed in the map. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg has a dot, but I missed Friedrichshafen. I fixed Brussells (template buggy?). Wiesbaden is commented out, but has a dot, because otherwise the labels would overlap.- MrX 🖋 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be pins without labels. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't see us listing the names of 838[1] cities on maps.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed pins without labels aren't helpful... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I'm not seeing Heidelberg. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC) I unhid Heidelberg and Wiesbaden. Hoping we can find a way to display all cities hosting events. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to make the map larger, like this ^, and use the position parameter.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your improvements. I think just Friedrichshafen needs to be added in order for the map to at least match the current article's prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tiny town with a big name, but I added it. Feel free to adjust the position or otherwise.- MrX 🖋 23:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm collapsing this discussion to keep this page a bit easier to read. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh was removed from the article with this edit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada + Asia and Oceania

Curious, will we also want maps for Canada and the Asia and Oceania section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but let's first come up with an overall plan for what to include on the maps; what type of maps to use; what size maps; etc. Any ideas?- MrX 🖋 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We used 600px for the U.S. map on the Not My Presidents Day article. Sizes varied for other maps in the article, ranging from 150px to 300px depending on the shape and surrounding content. I'd say starting with 300px maps for Canada and Asia/Oceania is a good place to start, then we can change from there as needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with those sizes as a baseline. What about which cities to include, and which should have dots only and which should have dots and labels?- MrX 🖋 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless we're inferring some cities are more important than others, we should include labels for all pins. One option is to only label cities for demonstrations of a certain size. The caption could explain, pins display all cities in which demonstration were held, while labeled ones designate cities with estimated crowd sizes of 1,000 or more. (Arbitrary number selected here, just trying to make a point.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on the map of Canada in my user space. I will move it to main article or talk page shortly.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada collapsed map (in process)

Working on this...Is float or pos preferred?Oceanflynn (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanflynn: Float should only be used once, as it applies to the position of the entire map. I suggest left float if the map is large and in a collapsible box. The position parameters have to be numbered identically to the labels and coordinates. They determine the position of the label relative to the marker.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
class=notpageimage|
Map of the Canada showing cities with March for Our Lives demonstrations

Map: update

Taking all of the feedback into consideration, I have re-added the maps in collapsed sections. Since there are collapsed, I made the maps large so that the labels can be read (some minor tweaks may still be necessary). I think this affords a good compromise by making the information available, but not obtrusive. I have viewed the article on a mobile device and found the maps to be even more useable than on a desktop/laptop. I know there was some pushback about making sure that each event actually happens, but I don't see any evidence to support that a planned event wouldn't happen.

I think we still need to address the fact that there are 836 locations where marches will take place. Imagine this with labels, and the it becomes clear that adding labels to all the cities in the US would be impossible on a country map. One option may be to only label major cities (e.g. 500k+ population) and use small dots for the others. There are large number of available markers that could be used to distinguish the size of each march, but that would be a huge task. Of course, we could also add a map of each state, but that would also be a lot of work. Personally, I think we should limit the use of labels and show something like the New York Times map, and then we could list the cities in prose or use state maps to show the cities with labels.- MrX 🖋 13:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose vs. bulleted list

@Another Believer: Why did you convert the bulleted lists back to prose? That prose is awful and would be better presented in list format. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: I disagree. The bullet points should be converted to prose (see Not My Presidents Day for an example of a Good article about a similar global demonstration), and another editor started expanding the Asia section, not me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent as to whether we use lists or prose, but let's be consistent. If we going to write prose, it should be because there are encyclopedic details that should be documented.- MrX 🖋 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The sentences are basically all the same: "An event will be held in X". It gets really repetitive and as they are mostly one sentence paragraphs, it leaves a lot of whitespace around the text. Bulleted lists are better for that sort of content. I agree that "Not My Presidents Day" came out nicely. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're right, it was LovelyLillith who changed the bullets into those short sentences. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There will be much more content to add after this weekend. No sense in encouraging bullet points. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to clean up templates, and assumed more editors would supply more expansion as the event nears - like I did with the shotgun flutes on the Cincinnati listing. IMO, prose would probably work better as more specific things take place. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Sourcing will likely provide specific locations, names of organizers, supporting local organizations, speakers, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. It looks awful now, when the marches are set to happen, but I need to remember we have WP:NODEADLINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "March For Our Lives"

@Fuzheado: I'm surprised you moved this article. Does the way the group capitalizes the campaign/event really supersede Wikipedia's manual of style? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But don't the official organizers of the event, when they say "March For Our Lives" carry weight here? -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The same applies to other stylizations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a brand that they define. Why would we deviate from it with an arbitrary variation? Do we refactor the official names of other festivals as a standard practice? If so, examples would be good. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's primarily for "products and services" and the problem cases are ones related to non-standard capitalization (ie. eBay, adidas, REALTOR). I'd argue that the case of an event name is different, in that this is not a problem of conforming a trademark or brand expression to the practicalities of writing about them in prose. Rather, we should try to get the upper/lowercase proper and correct for conjunctions, adjectives and articles as it pertains to the formal name of the event. Does that make sense? -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I supplied the "trademarks" link since you mentioned "brand". I think the same applies to event and organization names, too, but I'll worry about this later. More focused on the article's content currently. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: I'd also be curious to see instances in which "For" is capitalized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: Your previous move was undiscussed. I moved March For Our Lives back to March for Our Lives per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Please don't move the article before a consensus is reached. Thanks. And by the way, please notice that this event's official website (marchforourlives.com) also uses "MARCH FOR OUR LIVES" (capitalizing all letters, not just initials, in File:March for Our Lives logo.jpg, seemingly a logo) and "March for Our Lives" (lowercased "for" in the sentence "By checking this box and clicking the “Add Your Name” button, I agree to receive text messages from or on behalf of March for Our Lives") at its homepage.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon folks, 1) WP:BEBOLD. 2) The first thing you see on their web site is a popup with this: "Be counted today, at the March For Our Lives in Washington DC and 800+ sibling marches across the globe." To change it to some version of our preferred spelling is not only bad form, it is incorrect to modify someone's official name and brand to something different in this way. I'm not interested in debating this to death, but just know you're doing it wrong. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: I just saw your message. Sorry for my late reply. 1) Yes, you can be bold. So "don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." 2) Of course I know that marchforourlives.com also uses "March For Our Lives" (capitalized "For"). But, as I said above, it "also" uses other styles including "MARCH FOR OUR LIVES" and "March for Our Lives". How can you say that the first one (March For Our Lives) is the official name and brand? I'm not interested in debating this to death, but just know that I am not doing it wrong. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Later

Maclean's published an article with a list of Canadian locations. Someone can add them if they want, if not I'll do it later. Also as a reference for a Canada map if you do one.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category

For commons:Category:March for Our Lives, should we move the images of Cameron Kasky and Emma González to a subcategory for "March for Our Lives organizers", or similar? Otherwise, users might think these images were taken on the day of the event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The media limited to March, 24 are in c:Category:March for Our Lives 24 March 2018, or its 22 sub-categories, or other sub-categories of c:Category:March for Our Lives. I've fixed Cameron Kasky. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the United States

I don't mind the many U.S. state subcategories at the moment, because this makes editing prose easier, and reduces edit conflicts. However, I wonder if we should work toward grouping U.S. state into regions, in order to reduce the number of section headings. Specific states worked for the Not My Presidents Day article, but I think there will be more March for Our Lives demonstrations, which makes for quite a long list of subsections.

The top of List of regions of the United States describes Census Bureau-designated regions and divisions:

Thoughts on organizing the article in this way? We could still describe activities in each region alphabetically by state, then city, but this would drastically reduce the number of section headings. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this could work, I have no problems with it if no one else does.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I think this is a great idea. The alphabetical list as it is with no groupings doesn't scale. I also think this type of organization allows for a first section to be "Main march" or something like that, to put Washington D.C. at the top. I think it's silly to have the main march be near the bottom of the list. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support organizing states by region, but not division because those are not commonly understood. I support giving the main march its own section. I also think we should limit the TOC levels so that individual states don't show up on a long list of contents. I made a similar change (TOC limit|3), but it was reverted by Sandstein. Perhaps he has some thoughts.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was because it put the TOC at the start of the article before the lead. Sandstein 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I mistakenly thought that the template only limited the TOC depth.- MrX 🖋 15:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that organizing the article by region is a great idea. The TOC goes on forever otherwise.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Random thought, but since, as discussed below, we plan to have a table with the locations linked in a separate page, would this still be needed? We could just have a section titled "List of March For Our Lives locations", perhaps talk about the DC March a bit, maybe a couple others, and then link to the page? I doubt we would need to list it like this if we had a separate table for it on a separate page. Just a thought.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the dry prose listing every city with an event like we have now. I would prefer the list to be consolidated into a sortable table with attendance, sources, and other tabular information. I recognize that at least one editor disagrees with that approach, so we may need an informal RfC to determine consensus.- MrX 🖋 17:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a table to the talk page created by MrX here: Table. MrX suggested that the table can be filled using visual editor. If we agree that it is useful, I would like to add it to List of 2018 March for Our Lives locations in the main article space so others can contribute. What needs to done to Wikify it? Thanks. Oceanflynn (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can revert if needed, but I went ahead and removed the subsections for specific U.S. states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have discussed it first, but can you explain how removing state headings improves the article? Should we plan to move the prose to the up-and-coming table, or eliminate the prose altogether?- MrX 🖋 23:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry! I guess I misunderstood. I thought the whole point of using the region headings was to eliminate the state headings. We can revert if needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post March

After the march, when numbers for the locations and everything start coming in, do we want to just add any extra data in the sections, or do we want to table it as we've done in the past with events similar to this (i.e. the woman's march).--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can create a table in the sandbox like we did for the Women's march 2018?Oceanflynn (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Table? But we're working to develop prose, not a list. What about putting a table at List of March for Our Lives locations? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That could definitely work. I think the March For Our Lives website has a list/map of all the 800 cities participating if we really want to list all of the locations. (https://event.marchforourlives.com/event/march-our-lives-events/search/)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant a table like the one I made for the list of Women's march 2018.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sortable table would be fantastic.- MrX 🖋 16:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to get a table started shortly in a sandbox or somewhere? I imagine this table will take a while with the number of locations.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've created one here: Talk:March For Our Lives/table. I guess we could start with the cities already listed in the article, although there's no certainty that we will be able to get attendance numbers for each one.- MrX 🖋 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I HIGHLY doubt that we'll get numbers for all 800+ locations, but they're a start, and perhaps if we can't find attendance numbers after a couple days, then maybe we don't list them? Or something like that.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to paste the one I am working on from my sandbox? I am in the process of cleared content from the one I made for the Women's March 2018 or is it better to work from scratch? The cities, etc would have to be changed but the states and flags are already there. 17:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
That's up to you. I didn't realize that you had already started a table. Just let me know how I can help. I have an off-line text editor that can make global edits, so I could possibly help with repetitive formatting changes (like adding or removing markup).- MrX 🖋 17:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My technology is manual. Could you have a look and see. the sandbox table. Is it too confusing to use this? Is it cleaner to work from scratch? Oceanflynn (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rowspans for the states would make it difficult to turn a plain text list into a table like this with my text editor. It may be best just to do it manually. It may be easiest to do it with visual editor.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied it to Talk:March For Our Lives Table and I have begun to add content. When can we put it in the main space so others can contribute?Oceanflynn (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With some revisions the table is now in included in List of 2018 March for Our Lives locations. I also created a talk page for the list. There are 16 refs at this point. I think we should keep this list for events that were actually reported with RS. Oceanflynn (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we continue expanding the locations section here, or should we just summarize that there were a lot of events all over the world and move the references to the list article? Also pinging Another Believer and QueerFilmNerd.- MrX 🖋 00:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I was hoping to mirror the Not My Presidents Day article, but perhaps that's too difficult given the number of events. I'm going to see how things evolve and let other people weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no qualms about gathering a list of locations (at least in the states), so we can see what we have and don't have on the list (as I believe the list was copied). It'll take me a bit, but I don't mind doing it. I say if we can't find something like say, an attendance, or an article about it, we don't include it?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I will AFD this in about a month (mid-April/early May). (Everyone will have forgotten by then; routine coverage is routine.) I propose a new policy: "if a protest in the USA doesn't end up getting the President overthrown, then it's probably not notable". lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Good luck with that... ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knock yourself out. You'll fail. - MrX 🖋 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't wait. It'll be fun to see it fail.-2600:1702:280:ECE0:188F:537D:1591:32B7 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see people have a sense of humor in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have another fine example of why sarcasm, satire, and parody frequently don't work on the internet. See also: Poes law.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background of the march

Shouldn't the article include a background section explainingthe 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and the general gun culture in the United States? The article is very thin on the marchers reasoning. DuckyWhucky9 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DuckyWhucky9 was a sock of PerfectlyIrrational

One of many recently blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational/Archive. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance and media coverage

Unless I missed it, I cannot find how many people attended the main event in Washington, DC, nor anything about the national TV coverage. Both are important facts that should not only be in the body of the article, but also the lead. The only mention of attendance is in the "Washington, D.C." section, which says, "There was a massive turnout for the rally on Pennsylvania Avenue." (I added a "quantity" template so that the extremely-vague "massive turnout" is replaced with a reliably-sourced estimate.) If there's a source for it, the total attendance at all events around the country should also be included. As far as TV coverage, I know that MSNBC and C-SPAN 1 aired the DC event from beginning to end. I don't know if there were other networks that covered it, or if there was coverage on national radio or other platforms. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Please add this information with references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully someone who has the time will do it soon. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3068:6709:19FA:DBDA (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about you? Improving the article?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a March 24, 2018 article, Time magazine reported the estimate by event organizers as c. 800,000 people,[1] as did NBC News[2] and The Hill.[3] At that time police officials had not released an official crowd size estimate. Law enforcement had "prepared for 500,000."[1] The Time article also said that the event "brought downtown Washington to a standstill...[f]rom the foot of the Capitol to the White House more than a mile west, Pennsylvania Avenue and its tributaries".[1] I added this to the List of 2018 March for Our Lives locations Oceanflynn (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The organizers' estimate of 800k differs substantially by the estimate of 200k from Digital Design & Imaging Service. I'm fine with leaving it as a range for now, but hopefully we can get something a little more accurate soon.- MrX 🖋 18:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to List of 2018 March for Our Lives locations (I will look more closely at DDIS as the methodologies and results of measuring crowds are not without debates): "On March 25, CBS News reported that, according to Virginia-based Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc (DDIS), based on their aerial photos, there were 202,796 people at the event at peak crowd size which occurred at 1:00 PM. According to the DDIS, the crowd size of the 2017 Women's March was 440,000 people, making it the "largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history"."[4]

References

  1. ^ a b c Reilly, Katie (March 24, 2018). "Here's the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in Washington". Time. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  2. ^ Shabad, Rebecca; Bailey, Chelsea; McCausland, Phil (March 24, 2018). "At March For Our Lives, survivors lead hundreds of thousands in call for change". NBC. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  3. ^ Gstalter, Morgan (March 24, 2018). "Organizers estimate 800K people in DC for march so far: report". The Hill. Retrieved March 24, 2018.
  4. ^ "How many people attended March for Our Lives? Crowd in D.C. estimated at 200,000". NBC. Washington, DC. March 25, 2018. Retrieved March 25, 2018. The Virginia-based firm uses a proprietary method for calculating crowd size using aerial photos. The peak crowd size was 202,796 people, with a margin of error of 15 percent, the firm said. The crowd reached its largest size at 1 p.m., according to the company's estimates. The organizers put the total number of attendees at closer to 800,000. The largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history was the 2017 Women's March, with a crowd size of 440,000 people, according to DDIS' estimates.
DDIS has 4 employees and virtually no online presence. I will edit my entry and wait until there are other crowd size analyses.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Someone changed the infobox to "Civil conflict", without prior discussion. I've changed it back. To describe a peaceful protest as a conflict with sides in opposition to each other grossly misrepresents the sources. Inserting original research is also bad.- MrX 🖋 14:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Template:Infobox civil conflict is the correct template. The template generally gets used for conflicts with a more civil nature; where military force isn't the dominant theme. People place it on most protests/marches/demonstrations pages, presumably as it encapsulates the needed information for such pages. For example: Civil rights movement, March for Science, Protests against the Iraq War, Occupy Wall Street, 2011 Wisconsin protests, 1907 Sydney bathing costume protests, Stand in the Schoolhouse Door, 1788 Doctors' riot, Arab Spring, and >1k more pages -- Justin Ormont (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Random sample of pages using Template:Infobox civil conflict
2017–2018 Romanian protests, Castellammarese War, Timeline of the Yemeni Revolution (January – 2 June 2011), 1991 Haitian coup d'état, Ulster Workers' Council strike, Freedom Riders, Farakka Long March, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity, 2011–12 Iranian protests, People Power Revolution, Bloody Sunday (1905), Occupy Edinburgh, Protests against Donald Trump, Kum Kapu demonstration, Second Sahrawi Intifada, Camp Cawa-Cawa siege, St. Augustine movement, Nika riots, Gwangju Uprising, Occupy Redwood City, Second EDSA Revolution, 15 October 2011 global protests, Revolutions of 1989, 2017–2018 Russian protests, Park Street riot, Women's War, Umbrella Ultra Marathon, Zhengzhou Airport riot, Ukraine without Kuchma, Occupy Texas State, Chicano Moratorium, Cincinnati riots of 1829, Tatarbunary uprising, Mashtots Park Movement, Timeline of the Egyptian revolution of 2011, Zvartnots Airport clash, 2015–2018 Iraqi protests, 2015 Corsican protests, Conscription Crisis of 1917, December 2009 Kurdish protests in Turkey, 2011 Georgian protests, Timeline of the Egyptian Crisis under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, 1947 Aden riots, Rising of the Priests, Presidio mutiny, Bisbee Deportation, Occupy San Francisco, Auto-Lite strike, Malaysia's Post General Election rally 2013, 2015 Israeli–Palestinian clashes, 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, Red Power movement, Timeline of the 2011 England riots, Ruby Ridge, 2011 Bolivian indigenous rights protests, June 2013 Egyptian protests, Occupy Nashville, Little Rock Nine, Barber–Mizell feud, Baton Rouge bus boycott
This wasn't a conflict. It was 800+ rallies. Your examples above, in addition to being WP:OTHERCONTENT, are a melange of conflicts that have nothing to do with these peaceful marches.- MrX 🖋 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wadler

Naomi Wadler is a hopeless stub and proposed for deletion. Her speech on March, 24 was covered by USA Today, Miami Herald, and Huffpost, among others. The March For Our Lives should be covered here instead of Naomi Wadler.
Originally posted on Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Naomi_Wadler, because I wasn't aware of this page. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were two simultaneous attempts to handle this, just ignore the missing {{merge from}} and check if you can use some of the four references here. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – by Knowledgekid87, 3 of 4 references covered, thanks. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page Naomi Wadler had been redirecting to this talk page; I changed it to redirect to the main article March for Our Lives.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a missing underline in the #REDIRECT, the namespace was okay…  @Tomwsulcer and Psantora: –84.46.53.38 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure March for Our Lives#Naomi Wadler and March for Our Lives#Naomi_Wadler both go to the same place, regardless of underscores. Either way it wouldn’t link to this talk page. I think Tomwsulcer may have just been mistaken. It happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - PaulT+/C 05:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Who do we want to list for participants? All the speakers? Because if so, that's not a complete list. How do we want to list them?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was to list the notable ones (but not the entertainers).- MrX 🖋 20:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should add a March for Our Lives#Participation section like in 2017 Women's March. In prose, besides the ones mentioned in the infobox, we should add:
I will add more names to the list as I find them. I am afraid, we will likely also need a list of random celebrities eventually to keep away the stupid fanboys and fangirls from botching the page.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the speakers if we want to list them all in the infobox. Another thing we could do, is, in the infobox, just list "speakers" along with the 2 million protestors (or something), and list all the speakers/performers in the Participation section, as the infobox might just get cluttered.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should list all of the speakers and entertainers in the article, but I' don't think they should all be listed in the infobox.- MrX 🖋 23:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll add the rest of the speakers into the participation section.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fans should at least offer a reliable source. An article published on March, 16 can't be good enough for more singers not even mentioned in this source. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by QueerFilmNerd, thanks. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Migrating the Locations sections to the list

I think we should migrate all the material in the Locations section to List of March for Our Lives locations and write a summary in prose of about a paragraph or two in length with a gallery of pictures like in 2017 Women's March#Locations. The current format is a complete mess. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. We should leave the maps here, with a summary by country or region, or just a summary for everything.- MrX 🖋 01:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add an invisible comment asking folks to put their info on the list at the top of the five (not counting DC) US sections. And please remove entries here when you copied them to the list. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's something up with these numbers...

The List of protests in the United States by size article lists there as being 200,000 to 800,000 attending, listing a lot of sources. This article claims there were 2 million. I haven't dug into this but it looks bad to see a contentious political figure turn on the front page the day of an event, if you're not sure it's true. I mean, you're claiming *bigger than Vietnam*. If this is true then American students have a remarkable sense of priorites... Wnt (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus among sources so the best we can do is list the range of estimates from reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 01:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's not even a rough consensus on the number, we shouldn't have "two million" in the lead paragraph, let alone on the Main Page. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was "millions" before, a number which does have some consensus among sources. An editor changed it to 2 million+ based on an inferior source. I was tired of reverting it and experiencing edit conflicts.- MrX 🖋 02:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Wnt, Gun Advocacy is often a response to a certain protein deficiency in the brain. Think about it. Why would you want to target people, but REFUSE to screen people before owning a gun. How does that make any sense? If you are going to target people, then you have to forbid those people from owning a gun. Targeting people as the cause and doing nothing about it does nothing. I believe we can all agree gun ownership should be a privilege granted to people who are responsible enough not to shoot random bystanders. However, there needs to be a screening process prior to gun ownership if you are going to make a policy centered on certain people being the cause over the ownership of guns. Galactic Society is laughing at you guys. I want you to be aware of who is laughing at you as it might trigger something in that brain of yours that might stop this insanity. Please change the way your brain works before Galactic Society intervenes with this planet and does so for you. If you care about your freedom, then use that freedom NOW to prevent it from being taken from you by a force far beyond your comprehension. ~ Prince of Catalonia & Kurdistan

Attendance and sources

Could we keep a list of crowd sizes here with exact quotes and RS?

  • New York Post article: "The Stoneman Douglas HS senior — who appeared on the cover of Time last week, stood silently for 4¹/₂ minutes during her speech before a crowd of 500,000 at the Washington, DC, rally to recall the interminable terror at her school."[5]
  • Time article: "Organizers estimated that the March For Our Lives attendance in Washington, D.C. reached about 800,000 people, NBC News reported on Saturday afternoon. Law enforcement officials have not yet released an official crowd size estimate, but said they had prepared for 500,000." The Time article also said that the event "brought downtown Washington to a standstill...[f]rom the foot of the Capitol to the White House more than a mile west, Pennsylvania Avenue and its tributaries".[6] At that time police officials had not released an official crowd size estimate. Law enforcement had "prepared for 500,000."[6] The Time article also said that the event "brought downtown Washington to a standstill...[f]rom the foot of the Capitol to the White House more than a mile west, Pennsylvania Avenue and its tributaries".[6]
  • CBS News article: "More than 200,000 people attended the March for Our Lives demonstration in Washington D.C. on Saturday, according to Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc (DDIS). The Virginia-based firm uses a proprietary method for calculating crowd size using aerial photos. The organizers put the total number of attendees at closer to 800,000. The largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history was the 2017 Women's March, with a crowd size of 440,000 people, according to DDIS' estimates. In addition to the massive march in Washington, an estimated 800 other marches were held across the country, including one in Parkland, Florida, where the movement was born following the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in February."[7]
  • Fox News article: "Virginia-based Digital Design & Imaging Service Inc., which uses aerial photos to calculate crowd sizes, reported the event’s peak crowd size was at 202,796 people around 1 p.m., CBS News reported."[8]
  • BBC citing CBS News: "a rally in Washington DC attended by some 200,000 demonstrators, according to CBS News."[9]

I couldn't find the RS for this:"With 2 million marching across the United States,[1] "it was the largest student protest in American history,[citation needed] one of the largest marches on Washington in history,[citation needed] and the second largest march in American history,[citation needed] with millions more estimated to have marched throughout the world."[4][1] Does anyone have the sources for these statements? I couldn't find these statements in the citations given? I am not challenging the claims but we need the sources. Thanks. Oceanflynn (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source for 2 million: [[27]].--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millions globally? I saw that claim, currently unsourced, in the article. But I doubt its accuracy and we need some RS sources, ideally more than one, to back it up. I've been looking around and I'm not finding any reliable sources claiming millions. The estimates for the Washington march run from low to high six figures. And I have not seen anything suggesting that the other marches were exceptionally large. Axios is citing claims by the march organizers which is not a reliable source. Per REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I am not seeing reliable sources definitively backing claims of millions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Shabad, Rebecca; Bailey, Chelsea; McCausland, Phil (March 24, 2018). "At March For Our Lives, survivors lead hundreds of thousands in call for change". NBC. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 25, 2018. 4:16 PM
  2. ^ Gstalter, Morgan (March 24, 2018). "Organizers estimate 800K people in DC for march so far: report". The Hill. Retrieved March 24, 2018.
  3. ^ Allen, Mike (March 25, 2018). "Yesterday's global roar for gun control". Axios. Retrieved March 25, 2018. Outside of D.C., more than 1.7 million people marched in 752 sibling marches across the U.S., in all 50 states and in 387 congressional districts, according to the Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety, which helped organize them. So that's roughly 2 million across the U.S. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ a b Reynolds, Emma (March 24, 2018). "Protesters pack streets of Washington for biggest march in decades". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved March 24, 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ Sanders, Anna (March 24, 2018). "These are the teens behind the 'March for Our Lives' protests". New York Post. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  6. ^ a b c Reilly, Katie (March 24, 2018). "Here's the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in Washington". Time. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
  7. ^ "How many people attended March for Our Lives? Crowd in D.C. estimated at 200,000". CBS News. Washington, DC. March 25, 2018. Retrieved March 25, 2018. 9:01 AM
  8. ^ Darrah, Nicole (March 25, 2018). "March for Our Lives DC crowd smaller than organizers' estimates, imaging company says". Fox News. Retrieved March 26, 2018.
  9. ^ Darrah, Nicole (March 25, 2018). "March For Our Lives: Six key takeaways from the US gun control rallies". BBC. Retrieved March 26, 2018.
I removed millions globally. It's unsourced. We need to avoid sources like Axios, New York Post, and other pseudo-news websites that don't have an established reputation for accuracy. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree. It might be maybe millions for the US, but millions more globally? I highly doubt it with the numbers coming back from international marches, which aren't incredibly high. Definitely would avoid til we get better sources.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google spreadsheet: crowd estimates and march locations: These researchers University of Connecticut's Jeremy Pressman, University of Denver's Erica Chenoweth, and University of Maryland's Kanisha Bond are in the process of collecting data for this Google spreadsheet Crowd Estimates March 2018. While their data is primary source which we cannot use, the V, W, X, and Y Source fields include urls that we can use. They are doing this in the public interest, not as part of a research project. They "are not affiliated with any other efforts to collect data on demonstrations." So far they have gathered data on 535 events in US towns and cities. They provide a tally for participants in US only events at 1,240, 824 and high tally at 1,999, 454.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the reliable sources are saying hundreds of thousands. Vox cited a single claim of possibly 1.2 million but that was part of an article that also noted extremely divergent estimates ranging from 200k to 800ish-k. There is no way we can claim millions. Unfortunately the WP:ITN blurb on the main page is continuing (as of this post) to make wildly exaggerated and unsourced claims of over two million globally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times says "millions": "On a weekend in which millions turned out for student-led rallies for gun control, Remington Outdoor officially sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware."[28]. That makes it a verifiable claim. We also need to be sure to use the more recent sources.- MrX 🖋 19:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Hill says "At least a million Americans poured into the streets on Saturday to participate in the hundreds of March for Our Lives events across the nation."[29] - MrX 🖋 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vox estimates 1.2 million across the US. The 200k to 800k estimates are from two other sources, and are for Washington D.C. only.[30] - MrX 🖋 20:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is enough. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources are not using that language. Almost all of them are saying hundreds of thousands. Conceding the Times is a reliable source (not so sure about Vox), its numbers are way outside those being quoted by almost every other RS. So I don't think this can be used to make that claim. In situations where there are differing claims of fact you go with what the consensus is among RS. At most we could say that some sources claim millions while noting that most claim lower numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific. I was.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok give me a few minutes though we can start with the refs cited near the top of this thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Every source listed above is already outdate, especially the five from the day of the event (!). Also, I don't trust Fox News to accurately report the numbers.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times "Demonstrators flooded streets across the globe in public protests on Saturday, calling for action against gun violence. Hundreds of thousands of marchers turned out, in the most ambitious show of force yet from a student-driven movement that emerged after the recent massacre at a South Florida high school.", also [31], [32], [33]
I'm actually changing my mind on this somewhat. I'm not sure we have enough reliable sources even discussing concrete numbers for global participation to cite any number at all outside the US. The Times in two different aricles says millions in one and hundreds of thousands in the other. The domestic US coverage is almost uniform in saying hundreds of thousands (anywhere from 200-800+) but I am not finding anything that is giving solid numbers for global participation. I am continuing to look but very little so far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news is out. The quote from the NYT article was written on the day of the event. I've already provide two more current sources. The other sources you cited are talking about the turn out in Washington only, which range from 200k to 800k. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the 200k number, since they it claims a +/-15% accuracy, which doesn't sound very reliable at all.- MrX 🖋 21:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not putting much stock in the 800k claims as these are almost all being sourced to the march organizers or their political allies. The millions claimed comes from a single line in an article that is not even about the march. I am not sure how much reliance I put in that. The Hill also only references the US turn out and is contradicted by most of the other sources who put the number in the hundreds of thousands. I am comfortable with stating that "the turnout in the US was conservatively in the hundreds of thousands with sources giving conflicting numbers." I am not comfortable making any claims at all about global turn out. That may change as I look around but that's where I am right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. I also don't put much stock in the 200k number. The Washington metro ridership supports a number between those two extremes. The NYT number should not be dismissed simply because it's brief. For now, we should probably say "more than one million in the US", and leave the estimates for the non-US rallies out until we get updated information.- MrX 🖋 23:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less agree (gasp!). I'd probably word it as something along the lines of "participation in the US was conservatively estimated in the hundreds of thousands [cite] with some sources putting the number above 1 million [cite]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. We can't take initial estimates from one very early report and treat it as if it's a valid conservative estimate. That's OR and is misleading. Again, we need to use current sources. There are plenty that support more than a million up to more than 2 million:

" And if you weren't there, you were still among the more than 1 million protesters across the country."
— USA Today

"More than 2 million people participated in the March for Our Lives protest against gun violence over the weekend, according to the nation's largest gun violence prevention group. "
— Yahoo News

"At least a million Americans poured into the streets on Saturday to participate in the hundreds of March for Our Lives events across the nation."
— The Hill

"At least 1.2 million people marched for gun control over the weekend at events across the US, according to early tallies from researchers Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman."
— Vox

"More than 2 million people participated in the March for Our Lives protest against gun violence over the weekend, according to the nation's largest gun violence prevention group. "
— Newsweek

"Several million people marched worldwide, including communities in Washington."
— KIRO Radio

"Over the weekend, at least 1.2 million people participated in the various March for Our Lives events around the world, according to a pair of researchers."
— CBS Sports

"More than a million students and adults took to the streets around the world on Saturday as a part of March for Our Lives."
— WSAV

- MrX 🖋 12:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reactions" vs "Responses"

There are two sections with the names listed above, and I am a bit confused what is the difference between the two. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

I will come right out and say it.... just like with every other big event there are conspiracy theories online revolving around this event. The ones about the students being paid "crisis actors" have already been discussed to death, but new mentions I have seen include the Cuban flag Emma was wearing on her attire (implying she is a communist here illegally). In any case, should we include stuff that is new to the fray or is this just in-needed per WP:DUE? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they are receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've read quite a few sources, but the only ones giving it much attention are the unreliable far-right sources like Breitbart.- MrX 🖋 15:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International protests

I do not understand why there were protests outside of the US. The American movement is explicitly concerned with American gun laws and the permissive attitude toward guns in general in America. Why would foreigners be concerned about it? Do overseas protests take the form of general demonstrations against gun violence? This information seems lacking in the article. Brutannica (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For c:Category:March for Our Lives 24 March 2018 in Geneva you could try to check what the banners say, and try to find some RS how many folks participated. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Take it to American diaspora. :) Kire1975 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... So were the participants mostly Americans living abroad? Brutannica (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know of at least one (relatively small) event in Australia which was attended primarily by Australians. American media, politics, plus military and economic policy saturate the world. People outside the USA know and care about these issues. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-supportive celebrity responses

In this edit a non-supportive celebrity response was removed claiming it was undue. Should we not include these in the article. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone care what this death metal nobody thinks about an anti-gun-violence march? It's completely unencyclopedic, and without several more sources taking note of it, it's also WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 21:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been taken note of by other sources.[34][35] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting detail -- it's referenced -- and I think we should include this detail as per WP:BALANCE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. My main concern was weight.- MrX 🖋 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Critics include Jesse Hughes, a survivor of the Le Bataclan attack plus reference(s) at the end of #Media: One statement needs no section at the moment. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does Jesse Hughes' survival of the November 2015 Paris attacks have to do with this article?--Biografer (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting of 2018 and the Paris attacks are categorized below Mass murder by year, so if this person is mentioned at all—there might be a rough consensus above—the "survived an attack" detail + the media coverage could justify it. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? He is a survivor of the Paris attack, not this one. Or are you implying that he survived both attacks? I doubt though that consensus would approve of such a move, I think they will go with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Biografer (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I consider his critic as not noteworthy here. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting the Orlando nightclub shooting the Columbine High School massacre the Murder of John Lennon and the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. were involved in the rally and have been included on these page. It's a march about gun safety, not about one event. If your problem is that he didn't survive the Parkland shooting, then your "Personal" opinion shouldn't be the final word, imho. Kire1975 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create section that expands on the demands of the movement

Paragraph 2 states the following...

"Protesters urged for universal background checks on all gun sales, raising the federal age of gun ownership and possession to the age of 21,[12] closing of the gun show loophole, a restoration of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines in the United States."

These should have their own section with possible subsections for each individual demand.

Ciscorucinski (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:March for Our Lives Portland

I'm working on a draft article about the Portland, Oregon event here, if you're curious to take a look: Draft:March for Our Lives Portland. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been moved into the main space, and additional sourcing is provided on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Guns

This was considered a response in an NPR newscast and in one article I found. You can see my proposed edit if you look where I was reverted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it simply because it is not part of the topic March for Our Lives. Hundreds of generally highly predictable responses have occurred. What we list already, from the NRA and politicians, etc, is far too much in my humble opinion, and is simply not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have linked the two [36]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I repeat, "Hundreds of generally highly predictable responses have occurred." And been reported. A line must be drawn somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a line must be drawn somewhere but that doesn't mean we should discount any further suggestions before that line has been drawn. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If NPR considered it important enough to mention in a five-minute newscast as part of its coverage of March for Our Lives, I would say that supports my position.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could use a short one-sentence or phrase mention, but March for our guns doesn't deserve its own section here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I insert it into the article, this is what was reverted. It could have the heading "Other" and then other responses, if any, could be included.

The "March For Our Guns" rally held in Helena, Montana on March 24, 2018 included families and men who enjoyed hunting, supporting the rights of people to own guns for defense, and the idea that people should be educated rather than thinking guns are dangerous. Other related events took place in Utah and Idaho.[1]

Would this be agreeable? I had not actually intended to expand the section further, but this was all that I found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, certainly not agreeable. It appears to me as simply an attempt to present counter arguments to those being presented by those involved in March for Our Lives. This article is not the place for such debate. If the Montana event is notable in its own right, create an article about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not debating. Just stating facts. I'm not convinced the second movement is notable enough for a stand-alone article. There's just not enough information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll hazard a guess as to what you might find agreeable - a section in this article devoted to “March for our Guns” that serves not to present a noteworthy reaction (NPR thought so) but purely to prop it up as a straw man for every reader of the article. No statement too defamatory, no selective mention too pointed. Am I getting close? Moorstem (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'March For Our Guns' Speakers Call For Self-Defense, Arming Teachers". NPR. Yellowstone Public Radio. 25 March 2018. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_for_Our_Lives&oldid=835192947"