Talk:2017 Women's March/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches

Given how huge and unwieldy the tables are getting, might it be a better idea to split them off into a list article, and then focus on writing some general prose here instead? Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Maybe even 2 list articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Because wowza this is a lot of content. ɯɐɔ 💬 13:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support, but make sure some content remains. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I also advocate waiting a little bit, because there is so much good work on this article now that may stop if we split it off. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, done before I saw this. I think it should be fine; there's a clear link over to the list article. Sam Walton (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish to strongly point out that I do not support splitting until editing frequency dies down. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Please help with writing some prose in the Locations section. Sam Walton (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Please open the discussion for a longer debate before moving 80% of the article. Other solutions like creating a collapsible section may work better. Secondarily, keeping the longer table in the article directly may be better for the long term ecosystem of wikipedia; if you look at the edit history of the article a large amount of the edits are within the list of locations. The edits are by a very wide selection of people. I think a key point of this article is the sheer number of protest locations around the world, and this is likely a draw in itself for this article. Justin Ormont (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We are going to have to split off the list due to length, in my opinion, but both your points are well taken @Justin Ormont:. The list conveys in a way words do not that the most powerful part of the march was the spontaneously created world-wide scope, eclipsing any political platform or single interest group.Bjhillis (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support The page is already very long enough. Splitting the tables into another page seems very reasonable for this kind of situation. - JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted — Comment This discussion should be allowed to move forward for a while before anyone splits the articles. I have reverted the split on the grounds there is not yet consensus that they should be split. In addition we saw a major drop in when they were split, which is an argument to keep the articles together for now. Allow them to grow for now and split once editing starts slowing down naturally — and only if there is strong consensus then.

Consensus can not be achieved for this in 1hr & 15mins!

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

STOP THE EDIT WAR! Leave the list article. We had already set it up and its talk page. I also made a link to it from the top of this article only a few minutes ago. There was consensus to move the list. Only one person opposed at the time of the spinoff list. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is no edit war. I boldly split the article thinking it would be uncontroversial, CF reverted, now we discuss. Sam Walton (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and this was all done in good faith. I support the split occurring, just not now. The core of my revert is only that broad consensus can not be achieved in little over an hour. Add to that — that the editing frequency died down exactly when the split occurred — and we have no reason not to wait at least 12-24 hours when people from other time-zones wake up or we can see if editing will remain at this high level. Discussions that last less than a day can never really be said to produce consensus because a large portion of people never get heard. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support - The women's marches were held in many places around the world, even in Antarctica. However, listing them would make this article too long. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Is it possible to make the tables collapsible, perhaps by state (within U.S.) or nation, so the content is in the main article but a little more manageable? I do think it's handy to have it all in one place, but I agree (painfully aware having edited the tables quite a bit) that the length is getting extreme. I also recognize that even if tables could be made collapsible, it wouldn't help with the concern about loading time. W.stanovsky (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Support two lists. I'm swayed by others' concerns about page size, and given that both tables are huge and growing, I think splitting them into separate lists now makes sense. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible lists are crazy laggy, lets not go that route. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support because, as other editors have stated, length issues make this page slow to load. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Support — Even putting aside concerns about the size of the article (which can be solved by other means, e.g. trimming), I think the subject is notable enough and treated with enough depth enough that a separate page is merited. Alternate solutions like collapsing the table, trimming, or reducing some content in the tables like photos either fail to address the size of the page (collapsing won't improve load times because the hidden content still loads) or removes valuable content, which doesn't serve the value of comprehensiveness. —BLZ · talk 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - I support moving the locations due to the length of that section. I wonder if it would be better to make two lists, one for the US and one that is international, because it would still be quite large and its very possible that more location information will be added, per the number of sites that are said to have participated - I could be wrong, but I think I read that it's in the 600s.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose at least until a clear solution is made that results all resulting articles remaining below 100,000 bytes. Yes, at 287,323 bytes, this article is unwieldy, but it won't help much to split it if a resulting article is still 150,000 bytes. And I would also oppose dividing the United States by states beginning A-H ... etc. However, I do not oppose splitting off non-U.S. marches and demonstrations into a separate article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, It sounds like this is a Support for breaking the location sections into two articles: one for the U.S. and one for international marches, is that right?—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mild oppose The list is full of citation needed tags (I count about 113). Splitting it off makes it less likely that references will be added to this list. I'm not sure if that's a real reason not to split the article, but I think we should at least wait a week or two. ^Falling_Gravity 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Mark Miller went ahead and split it without a clear consensus on this page. I was in the middle of my own edit; I mistook the content deletion for vandalism; I reverted Mark Miller's edits. When I realized it was a split with no loss of content, I reverted my change, not because I support splitting, but because I didn't want to act unilaterally, even to revert Mark Miller's unilateral action. I need a break from this article now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been seemingly moved to List of 2017 Women's March locations. Mkdw ^talk 09:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging splitter @Mark Miller:. Sam Walton (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  - I acted because creating the article does not require a consensus and splitting the article may be done boldly without discussion. The reasons are within guidelines. This is not a list article. Reverting what I have done will not be reverted my me but it will also not delete the other article. They are two separate articles and should exist in that manner. There is also precedence with the article Occupy Wall Street and an existing rough consensus from this dicsussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    - Mark Miller Splitting an article can be done when it is uncontroversial, this is evidently controversial since there is a discussion with multiple viewpoints. You should not have split, however I do not suggst we restore it now that it's been done and existed for a few hours, but you should know that you can't ignore a discussion on the talkpage. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      - I want to be clear here. The bold edit was supported by a consensus in a discussion and had already been carried out once. This was not controversial because even the oppose !votes indicated a support for the eventual split of the article with a number of issues they raised. Those issues are actually pretty important for the most part but we can continue to make those changes and fixes as we go. Remember, consensus is not not a straight !vote count. It's what everyone can live with. Splitting procedure is pretty clear and hesitation is not always bad but in this case...we have too many issues that are created by having the content, including fixing format issues, references and original research as well as a number of other things that the article suffers from exactly because it has moved fast and has a lot of edits from new editors and IP's with less knowledge on how to do things here for an accurate and quality article. We shouldn't hold up consensus by being too cautious. but I understand what you are saying. Splitting is a procedure and is only an information page however, I did not violate either the spirit or the letter of our procedure documentation. And I am not here to bully are push. I am here to collaborate.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
        Mark Miller: I want to be clear here. I am unhappy about this because my edit of 06:53, 24 January 2017, which I put a lot of work into, was lost in the transition, and now I just put a lot of work recreating some of these changes. An author parameter I painstakingly entered is still lost. Within 30 minutes before the the split, there were edits by six different editors. Miraculously, Wikipedia's editing engine MediaWiki is capable of automatically resolving edit conflicts when multiple editors are working on the same article at the same time, as long as their edits are not too close together in the article. But in a split executed without warning, amid heavy editing, edits get lost without warning. It is not a good idea to split an article that is actively being edited by many editors, without a declared consensus closed out with a decision statement on the talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
        Sorry Anomalocaris if the edit/split has made you unhappy for any reason but if there are unexpected anomalies that you are concerned over, just post them at the talk page and that can be fixed. Yes, that is good chunk and useful bit of editing and that does mean that you or someone else will have to recreate your edits or fix those issues again, but have you checked yet to see if that fixe has not been begun again? There are a lot of editors who are very proficient at making these reference fixes and if they are still there I will fix it myself against you link but we can't fix any of the other issues you suggest without knowing what they are. Write a post at that talk page please as there is a good deal of activity there now. Things being separated seems to have been a positive outcome for the list at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
        Mark Miller: I have replaced the edits that I did just before the split. I have not checked to see what became of the edits done by other users just before the split. The edits I discarded when I discovered and reverted the "vandalism", and then self-reverted, are unrecoverable, but I have probably reconstructed most of them. In my previous comment, when I mentioned the losses of my own edits, my intent was not to ask for help reconstructing my changes. I had already reconstructed most of them, and by now I have reconstructed all of them. My intent was to use the losses of my own edits as an example of what can go wrong when an editor unilaterally splits an article that is actively being edited by many editors, without a declared consensus closed out with a decision statement on the talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        I understand but that happens when just editing a page when anyone else, even one other person is editing because of edit conflicts. Again, sorry for the extra work and possible loss of some content.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The map...

If the map "Size of protests in different US locations" can't be fixed I want to get rid of it. There are many mistakes, for example it would seem that Mainers must really be a bunch of slackers when actually we sent 5,000 to Washington and the rallies in Augusta and Portland were reported as some of the largest that Maine has ever seen. Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I was planning to add a svg version, but I can't get the data to display properly on a world map. Otherwise, I already have an SVG file for locations in the entire world. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, the sooner the better. Just imagine how you would feel if your efforts to voice your concern were completely overlooked. It's been several days now and I'm tempted to remove the map right now as I await your replacement. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not that bad... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, there's something wrong with the map I am making. All the blobs are really big and you can't see any individual cities at all. I will have it ready soon. epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the map and tried putting the data on {{Attached KML/List of 2017 Women's March locations}}. Anyone who is interested in making a SVG file from the KML data is welcome to do so. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Greatly appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Pussyhat pic format

Ping pong. Left format, right format switch about 10 times. For pic of the woman in Madison wearing a pink hat, the problem with placing her of the right is she is looking to the right, out of the page. It's better to have her left formatted, so she is looking into/across the page. Understood there isn't a lot text left after the copy editing. But it looks bad to have her look off the page.Bjhillis (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to put it on the left include removing captions and placing special coding to add additional space. Can we please just expand that section so the pic fits if everyone wants it there. Deliberatly pushing Wikicode for this reason doesn't seem within the spirit of the encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded that section enough to place that on the left. I think there is a clear "editing" consensus for it to be on that side. I will probably expand that section more only because this kinda of sewing and crafting thing is of interest to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mark (I made four of um myself.) :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington DC crowd size estimates

Crowd Scientists Say Women’s March in Washington Had 3 Times More People Than Trump’s Inauguration. By Tim Wallace and Alicia Parlapiano. Updated JAN. 22, 2017. New York Times. From the article (emphasis added):

The women’s march in Washington was roughly three times the size of the audience at President Trump’s inauguration, crowd counting experts said Saturday.

Marcel Altenburg and Keith Still, crowd scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, analyzed photographs and video taken of the National Mall and vicinity and estimated that there were about 160,000 people in those areas in the hour leading up to Mr. Trump’s speech Friday.

They estimated that at least 470,000 people were at the women’s march in Washington in the areas on and near the mall at about 2 p.m. Saturday.

See the photos and maps in the article. See also the National Mall area in Google Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/National+Mall+DC

The Women's March high density areas marked in the illustrated map in the article are in the National Mall area between the Washington Monument and the US Capitol Building. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See #Recent reorg and edits subsection below.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Emphasized both numbers. 470,000 at Women's March in DC versus 160,000 at Trump inauguration. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Crowd comparison

source: [1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see this article, I'm long over my # of views at New York Times for the month (and clearing the cache isn't helping). What specific type of information does it have?—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That is the same New York Times article I linked to, and quoted from. Try another browser or computer or smart phone. The New York Times article is referred to in other articles. For example;

Women’s March on Washington Had Three Times More People Than Donald Trump’s Inauguration: Experts.

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent reorg and edits

I broke participation into D.C., other U.S. locations, and international - to help clarify the content.

I also removed "— an estimated three times the total at the inauguration" which compared the number of the D.C. march to the inauguration- because that doesn't make sense. I believe there were 500,000+ attendees to the inauguration. Was the 3x meant to represent three times the number of U.S. marchers?—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what was/is written in the Wikipedia article, but for good comparison numbers and reference see the talk section higher up:

#Washington DC crowd size estimates

470,000 versus 160,000.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This CNN article says that there were 250,000 tickets and more people watched from the mall. This one says between 250,000 and 1.5 million, as Trump claims. I've seen a 500,000 estimate for Trump - I think a CNN graphic - I'll see if I can find it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am still not finding it... but the reporting that I saw had these numbers for the previous inaugurations:

Timeshifter, Politifact reported that crowds at inaugurations varied widely, with Obama raising an estimated 1 million in 2013, down from 1.8 million in 2009; George W Bush drawing 400,000 in 2005 after 300,000 in 2001; and Bill Clinton 800,000 in 1993 then 250,000 in 1997.

I don't think that there's clear and widespread coverage that the size of the march is 3x larger, which means that we'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight for that claim. I have seen comparison photos in articles, but they didn't report what the size difference might have been between the march and the inauguration.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I was more interested in giving a number for the DC Women's March. 500,000 still looks good. I am going to add the above New York Times reference for it as a second reference for the table number of 500,000. 470,000 rounds off to 500,000.

Here is a Politifact page linked below. It does not give a number for the DC Women's March. But it does make some comparisons about inaugurations, etc..

Donald Trump had biggest inaugural crowd ever? Metrics don't show it. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Politifact link you provided shows that the inauguration could have had 250,000 to 600,000 attendees. I don't see widespread coverage to support the 3x. It was an unprecedented, world-wide march, exceeding records for daily marches in many places. I just think it calls into questions statements that support that point by putting in information that is questionable and unsubstantiated.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it with this edit. Unless there are more sources that support 160,000 attendees for Trump's inauguration (which Politifact disputes - showing the range between 250,000 to 600,000), lMO this should not be included in the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again on another round of add-revert on the march 3x as large as the inauguration. Can we resolve this one way or another?Bjhillis (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning. This march was unprecedented in many ways. I think it calls the neutrality of the article in question to state that the march was 3 x the inauguration when there are varying numbers for the inauguration attendees from 250,000 (2x at the low end) to 600,000, which does not appear to be accurate from the images, but there's NO ONE that can give a good, well-informed estimate - backed up by other sources - of the inauguration attendees that I can find.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No one except the crowd scientists whose work is cited in The New York Times. I agree with Bjhillis, and I think the statement should stay in. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The 3x size of Trump's inauguration or about 160,000 attendees is still not consistently reported. What I'm finding:

From comparison by CNN: It's "going to be impossible to gauge how many people exactly attended Trump's inauguration as opposed to the Women's March Saturday organized as a direct rebuttal to Trump the previous day.." The article does show images and while they don't say that the Women's march is larger the images and the fact that people were more dispersed seems to indicate that the Women's march is larger - but there is not a direct statement made about that or to what extent.
Politifact says that the inauguration was between 250,000 - 600,000 people - which makes the march between less than the inauguration to 2x the size of the inauguration.
Per the Guardian, New York Times reported that the inauguration was 1/3 of Obama's inauguration - which was 1.8 million. That makes Trump's inauguration about 600,000.

New York Times article: "An expert hired by The Times found that Mr. Trump’s crowd on the National Mall was about a third of the size of Mr. Obama’s in 2009."

Is there confusion about what the 3x refers to - Trump/Obama election - vs. Trump inauguration/ Women's march?

I am not seeing consistent reporting of 160,000 people at Trump's inauguration, it seems that it ranges up to 500,000 to 600,000 (unless you're Trump who said 1.5 mil, I think), which means we're giving WP:UNDUE weight to crowd size estimates which pretty much everyone says are an inexact science and fraught with issues.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post explains why crowd size estimate is difficult to calculate - only takes a stab at the 3x size between the Obama/Trump inaugurations - mentions the Women's march, but makes no size comparisons in this article.

It seems that the following statements help show how monumental the march was: "Women's March becomes largest protest in U.S. history", that there was an estimated 5 million participants world wide, and that many of the individual marches were larger than any daily total for a march or protest for the cities, which do seem to how monumental and unprecedented this march was.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I can imagine you must be going cross-eyed with all these estimates. I looked over your reply and decided to go with one, whatever it said. That was The Washington Post. You know what? Two sets of experts agreed. Both decided that the Women's March was three times the size of the inauguration. Their answer is in the conclusion:

"Using his methods, Doig estimates that the crowd size for Trump's inauguration was actually about a third of the size of Obama's 2009 inauguration.... Crowd counting scientists came to the same conclusion in a New York Times analysis...."

I leave it to you. But I do believe that Ms. Wang's article in The Washington Post' both questioned, and eventually, answered the question. I think it belongs in this article. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I said that I am seeing the 3 x comparison for the two inaugurations - I just phrased the comparison differently and used 1/3rd.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit again. Can you find a number of mainstream press saying 3x - or - that the inauguration #s were about 160,000. If not, this is WP:UNDUE on crowd scientists quotes - when there are many articles that state the difficulty with estimating crowd size and what is needed to accurately calc crowd size.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ms. Henson: you have made some great contributions to it but this is not your article. Read WP:OWN. I don't think you as one person should try to decide what we accept and what we don't accept as valid attendance figures. That is the job of our sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times are respected, reliable sources, which are accepted in every Wikipedia context.

A ray of light for you maybe, I found one source, Boing Boing, that says the women's march was "two or three" times the size of the inauguration, based on reporting by Vox and the NYT. I am going to use this more conservative source for now. Another estimate has arrived from Digital Design & Imaging Service, Inc., and it seems to cut the size of the Women's March down to 440,000. That's a second reason for us to go with Boing Boing's more reserved conclusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

If you're trying to add content to the article, it's your burden to provide independent, reliable sources - and not place undue influence on one source. Washington Post did not make the 3x claim for the Women's march to Trump inauguration, so we just have the crowd scientist opinion reported in the New York Times. I have no idea who Boing Boing is. Based on NYT's solid reputation, the fact that other mainstream media hasn't picked this up says a lot to me.

A compromise might be to state that:

New York Times reported that crowd scientists estimate that the Women's March was three times the size of the Trump inauguration, which they estimate at 160,000 attendees.(NYT ref) Washington Post and the New York Times have stated that it is difficult to calculate crowd size(Washington Post article NYT) and estimates of the Trump inauguration range from 200,000 to 600,000 people[2][3][4] (Politifact 200,000 - 600,000, VOX 250,000ish/plus, New York Times - 1/3rd size of Obama 2009, which makes Trump inauguration about 600,000) The Women's March is estimated at 500,000 people.(lots of sources for this).—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, CaroleHenson. I appreciate the idea of a compromise and support your paragraph 100%. First, yes I did make an error when I read the WP. Sorry about that! Second, here is a list of derivative sources based on the NYT, from only the first page of Google results for "women's march three times inauguration": Slate, Democracy Now!, US Weekly, The Hill, Cosmopolitan. I hope that solves the problem of mainstream media coverage. I think this should be included now. Also a nit, it's The New York Times (they include the 'The'). Also the Digital Design & Imaging Service estimate came out today so I expect there may be more articles that include their estimate of 440,000 (which they were happy is within 10% of previous estimates). DDIS is so far being called the best figure. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence that starts out Second, here is a list of derivative sources based on the NYT, from only the first page of Google results for "women's march three times inauguration" —Yes, I have seen the sources - but don't consider these mainstream press. I'd be looking for Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, one of the major news magazines, news shows, or other mainstream press to be reporting this. I think it's probably best just to use The New York Times article as the source.

Regarding Also a nit, it's The New York Times (they include the 'The').—Yep.

Regarding Also the Digital Design & Imaging Service estimate came out today so I expect there may be more articles that include their estimate of 440,000 (which they were happy is within 10% of previous estimates). DDIS is so far being called the best figure. I don't know what you're referring to. What is 440,000 - the march or inauguration? Do you have mainstream press sources for this?

Rather than putting this in the intro, I propose putting this language in 2017 Women's March#Participation.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, citing the NYT alone is fine. DDIS released their estimate and was covered today by NPR, Vox and Mercury News. (This is the same company that The Washington Post referred to.) This subject is a minefield but it needs to be dealt with despite articles like Trump Administration Goes To War With The Media Over Inauguration Crowd Size. Don't let 'em get you down. I agree this needs more than a quick sentence and thus, the Participation section is more appropriate than the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the three sources are quoting the same estimate, how about

The Women's March is estimated at 440,000(NPR) or 500,000 people.(1 or 2 of best sources for this) The New York Times reported that crowd scientists estimate that the Women's March was three times the size of the Trump inauguration, which they estimate at 160,000 attendees.(NYT ref) However, Washington Post and the New York Times have stated that it is difficult to accurately calculate crowd size([5] [6]) and estimates of the Trump inauguration range from 200,000 to 600,000 people[7][8][9]?—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Thank you for working this out. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok,

Done - although after double-checking Politifact, the low figure in the range is 250,000 (rather than 200,000).—CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Request - Add the total US participation figure. In the participation section, the DC crowd estimate (200, 440, 500 thousand, some comparison the the trump inauguration) is given, and the worldwide estimate (5 mil). I think a total US participation estimate should appear in the last sentence, before the worldwide figure. This event was about US politics, and with some news media suggesting it was the largest protest in US history, the total US participation should be quantified. (Sorry if this comment isn't formatted correctly on in the right place, I'm new here! - lolzini) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

lolzini, I think that there used to be a total for U.S. marches - and I agree that it would be nice to have it. I'm finding a wide disparity in the numbers for the U.S. Do you have a source for that?—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind,

Done. I sorted out the numbers and the 3.3 to 4.6 million number was for the U.S. - with up to 4.8 million participants worldwide.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Excessive POV? Describing Trump as anti-women

We have struggled in this article on how to keep a neutral POV when the motivation of the march is that Trump is anti-women. In particular, in the opening paragraphs, we used this phrase: "and especially at his statements and positions regarded as anti-women or in other ways reprehensible."

This phrasing was in earlier versions of the article, and has undergone extensive editing. It has been added and reverted several times. It is now in another circle of add/revert, @Kamalthebest: added and @Rms125a@hotmail.com: reverted. Perhaps they would like to chime in? Should we keep it, or tone it down/delete? There are other examples in the article of balancing language and tone with accurately describing Trump's views.Bjhillis (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that, as written, the text in question is strongly and unduly POV. I am open to seeking consensus with other editors. I KNOW almost everyone feels strongly about political events in the US since the election but we must adhere to encyclopaedic rigor as much as possible. Quis separabit? 23:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My most recent edit changed it to "The rallies were aimed at Donald Trump, the recently inaugurated President of the United States, and especially at his statements and positions some regarded as anti-women or in other ways reprehensible." I think this is the best framing because the addition of "some" into the sentence shows that not all saw his statements as anti-women but a few definitely did. This is better that flatly deleting the entire sentence fragment and acting like his views weren't related to the march when the sources directly say they were: "Women activists, galvanized by Trump campaign rhetoric and behavior they found to be especially misogynistic, spearheaded scores of U.S. marches and sympathy rallies around the world that organizers said drew nearly 5 million protesters in all."

Here's another example of language that was toned down for neutral POV, first sentence under "Background/Organizers"

Currently: "in reaction to Trump's election and political views."

Previously: "Founders organized the march in reaction to Trump's campaign rhetoric, which they found divisive, racist, and misogynistic"Bjhillis (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the previous version was better as it detailed the specific points they were protesting against. As long as we note that this is what the protesters thought and not some blanket statement and what the entire country thought, I don't see how that's not keeping with a neutral point-of-view. It's not us that are saying these things, it's what the protesters are saying whether we agree or not. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This might seem an odd hill to die on, but I see the biggest issue above w/ the word "reprehensible" - it signifies a subjective emotional reaction that tells the reader nothing of either the reactee's POV or what they're reacting to. Lots of people think lots of politicians' positions are "reprehensible", including fairly boring stuff like tax reforms or zoning laws. Ultimately, it comes off as an intellectually-hollow, emotionally-loaded term that belongs in an op-ed or personal blog, not an encyclopedia that is still striving to be regarded as credible. Do we want to be taken seriously, or do we want to turn into another easily-dismissed online megaphone? In other words, I'd err on the side of precise language, describing things that can be objectively proven. CitationKneaded (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. So what word would you prefer to replace "reprehensible" with? Kamalthebest (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Kamalthebest puts it well -- we are reporting the views of others, not asserting this view in Wikipedia's voice. And why not "misogynistic"? It's a well defined term and is citeable as a significant opinion. In contrast I have no idea what "anti women" means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'd be fine if you want to change "anti-women" to "misogynistic." Kamalthebest (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just look at the sources and you will find that none of this is undue. Debate should be based off the sources, doing anything else is in violation of Wikipedia's core policies. The sources say the organizers and marchers saw his policies as anti-women, there is nothing we can do about that. It is absolutely a POV, but that doesn't make reporting about it non-neutral. We present POVs, and if there are any significant counter-POVs we present those as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

CC licensed photos of Austin, TX march available if needed

I shot a couple of hundred photos at the Austin, TX march and have released them all under a Creatives Commons BY-SA license. If any additional photos are needed to illustrate this article, feel free to use them. They can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/steevithak/albums/72157679468052385 --Steevithak (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Steevithak: Feel free to upload some of them yourself too. Commons:Special:UploadWizard. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Voice of America videos and stills are in the public domain

commons:Template:PD-VOA means the video is in the public domain. Authors reading their own texts at a public event on public property don't lose copyright status of their texts. But the video itself, and stills from it, are still public domain since it is Voice of America. Including the audio. If someone was reading someone else's copyrighted material, then that would be different. We don't need the permission of the authors. They read the material, not someone else. See:

NPR Morning Edition - Political Speeches and Copyright.

There is further discussion here:

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

See 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) 03:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales talk page discussion is archived here. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Readers should be warned that all the above is very likely false and the videos of lengthy or prepared speeches by non-government civilians are not in the public domain. As mentioned above, these 3 video files being discussed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm. Everyone is free to participate in that discussion. I believe the Timeshifter claims above are a confused interpretation of that NPR news segment, and unsupported by law. To be clear:

Each person (who is not an employee of the U.S. government doing their duty) holds a copyright in their intellectual expression from the moment it's put down in fixed form; no U.S. work after 1991 falls into the public domain automatically until 95+ years after the death of the last author. After 1991 there is no such thing as "if they wanted to reserve copyright, they would have said so".
U.S. law since 1991 explicitly rejects the theory that authors/performers somehow really want their works copied as much as possible without prior license. That's also explicitly rejected on-wiki by Commons:Commons:Precautionary principle. It does not become public domain because Timeshifter (or anyone else) feels the author or performer would want it.
"Public domain" doesn't mean "shown in public". It does not become public domain when the author performs it in public. And being both author and the performer at the same time does not make a work public domain — that's especially absurd.
Obviously, it does not magically become public domain just because some user adds a wiki template about the Voice of America or federal government.
Derivative work based on it is not public domain, whether or not it was the U.S. government that created the derivative.
Public domain is not something that is "added" to a work and allows it to be used. Passing a copyrighted work through a U.S. government work does not make the output public domain; it just doesn't add an additional copyright holder from the government.

I hope this stops users from accidentally getting themselves into legal trouble because of some gossip theories they saw on a Wikipedia page. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no legal trouble, nor is there a copyright violation. There may be a problem about hosting it on the Commons. We could probably host it here on Wikipedia. Speakers at public events usually want their speeches heard by as many people as possible. Until the speaker exercises their copyright, and limits distribution there is no problem. See discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A pretty soapy lead

Reading the lead and info box for the article, I notice a lot of bandwagon prose. Too much direct quoting of the of the flowery phrases of the organizers. Some of it can simply be be scrapped, some rewritten. Motsebboh (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed some content in this diff.—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Well done. Motsebboh (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

End of first paragraph re: Trash

I was wondering what everyone feels about the end of the first paragraph where it mentions that protestors left behind a lot of trash which had to be picked up by Trump supporters. It seems fairly biased and the sources don't seem all that reputable. Personally, I believe that it should be removed from the article entirely. The article should focus on the facts and numbers of the march, not turn it into a political argument on the main page.

Tophe2t (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm reverting the edits. Every protest leaves behind trash. Missvain (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like User:HaeB beat me to the punch. We've discussed this in the archives, too. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New Rescinded Partners Section

Saw somebody put the anti-abortion groups para in its own section, called Rescinded Partners.

Not convinced this added sentence is related to the march, seems more about the SBA group, propose to cut:

The Susan B. Anthony List feminist pro-life political action committee did not register to march but acknowledged these groups in a blog on The Washington Post website stating that "Susan B. Anthony would never have joined the Women’s March on Washington".[71]Bjhillis (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this does not seem to be encyclopedic content.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that as well and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the line has no encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the Susan B Anthony part belongs in the criticism section, I don't have a prob. that it was rm from "partnerships" but the blog post was in the Washington Post, and it was widely shared on Twitter as well-so I disagree there about whether it is "encyclopedic" here. But the reason why I added another section to partnerships/rescinded is because it didn't seem correct that partnerships/sponsors who were rescinded/denied should be in that section, and I was trying to expand the new section. I guess if the Partnership section is meant as meta-(anything having to do with partnerships/sponsors of the event) vs the actual partners acknowledged by the event, then you guys are right, but in that case, the Susan B Anthony thing should be included there imo. TeeVeeed (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My reaction to the SBA material is: (1) they weren't a partner who was rescinded; (2) they didn't march; (3) the quote says SBA had absolutely nothing to do with the march, nothing at all! Ok, taking them at their word, what are they doing in an article about the march they had nothing to do with? The point is well taken that what's missing from this article is a section on "Chasm of understanding," including discussion of how many Americans supporting Trump do not view the march the same way as participants, and the march did little to lessen the ideological and political divide in the nation. This would include the pro-life groups like SBA, but is more broadly aimed at conservatives generally. When you read some of the letters to the editor in rural, small town newspapers you hear the distaste some have for the women's march. We include a tidbit of that in the Responses/Media section but could expand on it.Bjhillis (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, BJhillis, about the SBA material and that it would be good to get better coverage of the criticisms of the march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence of lead

As I said in my edit comment, "objectionable" is a bit less emotionally charged and more encyclopedic than "reprehensible". Motsebboh (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am the one that reverted this edit. I know that we have discussed this sentence in the past though it seems to me that the word "reprehensible" has not been discussed. It is my feeling that to say "grab a woman's pussy" goes beyond objectionable and more towards "reprehensible". But I am very open to changing my mind on this. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk discussion above on Excessive POV. It's a valid argument on how to express the views, there's room for debate. Note there are other examples in the article where similar POV edits have occurred.Bjhillis (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As the original author of that sentence — I agree with Gandydancer — stating it was objectionable is far too mild. Looking at the sources you will find all manner of synonyms for what the protestors thought of Trump. Reprehensible is a pretty decent one because it conveys the disgust which the protestors articulated, without the need to quote the profanity that was actually uttered. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Objectionable", if you check the dictionary definition, isn't particularly mild. "Reprehensible" is more the kind of word one uses to to describe a very personal and deep disgust. I think "objectionable" is better wording for an encyclopedia article. Trump's "grabbing" remark is not specifically referenced in the lead. And, for the little it may be worth, how many of us have said reprehensible or objectionable things when we didn't know we were being recorded for posterity? Motsebboh (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC) PS: How about "obnoxious"? Motsebboh (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the sentence is not quoting anyone, but from the perspective of a Wikipedia contributor, I think that the word should not be one that casts a judgment. It was offensive to many people - and I think most readers will already have an opinion about this anyway about whether or not it was reprehensible - we don't have to make it for them. How about offensive?—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Offensive" is fine with me. Motsebboh (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I made the change from "otherwise reprehensible"--->"offensive".—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with source used multiple times in article

used in (abcdefg) seven instances in article. ref currently number 10. ref name (FT 100,000)It currently leads to a different article then where it says it goes. Looks like the Financial Times changed or updated the article maybe--and changed the title? I don't even want to start changing it before someone else looks at it, and hopefully maybe has a way to retrieve the cited article? (Weaver, Courtney; Rennison, Joe; Whipp, Lindsay; Bullock, Nicole (January 22, 2017). "Hundreds of thousands gather in US cities for Women's March". Financial Times. Retrieved January 22, 2017.) Also-it is paywalled currently. And goes to "Trump reacts to mass protests with conciliatory tweet". TeeVeeed (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that FT article is missing, behind the paid wall. On the list of marches page, most of the small town and rural newspapers will take down their articles on the local marches shortly. Of the 600+ footnotes, I expect 200 more to go dead within a month.Bjhillis (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, This is a cached version of "Trump reacts to mass protests with conciliatory tweet" with a subtitle "More than 2.5m people gather around the world to take part in Women’s March", so perhaps the title was updated with different versions.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Bjhillis, Regarding deadliinks, there's always https://archive.org/web/ - where the archiveurl= and archivedate= info can be added to the citation.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Wayback grabbed the paywall and title(s), not the article cited, that's it. Does anyone have the listed source cached? So what is to be done since I don't see how we can use a source that does not exist? Maybe if a cached version of the cited article cannot be found, just take out the ref and add a cn tags or delete the unsouced material? TeeVeeed (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said who I was replying to. I added them above - the cached link is in my response to you, TeeVeeed.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you but yes, that is my point. It is not the article used as the source, and even if parts of it were in another version, the title is different. If the facts cited are conatined in the "new" article, maybe that is the way to easy fix it, just change the title ?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done I updated the citation information and removed the places where it does not apply. It's now #11 and is now used four times.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That works for me, thank-you. I tweaked the International section text a little because it was used twice.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks!—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive - days parameter

After some of these long conversations roll-off, I suggest we change the "|algo = old(5d)" parameter in the archive settings (top of this page in "edit" mode) from 5 days to 30 days or more - since the updates to the article and the talk page are becoming infrequent.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to 30 days, since the pace as slowed down considerably. If anyone disagrees, it can be modified. In addition, individual sections can be archived by clicking "Archive" at the section level, if appropriate.

On a related topici: There seems to be a fair amount of referral to past discussions on this talk page, so I have wondered about summarizing some of key points in a Current consensus section like Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensuses, which would be protected to stay at the top of the talk page. Does this seem like a valuable effort?—CaroleHenson (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Total number of marches in U.S.

The linked "List of marches" pages identifies 675 marches in the United States; of this number, 620 have links to sources, and 55 still need citation (mostly smaller cities ).

The main page states: "At least 408 marches were planned in the U.S. and 168 in 81[9] other countries."Bjhillis (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Then, on this article page it says: Officials who organized the marches later reported that 673 marches took place worldwide, on all seven continents, including 29 in Canada, 20 in Mexico,[10] and one in Antarctica.[27]

But, there were actually 2 protests in Antartica, so a total of 675.

It seems that the wording in the List of 2017 Women's Marches needs to be revised to have the cited wording: Officials who organized the marches later reported that 673 marches took place worldwide, on all seven continents, including 29 in Canada, 20 in Mexico,[10] and two in Antarctica. - with a citation for both Antarctica locations. And, say that this is a list of many of those marches.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, our list has 675 in the U.S. plus 95 international marches. So we are way over the official number. We should cite the official number, then say the actual number far exceeds that...it's an example of how the march outstripped the organizers' plans.Bjhillis (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In the article, the count of marches occurs in three places:

(1) in opening section, para 1: "At least 408 marches were planned in the U.S. and 168 in 81[9] other countries.[22]";

(2) opening section, para 3, change " one in Antarctica.[27]" to "two in Antarctica";

(3) Other U.S. locations section (about half-way down), "Across the United States, there were a total of 408 planned marches.[9]"

For (1) and (3) we should add a sentence: "Support for the marches was so great that more than 620 marches were held in the U.S., far beyond the number organizers' anticipated."[cite to our list]

I used "more than 620" instead of "675" because we lack cites for 55 marches.Bjhillis (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like Original research and synthesis to me. Are there any sources that have this (larger) number, (sources of course that do not grab their number from this article!)TeeVeeed (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Current figures. Does simply counting a list amount to original research? "At least 770 marches have been reported worldwide in the media, comprised of 633 marches in the U.S. and 137 outside the U.S." I'm not aware of any media source that has reported on the true number of marches. The U.S. number of 633 derives from 676 marches, less 43 that have "citation needed" flags. The international number of 137 marches would go up above 150 if we sourced 10 U.K. marches listed, and 20 in India mentioned but not sourced.Bjhillis (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR or WP:SYNTH-yeah it is. TeeVeeed (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep eyes open for any news cite along these lines, then. Found several more cites to local marches so the number of verified marches in the U.S. is at 638.Bjhillis (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Two "celebrities" sub-sections and POV banner added to one

So I rm a section for two reasons but it was restored with rq. to bring it to TP. Reason one--two sections on the same page with the same sub-title. Also, just very "echo-chambery". Now I don't want to go WP:UNDUE in the other direction and start hunting for non-supportive Tweets by celebrities, or sourced references to such, (James Woods is one actor who came to my mind and yes he was Tweeting opposing views but sources that comment are not top quality reference links from a quick search). Thirdly, further up on this TP is some discussion about some very well sourced content that I added which was rm and discussed and the reason given was that the non-supporters of the march who I quoted, (the Susan B Anthony group who posted a blog on the Washington Post)-----was that they did not participate in the march, well these social media supporters in this "celebrity" did not either. Can we at least maintain a neutral editing policy for this article please or apply uniform standards throughout the article? Not "everyone" supported the politics involved in this march. I understand that most of the content will be about people who did support it because that is what the topic, (the march), is about, and also many non-supporters just won't say anything.

Also the entire article is in danger of getting a POV banner in my opinion.TeeVeeed (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this edit that you made, TeeVeeed. That celebrity subsection doesn't add a lot of value to the article, could be a dumping place for quotes/info by non-participants in the future, and it's a stronger statement to identify the people who actually participated in the march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"also many non-supporters just won't say anything." As discussed above, the article might benefit from expanding the "Responses" section to include differing voices, especially if compared to other historical marches, e.g., Civil Rights, Act Up were not taken seriously until suddenly they were. We have the categories of responses by Academic, Media, Politicians. Since you wanted to remove Celebrities, did you want to replace it with "Trump supporters' views" or "Rural conservatives' views"? Small town and rural newspapers are filled with non-supporting columnists and letters to the editor. The articles on "vulgar tweets" come back to haunt conservative politicians just scratch the surface...they're mocking the march. Even without expanding the critics section, I don't agree this article deserves a POV banner.Bjhillis (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we want to identify people by demographics. Perhaps a section of comments by people that attended the March for Life (Washington, D.C.). I saw some / heard people's comparisons on a national news program.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Discounters or mockers of the march, perhaps, and throw in the politicians' vulgar tweets cite.Bjhillis (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

How about "March for Life participants"?—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So I made a mistake about all of them "not being there", this first sentence "Many celebrities shared their support over social media including Beyonce, Lena Dunham, Katy Perry, and America Ferrera" except for Beyonce, the rest are all listed in the other/duplicate"celebrities" subsection as being at the march. And the long quote from Springsteen (who was in Australia not at the march but spoke onstage about it, when his wife actually was noted as being at the Asbury Park march in other sources).....I don't think bringing in the annual March For life to the article will improve this article it is unrelated except that their enemy Planned Parenthood gained control/sponsored the Women's March, so it was maybe mentioned at the March for life, but that's just forking off the topic imo. Or WP:COATRACKing either way (supporters vs non-supporters). I think the section title should be changed, or the section needs to go, or if the Springsteen and Beyonce, and Cyndi Lauper comment needs to stay put it under the other "celebrities" section? TeeVeeed (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost

FYI, I wrote a thing about the Women's March articles in the latest Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/Forum. Sam Walton (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Great article, thanks for the shout out. Two points: first, only thing I would add is the importance of the listing on the front page of Wiki, which drove traffic to 140k visitors one day; and, second, the lesson learned is on splitting the list of marches off from the prose page. The split seemed like an obvious move, but we didn't realize it had the unintended consequence of choking off additions from new users. We should have kept the two pages together for a few days longer, as @Justin Ormont: sagely warned: "keeping the longer table in the article directly may be better for the long term ecosystem of wikipedia; if you look at the edit history of the article a large amount of the edits are within the list of locations. The edits are by a very wide selection of people. I think a key point of this article is the sheer number of protest locations around the world, and this is likely a draw in itself for this article. Justin Ormont (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)."Bjhillis (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Big Joe and ABORTION

I am moving to the Talk page for the article. Joe6Pack (talk)

I removed the content that you added in this edit. This is because 1) Youtube are not WP:RS, see WP:YTREF for how to cite if they come from RS, 2) not finding in mainstream press to any degree.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. The YouTube IS THE TOPIC. It is not being used as a source or reference ON A TOPIC. Please think about this. This section is about A VIRAL YOUTUBE VIDEO, and the video itself is the OBJECT of the topic. Thank you. Joe6Pack (talk)

You are not even addressing the Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a blog, it's an encyclopedia. Please see WP:RS, WP:YTREF, and notability. This is not notable content - it is not covered by independent, secondary sources.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I still think you are missing the main point. The YouTube video is the topic. Please address here. Joe6Pack (talk)

As I mentioned in the caution on the page:

"Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2017 Women's March, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Unless you can find reliable sources in signficant number to prove WP:notability, this content should not be added to the article."—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Source added Joe6Pack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Although cautioned two times, the content has been returned with a youtube citation. I have reverted this content three times. I am not seeing in reliable, independent secondary sources. Can someone else revert this edit?—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted. Also removed his edit in the opening para that the march was in support of "abortion."Bjhillis (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Big Joe has re-instated "in support of abortion" with the comment, "you are kidding, right? Abortion was the main issue." I have requested he move the debate to Talk.Bjhillis (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Many of the issues aired in the march pivot on the central issue of what most of the marchers (given that pro-life organizations were largely excluded) perceive as the pivotal issue of "safe and legal" abortions. To try and hide/diminish this fact in the opening of the article smacks of whitewashing or "fakenews". Joe6Pack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this change more acceptable? " in support of women's rights, including the pivotal issue of abortion, and other causes including..." Joe6Pack (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No it is not because it is an "alternate fact". Unless you can provide RS, that statement is not accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe posted the abortion verbiage again, and I reverted, but thanked him for coming to Talk to discuss.Bjhillis (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Where's the discussion? Abortion is part of the plank, yet you seem to want to hide the fact far down in the article. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was just about to say that is looks like you're referring to 2017 Women's March#Partnerships. The problem that I see is that you're not making an accurate statement. It is not true that "was a worldwide protest exclusively for pro-abortion women's groups". What is true is that there were no partnerships with anti-abortion groups.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, nobody is "pro-abortion". They are "pro-choice". Marching for the right to make personal reproductive decisions without government interference is different than "pro-abortion", and it is one of many topics that were represented in the march. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So, if a person is helpless, the one responsible for their care can kill them? Is that the inclusive view of modern (pro-"choice") women? Joe6Pack (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No one's personal views on pro-choice are the point of this article or appropriate discussion on this talk page. "Pro-abortion" is not a neutral POV term, it is inflammatory, and therefore should not be used in the article. Any items posted should reflect a NPOV. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted another para on abortion.Bjhillis (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We surely must adhere to NPOV, which means "pro-life" not "anti-abortion" (just for future reference). Quis separabit? 19:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

See below. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so, both terms are equally POV. It's just that most people have a strong preference for one or the other, which merely confirms they are both POV. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Pro-choice and pro-life are the standard terms regarding women's reproductive rights. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. There are a number of reasons why a person who would not normally want an abortion may seek it out, such as medical necessity or in the case of rape.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussions at enwiki in the past which have ended up with articles being at their current locations. The actual NPOV descriptors are currently "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" (i.e. pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements). It has been felt in the past that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not NPOV descriptors because they suggest that anyone opposing abortion is "anti-choice" and anyone supporting is "pro-death". Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was referring to standard usage in the English language. I have never heard someone say that they are for abortion rights.

IMO, abortion rights is not NPOV, and wonder why reproductive rights wasn't selected. But, I see where you're coming from.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not my personal view, just a note of where previous discussions have led. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this info to this article. I have taken part, though mostly as an observer, in some of these discussions and found them to be very intelligent, informative, and ...difficult. I'd suggest that we go along with what other editors have decided on. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is how NPR and the AP deal with it: http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2017/01/27/512034702/mailbag-for-two-marches-different-causes-different-complaints

"Here's the guidance from the newsroom, from a 2010 memo, as standards editor Mark Memmott reminded the staff Friday:

"On the air, we should use 'abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)' and 'abortion rights opponent(s)' or derivations thereof (for example: 'advocates of abortion rights'). It is acceptable to use the phrase 'anti-abortion rights,' but do not use the term 'pro-abortion rights'. Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy. Do not use 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.

Former NPR ombudsman Schumacher-Matos explored the issues around the language in a 2011 column, writing, "In an attempt to be fair, NPR and much of the mainstream news media now use the more neutral phrases 'abortion-rights advocates' and 'abortion-rights opponents' in place of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' as labels for the opposing sides." ' LovelyLillith (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, this does not change the present wording in the article. The only use of pro-life is when a person self-identified with the cause--which seems to fit this guideline--and in article titles. Pro-abortion and pro-choice are not used in the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just adding the way NPR and AP treat related phrasing, if there was any desire to align with journalistic precedents set, when/if needed. LovelyLillith (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Gallery

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy viewing pictures from various events, but I thought galleries were discouraged. Should the gallery be displayed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I love galleries. If I were to do anything to improve Wikipedia it would be to quit encouraging any Tom, Dick, or Harry from making "bold" "improvements" to GA and FA articles as their first endeavor to edit, not removing galleries. I've also heard they were discouraged, and I say that is a "creepy" (that is the only word I could think of that did not use a vulgarity) idea. LOL, sorry about all the drama. I will go back to being a normal Wikipedia editor now... :) Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of an issue with galleries - but there is an issue of having too many images in an article. Based on the nature of the article, I don't see an issue with these images.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: You can read more at WP:Gallery, if you wish. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I see as a potential issue regarding the gallery is "avoiding similar or repetitive images" - but the images that were selected are of key U.S. and international locations. Based upon the scope of the march, I still don't have a problem of having the images in the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I like galleries, but I've done some cleanup on it because a number of the images had no particular identifying landmarks to demonstrate the crowds were where indicated. I think any future images should have something in them to show they are where they said they are, else they are just repetitive generic crowds. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

contradictory statements about the purpose of the event

The lead describes this an an anti-Trump event, but later quotes from the organizers contradict the lead. There's some weak attempts to reconciliation there, but it's hard to understand why one journalist's headline overrides the founders and all of their marketing. Perhaps it could be a "Women's rights march which garnered support from anti-Trump protesters" Wmurphyrd (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede stating it was an "anti-Trump" rally is a recent edit. The article had stated it was a rally for women's rights, etc., that was not an "anti-Trump" rally. You can fix the problem by removing "anti-Trump" from the lede.Bjhillis (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed "anti-Donald Trump" protest from the lede. The purpose of the march is explained in the following paragraphs.Bjhillis (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Excited and inspired by all the additional edits on the page I started prior to the march. So much has happened since and I'm grateful people jumped into to add more content. Vikkibaumler (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Vikkibaumler 2/10/2017

Day Without a Woman

Page watchers are welcome to assist with the Day Without a Woman expansion at ~~Draft:Day Without a Woman. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)~~ Day Without a Woman. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Should Day Without a Woman be mentioned in the article's prose and not just the Trump protests template? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

National co-chairs: simplify Sarsour

In the National co-chairs section, why does it read: "The four co-chairs were Palestinian American Muslim Linda Sarsour," instead of simply "The four co-chairs were Linda Sarsour," etc? I don't see the value add from the ethnic and religion tags, since she has a linked Wiki page.Bjhillis (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Talk archives on this point. I plan to delete the "Palestinian American Muslim", unless there's an objection.Bjhillis (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Made this edit.Bjhillis (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

International march organizers

Just now a snip by @Basvaeri: was removed by @NPalgan2: as unsourced: "The 198 International marches outside the U.S were coordinated by 7 women, organizing by using social medias. They had no background for organizing demonstrations like the Women`s March and never met during the 8 weeks they MOBILIZED GLOBALLY and ORGANIZED LOCALLY. The women were: Brit-Agnes Sværi from Oslo, Norway, Karen Olson from Geneva, Switzerland, Kerry Haggerty from London, U.K, Marissa McTasney from Toronto, Canada, Rebecca Turnbow from Sydney, Australia and Evvie Harmon and Breanne Butler as described above."

Seems like an important point, if true, and so worth investigating and including. Who did organize the international marches?Bjhillis (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

These names all check out as organizers. What's the best way to mention them? Is the connection that Evvie Harmon and Breanne Butler had the role of coordinating international marches?

Brit-Agnes Sværi from Oslo, Norway http://norwaytoday.info/news/demonstrations-trump-equality-oslo/ http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/kvinner/2000-deltok-i-internasjonal-kvinnemarsj-i-oslo/a/23904137/

Karen Olson from Geneva, Switzerland "speeches from people including vice president of the Swiss Green Party Lisa Mazzone, journalist Anne Korkeakivi and Geneva march organizer Karen Olson" https://www.thelocal.ch/20170121/thousands-march-in-geneva-were-hoping-theyre-going-to-listen

Kerry Haggerty from London, U.K, "Kerry Haggerty-Thomas, who has helped coordinate the marches globally" http://empowering.hearst.co.uk/be-involved/women-will-march-in-the-uk-on-first-day-of-trump-presidency/

Marissa McTasney from Toronto, Canada, McTasney arranged for a fleet of busses to carry Canadians over the border to participate in the Women's March on Washington "One of the women behind the Canadian effort is also a rookie activist...Marissa McTasney" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/31/canadian-woman-to-join-washington-march-on-day-after-trumps-inauguration.html

List of other Canadian march organizers http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-anti-trump-protesters-plan-long-term-activism/article33699614/

Rebecca Turnbow from Sydney, Australia "The organisers of the March On Sydney. From right to left Mellisa Ayre, Zoe Burrell, Dr. Mindy Freiband, Laura La Rosa, Kate Taylor, Rebecca Turnbow, Elizabeth Cage, Bethany Fackler" http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/women-bring-antitrump-inauguration-rallies-to-australia-20170105-gtmtz7.html

Here's an article from Jan 5, 2017, that identifies them as a group of international organizers: "As many more were signing up at a growing number of marches across the US, the first overseas sister rallies were already being mooted as a core group of global organizers formed: Marissa McTasney (Canada), Karen Olson (Switzerland), Kerry Haggerty (UK), Rebecca Turnbow (Australia), and Brit-Agnes Svaeri (Norway)." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-the-womens-march-on-washington-has-gone-global_us_586e342be4b021b75256f0f1

Bjhillis (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Add a few more names of international organizers:

Lima, Peru: Nadine Freeman and Leda Perez
Nairobi, Kenya: Ritah Mutheu
Prague, Czech Republic: Bonita Rhoads, Ewan McLaren, Julia Bryan
Tbilisi, Georgia: Inge Snip
Tel Aviv, Israel: Mindy Goldberg

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/19/14316166/march-on-washington-women-global-solidarity

One spot to position this material is under the "International" subsection, which is quite short now.Bjhillis (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This was just added under the International sub-section...I will add the above supporting citations tonight, so pls don't revert in the meantime: "Seven women coordinated all the International marches outside the U.S. The women were: Brit-Agnes Svaeri: Oslo, Norway, Marissa McTasney: Toronto, Canada, Karen Olson: Geneva, Switzerland, Kerry Haggerty Thomas: London, U.K, Rebecca Turnbow, Sydney, Australia, Breanne Butler, U.S and Evvie Harmon, U.S." Bjhillis (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@CHANGE100i: moved the "International" section up to the "Organizers" section from the "Participation" section, since we added the names of the organizers of the International marches. However, this belongs in the Participation section: "Organisers of the event reported 673 marches worldwide, including 20 in Mexico and 29 in Canada.[11] Women in India also organized a nation-wide march on January 21, 2017 called I Will Go Out to demand women's right to safe public spaces.[54]" There's been some back and forth on reverts. Are we going to have "International" in both the Organizers and Participation section, with the names under the former and the march count under the latter? Thoughts @WikiMasterGhibifi:? Bjhillis (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved the International march count back to the Participation section. We now have two International sections.Bjhillis (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SOC 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment

In the introduction there is no specific reference cited for Canada's sister march participation in the event. Having a citation closely associated allows for quick verification of the statement.

Also in regards to the overall participation at the main even in Washington D.C., there are a few contradictions. When mentioned first, in the introduction to the Women's March, it is stated that "The Washington March drew at least 500,000 people, and worldwide participation has been estimated at five million" Although further on, under Participation "the march ended up drawing between 440,000[71] to 500,000 in Washington D.C". It is understood that having a specific number for such a large event is impossible, but having a closer and more specific range of people would create a more cohesive account of the event. Possibly changing the wording in the introduction to allow for a range is a more accurate depiction of such a large event.

Megan Writes (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Both good points. The Washington DC march participation discrepancy needs fixing, we need to harmonize the "at least 500k" in the opening with the later 440-500k range. Perhaps the Canadian sister march lapse noted can be patched in a expanded international organizers section, proposed below.Bjhillis (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Still need to adjust first mention of march participation to match later statement that 440k to 500k marched in Washington, D.C.Bjhillis (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Made this edit, lowering the count in the lede from "drew at least 500,000" to "drew 440,000 to 500,000", to make consistent with march count statement lower down. While this edit may prove difficult, we should be consistent with the count. Preferable to say in the lede "roughly 500,000", or "440,000 to 500,000 or more"?Bjhillis (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Celebrities-remove Neutrality flag?

In the Responses/Celebrities sub-section, now that Jon Voigt and Piers Morgan paras critical of the march have been added, should we remove the flag for Neutrality Disputed?Bjhillis (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Two ships crossing...I see @LovelyLillith: removed the flag as I was typing. I agree.Bjhillis (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm LovelyLillith, and I approve this message. ;) LovelyLillith (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Critique of/feedback on article: Adding a section addressing Representation of the March in its organization and attendance

The language with which this article is written with overall is non-biased. Even though the March focused on certain ideals, the information here was presented simply as facts, without being attached to value judgements (saying whether a certain opinion, stance, or action was right or wrong). This article touched on the intersectional aspects of the March, but I think it could go further.

There is a line under the "Signage" section: "In Los Angeles, the voice actor Amir Talai was carrying the sign "I’ll see you nice white ladies at the next #blacklivesmatter march right?" to express frustration at the lack of participation by white Americans in the Black Lives Matter movement, and simultaneously hopeful of encouraging them to do so. The photo of Talai with the sign went viral over the internet.[139]" which addresses dissent of the primarily-white march to some extent, but I think a whole other section should be included on this topic, maybe under "Response."

There was far more dissension (overt and otherwise) towards the "whiteness" of the Women's March than just from that one sign-- this article would benefit from an elaboration on critiques of the event not originally including women of color in its conceptualization/planning processes, as well as responses received about the turn out being very white-- unrepresentative of the intersectionality of the movement and causes being advocated for.

Thinking of Angela Peoples' sign, which was also all over the internet and very talked-about following the March: http://www.theroot.com/woman-in-viral-photo-from-women-s-march-to-white-female-1791524613

Ariellegross (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Size of march in comparison to other marches

I noticed someone edited the discussion of the march size in comparison to other marches from an anonymous IP address. The size of the Women's March was much debated in the creation of the article, as collected in Archives. Welcome to the discussion! This was added with no cite: "However, both marches fail in comparison to the Million Man March in 1995 which drew nearly 850 thousand people." Absent something authoritative, will likely revert this for now, but feel free to add detail on Talk toward a potential size of march edit.Bjhillis (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OverdetaiIed Propaganda in the Infobox, WP:3RR, blatant violation per WP:AGENDA, irrelevant redundancies, not in the Infobox, Ridiculous bloating-recruitment

I will not revert anymore per WP:3RR, but I see a blatant violation of WP rules per WP:AGENDA WP:FLOWERY (to name but a few), I see the point of the editors, but this excerpt "Protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country" is RIDICULOUS, all these "goals" have been already (& properly) mentioned bellow...this bloated statement is tangential, unnecessary, IRRELEVANT...and Wikipedia is not a place for PROPAGANDA or RECRUITMENT, this is not the official Women march site....this is WRONG.... sorry but with such kind of biased articles, I can't help anymore, by the way, this anti-Trump march has nothing to do with the anti-Apartheid genuine movements.... FinalPoint1988 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Simply stating, in their own words, what the organizers of the march say their goals are, is not a violation of any policy. That you don't like it being included there is evident, and if there is a consensus to remove it, then it could very well be removed — but it's incumbent on you to discuss your proposed removal, the reasons for it, and develop an editorial consensus that your position is the best one for the encyclopedia. Edit-warring and then yelling loudly in all caps on the talk page is not going to do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Size of Women's March compared to Trump inaugural crowd

I reverted a good faith edit by @Aceruss:, under the Logistics section, comparing the estimated size of the Women's March in its Park permit to the larger size of the Trump inaugural parade permit. His edit (italics) was: he permit for the march issued by the National Park Service was revised by the head of D.C.'s Homeland Security department to half a million people—Smaller than the estimated attendance of 600,000 by the Washington post at President Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony the previous day.(cite WaPo)

In my revert, I said comparison of estimates is not helpful. But the edit did point to weak composition in the article, which currently reads: "permit for the march issued by the National Park Service was revised by the head of D.C.'s Homeland Security department to half a million people[68]—significantly more than the estimated attendance at President Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony the previous day."

It's weak logic to compare the pre-march estimate in the Park permit to an actual parade attendance (even if that's "estimated actual"); better to compare actual attendance at Women's March to actual attendance at the Trump parade, which point is made further down under Participation, as follows: "the Women's March was three times the size of the Trump inauguration, which they estimate at 160,000 attendees.[80]"

In sum, I suggest deleting this snip from the first quote, above: "significantly more than the estimated attendance at President Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony the previous day." That would leave the 3X the size comparison under Participation.Bjhillis (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I just undid this edit and am moving it here

However, it did not exceed the Million Man March for African American rights in 1995 which has been estimated to exceed 800,000 activists.^[1]^[2] ^[3]
Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

^ "Just how many people were at the Million Man March in 1995?". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 August 2017.
^ McGinty, Jo. "The 400,000 Man March? A Brief History of Crowd Counting". Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 August 2017.
^ El-Baz, Farouq. "Million Man March". Boston University, ABC News. Boston University. Retrieved 5 August 2017.

Teresa Shook from Hawaii... Original organizer

Didn't notice the original organizer Teresa Shook being mentioned again in the article. Cyndygailb (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

She's mentioned under the "Organizers" section. Would welcome an extended explanation of her role, or comment on her reflections on the event.Bjhillis (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert explanation

I have reverted several edits which appear to me to be WP:UNDUE or poorly-sourced. A YouTube video cannot be a source, particularly for describing someone as a "featured speaker," and Wikipedia is never acceptable as a source for itself; we would need independent reliable sources making connections, otherwise we fall afoul of WP:SYNTH. Something should probably be included about the dueling op-eds because they specifically discuss the march, but general criticism and commentary about participants and organizers belongs in their individual articles, if they exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your revert for the reasons that you state. Gandydancer (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this Wikipedia page is very well-researched and each section has a lot of information! I think in the "Messaging and visual imagery" section, it would be interesting to talk about how organizers of the march sold merchandise, and discuss where the proceeds of the purchases went. Also, in the "Pussyhat Project" section you could also talk about how the project turned into a popular business, with so many individuals selling their hats on Etsy and other similar websites. This is a testament to the cultural impact of the Women's March, as these hats are popular to wear. I also think it would important to talk about the impact/ significance of the Women's March— has it impacted any political agendas or changed the discourse surrounding women's rights? Some other Wikipedia users have made comments about inaccuracy of some of the numbers, so just make sure to update all of the figures as more information is constantly being collected and reviewed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth.guterson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Your elaboration on the expertise of Jayna Zweiman, saying that she is a screenwriter and architect in LA, made me think that you would contribute more to Wikipedia if you created a page for Zweiman. I don’t think that Zweiman’s being an architect and screenwriter exactly contributed to her ability to come up with the knitted pink hat, and for that reason I don’t think you should have added that note of her occupations. Also, you write “Together, they used artistic talent and creation to put together this project, with help from Aurora Lady and Kat Coyle.” But doing research on your reference to https://www.pussyhatproject.com/our-story/ It reads that: “Aurora Lady did all the Pussyhat Project artwork.” Perhaps use a better source that isn’t directly from the topic you choose to write about. Huntersgordon (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Portland and Seattle events

Should Women's March on Portland and Women's March on Seattle be mention somewhere in this article's prose? They appear in the navigation templates at the bottom of the article, but I'm wondering if they're worth incorporating above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible source for the "Follow-up" section

http://www.newsweek.com/womens-march-will-storm-las-vegas-trump-inauguration-anniversary-748110

---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and created 2018 Women's March, since planning is already underway in multiple cities for the weekend of January 21. All are invited to help expand this new article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Second to last paragraph under follow up

This just reads like a fourth-grade essay. I'm not even saying any of it is wrong, it just reads so unprofessionally and comes off as unpolished and exaggerated. Citations needed indeed. Please reduce the amount of wildly subjective content in this paragraph so that we can all give off a better impression.2600:8800:1480:36D0:3412:A9F5:DB92:9DAB (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree.Bjhillis (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Size of DC march

The size of the DC march was increased by @Cameroncrazy1026: from 400,000-500,000 to roughly 1 million, with a cite. At first @Amorymeltzer: reverted, and then changed views, and reinstated. I reverted and opened this discussion. The size of the Women's March has been the subject of much debate (see archives). Feel free to advocate for an updated number, but understand there is a great deal more to it than finding one cite that says a given size. There are other aspects to the size debate than the number in DC. For example, the number of marches in the U.S. and worldwise is much higher than the official number given (see linked page to all marches).Bjhillis (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to note, I reverted because I had accidentally marked the edit as vandalism. I don't have a strong opinion on what number to use, but I'd definitely like to echo Bjhillis, though, that there needs to be more than one source, ideally three in rough agreement. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This entry does not contain evidence supporting the current written figure of the Washington, D.C. march as "1,200,000 to 1,400,000 people." The provided citation links to a Washington Post article, which only claims "well over 100,000 marchers in Washington." That article contains a link to their compiled data, which states clearly their Washington, D.C. estimate of 500,000 to 1,000,000, with a best estimate of 725,000. Pinchme123 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

I found an image which might be valuable to this article.SecretName101 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Also this image SecretName101 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

New article on Women Disobey

Would appreciate any assistance in building this new related page on protests today that led to 575 arrests in Washington. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Total participation inaccurate

The total number of marchers seems to be inaccurate. FiveThirtyEight estimates that 3.2 million marched in the United States alone (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-long-march-ahead-for-democrats/), while two professors have a substantially higher estimate: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

See archived discussions on estimating crowd size.Bjhillis (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

I am in the process of editing the introduction to this article, I feel that there are some statements made that could be moved to different sections (criticisms of the leaders of the women's march) There were also statements repeated that I am planning to delete (intro says several times that the main march was in Washington D.C. and occurred right after Donald Trump's inauguration.

Westerei (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

POV edits reverted

I have reverted a number of POV and poorly-sourced additions to this article. For example, one of the inclusions is cited to RT, a Russian government propaganda network, another is a synthesized interpretation of a person's tweets, and the claim about "Holocaust deniers" is entirely unsupported by anything in the cited source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Should probably just adapt a whole Criticism section. Since the topic is the criticism, and accusations of Anti-Semitism, POV is not a concern. That said, you can remove the bits about Sarsour but the details about Donna Hylton and Backpage are wholly relevant, not POV, and contribute to the paragraph at hand with sources that are strong enough for other Wikipedia articles. Velostodon (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

None of those individual details is important enough for the lede, IMO, and we don't include every single possible criticism per WP:DUE. The Hylton section has no reliable secondary source commenting on it; it's not enough for you to synthesize something out of someone's past. A single marginal "RealClearPolitics" post does not merit inclusion in the lede. Please discuss your controversial additions and gain consensus for them per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That some people think some people in the march are anti-Semitic does not warrant inclusion on a POV neutral page. The people insisting that that be in the header do not have a encyclopedic frame of reference. Louis Farrakhan reference is explicitly a race baiting talking point, especially since he's not mentioned anywhere later in the article. Looking at the history there seems to be a revert war with the paragraph I deleted. Possible we might need to lock page to prevent vandalism. Or maybe the people who are genuinely concerned with the muslim brotherhood army of atheist white women, should write a POV neutral criticism section. AP 24.10.171.113 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I navigated to this article seeking a quick synopsis of the recent cancellations and "split" in the movement. I found nothing but a many-months-old blurb about antisemitism and a response from one of the founders. Nothing about the cancellations and nothing about the disassociations of partner organizations. It feels like this page is white-washed and after reading the above conversation, I feel like this article cannot be relied upon to accurately summarize it. A simple search-engine query of "Women's March" will produce dozens of reputable source material detailing a recent split and mass cancellations, but nothing so much as a background on this is to be found on Wikipedia. It's shameful this article is being sanitized to the point that it can no longer be relied upon. 104.139.114.186 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It's basically a puff piece. It would seem that even the New York Times coverage of this is just too POV. But let me quote the Times anyway:

"Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism." and

"Ms. Mallory, meanwhile, who is now co-president of the Women’s March group, has been criticized for attending an event by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who has been widely reviled for making anti-Semitic remarks. Ms. Mallory has called Mr. Farrakhan “the GOAT,” or “greatest of all time,” on social media. The accusations of anti-Semitism, which were outlined in an article this month in Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, have prompted some women to reconsider their support for the group."[10]

I'm not going to bother editing this article because the usual suspect will revert anything that mentions this.70.83.230.212 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 march, expecting to read an up about up to the minute drama about some organizers of the women's march on this page is unreasonable and not POV neutral. The "'split' in the movement" wouldn't have anything to do with this page. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. AP144.35.82.158 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. The very first line of this article clearly states "This article is about the movement as a whole. For an individual listing of protests, see List of 2017 Women's March locations." The schism the movement is currently experiencing has been ongoing for 6 months now. This is by no means a "current event" and has now existed for a full quarter of the movement's existence. To ignore it or to revert any mention of it gives the appearance of intentional censorship. 104.139.114.186 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Organization, this is an article about the 2017 March, it says so in the title. If you want there to be a part of wikipedia devoted to exposing anti-semitism of the Organization, make a page about the Organization, and put it there. Movement!=Organization. The list only gives marches in 2017 making it very clear the context is in relation to the locations the movement existed in, this page is generic for all the locations. Any current beefs that may be going on have no place on this page, as it's about the 2017 march. AP2601:681:5100:3370:F10F:1AB6:A124:F8D2 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

1) The article is about the 2017 movement as a whole. If it didn't happen in 2017, then we shouldn't include it here. 2) If RT and Sputnik publish a story saying the sky is blue and water is wet, we should still leave it out of the article until we can find a better source. GMG ^talk 15:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semetism

Why nothing about the anti-Semitism of Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour and that Jews were kicked out of the leadership.157.130.61.78 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland

I've finally finished the Women's March on Portland article, which I've nominated for Good article status. I invite page watchers to take a look and make any improvements before the nomination is picked up. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

conversation

I added a single sentence in the Participation section regarding transportation. User: Lesliemercado5 —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I added emphasis on the march taking place the first day after Trump was elected president by adding "the first day". User: Lesliemercado5 —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

i removed a paragraph about a conversation that may have happened where 2 individuals may have made stupid comments because the article is about the 2017 Women's March and not specifically about those people and their viewpoints. The only source of those claims is tabletmag.com and it is clear that they have strongly-held beliefs about the Women's March. Libby Kane (talk)

Please do not remove sourced content with notable coverage without any discussion first, the paragraph not only had a heavy amount of citations, but it was well covered as a notable event that impacted the Women's March. ShimonChai (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is sourced content and covered in reliable sources, but it is about certain individuals, not the Women's March as a whole. There is no evidence of it impacting the Women's March. Libby Kane (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you show evidence that this alleged conversation impacted the thousands of people in over hundred countries that walked in a march? The only source of those claims is tabletmag.com and it is clear that they have strongly-held beliefs about the Women's March. Hypothetically speaking; if one of the people involved in the early stages of the Women's March was arrested for selling crack, or kicked a puppy in the face, or did something else bad we shouldn't mention it in an article about the Women's March because it is offtopic. Libby Kane (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That section is about the national organization. Here are several articles that backup that it has indeed impacted the national Women's March (Which is what that section that it is in is about). Also please do not engage in a WP:EDITWAR. You are the one removing sourced content and there is no WP:CON on this yet. ShimonChai (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

give me a second to read those articles please Libby Kane (talk)

ok well I learned something today. That is sad news. You'd hope that a "Women's March" would be a purely positive thing Libby Kane (talk)

I put it back in because unfortunately you are correct. Libby Kane (talk)

The section on Anti-semitism is full of weasel words. Who is accusing Women's March of Anti-semitism, just bari weis? Because of 1 minute of conversation that got taken out of context, that had no material impact on the movement at all? All the ShimonChai cites for relevancy are from 2019, pretty minor for something that happened 2 years before. There are people who do not have a neutral POV who want to defame the March for political reasons, I'm no sure we should just go along with a non-POV neutral description of anti-semitism claims, I think this page should be locked to prevent vandalism in this regards, with the anti-semitism section removed. Before adding controversial content gain consensus first. 2601:681:5100:73CF:BD0B:F523:DBD1:6A84 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2019

So, help to improve it, don't get rid of sourced neutral content. ShimonChai (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up everyone, ShimonChai's history is pretty much exclusively in creating and maintaining FAR FAR right Israeli Politicians, he should NOT have ANY say in what goes on this page. AP 2601:681:5100:73CF:BD0B:F523:DBD1:6A84 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:Personal: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" ShimonChai (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the added content is not about the 2017 March, but rather later marches. It belongs in those articles, not this one. Moreover, the section title was inflammatory and misleading - it implied that the marchers were anti-Semitic, rather than discussing a couple leaders. Per WP:BRD, there needs to be consensus for this material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with your edit, and support the compromise, User:NorthBySouthBaranof. ShimonChai(talk) 14:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Women's March

I've created Template:Women's March and welcome improvements. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

A women's place.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

2021

2021 Women's March

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Okhauger, Huntersgordon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Westerei.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lesliemercado5. Peer reviewers: Hannahdragoo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] "Just how many people were at the Million Man March in 1995?". The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 August 2017.

[2] McGinty, Jo. "The 400,000 Man March? A Brief History of Crowd Counting". Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 August 2017.

[3] El-Baz, Farouq. "Million Man March". Boston University, ABC News. Boston University. Retrieved 5 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches

The map...

Pussyhat pic format

More videos

Washington DC crowd size estimates

Crowd comparison

Recent reorg and edits

Proposal

Excessive POV? Describing Trump as anti-women

CC licensed photos of Austin, TX march available if needed

More videos

Voice of America videos and stills are in the public domain

A pretty soapy lead

End of first paragraph re: Trash

New Rescinded Partners Section

Second sentence of lead

Problem with source used multiple times in article

Archive - days parameter

Total number of marches in U.S.

Two "celebrities" sub-sections and POV banner added to one

The Signpost

Big Joe and ABORTION

Gallery

contradictory statements about the purpose of the event

Thank you

Day Without a Woman

National co-chairs: simplify Sarsour

International march organizers

SOC 314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment

Celebrities-remove Neutrality flag?

Critique of/feedback on article: Adding a section addressing Representation of the March in its organization and attendance

Size of march in comparison to other marches

OverdetaiIed Propaganda in the Infobox, WP:3RR, blatant violation per WP:AGENDA, irrelevant redundancies, not in the Infobox, Ridiculous bloating-recruitment

Size of Women's March compared to Trump inaugural crowd

I just undid this edit and am moving it here

Teresa Shook from Hawaii... Original organizer

Revert explanation

Peer Review

Peer Review

Portland and Seattle events

Possible source for the "Follow-up" section

Second to last paragraph under follow up

Size of DC march

Image

New article on Women Disobey

Total participation inaccurate

Introduction

POV edits reverted

Anti-Semetism

Women's March on Portland

conversation

Template:Women's March

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

2021

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment