Talk:International Women's Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 7 March 2017, International Women's Day was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Links[edit]

"Women's day event denied permission in Sudan". Al Jazeera. 2014-03-09. Retrieved March 10, 2014.  -Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Apocryphal?[edit]

Are we sure that the 1857 story was fabricated? I mean, those two, which claim that it happened are less reliable sources?

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/womensday/pages/how_content_1.asp

http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/interwomen.html

--85.74.125.119 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The UN source is actually a teaching project sponsored by the UN. The UN's official page doesn't mention 1857 anywhere.
Scholar books are usually more reliable than teaching books. Idem for articles in scholar journals (in this case, history and sociology journals). In this case, we have two scholar sources that are independent from each other.
IF you look at the "History" section, 8th March was chosen because it fell on Sunday in the year 1911.
Apocryphal histories can survive long after they have been debunked. They are repeated on lot of sources, and many sources copy directly from other sources without checking the information. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Unsourced Content[edit]

I removed the following unsourced content, because it clearly contradicts other sourced content immediately below.

"With February Revolution in Petrograd (a previous name for St. Petersburg, Russia). In the winter of 1917, conditions in the capital, Petrograd, were grim. The layout of the city seemed to emphasise the divisions among its people. The workers' quarters and factories were located on the right bank of the River Neva. On the left bank were the fashionable areas,the Winter Palace, and official buildings, including the palace where the Duma met. In February 1917, food shortages were deeply felt in the worker's quarters. The winter was very cold ñ there had been exceptional frost and heavy snow. Parliamentarians wishing to preserve elected government, were opposed to the Tsarís desire to dissolve the Duma. On 22 February, a lockout took place at a factory on the right bank. The next day, workers in fifty factories called a strike in sympathy. In many factories, women led the way to strikes. This came to be called the International Women's Day.[needs copy edit][citation needed]"

I also removed the following content, because it did not appear to add any information to the article, and appear to be promoting the citation content's author.

"In the 1980s historian Renée Coté uncovered the origins of the March 8th date for International Women's Day.[1] Her research was published in 1984 in Canada, as, La Journée internationale des femmes ou les vrais dates des mystérieuses origines du 8 de mars jusqu'ici embrouillés, truquées, oubliées : la clef des énigmes. La vérité historique. Montreal: Les éditions du remue ménage.[1]"

Zhujiangshuiguai (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference mmf1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

March 8 origin?[edit]

It seems that a number of sources are in disagreement about the origins of the March 8 date as International Women's Day. Perhaps the article would benefit from an "origins" subsection.Zhujiangshuiguai (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection necessary?[edit]

The topic is featured in today's Google Doodle and Wikipedia's On This Day. Article is at risk of vandalism, mainly by IP users unless the article is locked against IP edits to prevent vandalism Ryan (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Note Protection request was denied. As of right now, does not appear to be enough disruptive activity to justify protection. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
2016 Follow-up So it's International Women's Day 2016 and was there any requests for semi-protection/pending-changes protection regarding the article since it is featured in 2016 Google Doodle? Ryan (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan[edit]

At the end of the "In modern culture" section, the article says "In Taiwan, International Women's Day is marked by the annual release of a government survey on women's waist sizes, accompanied by warnings that weight gain can pose a hazard to women's health," and links the citation http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/09/2003556662 . However, the page at that address goes to no length to support the statement that "IWD is marked by the annual release" of anything. Rather, it describes a particular survey of which the results were "highlighted yesterday on International Women’s Day [in 2013]." 98.71.193.74 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Shockingly this was still in the article. I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Day vs International Day of Women[edit]

Women are both citizens of the world and citizens of the village. Some women are International Women, while most are just Women. Marie Curie, Hillary Clinton or Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the President of Liberia - Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf or Ms Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria are International Women. If this Day celebrates Women in the elite society that is the UN, then it is aptly named. Otherwise, if it refers to the Chibok girls kidnapped by the Boko-Haram, or the weeping and grieving women of the Gaza, the rest of global mothers and girls, then it just is Women's Day or the International Day of Women.

This might not cause whoever matters to change it, but words have meaning, and "International Women's Day" sounds like one for the elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.76.4 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

woration?[edit]

This word appears right at the beginning of the Page. I have looked it up and barely understand it. It is an obscure modern word that doesn't seem to fit the sentence. Can we change it?

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The next women's day 8/3/2017[edit]

The next women's day 8/3/2017

Commander varun (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Commander varun. IWD is held March 8 every year. It never changes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The theme is "Be Bold for Change" (https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme). But when I went to edit the article, I saw a different theme -- but I didn't see it in the non-edit view. 37.99.35.34 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be different versions, but clearly the UN version is what we have in the article: "Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030". See: [1][2].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Right flower?[edit]

Please change mimosa in picture explanation, Russian post card, to lily of the valley. I'm pretty sure that's not mimosa.

16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Publicgoods (talk)

Hi Publicgoods. C4bl3fl4m3 updated the caption for you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Day Without a Woman draft[edit]

Page watchers may be interested in helping to expand Draft:Day Without a Woman. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See Day Without a Woman. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

History[edit]

[In the West, International Women's Day was first observed as a popular event after 1977 when the United Nations General Assembly invited member states to proclaim March 8 as the UN Day for women's rights and world peace.] But women of Eastern European origins in North America were celebrating International Women's Day decades earlier than that.[1] During World War II, some Western countries marked the date with an emphasis on women's contributions to the war effort and to the defeat of Fascism.[2] Eleanor Roosevelt praised such celebrations of women's worldwide unity in her "My Day" column in 1944.[3]

I've taken this from the article (with the exception of the first sentence which I include here for clarification). Clearly IWD was celebrated in the West before 1977, but three snippets from newspapers don't prove it was widely celebrated. In addition, the Ukrainian celebration in Canada was pro-Soviet, and the celebration in Australia was Communist-linked, Katharine Susannah Prichard being a prominent Australian Communist. There is no doubt that Communists and socialists around the world celebrated IWD, but that is already stated. The third snippet only mentions IWD in passing; it refers to British feminist Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert, but gives no indication of how widely IWD was celebrated.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ukrainian Women's Organization Marks Women's 'May Day'" Winnipeg Tribune (March 10, 1937): 10. via Newspapers.comopen access publication – free to read
  2. ^ "International Day Celebrated" Sydney Morning Herald (March 8, 1943): 3. via Newspapers.comopen access publication – free to read
  3. ^ Eleanor Roosevelt, "My Day" Ottawa Journal (January 13, 1944): 19. via Newspapers.comopen access publication – free to read

Lead[edit]

I've deleted a whole chunk of information from the lead that wasn't mentioned in the article (and had no citations). Moreover, purple ribbon does not link to anything to do with IWD, and the 1975 Icelandic women's strike did not happen on 8 March.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to have been an attempt to dilute the political significance of the day with vague and unsourced assertions. On the other hand, there has just now been a push to assert that the day started with the Russian Revolution, which is clearly untrue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jinty Nelson[edit]

I have removed Jinty Nelson [3] as a source. For one thing, she cites this page as one of her main sources. Her other main source is Kaplan, who we use extensively. I have replaced the citation of her with one of Kaplan, because she has got her information from Kaplan. She says Spanish Communists celebrated IWD "from" 1936. Kaplan refers to a march in 1936. The Spanish Civil War began later that year, and then Franco took power, so it's unlikely that the Communists were celebrating anything. It's also a very opinionated piece, which claims the Communists "hijacked" IWD. In fact, Communists like Clara Zetkin were responsible for popularising it. Yes, Nelson is a historian, but she's a medieval historian and hasn't put much work into this. I don't think we should use it in any form.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Purim[edit]

@Jack Upland: regarding the reversion [4]: is it really needed to add any "conspiracy theory"-grade sources, explicitly claiming that IWD comes from Purim? :) --Djadjko (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you put the information under "Apocrypha" together with the 1857 story, which implies that IWD does come from Purim. If you're just saying the dates are close, that's true, but it's not worth saying. Those articles are just musings about the two events, enough to hang a blog on, but not something that belongs in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, "apocrypha" is for rumours, fakes and other unproved, non-canonical works and theories. Theories (often rather antisemitic ones) deriving IWD from Purim are apparently quite popular in Russia. Instead, I've made a reference to some articles and blogs by Jewish women noticing the close dates. And yes, I'm not really sure how that should be put into the article. --Djadjko (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps, it would be safe to add a simple link to Purim in the "Other holidays honoring women" section. --Djadjko (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that section is a good idea. As I say below under "Cleanup", Lady Day, for example, isn't particularly relevant. Purim likewise is very different from IWD. Rather than a long list of holidays honoring women, it would be better just to list similar holidays (i.e., days relating to women's right) under "See also".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

1977 or 1975[edit]

The UN says they adopted IWD in 1975, not 1977, so I have amended the text. Unfortunately, the Independent has put out an article partly lifted from Wikipedia, which refers to 1977:[5]...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 UN Theme[edit]

I've copied this from above because it is lost in old comments:

The theme is "Be Bold for Change" (https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme). But when I went to edit the article, I saw a different theme -- but I didn't see it in the non-edit view. 37.99.35.34 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be different versions, but clearly the UN version is what we have in the article: "Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030". See: [6][7].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The theme has just been changed to "Be bold..." I think we need to sort this out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine[edit]

Jacobin has a special issue on the socialist origins of International Women's Day.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/category/blogs

--Nbauman (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Official website"?[edit]

There is a link in the "External links" section containing the text "Official website" and linking to a privately registered .com website. I can't find anything to indicate that the website has any connection to the Socialist Party of America, which according to the article originated the day, nor to the United Nations or any other international body, so I can't work out in what sense it might be called "official". The article says that the day was adopted in 1975 by the United Nations, and yet the UN does not seem to link to this website. I can see nothing to indicate that this website is anything other than a commercial enterprise set up by whoever happened to be first to register the domain name. I would therefore suggest that unless somebody can clarify exactly what this website is and what claim it has to be "official", the link should be removed. -- Oliver P. (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Socialist Party of America hasn't existed since 1972, and has never had any control over the international day. That website is run by EY (Ernst & Young). As mentioned in the article, EY has developed its own "theme" for the day, leading to the confusion discussed above. I agree it should be removed as the "official website", but maybe we should clarify its exact status somehow...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I've removed all the references to the EY site except for the references to the "themes". I think these "themes" are problematic. The only connection between the EY theme and the UN theme is the word "change". I wonder how EY would deal with something like "Women and HIV". Yes, these themes get picked up, but that's because people think the site is an "official website". As far as I can see, there is nothing on the site about an organising committee or any endorsement of the theme and the contents of the website by anyone other than EY and the corporate sponsors. There doesn't seem to be any involvement of women's groups in the management of the website or the choosing of the theme. It seems to be just the work of PR hacks. Is this notable? I haven't been able to find any source talking about what EY is doing. We use EY's website as a source. This looks like a case guerrilla marketing and I don't think we should endorse it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for making those improvements. -- Oliver P. (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

International Working Women's Day[edit]

I have removed the statement that the day was "originally called International Working Women's Day" from the opening sentence. This isn't mentioned in the body of the article, and Kaplan's article and the Jacobin article don't support it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Are these sources satisfactory, Jack Upland? [1], [2], [3] ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs)
No. The first two draw on earlier versions of this article, and echo its mistakes. The third, written by Lenin in 1921, is interesting and could be used some way in this article, but simply because he refers to "this international working women’s day" (in lower case) does not mean that it was "originally called International Working Women's Day". The Socialist Party of America did not call it that in 1909, and the German poster from 1914 we use in the article simply calls it "Women's Day" [Frauen Tag].--Jack Upland (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Mining the Marxists Internet Archive:
  • Alexandra Kollantai (1913) used the term "Women's Day".[8]
  • Alexandra Kollantai (1920) called it "Women’s Day or Working Women’s Day" and said, "It was decided to hold the first International Women's Day on the 19th of March, 1911".[9]
  • Joe Stalin (1926) called it "International Communist Women's Day![10]
  • Leon Trotsky (1930), writing about 1917, said: "The 23rd of February was International Woman’s Day".[11]
Clearly there was some variation in the name, but we cannot say it was "originally called International Working Women's Day". I can't find the full text, but at the 1910 Copenhagen conference when Clara Zetkin and others proposed the day, the resolution called for the establishment of a "special Women's Day"[12]. That's as original as we can get. The American event in 1909 was not international, but was called a "Woman's Day".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Apocrypha[edit]

I've have put the "Apocrypha" information into the "History" section and condensed it. I don't think there's any point having a separate discussion of the origins of the day, and I don't think we need to discuss a false story at such great length. There is obviously some confusion about the origins of the day, and this could do with some more work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Considering this has got over a million views these past few days, and considering it has been copied by numerous sites and publications, this is an inadequate article. International Men's Day, which is far less significant, seems to be a better article. I've tried to make some improvements, but these are some outstanding issues:

  • The lead is problematic. I tried to tidy it up (see above), but it needs to be rebuilt. Another editor then inserted a lot of information about the Russian Revolution. While I think this is an important fact about IWD history, the weight it now has in the lead is disproportionate. I didn't want to continue an edit war about this, so Wikipedia went through IWD with an article that implied the day was Russian. I am surprised this survived the day!
  • The "In modern culture" is a mess. It has no structure, the information is repetitive, and much of it is unsourced and out of date. Some of it is just random, like information about a drumming performance in Montevideo in 2005. Perhaps it could be structured by continent. There seems to be a general experience in post-Communist countries, and perhaps they could be put together.
  • The "History" section is better, but has gaps. There seems to be dispute about the origins of the day, and we could clear that up. There is very little about the second half of the twentieth century, and nothing about what the "second wave" feminists did with the day.
  • There is a list of "Other holidays honoring women" which includes Lady Day. Is this relevant?
  • I have removed a lot of misleading information in the article (see above), and there might well be more. There is a danger of circular sourcing, given the amount of sources that have copied this article.
  • There seem to be POV issues with people pushing various lines (see above). We need the article to be balanced and accurate.

Maybe we can improve the article by next year.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard removed my "cleanup" tag with the message, "Requests on the talk page should not be advertised on the article itself. Concerns with certain sections should only use the template on those sections." The above is not a "request". It identifies multiple problems with the article, over multiple sections, including the lead and the "See also" section. There is not a part of the article that doesn't need cleanup.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As you've identified problems such as sections being "a mess" without structure, if you are hesitant to make such changes yourself as they may be major or controversial, I strongly recommend creating a draft of your ideal version and adding it to the talk page rather than adding a cleanup tag to the entire article. As a side note, I personally assert that information that emphasizes the Russian Revolution's impact on the holiday should not be removed or considered to necessitate cleanup; it has significant direct relation to the topic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, "Other holidays honoring women" list says "Lady Day (March 8)", while the linked article says it's celebrated on March 25 (not March 8). --Djadjko (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
With regard to Brendon's comment above, my hesitation is mainly due to the masses of work involved. I have made many changes to the article as you can see. With regard to controversial changes foreshadowed above, I will make these if no one lodges a complaint — if I have time and energy. I have never suggested removing the Russian material, but it's an issue of weight. Russian material should be balanced with material about other countries. IWD did not start in Russia. I don't understand why you moved the tag and your comments make me none the wiser.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Strike[edit]

Page watchers are welcome to assist with the expansion of the newly-created International Women's Strike stub, which was deemed wanted on the Day Without a Woman talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)