Misplaced Pages

Talk:2017 Women's March

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vikkibaumler (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 10 February 2017 (→Thank you: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:29, 10 February 2017 by Vikkibaumler (talk | contribs) (→Thank you: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Women's March article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2017 Women's March was copied or moved into List of 2017 Women's March locations with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHawaii Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
In the newsA news item involving 2017 Women's March was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 January 2017.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2017 Women's March was copied or moved into Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency with this edit on 19:12, 23 January 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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:

There is further discussion here:

--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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".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)

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 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, and one in Antarctica.
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, 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 other countries.";

(2) opening section, para 3, change " one in Antarctica." 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."

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."

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Categories: