This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. Gender studies Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention United States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's History Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed this info:

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

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

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

I found this on Wikimedia Commons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:Another Believer I do not believe the creation of another article separate of this one is appropriate because then sister articles could be created for each major metropolis. It would be better served to be listed on either this page or have a sub article developed that lists these events in more detail. An entire new article takes away from the main article. ---  Jrobb525 05:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These two videos (I think) are public domain and can be migrated if anyone feels like it:

http://www.voanews.com/a/womens-march-in-cities-across-the-us/3686775.html

http://www.voanews.com/a/half-a-million-marchers-rally-in-dc-against-president-trump/3686772.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll download these and put them on Commons. ^Falling_Gravity 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have heard these statements on CNN news today

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

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

Suggested format:

Criticisms, organizing controversies and reactions to the march

a. Criticisms of political ideas and goals

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

b. Organizing controversies

1. Hilary Clinton role

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

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

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

2. Pro-life groups role

Some groups were partners then they were removed.

Other groups participated in march anyway.

d. Reactions to the march

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I'm not saying that these sources should be excluded, I believe that it is Wikipedia's policy to attribute opinionated points to the source as, "ABC of The New York Times states that XYZ was a symbolism of 123" instead of simply stating the point itself as though it was fact, like "XYZ represented 123". Can we have better sources, preferably written in an objective manner please? --42.60.174.22 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Example:

1000s (thousands)

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

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

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

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

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