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 Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

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]

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]
  • I disagree. The Portland event received a lot of coverage. I've not even done expanding the article, but already there is enough detail to justify a standalone article. I am not suggesting that there should be separate articles for other cities, too, unless they've received similar coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 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]

I notice it's just been removed, but I think we should hold off on a total attendance from the table - it's close to original research and will be out of date each time we add a new march. Best to go with the totals being published in reliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed the totals, 1) it is only as good as all the info in this table and doesn't include any cities that haven't been added, 2) as the numbers changes in the table, this total would not be accurate, and 3) it's a sum of just the low values.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "millions of people worldwide." This sounds rather slap-dash. AP on Jan. 22 says "more than 1 million," which seems more prudent.

Re "millions," the NYT article cited in Note 15 does not mention "millions" of participants worldwide. The USA Today piece cited in Note 16 seems to rely on "projections" for its 2.6M figure. Note that cutline says, "Early projections show that over 2.5 million...." Sca (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many million is "several million" – 2 million, 3 million, 10 million? Nebulous. Sca (talk) 22:58, 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]

I don't have time this morning to work on the countries, if someone wants to tackle that, it would be great. Otherwise, I can work on it later today.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it later on if you haven't got to it yet. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Started work in my sandbox. Sam Walton (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 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]

Done! ^Falling_Gravity 21:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Rock! What converter did you use? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:39, 23 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]

Bjhillis

Regarding the "two citations will do more harm than good" - this an encyclopedia site, we're supposed to present varying opinions and not be exclusively tied to a particular viewpoint WP:V.

Some of this seems to be original research.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to leave the Criticism section as is, but the George Soros quote under Partnership needs adjustment. It reads like nobody know if it means something, or is just pure coincidence.Bjhillis (talk) 22:49, 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]

I agree, will remove the Trump administration. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree w/ the current format. The current format implies that the chairs & co-chair are on different sides. While there is a handful of ways to use the 'Parties to the civil conflict' & 'Lead figures' fields, I see this method as unconventional and sending the incorrect message. I would like to see displayed either just the one primary side (protesters), or the two sides of this civil conflict. I see the two sides as: (1) the people protesting for human rights (women's right, lgbtq rights, etc) and against the policy and rhetoric of Donald Trump, etc; and (2) the govt and people whose policies are being protested, eg: Trump administration. The parties to the civil conflict do not need to be an active participant. See examples of the separation: Montgomery bus boycott, Orange Revolution, 2015–16 protests in Brazil, 2015–16 Lebanese protests, Chicano Movement, Lawyers' Movement, 2015 Bangladeshi political crisis, Selma to Montgomery marches, December 2016 Polish protests, Qidong protest, Sunflower Student Movement, 2015–16 protests in Moldova, 2015–16 Iraqi protests, 2016 Zimbabwe protests, & 2016 Ethiopian protests, 2016 Kashmir unrest. Justin Ormont (talk) 23:16, 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".

The key difference between factual news reports and opinionated pieces is that the news agency/newspaper is responsible for reliability/verifiability (and in the case of certain agencies like Reuters, the neutrality) the information in the former, but the latter merely reflects the journalist's personal opinions, and does not represent that of the company. Can we have better sources, preferably written in an objective manner please? --42.60.174.22 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find some good sources and provide the links here, I'll format the citations.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 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]

@Timeshifter: This is a nice idea that should definitely be implemented. Might be worth holding off for a day or two until the article has calmed down though. Sam Walton (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was implemented by me just before I wrote my message here. I wanted others to understand how to continue keeping the column sortable. It looks like people have been doing so for the most part. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: [2]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

When adding a new city to the table, please remember to increase the rowspan number for the relevant state. Or the table will be messed up until it is fixed. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly recommend using the visual editor for working on the table; it makes it 100x easier. Sam Walton (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is buggy. In fact, visual editor is crap. Can't even type in cells without the cursor being moved around outside my control. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, I haven't had any issues with it here. You should report your issues here. Sam Walton (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up long ago on the Visual Editor. The developers don't listen, and have bizarre reasoning for many of their decisions. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should do a protest march and stick it to the developers. That'll learnz 'em. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for such a good laugh Lugnuts.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter — What browser are you on? That seems like a very odd bug. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: Firefox. I am talking about the attendance column. When trying to type in "100s (hundreds)" for example. It is iffy. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Instead of typing it in, I now paste it in. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have separate articles for the movement (2017 Women's March) and the DC event (Women's March on Washington)? Seems the parent article should provide a global overview, and a DC-specific article include more of that specific demonstration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Chicago and LA ones might merit separate articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also. This movement is not going away and it seems that there will be more than enough fuel to fire the protests, what with "alternate facts" as just one example, and all... (What a very strange time to be alive...) Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're all thinking the same thing here, is there a template we can add to attract more attention to this discussion? I don't want to start forking content over to Women's March on Washington without clear consensus. The current article has become a bit of a mess. I think having a parent article with sub-articles for Washington, D.C., and select other cities, might be the best approach. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. This article currently does a lot of confusing mixing of details about the move generally and details about the Washington march organisation. Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the early editors to this article, all things considered it's still not too bad at all, IMO. I certainly do support an effort to see this as a parent article with splits. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Example: This would be similar to having Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street, among other articles (see Category:Occupy movement). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see, I don't think it's merited right now — but if it swells more it may be reasonable. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that if anyone would like to start sub-articles that would be fine, but for now let's not split. Give it a few days and we can judge the size of the protests. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks---I'm thinking that my use of the term "split" was not correct. "Sub-articles" seems more correct. I agree with the thought that a few days wait is a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are photos really necessary? They take up a lot of space, and photos are somewhat similar from city to city. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the touch, but they could be smaller. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the photographs serve to illustrate the numbers of people that attended the events, which demonstrates significance. I support use of photos in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller is easy. If someone hasn't done so, I could make them 125px and see how that looks.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I love photos. Smaller is OK with me... Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's done.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I love the photos, too, and I'm uploading dozens from the event I attended. I'm just trying to make this article as readable and accessible as possible. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the rectangular images in the tables (those with longer width than height) are a bit too small now, imo; difficult to make out what's actually in some of them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. People can click on the image to see a big one. I am happy to switch it back if it's too small, though.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite some vandalism occurring here, I'm trying to revert it. Sorry if other editor's changes are being caught in the fray, I've applied for page protection. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Northamerica1000 — I think I may have caught some of your stuff accidentally. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there; I've noticed a few cities have their own page (i.e. Women's March on Austin, Women's March on Portland, Womxn's March on Seattle, etc.). Would it be beneficial to have a navbox to sort all of these under the main Women's March 2017 page? This also could be incorporated into a larger navbox for protests against Donald Trump? It just seems like there is some disconnection between different pages. Just a thought! Scott218 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Scott218. I'll draft something. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be separate from the Criticism section. It's a distinct controversy, and the paragraph in question does not describe critiques directed at the Women's March in response to the controversy.

It also garnered a significant degree of attention in media outlets such as The New York Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondCHedges (talk • contribs)

—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RaymondCHedges It sounds like you saying that 1) there should be section for controversies, 2) this section should be rewritten, and 3) you have a New York Times article as a / one of the sources. Do you want to rewrite it?—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—RaymondCHedges (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson I don't think a controversies section is necessary, since this is the only major issue I can think of. But I do think that this particular controversy shouldn't be lumped as a subheading under Criticism. —RaymondCHedges (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to get more reactions... and I am thinking that key political figures, like majority leader, etc. would be a good place to start... perhaps Bernie Sanders. I thought I'd check in her first so that there's an approach for what goes in that section. Any other thoughts?—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you're not going to find much just yet. Sanders, etc., like most others, other than the new administration, do not shoot from the hip in such matters. Nor should we... Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get the too soon part of the comment... totally lost be the last part.

I bring this up because Bruce Springsteen's comment at one of his concerts was added - and it's the only one besides Trump, which seems a little odd to me. My point is it would be good to have a framework for the types of responses that are added.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some feedback from Bernie here from CBS's Face the Nation. I'll add that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a better estimate for the crowd in DC than the estimate as of 9:00 am? The rally didn't start until 10, so many people arrived after 9:00 am. AIN515 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the criticism section: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/figrues-organizer-dc-womens-march-linda-sarsour-pro-sharia-law-ties-hamas/

Also, she was photographed with a guy who had been previously convicted of funding an Islamic terrorist group: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-organizer-recently-met-ex-hamas-operative-has-family-ties-to-terror-group/

71.182.240.235 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the tone of the comment, Sasour's background is properly part of the "controversy" section, if we said words to the effect: "In creating the event, groups within the women's movement worked together while not sharing all of the political views of other partners. For example,..." etc. But we haven't really tackled this topic. I think we've decided to leave it underdeveloped in a two sentence Criticism section, and a perhaps overly long New Wave feminism section. See Talk, above. Calling out Sarsour alone as an outlier doesn't capture the scope of the issue, which is factions having very different views of what the movement should be. The best Wiki approach would be to compare the March to other historical movements that also had big differences in views, e.g., Civil Rights, anti-Vietnam War movement, or even to explain that the enormous outpouring of support for the March swept along in the current and forced groups that openly dislike or distrust each other to work together. Bjhillis (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first source used also says "Approximately 200,000 people participated " about the Washington event, so how reliable is it. Not very, I say. Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who The Daily Caller is, but am not impressed with it either. This looks more like trying to create a controversy than there is on. Carptrash (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither appear to be reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news alert. Gateway Pundit is for sure not RS, Daily Caller is better at times but not always trustworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I incorrectly wrote in the lead's second paragraph about D.C. that the march drew three times as many as the inauguration. Now I believe that statement should be in the third paragraph. Would anyone here be able to fix my mistake? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the editor who fixed this. It might have been User:2601:98a:0:402:ec21:e7fd:4c0:a129. This article looks much better now. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had an estimated 905 marchers here, but our local papers only come out once a week, and radio reports usually don't happen too quickly on the weekend, so the only documentation at the moment is a local reporter's facebook feed where he already shared images and a preview of what to expect from his reporting on it. Didn't know how many examples would be desirable but htis was bigger than some of the other current examples. Expect reporting later his week from the Homer News and KBBI. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the report comes out let us know! I'll add it in Victor Grigas (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the chart, you need to add reference later. Carptrash (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to add this to the table, but 200 people participated in a march in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. http://www.dailyunion.com/multimedia/collection_ef47d9e2-e016-11e6-acfe-3fc05da771cb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.146.22 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this public domain?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?422332-1/womens-march-washington-protests-new-trump-administration

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No: C-SPAN is a private not-for-profit. Only its coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives chamber or U.S. Senate chamber, which is controlled by each house and therefore a work of a U.S. federal employee, is public domain. C-SPAN claims the rest of its output is copyrighted. (If they just put a camera in the spot the news media is allowed, and leaves the camera alone, maybe public domain could be argued; but if there's a cameraman using some sort of creativity to determine when to adjust the camera and when not to, it's likely to be copyrighted.) See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/rights and related Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/C-SPAN television photos from User:Evidian8. Also, the speeches themselves are copyrighted at creation, and are being discussed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm. --Closeapple (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find this edit inappropriate since it was not irrelevant (she tweeted about it and she represents the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia) and this edit even more strange. It looks like there was no consensus to add this content to the article, which is fair enough, but there is no need to hide/censor the discussion.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving is not hiding or censorship. Beyond that, I have no particular opinion on that tweet. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be unarchived? The discussion was not necessarily over. As I said, I am fine with not adding this content if there is no consensus for inclusion. What bothers me is the fact that no other editor will be able to see it here now. That seems unfair on the editing community.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been many reasons stated why it should not be included, particularly that it does not meet the test of significant media coverage.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was Gloria Steinem who told her supporters "we're all Muslims". --74.190.108.3 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits calling this rally "Islamism" pushing Sharia Law are vandalism and have been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour is a known Islamist organizer of the rally.--74.190.108.3 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Grant moved the page to 2017 Women's Marches. As it's a proper [collective] noun, I've restored the previous location. At very least it should go through the formal move process. I see it came up in the previous requested move, but things have been moving pretty quickly on this page, so apologies if I missed something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, @Rhododendrites:. I for one, think of it as one very spread out demonstration. Carptrash (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In lede: "goal of promoting women's rights" -- this makes little sense in a vacuum. Promoting it -- how, why and in what way? From what purported danger? There also were clearly numerous other coattail-riding lobbyists and special interests (LGBT, BLM, teachers unions, etc). Quis separabit? 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to have "initial estimates put worldwide participation at more than 2 million" in the lede when Washington, LA, New York and Chicago probably have around that many people and we have dozens more cities in the US alone that will certainly take us over that figure. However I am reluctant to "be bold" and slash and burn it out, so what do you think? Carptrash (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor reverting an earlier move by somebody else to 2017 Women's Marches has commented that s/he views it all as one big march, but that sort of personal opinion looks like unacceptable WP:OR, all the more so when it runs counter to the normal English meaning of the word "march".

2017 Women's March makes little sense for a large number of marches, and is seemingly not the term used by the organisers, as can be seen from following text at https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters/ :

SISTER MARCHES

Sister Marches are solidarity events inspired by the Women's March on Washington, and organized by volunteers around the world. If you can't make it to Washington, D.C. on January 21, join or host a Sister March near you.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SISTER MARCH PRESS ROOM

CLICK HERE FOR A STREAM OF PHOTOS AND VIDEOS FROM SISTER MARCHES AROUND THE WORLD

NUMBER OF MARCHES: 673

SISTER MARCHERS (EST): 4,814,000

• Note that the term can be backed up by using the above as a citation in our article text (the current name currently has no such citation backing it and just might get into serious trouble if somebody adds a Citation Needed, as they are fully entitled to do under our rules), and also has other advantages, notably that it doesn't imply there are no men on the marches (it is the marches which are the sisters, not the marchers), while retaining the broadly feminist tone of the current title. Some might object that Sister Marches excludes the Women's March on Washington, but that seems an implausible interpretation (if Brenda is Anne's sister, then Anne is also Brenda's sister), and I'd be very surprised if they omit the Washington Marchers from their above estimate of 4,814,000 Sister Marchers.

• However "2017 Women's March on Washington and Sister Marches" is a possible alternative title (though I currently prefer the shorter title).

• Do we need a full proposal and discussion before making this change, or should somebody just do it under WP:BOLD, perhaps after first waiting a little to hear a few reactions here? (As a male I'm reluctant to be bold myself when it comes to this largely feminist issue). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]