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 Hawaii Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-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

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]

@Victorgrigas: http://convert-video-online.com/ ^Falling_Gravity 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a bunch more - at the bottom of this page :) Victor Grigas (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue the circle of edits and reverts, thought we could discuss a few choices. I listed the changes overnight I could spot. Feel free to chime in on which version you prefer.

1) opening paragraph

Currently:

The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017, with the goal of promoting women's rights, immigration reform, and health care reform; to counter Islamophobia, rape culture, and LGBTQ abuse; and to address racial inequities (e.g., Black Lives Matter), workers' issues, and environmental issues.

Earlier version was simpler: The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017, with the goal of promoting women's rights

Edit war in the opening paragraphs unhelpfully leaves us here:

"Trump's speech at the inauguration was widely regarded as, by far, the worst speech of all-time, and has been called an "epic disaster" which many fear portends the end of Civilization and the beginning of a process of Human Devolution."

I see that someone has made some slight edits like "take a stand" vs. "promoting" - which is more accurate. It's the fear of losing rights that is the driver. And, people were coming for a lot of reasons, so I don't see a problem with having the other reasons mentioned.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) Format pic of Dolores Huerte

Currently her pic is format left.

Earlier editor put pic on right, saying Wiki format prefers not to lead a section with left format pic, and pic should face inward.

(We lost the pic of co-chair Harry Belafonte a few days ago).

There are a lot of photos in the article. Because there are several short paragraphs, if we didn't left justify the images at the top of a section, they would scoot down the page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) Pussy hat project

Someone swapped out the original Anna pic wearing a pink hat with a pic from two male marchers wearing hats

That looks to be resolved.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4) Commentary section

Videos of speeches by Gloria Steinem and Scarlett Johannson were removed

I know, I'd like to return them... but I hope it doesn't make the article too crowded with photographs and video links.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added them back.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5) Criticism section

Someone added a sentence: "Female politician Pauline Hanson, leader of the Australian right-wing party One Nation, has criticized the march for it's failings to address the mistreatment and limited rights of women in many Islamic countries."

I agree, I'm not sure that this statement is appropriate. It gets to a very importnat issue, but it's off-track for the intention of the march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence and the one about "white feminism" which the article reported to be a historical issue, not an issue with this march. In fact, the post-march article said that it was a contrast to the inauguration which was attended by mostly white people.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, this section looks good now. Conveys the idea without bogging down.Bjhillis (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6) Responses/Politicians

This sentence was added: "Meanwhile, the Trump administration criticized the March for not welcoming anti-abortion members, and criticized Madonna's comments that she 'thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House'.[72] The Secret Service has reportedly said it will open an investigation into Madonna after the singer told the crowd that she had thought about 'blowing up the White House'.[73]"

7) Notes section

A new Notes section was added at bottom of the text to emphasize quotes that previously were buried in the footnotes.

That seems fine.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8) Pic gallery

As was previously suggested in Talk, someone added march pics to a gallery section

That seems fine.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9) Footnote formatting

As the list of local and international marches grows, there are now 622 footnotes. Roughly 100 notes need formatting, e.g., raw URLs need to be converted to newspaper cites listing author, date and publisher. Bjhillis (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's an awful mess of incomplete citations.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at fixing some of these from the top down. If someone doesn't mind helping from the bottom up, that would be great!

I think I know what's happening. Someone came along and started adding citations for the numbers - using the same source, but not formatted. We don't need to have a citation for the numbers if the citations at the end of the comments were the sources that were used.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #4: Per this edit, the Gloria Steinem speech is a copyright violation. I don't remember seeing it on the talk page, so I'm adding it here.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

#Voice of America videos and stills are in the public domain

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) 03:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales talk page discussion is archived here.

@CaroleHenson and Rms125a@hotmail.com: Thanks for noticing out that the speech videos are copyright violations. I removed the videos 3 times. As you know, there is already a copyright discussion about these at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm, which is still open for comments. The first time it was re-added, I think the user just didn't know or care that it had been removed; the second time I think was just an edit conflict/timing issue. The third time, I put the comment in each place to tell people not to do that until the Commons discussion was settled, and put a link to discussion. Timeshifter intentionally removed the comment, with the discussion link, because it does not fit his views, even though he's in the discussion, and put the videos back in. I'm considering removing it again, since it's a copyright violation right now, and the only question is whether one of the women will grant a license in the future. According to WP:NOT3RR, "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" can be reverted repeatedly without violating the three-revert-per-day rule, but re-adding the content of course is subject to the three-revert rule. Do we have consensus that this is a "clear copyright violation"? Any suggestions on where else this should go if this keeps happening? --Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here. So there was no need for your possibly inaccurate hidden comment in the article. The files have not been deleted from the Commons. No decision there yet. I don't believe they are a copyright violation. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Support - The women's marches were held in many places around the world, even in Antarctica. However, listing them would make this article too long. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is it possible to make the tables collapsible, perhaps by state (within U.S.) or nation, so the content is in the main article but a little more manageable? I do think it's handy to have it all in one place, but I agree (painfully aware having edited the tables quite a bit) that the length is getting extreme. I also recognize that even if tables could be made collapsible, it wouldn't help with the concern about loading time. W.stanovsky (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: Support two lists. I'm swayed by others' concerns about page size, and given that both tables are huge and growing, I think splitting them into separate lists now makes sense. W.stanovsky (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

source: [1]. 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

#Washington DC crowd size estimates

470,000 versus 160,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A compromise might be to state that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Star article states, "Organizers estimated a crowd of more than 50,000, a number the Star could not verify.". CBC News, The Globe and Mail, and Global News all cite attendance at 60,000 and in the case of the Global News and CBC News articles, they also both cite [the] organizer [as the source]. Numerous sources have put it at 60,000, and only one source has put it at 50,000 in which they very specifically indicate their number is not verified. The 50,000 number is unreliable and in contradiction to other articles that cite the same source. It seems likely that the Star has incorrectly cited organizers (or cited them at an early point). Mkdw ^talk 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the social media account for the organizer -- so directly from the source: [10]. Mkdw ^talk 19:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need a secondary source, like the one's you mentioned above. I'll look for it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to the punch, it's done.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I provided the sources in my initial comment and I included them in the in-line citations in the article. The CBC News article does not cite the organizers in their number which doesn't specify their source. I only added the twitter announcement from the organizer as a primary source for the purposes of this discussion. I mostly commented here to open up a discussion if the 50,000 number gets reintroduced (which has occurred once already). Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha!—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@70.55.49.134: Re: this edit - the only source that varies is the Toronto Star which acknowledges the number it uses is unverified. The Star also says it's from the organizer but as other sources have quoted including the organizer, 50,000 is not the number they reported. It's just wrong and it's been verified by numerous other primary and secondary sources. Mkdw ^talk 08:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70.55.49.134 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) Continues to edit war and leave disparaging remarks about "Torontonians". Based upon comments like this which have been reverted from this talk page by numerous editors as inappropriate, I would say they have an axe to grind about Toronto. Samwalton9 has had to revert them again on the list article. The number the source cites is clearly not reliable, the source even says so, but I hope this TORONTO STAR article dated 24 January 2017 will put the issue to rest; it's more recent -- the same publication -- and states 60,000 which is in line with all the other sources and publication. Mkdw ^talk 02:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• NPR Morning Edition - Political Speeches and Copyright.

There is further discussion here:

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These WP:RS articles all reference the Google Docs tally of cities and numbers:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/edit#gid=0

Articles:

• The Women's Marches may have been the largest demonstration in US history. Vox.
• The Exhausting Work of Tallying the Women's March America's Largest Protest - The Atlantic.
• Women's March Drew 3 Million to 4 Million Americans, Researchers Say. Fortune.
• More than 1 in 100 Americans marched against Donald Trump Saturday, say political scientists. Yahoo News.

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources should be added to the article since they all source the Google doc, which is quite famous now. That last one is quite an interesting statistic. To put it another way, "More than 98 in 100 Americans didn't march against Donald Trump Saturday." Including more than 9 in 10 people in my hometown. epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one citation is needed per celebrity. And, social media doesn't count as a WP:RS.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a source for Chris Colfer and the closest that I can find to a reliable source is an Entertainment Weekly article that shows that he tweated that he was at the march. I wouldn't think this would be a reliable source, and should be removed. There's also a youtube video, Bustle - which I wouldn't consider reliable sources.

Input would be helpful.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can check here: [[11]] Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of those are in the speakers section. I'm just trying to sort out if we are lowering our standard for use of reliable sources for the longer list of celebrities. For the moment, I am going to assume, no - we're not lowering our standard, unless someone says differently.—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. I should have put a little more time into understanding what the issues was. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that each celebrity should get a single cite. I started with a simple Google search, adding Washington Post and Elle. I appreciate people's efforts to expand this section. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the 14 celebs lacking a citation who could be cut (list needs pruning anyway): Connor Franta; Will Kopelman (no Wiki page); Green Day; Josh Hutcherson; Jidenna; Tea Leoni; Macklemore; Marina and The Diamonds; Maia Mitchell; Tyler Oakley; Cierra Ramirez; Seth Rogan (New Orleans); Mike Shinoda; Aisha Tyler.Bjhillis (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only cite I can find for Mike Shinoda is a website, not a news source (http://thehundreds.com/blog/womens-march/). Reliable?Bjhillis (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations for some of these folks, and removed those I could not find a citation for. Yep, the blog isn't a reliable source.

I would like to expand the politicians that attended. I think that is even more meaningful. I'll work on it this afternoon. Have to fly right now.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

As I mentioned in the caution on the page:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KViUIe4jPR8 is cc-by if anyone wants to migrate it. and this one from Raleigh NC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndFx9oCvw4 this one from Portland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKsABImrI90 this one from Paris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vSOZJMuns and Washington DC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQB7sgnyiI John Lewis in Atlanta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb-kci_XWos Grand Rapids Michigan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngUSMw1gy84&t=2008s LA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iEWFpzDxs NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jol3WOrDrk NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NbtJB8ya7Y NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhNATqOo_M San Diego https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeRyvei38C0 DC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBA2I6v8SfY

And a whole bunch on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/search?license=by&q=women+march&uploaded=this-month

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to upload video files: Commons:Special:UploadWizard. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]