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

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

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]

We surely must adhere to NPOV, which means "pro-life" not "anti-abortion" (just for future reference). Quis separabit? 19:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, both terms are equally POV. It's just that most people have a strong preference for one or the other, which merely confirms they are both POV. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-choice and pro-life are the standard terms regarding women's reproductive rights. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. There are a number of reasons why a person who would not normally want an abortion may seek it out, such as medical necessity or in the case of rape.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of discussions at enwiki in the past which have ended up with articles being at their current locations. The actual NPOV descriptors are currently "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" (i.e. pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements). It has been felt in the past that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not NPOV descriptors because they suggest that anyone opposing abortion is "anti-choice" and anyone supporting is "pro-death". Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I was referring to standard usage in the English language. I have never heard someone say that they are for abortion rights.

IMO, abortion rights is not NPOV, and wonder why reproductive rights wasn't selected. But, I see where you're coming from.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my personal view, just a note of where previous discussions have led. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this info to this article. I have taken part, though mostly as an observer, in some of these discussions and found them to be very intelligent, informative, and ...difficult. I'd suggest that we go along with what other editors have decided on. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[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]

Maybe the Susan B Anthony part belongs in the criticism section, I don't have a prob. that it was rm from "partnerships" but the blog post was in the Washington Post, and it was widely shared on Twitter as well-so I disagree there about whether it is "encyclopedic" here. But the reason why I added another section to partnerships/rescinded is because it didn't seem correct that partnerships/sponsors who were rescinded/denied should be in that section, and I was trying to expand the new section. I guess if the Partnership section is meant as meta-(anything having to do with partnerships/sponsors of the event) vs the actual partners acknowledged by the event, then you guys are right, but in that case, the Susan B Anthony thing should be included there imo. TeeVeeed (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction to the SBA material is: (1) they weren't a partner who was rescinded; (2) they didn't march; (3) the quote says SBA had absolutely nothing to do with the march, nothing at all! Ok, taking them at their word, what are they doing in an article about the march they had nothing to do with? The point is well taken that what's missing from this article is a section on "Chasm of understanding," including discussion of how many Americans supporting Trump do not view the march the same way as participants, and the march did little to lessen the ideological and political divide in the nation. This would include the pro-life groups like SBA, but is more broadly aimed at conservatives generally. When you read some of the letters to the editor in rural, small town newspapers you hear the distaste some have for the women's march. We include a tidbit of that in the Responses/Media section but could expand on it.Bjhillis (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments, BJhillis, about the SBA material and that it would be good to get better coverage of the criticisms of the march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[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]

The linked "List of marches" pages identifies 675 marches in the United States; of this number, 620 have links to sources, and 55 still need citation (mostly smaller cities ).

The main page states: "At least 408 marches were planned in the U.S. and 168 in 81[9] other countries."Bjhillis (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, on this article page it says: Officials who organized the marches later reported that 673 marches took place worldwide, on all seven continents, including 29 in Canada, 20 in Mexico,[10] and one in Antarctica.[27]

But, there were actually 2 protests in Antartica, so a total of 675.

It seems that the wording in the List of 2017 Women's Marches needs to be revised to have the cited wording: Officials who organized the marches later reported that 673 marches took place worldwide, on all seven continents, including 29 in Canada, 20 in Mexico,[10] and two in Antarctica. - with a citation for both Antarctica locations. And, say that this is a list of many of those marches.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, our list has 675 in the U.S. plus 95 international marches. So we are way over the official number. We should cite the official number, then say the actual number far exceeds that...it's an example of how the march outstripped the organizers' plans.Bjhillis (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the count of marches occurs in three places:

(1) in opening section, para 1: "At least 408 marches were planned in the U.S. and 168 in 81[9] other countries.[22]";

(2) opening section, para 3, change " one in Antarctica.[27]" to "two in Antarctica";

(3) Other U.S. locations section (about half-way down), "Across the United States, there were a total of 408 planned marches.[9]"

For (1) and (3) we should add a sentence: "Support for the marches was so great that more than 620 marches were held in the U.S., far beyond the number organizers' anticipated."[cite to our list]

I used "more than 620" instead of "675" because we lack cites for 55 marches.Bjhillis (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like Original research and synthesis to me. Are there any sources that have this (larger) number, (sources of course that do not grab their number from this article!)TeeVeeed (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current figures. Does simply counting a list amount to original research? "At least 770 marches have been reported worldwide in the media, comprised of 633 marches in the U.S. and 137 outside the U.S." I'm not aware of any media source that has reported on the true number of marches. The U.S. number of 633 derives from 676 marches, less 43 that have "citation needed" flags. The international number of 137 marches would go up above 150 if we sourced 10 U.K. marches listed, and 20 in India mentioned but not sourced.Bjhillis (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy viewing pictures from various events, but I thought galleries were discouraged. Should the gallery be displayed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I love galleries. If I were to do anything to improve Wikipedia it would be to quit encouraging any Tom, Dick, or Harry from making "bold" "improvements" to GA and FA articles as their first endeavor to edit, not removing galleries. I've also heard they were discouraged, and I say that is a "creepy" (that is the only word I could think of that did not use a vulgarity) idea. LOL, sorry about all the drama. I will go back to being a normal Wikipedia editor now... :) Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of an issue with galleries - but there is an issue of having too many images in an article. Based on the nature of the article, I don't see an issue with these images.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: You can read more at WP:Gallery, if you wish. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I see as a potential issue regarding the gallery is "avoiding similar or repetitive images" - but the images that were selected are of key U.S. and international locations. Based upon the scope of the march, I still don't have a problem of having the images in the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the lead and info box for the article, I notice a lot of bandwagon prose. Too much direct quoting of the of the flowery phrases of the organizers. Some of it can simply be be scrapped, some rewritten. Motsebboh (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some content in this diff.—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well done. Motsebboh (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what everyone feels about the end of the first paragraph where it mentions that protestors left behind a lot of trash which had to be picked up by Trump supporters. It seems fairly biased and the sources don't seem all that reputable. Personally, I believe that it should be removed from the article entirely. The article should focus on the facts and numbers of the march, not turn it into a political argument on the main page.

Tophe2t (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting the edits. Every protest leaves behind trash. Missvain (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:HaeB beat me to the punch. We've discussed this in the archives, too. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

used in (abcdefg) seven instances in article. ref currently number 10. ref name (FT 100,000)It currently leads to a different article then where it says it goes. Looks like the Financial Times changed or updated the article maybe--and changed the title? I don't even want to start changing it before someone else looks at it, and hopefully maybe has a way to retrieve the cited article? (Weaver, Courtney; Rennison, Joe; Whipp, Lindsay; Bullock, Nicole (January 22, 2017). "Hundreds of thousands gather in US cities for Women's March". Financial Times. Retrieved January 22, 2017.) Also-it is paywalled currently. And goes to "Trump reacts to mass protests with conciliatory tweet". TeeVeeed (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that FT article is missing, behind the paid wall. On the list of marches page, most of the small town and rural newspapers will take down their articles on the local marches shortly. Of the 600+ footnotes, I expect 200 more to go dead within a month.Bjhillis (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cached version of "Trump reacts to mass protests with conciliatory tweet" with a subtitle "More than 2.5m people gather around the world to take part in Women’s March", so perhaps the title was updated with different versions.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deadliinks, there's always https://archive.org/web/ - where the archiveurl= and archivedate= info can be added to the citation.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit comment, "objectionable" is a bit less emotionally charged and more encyclopedic than "reprehensible". Motsebboh (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that reverted this edit. I know that we have discussed this sentence in the past though it seems to me that the word "reprehensible" has not been discussed. It is my feeling that to say "grab a woman's pussy" goes beyond objectionable and more towards "reprehensible". But I am very open to changing my mind on this. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk discussion above on Excessive POV. It's a valid argument on how to express the views, there's room for debate. Note there are other examples in the article where similar POV edits have occurred.Bjhillis (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of that sentence — I agree with Gandydancer — stating it was objectionable is far too mild. Looking at the sources you will find all manner of synonyms for what the protestors thought of Trump. Reprehensible is a pretty decent one because it conveys the disgust which the protestors articulated, without the need to quote the profanity that was actually uttered. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]