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]

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

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

While I'm not saying that these sources should be excluded, I believe that it is Wikipedia's policy to attribute opinionated points to the source as, "ABC of The New York Times states that XYZ was a symbolism of 123" instead of simply stating the point itself as though it was fact, like "XYZ represented 123".

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

If you find some good sources and provide the links here, I'll format the citations.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not yet. Well, maybe, as long as we don't have too many articles talking about the movement. Let's wait a few days until Talk:2017 Women's March#Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches is finished. If this alternative is chosen, the list of protests would probably go into a third article. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a banner to encourage editors to contribute to this discussion, but my edit was undone by User:Randy Kryn. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put it back, the discussion link didn't lead to this section, just to the long talk page, and it looked like a renaming discussion had closed. Please fix the link so it leads to this discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the same thing. I eventually found the split discussion but it was not well labelled and the template did not direct people here. I've fixed the template. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, and apologies for not knowing to do so earlier. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the seperate articles. 71.179.136.243 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it started out as one event but the overall event now historically contains all of the marches of the day. Separating them actually would now distort the history. The Washington march should be highlighted and have a line in the infobox title, yet the D.C. core march grew in an unprecedented way to inspire international and wider US marches. Randy Kryn 01:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Randy Kryn: I see what you mean, but also think more of the D.C.-specific details could be forked in a way similar to the articles about satellite events (Women's March on Austin, Women's March on Portland, and Women's March on Seattle). These articles don't take away from the parent article, and let some of the details exist outside the parent article while still supporting the movement's overall impact. I'll point to the example of Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street again. I also acknowledge that forking the massive list of events might help separate some of the movement info from the DC details, and help reduce the article's size. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox title on this one now gives a good overview of how the march evolved, with the overall taking top billing but the D.C. march still the focus of much of the page. Hopefully a split won't take readers to one and then they won't bother with the other. Having the two main topics on one page shows the reality of the situation. Occupy is different in that Wall Street was a long-term but eventually ended-action while occupy was a very related but longer lasting organization. This article is about the one-day event which was centered in D.C. but emulated around the world, and, again, hopefully a split, if it comes to that, will be done to enhance the topic and not dilute it. Randy Kryn 13:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Is this public domain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. It makes sense to push the number above 3 million, since the table of local U.S. marches adds up to over 3.5 million, plus the international marches.Bjhillis (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the number is probably greater than 3 million for worldwide participation. We should document the numbers with citation footnotes for specific locales using their own numbers as reported in the news. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor supporting the reverting of an earlier move by somebody else to 2017 Women's Marches has commented that s/he views it all as one big demonstration, but that sort of personal opinion looks like unacceptable WP:OR, all the more so when it runs counter to the normal English meaning of the word "march".
• 2017 Women's March makes little sense for a large number of marches, and is seemingly not the term used by the organisers, as can be seen from the following text at https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters/ :

SISTER MARCHES

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

CLICK HERE FOR THE SISTER MARCH PRESS ROOM

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

NUMBER OF MARCHES: 673

SISTER MARCHERS (EST): 4,814,000

• Note that the term Sister Marches can be backed up by using the above as a citation in our article text.

• The current name currently has no such citation backing it and just might get into serious trouble if somebody adds a Citation Needed, as they are fully entitled to do under our rules.

• Sister Marches also has other advantages, notably that it doesn't imply there are no men on the marches (it is the marches which are the sisters, not the marchers), while retaining the broadly feminist tone of the current title.

• Some might object that Sister Marches excludes the Women's March on Washington, but that seems an implausible interpretation (if Brenda is Anne's sister, then Anne is also Brenda's sister), and I'd be very surprised if they omit the Washington Marchers from their above estimate of 4,814,000 Sister Marchers.

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

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

As nobody has commented yet, and the problem has not gone away, I propose to await comments and responses for a reasonable period of time (12 to 24 hours), and if I hear nothing more I will perhaps reluctantly attempt the name change myself per WP:BOLD (except that by then I may well no longer be bothered).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Few people, media and public, are referring to them as the "Sister Marches". Surely we should use the name people actually refer to it by? The article on "water" isn't called "dihydrogen monoxide". (For the record, maintaining an encyclopedia is not a feminist issue at all. Even men can edit pages on Wikipedia!) 5.65.129.208 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have missed it, but I have yet to see a reliable source that refers to this collection of marches in the singular (as in our current title 2017 Women's March), while the attempt to call it 2017 Women's Marches (in both the title and the start of the text) has repeatedly been reverted. Nor has any citation yet been given for 'Women's Marches' (possibly because the marches include men, or possibly for other reasons such as that there are no reliable citations, or because there are plenty but nobody has bothered to look). But personally I'd be happy with 2017 Women's Marches. I'm primarily suggesting Sister Marches because others seem to constantly object to 2017 Women's Marches (though Sister Marches has other minor advantages as well).
• Only humorists call water "dihydrogen monoxide". By contrast Sister Marches appears to be the official term used by the organisers, and I'm not sure that the media and public have any agreed term for the collection of marches (if they had, then quite likely the article would already bear that name and there would be no need for this discussion).
• But if you know of such an agreed term for the collection of marches, please let the rest of us know what it is, preferably backed by a few citations from reliable sources.
• (For the record, I did not intend to say anything about men not been able to edit pages on Wikipedia, as distinct from this particular male being reluctant to perform certain kinds of edit; my apologies if my actual words conveyed some other impression)
• (Also for the record, how women's issues are presented on Wikipedia is a feminist issue as far as many of Wikipedia's feminists are concerned (and quite a lot of other people too, both feminist and non-feminist), and understandably so - see WP:GGTF for details)
• (And also for the record, Wikipedia is not compulsory and therefore I am not obliged to attempt edits about which I don't feel comfortable, all the more so when my discomfort is the result of rather distressing previous experiences, and it is sometimes useful to indicate this discomfort to others so that they can choose to do the edits themselves rather than assuming that I'll be doing them) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that for the people adding content, we have never googled or searched for "Sister marches", but searched for "Women's march" - the movement is the Women's march.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CaroleHenson. I'm perfectly happy to agree that the movement is the Women's March (or anything else) if you can find a reliable source that says so. I got Sister Marches by googling Women's March (or perhaps Women's March on Washington, or Women's Marches). And googling Women's March is an excellent way to find out about individual Marches such as Women's March - Boston, etc. But at the moment (as frequently before) we have "Women's March" in our title and "Women's Marches" in our opening sentence, and that's an article quality issue that needs fixing, preferably once and for all. That seems unlikely if people insist on saying March when they logically mean Marches, and insist on reverting those who try to make sense of it by changing the title to Marches, unless of course somebody can supply a reliable source which says that the movement is called the Women's March, or indeed the Women's Marches. At the moment Women's March is simply a name invented by one editor here who suggested changing Women's March on Washington to Women's March and got agreement from a few other editors (partly because most weren't marching on Washington, and partly because the worldwide aspect needed to be emphasized to get it into In The News). Personally I don't really care what we call it as long as it's backed by a reliable source cited in our article and is used consistently; right now what we have is basically illegal WP:OR, and a kind of low-level edit war between supporters of March and supporters of Marches.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about march vs. marches. I think the use of the singular march is because they are not independent marches... They all grew out of the Women's March on Washington. So, it's like there was a world-wide collective march.

I edited the intro, though, see what you think.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CaroleHenson, though I'm not sure that what I later found was still the changes you had made. At any rate I've added 3 citations in support of the current title, 2 alternative titles with 1 citation each, and added 'worldwide' in front of 'protest'. All 3 suggested titles actually have support ranging from 400,000 to 4 million hits on Google, or 19 million for the current title (though half of that is 'women's march on Washington' and much of the remainder relates to single marches, or is ambiguous as to whether it's one or many). But at least we can no longer be accused of WP:OR, and it will be hard to demonstrate the alternative possible charge of WP:UNDUE, so I think I'll leave any further arguing to others.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Docs spreadsheet lists hundreds of cities worldwide with attendance numbers and references:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

It is linked from this article:

• Women's March Is The Biggest Protest In US History As An Estimated 2.9 Million March. By Jason Easley. Jan 21, 2017. Politicus USA.

US cities are listed first. Followed by a list of cities outside the US. Use your mouse scroll wheel to move up and down. Or click on the page, and then use your page up and page down keys.

The low and high total attendance numbers at the top (3 to 5 million) are for the USA only.

There are also total attendance numbers for cities outside the USA. They are at the top of that worldwide (outside USA) table at the bottom of the spreadsheet. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated a large amount of the content from the Google Docs spreadsheet in to the US section, and checked many of the references. Justin Ormont (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justin Ormont: Thanks! I guess others will need to add the references. I noticed a lot of "citation needed" notices. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Google News searches for largest marches in US history:

• Google News: https://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=largest+marches+in+US+history
• Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=largest+marches+in+US+history

There are many articles listed that discuss how the marches were the largest in US history for various cities. And especially for the one-day total. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:List of 2017 Women's Marches. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:55, 23 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]

@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]

The info box says this was an anti-Trump rally. But, the source cited does not support that. The rally was explicitly NOT anti-Trump (I participated; we were briefed on this) but was intended to have a positive, pro-women's rights message. Nothing in the cited source mentions Trump at all. I realize it's obvious to anyone who was there that this march was in opposition to trump, but, that is not sourced and my say-so is not a source for wikipedia. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at a multitude of sources, most say it was anti-trump. Anecdote is not substitute for sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest substituting anecdote for sources - that is precisely the opposite of what I wrote. I said the cited source does not support the 'opposition to trump' statement of cause in the infobox. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be at the top of the article. The number of edits of the list has gone way down since it was moved. So I added this to the top of the article:

See also: List of 2017 Women's Marches

Otherwise the average reader will have no reason to believe there is a comprehensive list. Especially if they are just doing a quick scan of the article. Which is all most readers do with a Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is crazy amounts of vandalism and inserting of WP:BLP-material right now. Please keep track of the IPs. All types, from those saying Trump's speech was the worst ever to those trying to make it look like the protests were unrelated to Trump. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Cluebot is picking up some of the vandalism after a while, but we need more people in there making sure the acceptable parts of the text don't deteriorate into oblivion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I keep reverting and they keep coming. Dylan? "The pump won't work cause the..."Bjhillis (talk) 21:20, 23 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]

The section about "Locations" is pretty long. In fact, it's over 220 KB. This significantly slows down the loading of this article, and anyway, I'm not convinced a full list of locations is needed anyway. Maybe we can create a list article for such locations? epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add your vote in the talk section higher up:

• #Splitting table into List of 2017 Women's Marches

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:50, 23 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: [2]. 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]

The Section Background >>> Policy Platform ends with the following statement as of 2017-01-23 1439 EST:

"The resistance to Trump's kleptocratic seizure of power by force despite the loss of the people's vote and lack of prior governing experience, and on a heavily etho-nstionalist, anti-immigration platform, has often been compared to Adolf Hitler's rise to power, with which the parallels are obvious, and the protests of Trump draw spiritual and tactical inspiration from La Resistance, the French resistance movement to the occupation of France by Nazism, on which the resistance to Trump's autocratic rule is explicitly modeled."

No citations or quote marks are included. It doesn't seem to fit with the tone and formatting of most wikipedia articles I read.

Longtime reader, often tiny editor (spelling, grammar, etc). First time on a talk page, so please forgive my ignorance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.169 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the total is on Wikipedia's home page, and it's too low. The best academic source, the one being cited widely in the media is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

This source tabulates between 3.5 and 5.0 million participants. I think we should use this number, and keep an eye on the source as it is being updated. I know this is a lowly Google Doc, but the researchers are top quality academics. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Thanks for changing it, I was just about to revert that edit myself. Sam Walton (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to find citations for the smaller more remote marches, i came across a YouTube video of the march in Floyd, Virginia, USA. As Floyd's newspaper hasn't published a story (online, at least) about the march, this is the closest thing i could find. I hope that raw video can be used as acknowledgement that the march actually took place, so that subsection won't be removed. JeffConn (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffconn, See WP:YTREF regarding usage, which I interpret to mean that if it comes from a secondary source / reliable source, the information about the video who produced the video, it's title, et. can be used as a citation - then remove the link to youtube.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Edinburgh protest is mentioned twice in the list of Worldwide locations, under Scotland and United Kingdom. Since Scotland is not a sovereign state and the article is 288K long, I propose we merge these together. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty logical (and non-controversial). I say go for it! JeffConn (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be merged with the United Kingdom too, since it's a constituent country. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:27, 24 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]

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]

Please paste in Wikipedia article name here:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill

It fills out reference info for bare URLs. For a whole Wikipedia article of bare URL references at once.

But first you have to clear our some of the bizarre reference formatting so that reFill can see the bare URLs. ReFill can see bare URLs in this format:

<ref>BARE URL</ref>

So save yourself some time by clearing out the formatting underbrush, and then let reFill do some of the heavy lifting of filling in reference info. You can manually add more reference info later if you want to. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to talk about how, despite at least one of the sister-march websites having a no-trash rule, the marches left piles of garbage for others to clean up? For a movement that ostensibly claims to be at least in part about Environmental protection, they sure have a funny way of showing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When hundreds of coordinated events are organized for the same day, and they routinely end up attracting two to three times more participants than expected, then it is to be expected that garbage cans will overflow. This is a routine byproduct of very successful events and is neither surprising nor is it encyclopedic information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, the photos that show the signs laid out and overflowing garbage cans are real but the rest are fakes, some even going back to Woodstock... See for example [[3]] Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, why should we? Every weekend we have piles of trash left behind in the mountains, pile sof trash left behind in the beaches and deserts. If you want to pretend that for some reason progressives demonstrating against Theofascist Christian hate and bigotry are some how worse than the average human all around the planet when it comes to litter, try Conservapedia. Damotclese (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the signs were intentionally left at Trump's hotel. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Damotclese, I have to thank you for my first laugh of the day at "Theofascist Christian hate and bigotry". I would love to see the citations of credible sources & logical arguments that would lead a reasonable mind to employ such a word-salad. Care to share with the class? CitationKneaded (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually commentary from a Fox News contributor on air that states they picked up their trash and remarked on how that is one thing they always look at I other marches.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changes from last night are:

1) @Mark Miller: split off the list of locations to a new page (should the Infobox on the list page use "2017 Women's March" as header?);

2) Lost pic of honorary co-chair Dolores Huerte;

3) Criticism section re-worked: "anti-abortion group" paras put into its own section; and criticism of march put into "Responses/media" with better quotes from Shikha Dalmia and NY Post;

This morning @47.32.123.122: moved "anti-abortion" material into "Partnerships" and condensed two paras into one.

4) @Anna Frodesiak: formatted left/right placement of pics of protest signs and woman wearing pink hat (she now looks into/across the page);

5) Infobox back to stating "Estimated 2,600,000 worldwide" while article text says: "The march drew at least half a million in Washington, and some estimates put worldwide participation at 4.8 million";

6) On the list of locations page, @Northamerica1000: and others fixed the hundred or more bare links, properly formatting the cites (yea!).

I suggest "Speakers and attendees" section be renamed "Speakers," cut the celebrity list (it's now done below, under Celebrities attending), and move "John Kerry walked his dog" to "Politicians". Bjhillis (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we collapse "Speakers and attendees" and "Commentary" into "Speakers and Commentators". Open with the official list of speakers, then Gloria Steinem quote (could point out this quote was prior to march, or could replace it with a snip from her speech at the march). Fold the celebrities list into the below list of celebrities attending. Move John Kerry to end of the para, or cut him.

How it currently reads:

Speakers and attendees

The official list of speakers included Cecile Richards, Ilyasah Shabazz, Janet Mock, LaDonna Harris, Janelle Monáe, Maryum Ali, Rabbi Sharon Brous, Sister Simone Campbell, Sophie Cruz, America Ferrera, Angela Davis, Gloria Steinem, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johansson, Melissa Harris-Perry, Michael Moore, Randi Weingarten, Van Jones, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Roslyn Brock, Muriel Bowser, Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, and Ai-jen Poo.[57][58][59]

Celebrities including Amy Schumer, Samantha Bee, Olivia Wilde, and Lupita Nyong'o declared their intention to attend the Washington march.[4][60] On January 10, organizers announced that America Ferrera would serve as chair of the "Artist Table", and that Zendaya, Rowan Blanchard, Katy Perry, Madonna and Cher would participate.[61] John Kerry joined the march while out walking his dog.[62]

Commentary

Honorary co-chair Gloria Steinem commented

How it should read:

Speakers

The official list of speakers included Gloria Steinem, Scarlett Johansson, and Sophie Cruz. Others who spoke are Michael Moore, Cecile Richards, Ilyasah Shabazz, Janet Mock, LaDonna Harris, Janelle Monáe, Maryum Ali, Rabbi Sharon Brous, Sister Simone Campbell, America Ferrera, Angela Davis, Ashley Judd, , Melissa Harris-Perry, Randi Weingarten, Van Jones, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Roslyn Brock, Muriel Bowser, Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, and Ai-jen Poo.[57][58][59]

Speaking at the march, honorary co-chair Gloria Steinem said: etc.

Speaking at the march, Scarlett Johanson said:

Speaking at the march, 6-year old Sophie Cruz said:

Commenting before the march, Michael Moore said:

Bjhillis (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bj, I agree...still a little work to do. However, I find the work that has been done in the last few days stunning--what an excellent article! I'm having connection problems today and think I will quit for now. Thanks to you for all the good work you have done for these last few weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I folded the two celebrity lists together. John Kerry is now mentioned under "Other locations/Politicians" (even though he was at DC march). So we are free to delete the celebrities para under "Speakers and attendees", and then combine it with Commentators into one section, "Speakers and Commentators", or simply "Speakers". The Steinem and Michael Moore quote are from before the march, but we can swap them out for lines from their day-of-the-march speeches.Bjhillis (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March (pictured) protesting Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States." -- The title is not accurate. Most were protesting against hate, bigotry, and Theocracy among many other things. The election of the horrific buffoon was only part of why so many millions of people were demonstrating around the world, but it was not just because of Trump winning the electoral vote. Damotclese (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb needs to be concise. It gets wordy to say that they were protesting the "hate, bigotry" etc. embodied by Trump's election and inauguration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were they protesting theocracy though? We don't live in a theocracy in the United States (& our founders specifically put barriers to creating such in the Constitution)... and I don't recall much of the protests mentioning anything about the existing theocracies around the world ^[1] (particularly the ones hostile to women's rights), such as Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. Maybe I'm just applying too much logic to a situation of subjective emotion where logic is thrown out the window, but it seems to me rather difficult to protest X, when X is not a thing that can be objectively proven to exist. I mean, I suppose one could, but they'd look rather silly doing it - like a crazy person ranting about lizard-people. Although I have noticed a peculiar pattern of people both online & those I've spoken to IRL about this having no clue what the march they were attending was actually about. I, for one, would like to find out what the heck it was actually about, but Wikipedia at the current moment seems hardly more elucidating on the matter than the march-goers I've spoken to.CitationKneaded (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the original poster's meaning to be the creeping Christian fundamentalism that tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, ok, I think now I see where they're coming from (while maintaining civil disagreement with their assertion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 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]

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: [[4]] 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]

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 or sewing and crafting thing is of interest to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]