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

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Okhauger, Huntersgordon. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Westerei (article contribs).

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

See archived discussions on estimating crowd size.Bjhillis (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a number of POV and poorly-sourced additions to this article. For example, one of the inclusions is cited to RT, a Russian government propaganda network, another is a synthesized interpretation of a person's tweets, and the claim about "Holocaust deniers" is entirely unsupported by anything in the cited source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably just adapt a whole Criticism section. Since the topic is the criticism, and accusations of Anti-Semitism, POV is not a concern. That said, you can remove the bits about Sarsour but the details about Donna Hylton and Backpage are wholly relevant, not POV, and contribute to the paragraph at hand with sources that are strong enough for other Wikipedia articles. Velostodon (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those individual details is important enough for the lede, IMO, and we don't include every single possible criticism per WP:DUE. The Hylton section has no reliable secondary source commenting on it; it's not enough for you to synthesize something out of someone's past. A single marginal "RealClearPolitics" post does not merit inclusion in the lede. Please discuss your controversial additions and gain consensus for them per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That some people think some people in the march are anti-Semitic does not warrant inclusion on a POV neutral page. The people insisting that that be in the header do not have a encyclopedic frame of reference. Louis Farrakhan reference is explicitly a race baiting talking point, especially since he's not mentioned anywhere later in the article. Looking at the history there seems to be a revert war with the paragraph I deleted. Possible we might need to lock page to prevent vandalism. Or maybe the people who are genuinely concerned with the muslim brotherhood army of atheist white women, should write a POV neutral criticism section. AP 24.10.171.113 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I navigated to this article seeking a quick synopsis of the recent cancellations and "split" in the movement. I found nothing but a many-months-old blurb about antisemitism and a response from one of the founders. Nothing about the cancellations and nothing about the disassociations of partner organizations. It feels like this page is white-washed and after reading the above conversation, I feel like this article cannot be relied upon to accurately summarize it. A simple search-engine query of "Women's March" will produce dozens of reputable source material detailing a recent split and mass cancellations, but nothing so much as a background on this is to be found on Wikipedia. It's shameful this article is being sanitized to the point that it can no longer be relied upon. 104.139.114.186 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's basically a puff piece. It would seem that even the New York Times coverage of this is just too POV. But let me quote the Times anyway:

"Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism." and

"Ms. Mallory, meanwhile, who is now co-president of the Women’s March group, has been criticized for attending an event by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who has been widely reviled for making anti-Semitic remarks. Ms. Mallory has called Mr. Farrakhan “the GOAT,” or “greatest of all time,” on social media. The accusations of anti-Semitism, which were outlined in an article this month in Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, have prompted some women to reconsider their support for the group."[1]

I'm not going to bother editing this article because the usual suspect will revert anything that mentions this.70.83.230.212 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 march, expecting to read an up about up to the minute drama about some organizers of the women's march on this page is unreasonable and not POV neutral. The "'split' in the movement" wouldn't have anything to do with this page. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. AP144.35.82.158 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The very first line of this article clearly states "This article is about the movement as a whole. For an individual listing of protests, see List of 2017 Women's March locations." The schism the movement is currently experiencing has been ongoing for 6 months now. This is by no means a "current event" and has now existed for a full quarter of the movement's existence. To ignore it or to revert any mention of it gives the appearance of intentional censorship. 104.139.114.186 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the Organization, this is an article about the 2017 March, it says so in the title. If you want there to be a part of wikipedia devoted to exposing anti-semitism of the Organization, make a page about the Organization, and put it there. Movement!=Organization. The list only gives marches in 2017 making it very clear the context is in relation to the locations the movement existed in, this page is generic for all the locations. Any current beefs that may be going on have no place on this page, as it's about the 2017 march. AP2601:681:5100:3370:F10F:1AB6:A124:F8D2 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article is about the 2017 movement as a whole. If it didn't happen in 2017, then we shouldn't include it here. 2) If RT and Sputnik publish a story saying the sky is blue and water is wet, we should still leave it out of the article until we can find a better source. GMG^talk 15:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of editing the introduction to this article, I feel that there are some statements made that could be moved to different sections (criticisms of the leaders of the women's march) There were also statements repeated that I am planning to delete (intro says several times that the main march was in Washington D.C. and occurred right after Donald Trump's inauguration.

Westerei (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why nothing about the anti-Semitism of Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour and that Jews were kicked out of the leadership.157.130.61.78 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally finished the Women's March on Portland article, which I've nominated for Good article status. I invite page watchers to take a look and make any improvements before the nomination is picked up. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i removed a paragraph about a conversation that may have happened where 2 individuals may have made stupid comments because the article is about the 2017 Women's March and not specifically about those people and their viewpoints.

During "the first hours of the first meeting for what would become the Women's March," Mallory and Perez allegedly put forward a [[Jewish views on slavery#Assessing the extent of Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade|debunked antisemitic conspiracy theory regarding Jews and the slave trade]]. No one who was in the room spoke about it for almost two years. Mallory and Bland deny that the offensive content in the conversation took place, but, according to ''[[Tablet Magazine]]'', "multiple sources with knowledge of what happened confirmed the story."<ref>McSweeney, Leah and Jacob Siegel. [https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down "Is the Women's March Melting Down?"] ''Tablet Magazine''. 10 December 2018. 12 December 2018.</ref><ref>[https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-womens-march-leaders-made-anti-semitic-comments-to-fellow-founder Report: Women's March Leaders Made Anti-Semitic Comments to Fellow Founder], The Daily Beast, 11 December 2018</ref><ref name="StockmanAntiSemitism">{{cite news |last1=Stockman |first1=Farah |title=Women's March Roiled by Accusations of Anti-Semitism |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/womens-march-anti-semitism.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage |accessdate=24 December 2018 |publisher=New York Times |date=23 December 2019}}</ref> Several journalists who shared the story were emailed by a [[Public relations|PR agency]] which claimed to be able to disprove the article, but would only share their information on condition of journalists keeping it off the record. Andrea González-Ramírez, a journalist from [[Refinery29]], claimed to have agreed to the PR firms request, but the PR firms fact checking failed to disprove Tablet Magazines claims.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thecut.com/2018/12/womens-march-controversy-from-tablet-report-to-pr-email.html|title=What the Hell Is Going on With the Women's March?|last=|first=|date=|work=|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mediaite.com/online/pr-agency-for-womens-march-sends-terrible-email-to-every-reporter-on-twitter/|title=PR Agency For Women's March Sends Terrible Email to Every Reporter on Twitter|language=en|access-date=2018-12-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/12/check-incompetent-pr-response-expose-womens-marchs-anti-semitism/|title=Women's March Flack Sends Bizarre Email in Response To Tablet Expose|date=2018-12-12|website=The Federalist|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-20}}</ref>