Jump to content

Talk:Women's March on Portland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

Done

---Another Believer (Talk) 05:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing protests

Should another wave of protests ([1]) be mentioned in this article? MB298 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this protest is specifically tied to the Women's March on Portland, though, right? I do think this might belong somewhere at Wikipedia, but not this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@MB298: I just created John F. Kennedy International Airport protest. I'm still trying to see if there might be a more general article about the protests over Trump's executive orders. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: RfD on Austin and Seattle March articles

The Women's March on Austin and Women's March on Seattle articles are both under consideration for deletion. Given that those are the only other 2 Women's March articles besides this one that focus on a specific location, it might be worth discussing the value of having this article be separate from List of 2017 Women's March locations. The main Washington, D.C. march doesn't even have its own separate article. Jw12321 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not finished expanding the article (I've posted additional links above, and there are plenty more). Certainly WP:GNG applies and this event is notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Speakers?

It would be good to list the speakers, I haven't found a list anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is still a work in progress, and I'll definitely mention speakers if they are confirmed by reliable sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I've nominated this article for Good status under the "Culture, sociology and psychology" category, but I'm not sure if the "Politics and government" category is more appropriate or not. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

I think it could use some more work before it gets to that point. Bits of feedback:

  • I'm not sure that the structure works: having a "motivation" section based solely around the organisers' quotes, a logistics section and an impact section that completely ignores any reference to what comes after seems a bit strange to me - it reads like the negatives have been intentionally set out from the perceived positives and put later, making these earlier sections non-NPOV. Chronological order would solve this problem.
  • "Despite their inclusion of a women to speak about rights for trans women, and adding to the program an opportunity for Black Lives Matter supporters to stage a die-in, the original organizers were criticized for not addressing issues of diversity" is not NPOV framing - in using "despite" and structuring it in that way it implicitly suggests that it should have been considered addressed
  • "Margaret Jacobsen, a 29-year-old activist and writer identifying as a nonbinary gender polyamorist,[26] joined the campaign on January 5, 2017, and became the march's lead organizer the following day" - this is typical of an apparent bias against critics that pervades through the article - it's akin to referring to the initial organiser as identifying as a "female gender monogamist", and it's a very awkwardly worded and clearly stigmatising description
  • Huh? Stigmatising description? I'm just saying how they identify, based on multiple secondary sources. Outlets felt the need to cover the fact that Jacobsen, whose self-identifications are quite different than the original organizers, took over. I'm just reflecting sourcing, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, you're not. The original organiser is not described in that way - a decision has made to refer to the second organiser as "nonbinary gender" (noun) which doesn't make grammatical sense/is intentionally awkwardly phrased and to single-out that the person sleeps with multiple people at a time as their only introduction. The only reason for doing this is to be dismissive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please, no accusations. I'm a gay man living in the liberal beacon that is Portland, Oregon. I'm perfectly comfortable around queer, nonnbinary, and polyamorous people. Setting that aside, I see what you mean re: grammar. I've removed "gender" and linked "binary" to the Gender binary article. So, the text now reads, "Margaret Jacobsen, a 29-year-old activist and writer identifying as a nonbinary polyamorist..." Is this better, or are you suggesting "identifying as a nonbinary polyamorist" should be removed altogether? I think we should keep in mind, media outlets noted their self-identifications specifically because of how diversity (or lack thereof) played a role in how this event was organized. I'm not mentioning Jacobsen's preferences just for the sake of doing so... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing the "gender" is better than what was there before, but introducing a person in the context of an article on a feminist event by how many people she sleeps with to contrast her from other people (!) is really quite off. I think there are better ways of explaining how diversity, or the lack thereof, played a role in how this event was organised. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? 1. They identify as nonbinary, so I'm not "introducing a woman". 2. How does their self-identification as polyamorous imply anything about their number of sexual partners? If you have specific suggestions about how to improve the article, then please share, but I feel like I'm being trolled at the moment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My bad, corrected. I cannot be any more explicit: the introduction of a person solely by an intentionally awkward introduction of their gender identity and the revelation that they sleep with multiple people - and to do so in the context of establishing difference from the original organisers - is completely inappropriate. That is as specific a suggestion as it gets. A refusal to acknowledge feedback does not, in fact, mean that it has not been explicitly given. I'm stunned at the pushback I'm getting on some of these very basic problems. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm stunned you think someone identifying as polyamorous implies anything about their number of sexual partners, and that you think me including mention of how someone like Jacobsen replacing a group criticized for lack of diversity is inappropriate. You didn't answer the question: are you saying you'd prefer to have "identifying as a nonbinary polyamorist" removed altogether, or do you have another way to cover diversity in mind? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Williamette Week article added as the most recent reference prominently links (to explain the lack of a 2018 march being in part due to "accusations of racism" in the 2017 march) to another WW article that says "But Jacobsen inherited a march rent by racial strife. Activists complained the event's original organizer, who lives in Eastern Oregon, refused to give a platform to minorities, immigrants and trans people." None of this clearly makes it in the article except right at the bottom in the context of failed partnerships - it really does read like it's going to some lengths not to mention this stuff, and where absolutely necessary to minimise it.
  • I've already singled out that phrase as minimising the issues even before I'd read the Williamette Week article explaining that the issues were in fact worse than referenced anywhere in the article. That sentence really doesn't do the job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, so far you've driven by the article, thrown some trash out the window, and accused me of being dismissive and possibly having a COI. I'm very much open to article improvements and want this article to be as good as possible, I'd just prefer suggestions be specific and requested with more respect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow exactly what happened in the switch from the "old" to the "new" organisers - where did the "old" organisers go?
  • I've completed quite a bit of research, but by all means, have a go if you feel inclined. At the end of the day, I don't think most readers will care how the Facebook takeover went down. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not just talking about the Facebook takeover - anything else explaining what happened with the change of organisers and change in direction would do a lot to clear up that section and make it less confusing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are critical groups who refused to participate listed under "partnerships"?
  • It doesn't really explain what the relationship/proposed partnership was here - it just says they refused to support it. It might be better to more clearly focus this on summarising the partnership falling apart and put the detail about the criticism further up - two large and well-respected groups who were prominently involved in other places refusing to support a rally because of what they'd been told about its priorities and messaging does not just have consequences for the rally in terms of a collapse of a formal partnership. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The section about the NAACP is confusing - I feel like the "teachable moment" quote needs some context if they weren't participating
  • Is it meant to state that refusing to endorse the rally was the "teachable moment"? That isn't really clear - when I first read it I thought they were participating in some form. There is clearly some to-and-fro here - what did the organisers do in response? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The group's president, Jo Ann Hardesty, said she was told that those issues, along with anti-Trump and Black Lives Matter messaging and signage, were "too political"." This is burying the lede, and especially badly contrasts with the "despite" sentence at the beginning." Why is this mid-paragraph at the end of the article?
  • African-American activists refusing to participate specifically in Portland because of issues with that particular march is not "small", and that comment reflects a dismissive attitude of critics that definitely appears throughout the article to the point of wondering if there are COI issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments like this are extremely dismissive of the criticism of the event - you're very invested in the idea that the event was an unequivocal success and in downplaying criticism. This is not a stance that's backed up in the sources - without even trying (I went to the most recent source you added) I found newspaper coverage indicating far greater problems than had been referenced anywhere in the article - problems seen as such by media covering the event. It deserves the coverage in the article that it got in reliable sources, and to not be buried at the bottom of the article under "partnerships". (To be clear, that is a specific suggestion.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, after being called dismissive three times now, I give up. I feel the article covers criticism of the event. There is no COI at play here. My only involvement is event attendance, and a wish to have a good Wikipedia article. Again, if you'd like to propose specific text additions, by all means, but until then I'm moving on to other projects and waiting for others to weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're nominating this for Good Article status - it usually goes with this that the nominator is willing to make changes in response to feedback. I'm getting tired of pointing out problems, making very clear suggestions to fix them, and then being dismissed. Don't ask for a review if you're not willing to make changes unless someone supplies you with exact wording. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Planned Parenthood chapter had previously elected not to participate when march leaders failed to incorporate the organization's issues into the event's platform." - this needs explanation, and also looks particularly bad given the one-sided "motivation" section and earlier one-sided descriptions.
  • Planned Parenthood initially refused to participate because the march failed to incorporate their issues. That's a huge deal considering their role nationally - and it's papered over in a sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would prefer that the article be updated with more content on the dispute with Planned Parenthood, that the updated content consist of more than one line, and that the updated content not be placed right at the bottom of the article. Better? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh here (came over from the post asking for feedback at WIR), but I think this one has some issues that still need resolving. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I very much appreciate the feedback, but some of this feels like drive-by criticism. If you have specific suggestions for article improvements, such as proposed text inclusions or moves, please let me know. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I don't really like how this discussion has evolved, so I'm going to step away. I'd appreciate feedback from other editors. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Great job on a complicated topic Another Believer.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Women's March on Portland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Starting a review. I skimmed through the talk page discussion; hopefully this won't be too complicated. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashorocetus, Thanks for taking this on. Yes, I disagreed with some of the feedback left on the article's talk page. But, I'm hoping you'll find the content is fair, neutral, and accurate based on sourcing. Not to suggest my previous work has anything to do with this article, but I have experience promoting similar protest articles to Good/Featured status, including Burnside Burn, Hands Across Hawthorne, Impeachment March, March for Our Lives Portland, March for Science Portland, and Not My Presidents Day. Happy to address any questions or concerns you may have. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

All right, here's my feedback: The article is well-written, so no issue on criterion 1. Stability is also not a concern. It is very well illustrated (Nice work on the photography, by the way!). Mostly, there are only minor concerns:

Verifiability

Margaret Jacobsen's identification as a polyamorist is not in the given citation (and to be honest I'm not convinced it's relevant, though it is certainly relevant to mention "nonbinary" here). Other than that, everything is good and cited.

For the record, the claim is verified here (inline citation 8). Do you still wish to have removed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's fine to include. Just not 100% necessary. The problem is the placement for citation 26 makes it look like that would be the one to look in for that information. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Broad in its Coverage

There are a few minor issues here. One small question is unaddressed: you mention that Families for Peaceful Protests planned to participate - Did they actually participate or not? I also am still somewhat confused after reading the "Motivation" section. What was the goal of the march? It isn't clear. Though if I recall (I was living in Oregon in 2017) it wasn't all that clear to me what the point was at the time either, so perhaps I'm just dense.

I've removed the claim re: Families for Peaceful Protests. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The motivation section says the purpose was to "unify and empower everyone who stands for women's rights, human rights, immigrant rights, civil liberties, and social justice for all". I also think the parent article (2017 Women's March) makes this evident if readers require additional context. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'm just dense. That all seems quite vague to me, but if that's what the protest was for then that's what it's for. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

Given the political nature of the march, before my review I was most concerned that neutrality might be an issue, but it actually is almost entirely OK. A couple minor concerns, however: Firstly, you never mention a right-wing perspective. Is it not relevant? I don't know, I admit the possibility that no prominent right-wingers weighed in specifically on the Portland protest, in which case there is no need to mention it. Second issue is the first sentence of the Motivation section: "Though it was not officially billed as an "anti-Trump" event, many participants marched to support women's rights and to reinforce protests against Donald Trump." - This strongly implies that Donald Trump opposes women's rights, which you might believe but is certainly not an NPOV statement.

I definitely would have included conservative perspectives if I came across in sourcing. I scoured sourcing hard, so I really don't feel I'm overlooking viewpoints here. Can you share how you think the Trump-related sentence is not neutral? I definitely take issue with his record on women's rights, but I still feel my wording here is neutral. This source says, "The marches were not "anti-Trump," according to organizers, but attendees were largely motivated by a resistance to the new president." Can you think of specific text changes you'd like to see? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for answering about the conservative perspective. That was my suspicion but I wanted to confirm. As for that sentence, I think it should be pretty clear how it implies that Trump is against women's rights (Saying it was supporting women's rights despite being not explicitly anti-Trump conflates anti-Trump with pro-women's rights). I understand that you believe that is true, but it is definitely not a neutral statement. I did try to think of a more neutral statement, but nothing elegant came to mind. What if you reversed it, so something like "Many participants marched to support women's rights and to reinforce protests against Donald Trump, even though it was not officially billed as an 'anti-Trump' event." - This way the "not officially anti-Trump" is more clearly tied solely to the "protests against Donal Trump" and you're not conflating "anti-Trump" with "women's rights". Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, sure! I'm not entirely sure I follow your reasoning, but I have no problem with your preferred wording. Changing now... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. It's always better safe than sorry on neutrality issues. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

The article looks largely fine, other than the issues noted above. I suppose I should also mention I found no copyvio concerns. Am putting on hold for 7 days for the necessary improvements.

Thanks for taking time to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, looks like we're good to go. I made some minor changes per MOS:LQ. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ashorocetus, Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_March_on_Portland/Archive_1&oldid=900840038"