Jump to content

Talk:Day Without a Woman

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

A Day Without a Woman vs. Day Without a Woman

[edit]

Which should we use as the article's title? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official website?

[edit]
Resolved

Is https://www.womensmarch.com/womensday/ an official website? Should this be added as an external link? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

czar 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- HelloStarling (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability ??

[edit]
Resolved

Appears not to have added up to much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? This received a massive amount of coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this section as resolved. Notability is clearly not an issue here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

@Funcrunch: Thanks for uploading so many fantastic images from the San Francisco demonstration. They are wonderful!, and I've added one to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Thanks! I hope to see photos added from more cities that held demonstrations. Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-centric?

[edit]

I believe International Women's Day demonstrations were held around the world, but this article is quite U.S.-focused. Does anyone have a sense of whether 'Day Without a Woman' protests were mostly held in the US, and this article has content gaps, or if other demonstrations around the world weren't really affiliated with 'Day Without a Woman'? If 'Day Without a Woman' is specific to the U.S., should the categories reflect this by being U.S.-specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day Without a Woman was actually an international event, with the planning beginning in Poland. This article is very US centric, as the event was very international. HelloStarling (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved the International Women's Strike discussion to the subsection below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, now given the existence of the International Women's Strike article, this article should actually be only U.S.-specific, and categorized accordingly? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Women's Strike

[edit]

Looking through this again, there are many mentions of the international nature, but the article itself is divided into 'International' and US. As the events in other countries were equally important to those countries, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be two articles - Day Without A Woman and International Women's Day 2017? Or if we just need to beef up the international perspective, and through doing that even out the binary? HelloStarling (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HelloStarling: The "international" and "United States" subdivisions are recent additions to the article. I definitely don't think a separate article is necessary, but the article does need to be expanded to include more information about non-US activities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Alright, I'll see what I can find/just keep adding what international information I can and if a clearer way of organizing the information surfaces I'll try and format accordingly. HelloStarling (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HelloStarling: Great! Please just make sure we are only adding information specifically related to Day Without a Woman, and not adding details about International Women's Day activities taking place around the world that may not be specifically affiliated with Day Without a Woman. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Did a little more research on this... It appears Day Without a Woman is the US branding of the event. So the International Women's Strike is the global version, in the US it's called Day Without a Woman, various Women's March groups were involved with the planning in their respective countries and may have shared the branded graphics. So Day Without a Woman is not international in and of itself, but a US namebrand of an international movement. https://www.womenstrikeus.org/about-the-iws/ . The International Womens Strike page currently redirects here, but I see your handle in the history. So I guess I'm back to my other question about separating the two entities - which would keep this article US-centric but correctly so - or expanding the whole article to address the international organizing. HelloStarling (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HelloStarling: Having not done any research myself, I trust your suggestion and support you working on separate articles for International Women's Strike and Day Without a Woman. We can then work to flesh out each article separately, and a merge would always be possible if there is too much overlap. Thanks for looking into this, and I hope to see an expanded International Women's Strike article soon. Best to keep the Day Without a Woman article specific to DWaW activities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HelloStarling: I went ahead and created a stub for International Women's Strike. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Thanks so much, I've moved the Strike 4 Repeal information there and will continue to flesh out the whole article. HelloStarling (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HelloStarling: Thanks. Once the DWaW article is updated to say its a branded campaign for the U.S., we can make the categories U.S.-specific, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following be removed from the strike actions section in order for the article to be U.S. specific?

Extended content
Participant in Santa Fe, Argentina.
See also: Strike 4 Repeal
The strike took place in over 50 different countries and in 400 cities across the world.[1] There were tens of thousands of women in Poland demonstrating for women's rights.[2]

References

  1. ^ "'Day Without a Woman' draws protests, arrests". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-03-09.
  2. ^ Abrams, Susan Chira, Rachel; Rogers, Katie (2017-03-08). "'Day Without a Woman' Protest Tests a Movement's Staying Power". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-03-09.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about that, the image for sure, and as long as there's proper linkage to the International organizing, then this info in that space is a little odd. HelloStarling (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the image for now. Perhaps I'll be able to revisit this article when I'm finished expanding Not My Presidents Day. Thanks for your work on this article and the International Women's Strike article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organizers?

[edit]

Initial discussion

[edit]

Previous versions of this article mentioned the main organizers, but the names have since be removed. Should they be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they were removed because if they were added, you would have to mention that one of them is a convicted terrorist. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so, should their names be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care either way. But if you include the name, you really ought to include that one is a terrorist. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She maintains that she confessed under torture; this information should be included as well. Funcrunch (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link to "One of the Organizers of ‘A Day Without a Woman’ Strike Was Convicted of a Terrorist Bombing" shows why the info should be included: because major media (just google it) cover the fact that a convicted terrorist was among the organizers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The court rejected her claims of torture “for lack of evidence.” Exhibits presented at the trial, which lasted six months and was reportedly attended by an International Red Cross observer, included physical evidence such as bomb making materials found at Odeh’s home." Besides, she was a member of a terrorist organization, regardless of her murdering people. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to which, it is entirety ordinary for convicted criminals and suspects to claim innocence; it doesn't make them innocent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Day Without a Woman, not about any of the individual organizers. If we include information about her conviction we should include that she contested it (both from reliable sources) for WP:BLP reasons. But we don't need to go into further details; readers can read the sources for more information. Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included a two word descriptor (such as "political activist") for each of the women I included. As a user, I find such descriptions useful. But the fact is that although this demonstration boasted a number of notable organizers, headlines and press attention focused on the fact that among the organizers was a convicted terrorist. (she is free because of a politically-driven prisoner exchange, and faces charges for violating American law) As usual, we follow reliable sources in deciding what merits inclusion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better to put a mention of the terrorism conviction in the Criticism section, and leave the names of the organizers without descriptions in the main body of the article. Funcrunch (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is no statue of limitations on terrorism and murder Doom777 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I removed Odeh. The Haaretz article states:
"While the outlets attacking the effort repeatedly describe Odeh as being “behind” the Day Without Women, as having “conceived” it, helped “organize” it, or being a “leader” of it, there is scant evidence of her having done anything other than sign a letter that was actually somewhat critical of the Women’s March effort for being too “corporatist lean-in feminism” and urging it into a more radical direction. Unlike Sarsour, who is one of those leading the Women’s March movement, Odeh’s name doesn’t appear on the Women’s March website, nor does her group, the Arab-American Action Network, appear on the long list of the effort’s “partners.”"

She was not part of this. Adding this info is incorrect. All other sources are right wing, unbalanced. In the race to decide whether to label her a terrorist or not, everyone forgot to look to see if she was one of the actual planners. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Megalibrarygirl, I know you are a good, experienced editor; we have often worked together on articles about books and writers. But Perhaps you have not edited often on politically sensitive articles? The "right" or "left" wing nature of a source is not taken into accunt in assessing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you call Haaretz? The sources are there, you just don't like it. Further, there is a discussion going on, so you can't just edit while there's a discussion ongoing, no matter how it makes your side look. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: I didn't notice you objecting when E.M.Gregory made this edit during the ongoing discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7, so I don't always notice every edit. Furthermore, the consensus is to include, for what it's worth. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is a consensus to include the terrorism conviction at this point. If you're just counting !votes (not that this is a formal RfC), note that Tagishsimon said that the name of the organizer should be included, not the conviction. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain that, unlike other organizers, news coverage of her leadership role pointing out her conviction for terrorism was extensive and significant, continuing after the day of protest ended. We follow the coverage in determining notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the Organizers of ‘A Day Without a Woman’ Strike Was Convicted of a Terrorist Bombing, Snopes [1].
  • The Palestinian Woman Convicted of Terror Casting a Shadow Over 'Day Without Women' Haaretz [2].
  • Israeli decries ‘Women’s Strike’ organizer convicted in bombing that killed her uncle, JTA [3]
  • Women's 'resistance' is embracing the wrong Palestinians New York Post [4]
  • 'Zionists cannot be feminists', Women's March organizer claims I24 [5] (article contains significant discussion of Odeh)
  • Today in Stupid: Feminism is Intersectional Enough to Include Convicted Terrorists but Not Zionists? Mediaite]] [6] (contains significant info on Odea as coverge continued after the Day Without a Woman).
  • Illegal immigrant,' 69, who killed two young men by blowing up a supermarket and bombed a British consulate wants to organize the 'next women's march' in a day of 'anti-capitalist feminism' across the US Daily Mail [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4261654/Illegal-immigrant-terrorist-organize-women-s-strike.html#ixzz4bOSqRQJ4]
  • Does Feminism Have Room for Zionists? New York Times [7].
  • Explain it to Me Huffington Post [8]
  • A Test for the Anti-Trump Movement, Tablet Magazine [9]
  • and in response: Smearing the Womens Strike, Socialist Worker, [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that these articles - and others not cited above - support 1.) the notability of Odeh's participation; 2.) he role as an oraganizer; and 3.) the notability of and connection made by major media with her status as a convicted (and, I might ass, unrepentant) terrorist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on a couple of the sources you have cited:
Your comment about Odeh being "unrepentant" is unnecessary and irrelevant. Funcrunch (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she was really one of the organizers. The Haaretz article said that she wasn't even mentioned on the page itself. I think a lot of the sources that are mentioned above with E.M.Gregory are reacting to the claim that she was an organizer. Which she wasn't. I think we should leave her out of it completely, or if people feel she needs to be added, it probably should be under a "controversy" section. I'd totally support adding her in that context, since as E.M.Gregory has shown there is a lot of coverage surrounding the controversy over her alleged involvement in planning. What does everyone else think about a controversy section? @Funcrunch, Tagishsimon, Sir Joseph, Another Believer, Hennesseyvebss, and Doom777:. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested earlier that Odeh's conviction should be discussed, if it's mentioned at all, under the existing Criticism section. I don't know if it makes sense to have a separate Controversy section in addition to that, but I wouldn't be opposed. Funcrunch (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory's sources are valid. I don't know. I may have gotten things wrong. I've found Al Jazeera listing her as an organizer. This is a mess, IMO. It does seem obvious the right latched onto her conviction to smear the left, so it may not be NPOV to add her to the article unless we do so in the criticism section like Funcrunch suggested. How can we be sure that 1) she was an organizer since we have different sources saying different things and 2) where should she be included? I hate when sources give different info and this feels really messy. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly is messy. I have just created a stub for 1969 Jerusalem Supermarket bombing, which I hope to have the leisure to expand and improve. I think her involvement belongs in the body of this article because of the coverage her role in the march/strike attracted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk page of that article you created and your latest edit to this page, is this article now going to come under extended-confirmed protection for being broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Funcrunch (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about having Controversy section either way, I just think that Odeh should be listed as an organizer, due to all the sources saying she was, despite the Haaretz article. Wikipedia is a third source, we just report on reports. Haaretz article is in vast minority. At most, there can be a disclaimer saying that her association with the march is disputed by some--Doom777 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I just reverted your recent edit because, as I stated in my edit summary, I disagree that we have consensus to include the terrorism conviction in the manner you've presented it, and (as I already mentioned above) the Haaretz article you cited specifically does not support that Odeh was an organizer. I propose at this point that we either make a formal RfC or request dispute resolution. Funcrunch (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funcrunch, You and an SPA are the only editors arguing for removing this information. I am wiling to hear a cogent argument about why information that major new sources regarded as significant (a convicted terrorist as an event organizer) should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. First of all, please read the actual text of the comment by Tagishsimon, who specifically did not support including the terrorism conviction. Second of all, Megalibrarygirl has not supported adding the terrorism conviction in the manner that you have done. Third, I dispute you characterizing Hennesseyvebss as a single-purpose account when they made a half-dozen edits on a completely unrelated topic before touching this article (in fact, before this article was even created). I again propose that we take this to a dispute resolution board or start a formal RfC (I may do so later today if no one else does). Funcrunch (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute filed. I will notify the individual involved editors at their talk pages in a moment. Funcrunch (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as blatantly POV Sorry to say, but I cannot support this edit. Using the "convicted terrorist" as a primary description is pretty blatantly POV. Considering that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, I would never apply labels. The other problem I see is that there is there is confusion over whether Rasmea Yousef Odeh is really an organiser. The best way to deal with this is to simply mention this in the criticism section. Something along the lines of "The involvement of Rasmea Yousef Odeh was criticised by <insert names> due to <certain reasons>". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lemongirl942: Note that there is an pending case at the dispute resolution board regarding this issue, though coordinator Robert McClenon has suggested formal mediation or an RfC due to the large number of involved editors (several of whom have yet to weigh in at DRN, though they are not obligated to do so). Funcrunch (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it was not merely "criticized," it was also cheered, by others it was neither cheered nor criticized, but, rather, discussed in terms of the impact of the participation of Odeh, and, to a lesser extent, Sarsour, on the demonstration because it made groups and individuals choose not to participate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your viewpoint. The coverage I see is opinion articles criticising her participation. Where is the coverage which is supporting her participation? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lemongirl942 blatantly POV. Thanks Hennesseyvebss (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on including organizers

[edit]
First of all this RFC has been attributed by many as plain deceptive and indeed it seems to be the case.Secondly,in the limited discussion that has taken place, participants have decided to not qualify the organiser as a "terrorist" but rather move the details regarding the issue to a criticism/controversy section but that could hardly be deemed as the outcome of this RFC due to it's extremely low run-time.Personally, I feel someone open another RFC correctly documenting the axis of dispute and ask for the opinion of the community on the issue.Winged Blades Godric 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposing that the names of and brief discussion about organizers of the demonstrations be included in the sub-section on Planning, United States, in cases where multiple, WP:RS, secondary sources discuss issues related to their involvement in organizing this demonstration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection to RFC. This appears to be a deceptive RfC designed to create a false consensus. There does not appear to be a dispute above about whether to include a brief description of the organizers. The dispute appears to be about whether we should say that one particular organizer was a convicted terrorist. I take no position on that issue at this time. I'm just noting that it's impossible to have a meaningful RfC without identifying the content that's actually in dispute. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) ---Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, there as also discussion oabout other organizers and their impact on teh demonstratinos, assertions that Angela Davis and Linda Sarsour turned the strike in radical directions that persuaded some groups and individuals not to participate. There may have been other organizers discussed in this way. I wanted to make this encompass all for them, rather than having separate debates. I am not proposing long seconds on each, only a phrase with a few good sources. Paltry turnout, the fact that so many anti-Trump activists stayed away for this reason is, after all, part of the story of the strikeE.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are separate issues that require separate debates (if disputed). There's simply no way around it. That's just how Wikipedia works, and it's a good thing. You can't shortcut the consensus-building process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Paltry turnout, the fact that so many anti-Trump activists stayed away for this reason is, after all, part of the story of the strike" , well thanks for confirming that this RfC isn't actually about whether to name the organisers, it's about how to cover some controversies surrounding the event. It would have been much simpler if that had been said at the outset. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is about putting the fact that one of the organizers was ca convicted terrorist, (convicted of murdering shoppers in a grocery store by helping plant a bomb there.) Another is an outspoken anti-Israel activist, a third is Angela Davis (an activist who many anti-Trump Americans regard as a terrorist-who-hired-a-good-lawyer). Perhaps others are controversial as well, but these are the ones I heard about and read about in the press. It is significant because it made some activist, anti-Trump feminist progressives who would have supported this march go to work on March 8 instead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with DrFleischman that the wording of this RfC is misleading. The primary issue in dispute here, as I explained at DRN, is whether and how to include the information that one of the organizers was convicted of terrorism. The fact that at least one reliable source questions whether Odeh actually was an organizer is also of concern. But I do not see that as the primary dispute here as she has been described as an organizer by many other sources. Regardless, the opinion I stated earlier hasn't changed: If we are to include Odeh's terrorism conviction in this article, that information should go in a Criticism or Controversy section, not in a list of organizers that merely says "Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist" without context (as in this edit). Funcrunch (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it was not merely "criticized," it was also cheered, by others it was neither cheered nor criticized, but, rather, discussed in terms of the impact of the participation of Odeh, and, to a lesser extent, Sarsour, on the demonstration because it made groups and individuals choose not to participate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with both of the above, a secondary question is whether, not only Odeh, but also Angela Davis actually were, in any significant sense the organisers. in the way this edit implies, rather than perhaps being simply supporters, who some media latched onto. Haaretz does not call Davis 'an organiser', it refers to a letter signed by eight women inc. Davis and Odeh, Haaretz says about both "The most recognizable name on the list of signatories to the letter was former Black Panther Angela Davis. But the name that caught the eye of the conservative media and blogosphere and supporters of Trump was Rasmea Yousef Odeh. Odeh, 69, is the associate director of the Arab American Action Network and leader of that group's Arab Women's Committee". Haaretz goes on "While the outlets attacking the effort repeatedly describe Odeh as being “behind” the Day Without Women, as having “conceived” it, helped “organize” it, or being a “leader” of it, there is scant evidence of her having done anything other than sign a letter that was actually somewhat critical of the Women’s March effort … … Odeh’s name doesn’t appear on the Women’s March website, nor does her group, the Arab-American Action Network, appear on the long list of the effort’s “partners". If this material is used, it belongs in 'controversy' per suggestion of Funcrunch above, since there is no indication that these people were anything more than controversial names that some media latched onto, rather than, in any meaningful sense, leading organisers. Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As best I can figure out, while March 8 is a traditional date for women's protests, the first call for an American women's protest strike on March 8, 2017 was issued by Odeh, Angela Davis, and 6 other activists on Feb. 6, with the organizers of the Jan Women's March not endorsing that call until Feb. 14, [15] and putting up an "official" page. Although darned if I see what makes theirs "the" official page, since there is at least one other "official" page: "International Women's Strike USA," (Here: [16]) and perhaps others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on the differences between the naming practices (and thus which page is the official page is found here: Talk:Day_Without_a_Woman#U.S.-centric.3F). The nuts and bolts explanation is International Women's Strike organized since November, Women's March organizers branded Day Without a Woman, it's considered US-branding, same as how in Argentina it was called Ni Una Menos and in Ireland it was called Strike 4 Repeal. I've found at least one source that claims the international participation in the Jan 21 Women's March was actually a ramp-up to the International Women's strike, but I'm working on fleshing that out a little more. So, 'official' sources are going to be difficult regardless, as we're not dealing with one singular organized front. However, this comment adds very little to the current conversation other than to suggest that organizers of the international women's strike in the US and organizers of the Day Without a Woman may be different or overlapping. HelloStarling (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with above. Also wondering if since this topic has ignited so much discussion it may be deserving of its own section in the article? Many of the organizers have ignited similar conversations, and two-word descriptions don't necessarily do them justice. HelloStarling (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deceptive RFC, speedy close This is an extremely deceptive RFC and a weird way to go around consensus. The dispute is not what E.M.Gregory is characterising. It is simply about whether we should insert that one of the organisers was a so called "Terrorist". There is absolutely no proof that she was one of the organisers btw and I already said that if included, this should be there in the controversy/criticism section section. So speedy close this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, no one here has objected to the notion that there may be several controversies about this event, (including possibly the involvement of Odeh). What they object to is WP:Coatracking those controversies into an edit that implies that the only known organisers, or the most significant organisers, were 'a terrorist', 'a former Black Panther' and a third woman. BTW the 'Denver' source is not even remotely about the identity of the organisers, which is ostensibly the subject of this RfC. Isn't it? Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC).... 'Time' names THE four organisers, as not including either Odeh or Davis. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the "Denver source" [19] reads, "Linda Sarsour, national co-chair of the Women’s March..." She is one of the 4 "leaders" of the March in the article you cite, and her role in this March is controversial. Here are just a few of the headlines on articles about her role in this March: "Roseanne Barr fires back at anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour " [20]; "Linda Sarsour Doesn't Need to Make Zionist Women Feel Comfortable", [21]; "Anti-Israel Activist Linda Sarsour Arrested During Women’s Day Demonstration", [22]; "Anti-Israel Activist Linda Sarsour Says Zionists Can’t Be Feminists," [23]; "What Anti-Zionists Like Linda Sarsour Get Wrong About Feminism"[24]; "Can You Be a Zionist Feminist? Linda Sarsour Says No" [25] The Nation; "Pro-Sharia Law Women's March Organizer Arrested in NYC" [26]; "Alan Dershowitz: Why Must Women Choose Between Feminism and Zionism?" [27]; "Trojan Horses in Women’s Movement" [28]. those are just a few of the sources that popped up in a quick google on "sarsour" + "march 8" + anti-israel. Note that the March 8 march is over, but one of those articles was published just today. Can someone remind me why are we arguing about putting a brief, well-sourced statement into an article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A French commentator weighs in; harsher on the organizers than any of the American commentators I've seen, but the French understand leftist nuance."Du féminisme à l’islamo-gauchisme : réflexions sur la “marche des femmes” [29].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)C[reply]
So is the discussion now also about labeling Linda Sarsour as an "anti-Israel activist" or as "Pro-Sharia Law"? I still don't understand your aversion to putting it in a criticism or controversy section. HelloStarling (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources appear to be about Sarsour, not about Sarsour + Day Without a Woman, she seems to have largely escaped controversy on THIS issue, this gets even more COATRACK-Y. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"those are just a few of the sources that popped up in a quick google on "sarsour" + "march 8" + anti-israel." That precisely explains what you are doing wrong. I can find other sources describing Sarsour as "Pro Palestinian, Muslim rights activist". See Pro-Palestinian activist raises $100,000 for vandalised Jewish cemetery. We do not randomly assign coatracky POV labels to people. Pincrete has already explained the reasons quite well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Logo / wordmark?

[edit]

Should the wordmark seen here be added to the logo parameter in the infobox? Or, if there another image that can be used to fill the logo section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike 4 Repeal

[edit]

Is Strike 4 Repeal specifically related to Day Without a Woman, or is this a separate activity organized in conjunction with International Women's Day? We need to be sure this article remain on-topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HelloStarling: Pinging you since you're currently working on the article. I am concerned we may be adding tangentially related content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I was already responding. Here's my thoughts... It's a bit fuzzy. Day Without a Woman was inspired by Black Monday, which happened in Poland in October 2016. It was a protest against restrictive abortion regulations. Strike 4 Repeal was also inspired by Black Monday, and the strike part of it is in direct reference to the minimum full day a woman in Ireland seeking an abortion needs to take in order to travel. Strike 4 Repeal is also an ongoing movement that contributed to the inspiration behind Day Without a Woman. Women's March on Washington - Ireland also suggested to its followers to strike in solidarity with Strike 4 Repeal, and directed them to wear black and follow the lead of S4R. What I'm not totally clear on is if Day Without a Woman and Strike 4 Repeal evolved at the same time, both related to Black Monday, or if Day Without a Woman evolved out of Strike 4 Repeal and Black Monday, I can look for more sources to see if this is clarified somewhere. So I'd say if it's not considered one of the Day Without a Woman events, it's definitely deserving of a section explaining its connection to it. If we're not looking to clarify the genesis of the day itself but just reference all "Day Without a Woman" branded events, then maybe not. HelloStarling (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effect?

[edit]

The article cites a couple events that drew a thousand or so protesters - relatively few for an international action, in my opinion - and doesn't give any information on their effect. Sure, a municipal court (and other institutions) couldn't operate but did businesses lose money? were stocks affected? etc. I haven't done original research but from this article it seems little to nothing was accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4aa9:e900:f040:3556:204:30b3 (talk • contribs) 2:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Day_Without_a_Woman&oldid=1241035117"