Talk:March for Science/Archive 1

The Official Name

Resolved

The official name is now "March for Science" as stated in this Facebook post. This name is also used on their website, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The page should be moved. LaughingNx (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@LaughingNx: Yes. However, one is not supposed to move an article currently at AfD. I will move the page after the AfD closes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Satellite marches in the United States

Resolved

Reminder: Don't forget Portland, Oregon, and Eugene, Oregon! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Portland

Resolved

There is currently an entry for Portland, Oregon in the table, but I think this stat actually applies to Portland, Maine... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of participating cities

@Zuzie3: You change 100 to 300, but without adding a source to support this claim. Can you please provide appropriate sourcing, otherwise your edit will be reverted. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and changed 300 back to 100, per sourcing. Feel free to change back if you find sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I added the source. Sorry, I'm a bit slow with syntax and was working on the text. Am still adding sources now. Zuzie3 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:People's Climate March (2017)

Page watchers may be interested in contributing to Draft:People's Climate March (2017). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Source

• http://kuow.org/post/reasons-march-science-seattle-or-not ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The source has an interesting perspective from an industry group. Specifically how the 2015(?) flu vaccine shortage during the Obama presidency was due to bad science around thiomersal controversy. It might help to WP:WEIGHT the article appropriately. I don't see any other sources that are pro-science without being anti-Trump. - Bri (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Should the tables be converted to prose?

Should the tales be converted to prose? (see Not My Presidents Day, which has been promoted to Good article status, for an example) I figured I'd start a discussion before adding any tags to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not think that this would be a good idea. The Not My Presidents Day protests were only held in a few dozen location, all but two of which were in the United States. The March for Science protests occurred in around 600 locations, which is far too many locations to describe in pose. I believe that the best practice would be to have pose descriptions of the major locations, while also maintaining a comprehensive list of protest locations (this list may eventually need to be separated into its own separate article, similar to List of 2017 Women's March locations). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-partisan

The march is a non-partisan pro-science political movement. The media sources and official website focus on it being non-partisan. This is why I reverted to User:Brianhe's version - which removed the "anti-trump" statements from the introduction.Zuzie3 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Feel free to propose or make edits to the article, but this diff was reverted because it disturbs reference formatting and includes unsourced content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If there are sources that describe the event as anti-Trump, then we may need neutral language along the lines of: "event organizers say the march is non-partisan and pro-science, but some demonstrators are participating because they believe Trump's administration disregards science", or something similar. We need to include all points of view, within reason and with appropriate weight. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please give me just a few minutes, I'll write something that has both sides and sources, using your suggestions. I'm working to add the sources and also to do edits in small pieces like you said. It's tough to do when each edit is reverted seconds before I can add a source or fix wording.Zuzie3 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, take your time, and sorry for the edit conflicts. You might consider adding Template:In use to the top of the article while you are actively editing, to reduce conflicts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zuzie3: With this edit, you changed content and removed sourcing, but did not add sourcing to actually support the non-partisan claim. I don't see this mentioned in the sourcing you left behind. The USA Today article says, "American scientists worried about climate change and skeptical of President Donald Trump are planning a protest march in Washington, D.C." The Science article does include a quote in which an organizer says the event is non-partisan, but the article also says, "As a result of worries about the impact that President Donald Trump’s administration might have on scientists, Weinberg’s tweet also floated the idea of a “science march” to highlight the importance of research." The article needs to reflect this, and nothing more, until additional sourcing is added. I invite User:Brianhe to weigh in on this edit, if interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me about Template:In use. I have added several sources - both for the number of satellite marches and on the debate of non-partisan. I hope you'll be able to make changes to remove any material you think is not presented well without reverting the full edit. --- Zuzie3 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Trump protests template and category

Since the change has been made to reflect the march organizers' statement of non-partisanship, would it be appropriate to remove this from the list of anti-trump protests? Drsupersoniclovemachine (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think so, but that was a bigger change than I was comfortable making abruptly. --- Zuzie3 (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drsupersoniclovemachine and Zuzie3: I hope you don't mind, I moved your comments into a new subsection so they aren't lost in the shuffle. I'm on the fence and would appreciate hearing from other editors about whether or not this article belongs in the anti-Trump template (Template:Protests against Trump sidebar) and Category:Protests against Donald Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be noted that William Happer is a climate change denier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:9DD5:7BA4:3048:E8EF (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Crowd size in Portland, Oregon

Unresolved

Currently, the table says "Thousands" for Portland, Oregon. Is this source enough to justify somehow bumping the total to 10,000+, of perhaps offering a range of "Thousands – 10,000+"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the source states that 10,000+ people marched; the source seems to replicate the thousands claim. However, if you can find a reliable source that gives a 10,000+ figure, I think it should be added in as a range since these figures strike me as educated guesses rather than hard facts. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive Sources

I've been saving a couple of sources in the article in Wayback Machine, and I noticed that many of them, including ones from January, had not been saved yet. We should probably go through and make sure as many sources as possible are saved in either the Wayback Machine or Archive.is to prevent link rot. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If only there were an automatic way to do this... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• • There is a way, for :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science

use :

https://wayback.archive.org/save/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science

use :

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/copy-links/

to get a list and Perl or Python to process list, and-or ask also at :

https://stackexchange.com/sites

AFAIK YMMV Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Redundant References

• <ref name="TWPGoingToProtest">
• <ref name=":1">

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Images in table

I've moved the images from the table to a separate gallery beneath the table. The images clutter the table and leave huge portions of irregular white space because most entries have no photo. There's no reason why these must be in the table rather than in a gallery. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. See this page for the List of 2017 Women's March locations - the white space issue is solved when the images are smaller than 200px. Victor Grigas (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not a gallery, though? Also, I think the quality of several of these photos is also iffy at best. I would much rather have a few high-quality shots, integrated in text, then a half-dozen or dozen images random sprinkled in the table. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So I think that 1.) images are going to keep coming in for the next few days, so we will have more and better ones soon 2.) if there is some empty space it's ok, like the womens march list as long at the images are small 3.) I'm ok with a gallery, but I'd rather 'plug-in' the best image available to each listed location if possible, and I think the womens march does that quite well, even with a few videos.

What if we do a gallery until there are enough photos to illustrate roughly 25% of the places on the list?

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what develops. I'd be curious as to what others think as well. Also, do images in tables have any impact on accessibility? I.e., for screen reader users? Neutrality^talk 01:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the images incorporated into the table since it is a cleaner display method and it does a better job of placing the images into context. I’m also of the opinion that visual depictions of the protest locations should be incorporated whenever they are freely available. These photographs give useful information about the protests that prose alone cannot provide; even a relatively mediocre or iffy photo can be useful for this purpose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Gallery?

I thought galleries were discouraged. Should the image be displayed as a right-hand column, kept as a gallery, or remove altogether? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:IG, galleries are acceptable but if we use a gallery then the policy will limit the number of images we can use. This is a major reason why I support integrating the mages into the table, since we can have illustrate more protests with photos. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Synth in background section

A person pointed out to me at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Climategate_2.0:_New_E-Mails_Rock_The_Global_Warming_Debate that there is a lot of synth in the background section. Articles should only use citations which have some overt connection to the topic rather than because an editor thinks there is some connection. I don't see any mention of the march or something by a march organizer or even a participant or a commentator on the march citing many of the things there. This is needed so we know the background actually does describe the background to the march rather than being one person's idea of the background. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the first section on past presidents and Franklin etc has been removed and that's good, but the one on Trump also contains synth. For instance did the Keystone XL Pipeline really contribute to the march and who says so? I would guess some of the newspaper articles describing the marchs in various places would be better sources for talking about the background of the event. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is good for Background to have a time context longer than 38 minutes (the very short time between adding template synth and deletion, especially for something that has been there for a month). I thought it was good to have diverse sources, but apparently that makes it easy to play the SYNTH card. It's been a month, but I think most of the sources have huge overlap on content. Also, since it was background, I thought having sources prior to the founding of the event was also good because they are less biased by the trigger. They would obviously not contain info about the March but certainly provide the contrast that wasn't explicitly stated starting with Trump. Would starting the paragraph with this ref help? The Founding Fathers, 18th-century tech geeks, would love the March for Science I will look to see if the organizers stated more about the context. StrayBolt (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Entries to add

I've added a bunch to the table but there still some missing:

Extended content

Denver - thousands [1] Salt Lake City - thousands[2] Phoenix, AZ - thousands [3] Santa Fe, NM - thousands [4] Tucson, AZ - 200 marchers, 2,500 rally participants [5] Bozeman, Montana - hundreds [6] St. Louis, MO - a few thousand [7] Wichita, KS - 1,000 or more [8] Huntsville, Alabama - 1,100 [9] Hartford, CT and New Haven, CT - hundreds [10] Providence, RI - [11] Geneva, Illinois - few hundred, larger than expected [12] Rapid City, South Dakota - event held, no number given [13] Anchorage, Alaska - 2,000 [14] Neumayer-Station III, Antarctica (Antarctic researchers) - [15] Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, Norway (Arctic researchers) - [16] Morgantown, West Virginia - 500 [17] Huntington, West Virginia - ? [18] Twin Falls, Idaho - 60 from across Magic Valley region [19] Springfield, Illinois - 700+ [20] Spokane, Washington - thousands [21] Takoma, Washington - more than 1,000 [22] Newark, Delaware (not to be confused with Newark, NJ): 600+ [23] Amherst, Massachusetts - hundreds (drew from across western Massachusetts) [24] Annapolis, Maryland - between 400 and 450 [25] Norfolk, Virginia - hundreds [26] Winchester, Virginia - 100+ [27] Corpus Christi, Texas - dozens [28] Fort Worth, Texas - more than 1,000 [29] Baton Rouge, Louisiana - hundreds [30] Edmonton, Alberta, Canada - several hundred [31] Honolulu, Hawaii - more than 1,000 [32] Louisville, Kentucky - [33] Normal, Illinois - "dozens upon dozens" (probably can mark this as ~100) [34] Las Vegas, hundreds [35] Fort Pierce, Florida, 200+ (drew from across Treasure Coast region) [36] St. Augustine, Florida - about 500 marched through Lincolnville [37] Jacksonville, Florida - hundreds [38] St. Petersburg, Florida - 2,000 to 5,000 [39]

--Neutrality^talk 02:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this list. I am trying to keep an eye out for other participating cities, too. I also redirected List of March for Science locations to this page, in case we want to fork. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you; this is going to be very helpful. Also, I hope you don't mind me crossing off entries as I add them in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do! Feel free. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In other news, I've been finding a couple of sources indicating that marches took place in Japan, Australia and New Zealand [40] as well as throughout several African countries [41]. They're not particularly specific, but I'll be on the lookout for more detailed sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I found a news article containing listings for a bunch of marches in Southeast Asia, including Japan, South Korea and Vietnam (plus a bunch of New Zealand and Australia listings): [42]. I'll start adding these in later tonight unless someone else beats me to it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Entries added. Here are a few more to add WilliamsburgExpanded info on PhilippinesRockford, IllinoisDavenport, IowaPalmerston North, New ZealandMissoula, MontanaHayword, WisconsinManchester, UK. You'll need Newsbank to access them. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And another source [43]: contains a bunch f listings for South and Central American countries, plus some other places. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oregon

Verification needed, but this source lists quite a few participating cities in Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: You've done a tremendous job tracking down participating cities. Not sure if you saw this source or not, but there may be some smaller cities in Oregon to investigate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I completely missed this, but I'll look through the locations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, here are all of the locations in Oregon.

List of Cities
Ashland Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Pendleton Roseburg Sisters Bend Corvallis Grants Pass Newport Salem St. Helens Portland

After crossing out the cities already listed, there are seven locations not included in the master list. I'm going to attempt to find sources that have more detail than the city location, but this may not be possible in all cases. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I just added in the last city. Most of the protest locations did not appear to have received coverage beyond being included in the Koin 6 master Oregon List, but Ashland and Kalmath Falls did have some additional information. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Corrections to Washington DC march

I am replacing the references with one from the Washington Post to correct inaccuracies. The rally and teach-ins were on the grounds of the Washington Monument, not the National Mall, although both Reuters and the NY Times cannot distinguish between the two. I do not think the estimate of the "early crowd" at 15,000 is relevant, and I will try to find an overall estimate. Also, the keynote speaker was Bill Nye.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing all participants

Should we really be listing every march that took place across the globe? The article is mostly an extremely long list of cities where people held their own marches, and many of them had less than 1000 participants. What if we were to only list cities with more than 10,000 people participating unless the march was otherwise notable (such as major police activity or other protest-related things)? This seems to reach the definition of WP:TRIVIA. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See above that others with the power to add new pages plan to shift all of that to a list-of-locations page.

71.193.191.101 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I split the list of locations off into a stand-alone article a few minutes ago since the section was getting rather long. In regards to your question, I think we should be attempting to document as many marches as we can since they are a very closely connected set of phenomena of a topic that received intense media coverage.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

List of March Locations

I recently added a final batch of protest locations to the list of protests (I expect a couple more locations to trickle in over the next few days, but I doubt I'll be doing any more mass additions like I have over the last couple of nights). Going forward, I think that the lists should be branched off into their own article. They're taking up a lot of space, and they're quite frankly a pain to navigate through even on a desktop. I would personally prefer such a list article to resemble the List of 2017 Women's March locations article: with protests organized by state and country, and with images integrated into the table. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I support forking the list of participating cities to List of March for Science locations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I finally carried out the split; this should make the article a lot more manageable. Sometime in the future I'd like to add an expanded prose section detailing some of the largest or otherwise most significant marches. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Great work! This article looks so much better now, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)