Talk:International Women's Day/Archive 1

Correct 2012 theme
The article claims this year's UN theme is "Empower Women – End Hunger and Poverty", but the actual theme is "Empower Rural Women – End Hunger and Poverty". I know it's just a word, but it changes the idea a lot. The citation put after the wrong theme confirms this. I therefore ask an administrator to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.77.222 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Improper Citations
Two citations (5,6) look not completely proper. They refer to two newspaper articles in italian, which content (italian politicians comments on the IWD, and UN/EU institutions statistical data) might be either not relevant, or directly cited.

Dates mismatch
The article says that Women's Day ... commemorates the Triangle Factory Fire (New York, 1911), where over 140 women lost their lives, but the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire says that the fire occured on March 25 1911. How come? --romanm (talk) 20:54, 6

Klara Tsetkin
I was talking to a friend of mine from a former Soviet satellite state who mentioned the name of this women in reference to International Woman's Day. From what little I can gather on the internet, the story seems to go that she was responsible for choosing the date of this holiday in the Eastern Bloc. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Does it have some truth, or is it just Soviet propaganda? --jrs 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the German article, Clara Tsetkin suggested the creation of an international women's day on 1910-08-27 the Second International Women's Conference in Copenhagen, but named no specific date. It was first celebrated on March 18 and 19 of the following year in Denmark, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. On 1917-03-08 (Gregorian Calendar) there was a strike of women in Sankt Petersburg that led to the Februar Revolution, and the Second International Conference of Communist Women in Moscow 1921 moved the IWD to this date.


 * So, according to this article, the story is true, and the IWD was a thoroughly Communist thing in the beginning. -- 213.47.127.75 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stories about a stand up in New York as the beginning of this holiday are untrue and once were capitalistic propaganda because of the Cold War. I think it's strange that this myth is still established as I see. Sadly it is another proof for the sustainability with which US propaganda brainwashed the people of the US in the times of the Cold War and still does in our times...

Oh, the name of that lady is Clara Zetkin and not Klara Tsetkin...she was a German woman and so you have to spell her name Z-E-T-K-I-N correctly. When I first saw this ridiculous spelling I had to speculate who the hell that Tsetkin girl was.94.218.210.133 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is Clara Zetkin and she was a German Marxist(communist)(1857 - 1933), and beyond doubt she invented the celebration. It is in honor of the "first female strike" which Zetkin recognizes,as far as i remember it was in USA but i do not remeber the year. The first "celebration" was on 8 march 1911, LONG BEFORE the Russian "revolution"!!!

I am from a former soviet satelite, and in my youth it was obligatory to learn everithing about the communists,the theory, the preparations, the "revolution" in Russia.... There was NOTHING about female strike in Russia on 8 march 1917 "wich sparked the revolution" and so on an so on... This nonsense is entirely new! The celebration began as entirely communistic, but now it is actualy to all women.

Where is IWD an official holiday?
Is Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Macedonia a full list of countries where this day is an official holiday? Russian Wikipedia mentions also Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Is it true?--213.247.213.207 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of the countries' articles mention it as a public holiday in enwiki. (I wonder if that means that people don't have to work that day :-) Alensha 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this does mean people do not have to work that day. It is true at least for Ukraine, and since all these (except Macedonia) were republics of the USSR (which held it this way) I think it is also true for the other mentioned countries. 193.111.251.242 10:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In India, IWD holds a lot of significance. one can easily see a lot of celebrations going on on this day. This portrays the power of women in the modern era and how vital her role is in the society. One of the local malls in pune is even organising a cultural event on the occasion of IWD, and they plan to give away designer shoes that fit any women trying them on. way to go...

Well the list has grown quite large ove the years, but there's not a single source to support it. Therefore, I'm hanging a fact tag to every country mentioned, so that, hopefully, the gaps will be filled eventually. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this way the list looks scary... improvement suggestions? --Illythr (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how valid any of these sources are, but I'd like to throw them out for discussion anyways. - I'm not sure that Zambia belongs here. Their embassy's site does not mention it in its list of official holidays. See - http://www.zambiaembassy.org/holidays.html - This site supports claims that IWD is a holiday in Angola - http://www.bank-holidays.com/holidays_2010_6.htm. - The British Embassy is closed on IWD in Azerbaijan - http://ukinazerbaijan.fco.gov.uk/en/our-offices-in-azerbaijan/public-holidays - The British Embassy is not closed on IWD in Croatia. http://ukincroatia.fco.gov.uk/en/our-offices-in-croatia/our-embassy-in-zagreb/location-and-access/embassy-holidays-2010 Hluska (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging in minor article
There's an article on MDZ (International Women's Day in Czechoslovakia, 1948 - 1989), but it's really quite short. I suggest it should be merged into this main article on the IWD. --Sverre 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems like a perfectly reasonable idea: why don't you go ahead with it. — Gareth Hughes 17:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Do we keep that long article title as a redirect, or should it be deleted and a shorter one created? (It's not likely anyone will type "MDZ (International Women's Day in Czechoslovakia, 1948 - 1989)" instead of MDŽ or MDZ). Alensha 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alensha. You are right that it is unlikely that anyone will type that long title into a search, but you never know how many external links there may be to it. As redirects are cheap, it's usually best to use one. That way, if anyone does come looking for the article they can find where it has moved to. — Gareth Hughes 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alensha. :) --Sverre 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some sources for IWD in Czechoslovakia? Now it all looks like somebody typing in what they heard somewhere. Zocky | picture popups 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in Czechoslovakia after 1989 the view on IWD was not very nice. But it was rather because of the practices done during communistic times. As people forgot these things, they return to the celebration of this day, at least symbolically - for example by giving flowers to women. Quite many people think it should not be an official state holiday day anymore (however, it is, and always was a normal work day); and many people believe it was created by communists. The day is often politicized topic. Just today, there was a long discussion in the Czech Parliament whether it should stay a state holiday or not. The result was: it stays (the leftist parties were for it, rightist ones against, many MPs ignored this voting). Normal people, in general, are not very interested in similar political discussions because they do not affect their lives at all but they show the incompetency of the politicians. Miraceti 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For people, who don't know about the background of IWD during communistic era: The day was very politicized. Roughly said, in fact, who did not celebrate the day, was against the Communists. Communistic labour unions arranged parties to celebrate the day. These were rather misused for a political agitation. Women get small gifts which should tighten them to the regime. The celebrations used to end in wild drinking parties of Communists and people sympatizing with them. Nowadays, people younger than 30 years do not have the IWD connected with these practices. Miraceti 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, those debauched, unholy commies. You forgot to mention the massive group sex orgies organized on this and other days by the local Komsomol and party committees. The filthy fiends were doing that to attract the population to Communism and destroy traditional Catholic family values. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also to grow up birth rate --Umnik (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

US Postal Service
This unsourced paragraph really makes no sense, other than as a sort of vignette of what may have taken place at one particular post office facility. I seriously doubt that it would extend beyond that to the level of "the US Postal Service" as claimed. Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Violence
I started a paragraph describing what happened in Tehran in Martch 2007. Please add more information about these women. I'm also interested in more information regarding other violent encounters on International Women's Day. There may be a wish to develop a different subheading- such as "Violence on International Women's Day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallmat (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A need to promote 'Patriarchy Theory' industry, perhaps? 124.186.172.158 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not observed by Western countries?
According to the infobox the only Western countries to observe this day are Israel and Italy. This is patently wrong, but since the error is so gross, I'll leave it to others to sort it out. __meco (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reproductive rights
International Women's Day is often a time for activists to promote reproductive rights (e.g. abortion rights), this probably deserves to be included. ADM (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although with appropriate, unbiased wording. Regardless of your political beliefs, this topic comes up every year on Women's day, so it is relevant to mention. By the end of the day, the day doesn't seem so much to be about women as it does political grandstanding (on both sides). 24.5.133.210 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

First Day of Spring
Isn't first day of spring generally regarded as 21st of March and not the 1st of March? Reg4c (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention of IWD by the founder of International Men's Day
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Jerome teelucksingh (IMD founder) comparing IMD and IWD:


 * Jason Thompson~ An Australian sociologist has posed a theory that International Men's Day is a desire by men to mimic or imitate International Women's Day which he disparages as a self-centered "Me-Too-ism". This is clearly an erroneous view when one realizes that IWD and IMD promote different aims both in their stated objectives and in practical observations, though perhaps the objectives occasionally intersect on points such as the promoting of equality. Unlike IWD which focuses heavily on women's emancipation from oppression, IMD seems predominately focused on celebrating and promoting positive male role models and other issues unique to men's experiences. Would you consider this to be an accurate view, and could you explain a little more about the differences between the two days?


 * Dr. Teelucksingh~ IMD was not merely included on calendars to correct a gender imbalance. IMD has a deeper meaning. The day is designed to create solidarity among males and bridge the gender gap. IMD is unique because women have promoted this day and willingly participated in IMD activities. The success of IMD is the fact that women’s groups have welcomed this day. Probably in the future the approach of IMD could be adopted or modified by IWD. Both days strengthen and empower men and women, but we must not allow women to portray men as the ‘enemy’ and vice versa. The long gender war must come to an end. There has been too much sadness, single-parent families due to divorces and too many victims.

Not sure if there is something useful for the entry here or not, found it interesting nonetheless. 124.186.172.158 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 International Women's Day
"women are resourceful, resilient and courageous in the face of hardship"

Maybe it is true, but for me it's seems like it's an opinion, it's not a fact, although you can get that impression from reading this sentence. It needs editing, like "Its aim is to show that women are resourceful, resilient and courageous in the face of hardship". I would do it myself, but I am sure there are people here who'd do it much better than me as English is not my first language. Byt the way, the "comment" above mine should be deleted or something I think. My apologies if I edited this page wrongly, I did it for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henioo (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Women are victims of whom?
International Women’s Day was created in 1910 to promote socialist political objectives and was always referred to by the Communist name ‘International Working Women’s Day’. It was restricted primarily to the Soviet bloc. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the word ‘working’ was largely dropped along with it’s socialist meaning. Beginning in the 1970’s IWD became a vehicle for feminist concerns. Whereas IWWD was previously used to highlight women’s oppression by a bourgeois upper class of men and women, 1970s feminists changed the basis of the day by stating that men as a class of “chauvinists” completely controlled women who were each and all men’s victims. Women were no longer viewed as part of the bourgeois upper class. One can say that in the 1970s IWD became a brand new IWD with males -all males- for the first time being promoted as the single enemy. But even with this new ideological basis IWD limped along as a fairly insignificant world event until 1980s when “Patriarchy Theory” was elaborated as the brand new theory and also new basis for the need to observe IWD. It was in the 1980s that women began to celebrate IWD in vast numbers (mostly out of a new concern that men were out to oppress them) and on this basis the event has continued to grow primarily in terms of a gender war, the principle being that men alone as a privileged class hurt women alone as the oppressed class. International Men’s Day has a completely different reason for coming into being. Although IMD objectives occasionally intersect with those of IWD, such as advocating equality between the sexes, it is predominately about celebrating positive male role models, a very worthy aim in a social context which tends to highlight only males behaving badly. Said concisely, International Women’s Day started as a day for women to promote socialist objectives, especially for proletarian women to fight against oppression by the upper bourgeois class comprised of men and women both. In the 1970’s it became a new movement claiming that men alone oppressed women, and that IWD will be used as a vehicle to highlight, primarily, an assumed gender war. Said differently IWD shifted from being a class war, to a gender war. International Men’s Day is not based on the assumption of a gender war. IMD is primarily about promoting and celebrating positive male role models in a contemporary world context which is obsessed with teaching all young boys and girls that males behave badly, and only badly. 124.187.93.92 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. I hope this is useful for understanding the evolution of the reason for women's oppression and hence need for a women's day to voice their concerns. At present the main entry doesnt reflect the evolution of IWD from class war to gender war. 123.211.94.143 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

IWD is an official holiday in South Africa
IWD is an official holiday in South Africa. I know because I have been living here for the last 52 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.8.251.250 (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins

 * The first IWD was observed on 19 March 1911 in Germany following a declaration by the Socialist Party of America.

We need some explanation of this international connection!!!!!!!!!!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mess
This article is a mess. We need a more coherent structure, and we don't need every incident associated with IWD around the world to be cited.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unigine insists on positing game advertisement on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.70 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New Holiday?
I just heard of this holiday for the first time today (2011) and everyone on Facebook is jumping all over it. You bet no one said boo about it last year or previously because they hadn't heard of it either. So I recognized the reference in the first paragraph. I saw the same documentary film they are only vaguely recalling here. It became a call for fire safety measures to be enacted. Nobody was intentionally locked inside, they were trapped. I bet they are confusing it with this incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliekadams (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart needed
There needs to be a chart for the In modern culture section. Right now it's very hard to read. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Colombia
In the paragraph that talks about the countries in which this is celebration is observed, but not a national holiday, Colombia should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalguaska (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And in the future, I recommend using edit semi protected to draw attention to your requests.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @112, i.e. 01:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012
Link ref'd by text 'Tower Hamlets' (ref #45 in this version) is dead, as of 025503082012 GMT.

78.86.226.136 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. The link is currently tagged with dead link and there's not much else to be done about it, since the internet archive does not appear to have a useful copy of the link.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @107, i.e. 01:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Goodle?
Is google, not goodle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.72.104 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * . -- N  Y  Kevin  @108, i.e. 01:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda?
Is it correct to classify the IWD as a propaganda event? Aaker (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Woman's Day 2013
Everyone get ready to celebrate International women's in the year of 2013. Every one take a pledge on this Women's day that we should not do any violence against women's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.96.178 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

2017
2017 International Women's Day --> most of this section is surely not appropriate for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.104.165 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Apocryphal?
Are we sure that the 1857 story was fabricated? I mean, those two, which claim that it happened are less reliable sources?

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/womensday/pages/how_content_1.asp http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/interwomen.html

--85.74.125.119 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The UN source is actually a teaching project sponsored by the UN. The UN's official page doesn't mention 1857 anywhere.


 * Scholar books are usually more reliable than teaching books. Idem for articles in scholar journals (in this case, history and sociology journals). In this case, we have two scholar sources that are independent from each other.


 * IF you look at the "History" section, 8th March was chosen because it fell on Sunday in the year 1911.


 * Apocryphal histories can survive long after they have been debunked. They are repeated on lot of sources, and many sources copy directly from other sources without checking the information. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Unsourced Content
I removed the following unsourced content, because it clearly contradicts other sourced content immediately below.

"With February Revolution in Petrograd (a previous name for St. Petersburg, Russia). In the winter of 1917, conditions in the capital, Petrograd, were grim. The layout of the city seemed to emphasise the divisions among its people. The workers' quarters and factories were located on the right bank of the River Neva. On the left bank were the fashionable areas,the Winter Palace, and official buildings, including the palace where the Duma met. In February 1917, food shortages were deeply felt in the worker's quarters. The winter was very cold ñ there had been exceptional frost and heavy snow. Parliamentarians wishing to preserve elected government, were opposed to the Tsarís desire to dissolve the Duma. On 22 February, a lockout took place at a factory on the right bank. The next day, workers in fifty factories called a strike in sympathy. In many factories, women led the way to strikes. This came to be called the International Women's Day."

I also removed the following content, because it did not appear to add any information to the article, and appear to be promoting the citation content's author.

"In the 1980s historian Renée Coté uncovered the origins of the March 8th date for International Women's Day. Her research was published in 1984 in Canada, as, La Journée internationale des femmes ou les vrais dates des mystérieuses origines du 8 de mars jusqu'ici embrouillés, truquées, oubliées : la clef des énigmes. La vérité historique. Montreal: Les éditions du remue ménage. "

Zhujiangshuiguai (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

March 8 origin?
It seems that a number of sources are in disagreement about the origins of the March 8 date as International Women's Day. Perhaps the article would benefit from an "origins" subsection.Zhujiangshuiguai (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

International Women's Day vs International Day of Women
Women are both citizens of the world and citizens of the village. Some women are International Women, while most are just Women. Marie Curie, Hillary Clinton or Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the President of Liberia - Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf or Ms Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria are International Women. If this Day celebrates Women in the elite society that is the UN, then it is aptly named. Otherwise, if it refers to the Chibok girls kidnapped by the Boko-Haram, or the weeping and grieving women of the Gaza, the rest of global mothers and girls, then it just is Women's Day or the International Day of Women.

This might not cause whoever matters to change it, but words have meaning, and "International Women's Day" sounds like one for the elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.76.4 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120407024131/http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl+news/March+8+in+Poland+Still+Marching+Together+for+Freedom+and+Equality.htm to http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl+news/March+8+in+Poland+Still+Marching+Together+for+Freedom+and+Equality.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

woration?
This word appears right at the beginning of the Page. I have looked it up and barely understand it. It is an obscure modern word that doesn't seem to fit the sentence. Can we change it?

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection necessary?
The topic is featured in today's Google Doodle and Wikipedia's On This Day. Article is at risk of vandalism, mainly by IP users unless the article is locked against IP edits to prevent vandalism Ryan (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Protection request was denied. As of right now, does not appear to be enough disruptive activity to justify protection. Safiel (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 2016 Follow-up So it's International Women's Day 2016 and was there any requests for semi-protection/pending-changes protection regarding the article since it is featured in 2016 Google Doodle? Ryan (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Right flower?
Please change mimosa in picture explanation, Russian post card, to lily of the valley. I'm pretty sure that's not mimosa.

16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Publicgoods (talk)
 * Hi . updated the caption for you. Cheers!   07:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121025153841/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C03%5C08%5Cstory_8-3-2011_pg12_3 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\03\08\story_8-3-2011_pg12_3
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130511225721/http://www.pravo.by/webnpa/text_txt.asp?RN=P39800157 to http://www.pravo.by/webnpa/text_txt.asp?RN=P39800157
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120316235638/http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/Multilaterales/Articulos/SocioHumanitarios/Others/2011/Press%20release.html to http://www.cubaminrex.cu/english/Multilaterales/Articulos/SocioHumanitarios/Others/2011/Press%20release.html
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://mfa.uz/rus/ob_uzbekistane/naselenie_i_naionalnie_prazdniki/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160305125035/http://happywomensdayquotes2016.com/when-is-international-womens-day-2016 to http://happywomensdayquotes2016.com/when-is-international-womens-day-2016

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308090043/http://mfa.uz:80/rus/ob_uzbekistane/naselenie_i_naionalnie_prazdniki/ to http://mfa.uz/rus/ob_uzbekistane/naselenie_i_naionalnie_prazdniki/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927183523/http://www.archivesdufeminisme.fr/article.php3?id_article=80 to http://www.archivesdufeminisme.fr/article.php3?id_article=80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

History

 * [In the West, International Women's Day was first observed as a popular event after 1977 when the United Nations General Assembly invited member states to proclaim March 8 as the UN Day for women's rights and world peace.] But women of Eastern European origins in North America were celebrating International Women's Day decades earlier than that. During World War II, some Western countries marked the date with an emphasis on women's contributions to the war effort and to the defeat of Fascism. Eleanor Roosevelt praised such celebrations of women's worldwide unity in her "My Day" column in 1944.

I've taken this from the article (with the exception of the first sentence which I include here for clarification). Clearly IWD was celebrated in the West before 1977, but three snippets from newspapers don't prove it was widely celebrated. In addition, the Ukrainian celebration in Canada was pro-Soviet, and the celebration in Australia was Communist-linked, Katharine Susannah Prichard being a prominent Australian Communist. There is no doubt that Communists and socialists around the world celebrated IWD, but that is already stated. The third snippet only mentions IWD in passing; it refers to British feminist Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert, but gives no indication of how widely IWD was celebrated.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead
I've deleted a whole chunk of information from the lead that wasn't mentioned in the article (and had no citations). Moreover, purple ribbon does not link to anything to do with IWD, and the 1975 Icelandic women's strike did not happen on 8 March.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been an attempt to dilute the political significance of the day with vague and unsourced assertions. On the other hand, there has just now been a push to assert that the day started with the Russian Revolution, which is clearly untrue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jinty Nelson
I have removed Jinty Nelson as a source. For one thing, she cites this page as one of her main sources. Her other main source is Kaplan, who we use extensively. I have replaced the citation of her with one of Kaplan, because she has got her information from Kaplan. She says Spanish Communists celebrated IWD "from" 1936. Kaplan refers to a march in 1936. The Spanish Civil War began later that year, and then Franco took power, so it's unlikely that the Communists were celebrating anything. It's also a very opinionated piece, which claims the Communists "hijacked" IWD. In fact, Communists like Clara Zetkin were responsible for popularising it. Yes, Nelson is a historian, but she's a medieval historian and hasn't put much work into this. I don't think we should use it in any form.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The next women's day 8/3/2017
The next women's day 8/3/2017

Commander varun (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . IWD is held March 8 every year. It never changes. Cheers!  07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The theme is "Be Bold for Change" (https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme). But when I went to edit the article, I saw a different theme -- but I didn't see it in the non-edit view. 37.99.35.34 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There seem to be different versions, but clearly the UN version is what we have in the article: "Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030". See: .--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan
At the end of the "In modern culture" section, the article says "In Taiwan, International Women's Day is marked by the annual release of a government survey on women's waist sizes, accompanied by warnings that weight gain can pose a hazard to women's health," and links the citation http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/09/2003556662. However, the page at that address goes to no length to support the statement that "IWD is marked by the annual release" of anything. Rather, it describes a particular survey of which the results were "highlighted yesterday on International Women’s Day [in 2013]." 98.71.193.74 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Shockingly this was still in the article. I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

1977 or 1975
The UN says they adopted IWD in 1975, not 1977, so I have amended the text. Unfortunately, the Independent has put out an article partly lifted from Wikipedia, which refers to 1977:...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 UN Theme
I've copied this from above because it is lost in old comments:

The theme is "Be Bold for Change" (https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme). But when I went to edit the article, I saw a different theme -- but I didn't see it in the non-edit view. 37.99.35.34 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There seem to be different versions, but clearly the UN version is what we have in the article: "Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030". See: .--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The theme has just been changed to "Be bold..." I think we need to sort this out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Day Without a Woman draft
Page watchers may be interested in helping to expand Draft:Day Without a Woman. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See Day Without a Woman. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine
Jacobin has a special issue on the socialist origins of International Women's Day.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/category/blogs

--Nbauman (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Apocrypha
I've have put the "Apocrypha" information into the "History" section and condensed it. I don't think there's any point having a separate discussion of the origins of the day, and I don't think we need to discuss a false story at such great length. There is obviously some confusion about the origins of the day, and this could do with some more work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Strike
Page watchers are welcome to assist with the expansion of the newly-created International Women's Strike stub, which was deemed wanted on the Day Without a Woman talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Purim
regarding the reversion : is it really needed to add any "conspiracy theory"-grade sources, explicitly claiming that IWD comes from Purim? :) --Djadjko (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, you put the information under "Apocrypha" together with the 1857 story, which implies that IWD does come from Purim. If you're just saying the dates are close, that's true, but it's not worth saying. Those articles are just musings about the two events, enough to hang a blog on, but not something that belongs in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, "apocrypha" is for rumours, fakes and other unproved, non-canonical works and theories. Theories (often rather antisemitic ones) deriving IWD from Purim are apparently quite popular in Russia. Instead, I've made a reference to some articles and blogs by Jewish women noticing the close dates. And yes, I'm not really sure how that should be put into the article. --Djadjko (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps, it would be safe to add a simple link to Purim in the "Other holidays honoring women" section. --Djadjko (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that section is a good idea. As I say below under "Cleanup", Lady Day, for example, isn't particularly relevant. Purim likewise is very different from IWD. Rather than a long list of holidays honoring women, it would be better just to list similar holidays (i.e., days relating to women's right) under "See also".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615162719/http://www.emancipatie.nl/_documenten/vvnl/doc/2006/KaplanSocialistOrigins.pdf to http://www.emancipatie.nl/_documenten/vvnl/doc/2006/KaplanSocialistOrigins.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912033137/http://www.azerbaijan.msntour.az/index.php?categoryID=7 to http://www.azerbaijan.msntour.az/index.php?categoryID=7
 * Added tag to http://myfiles.md/d/20495/aa/154-XV-28.03.2003.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl%20news/March%208%20in%20Poland%20Still%20Marching%20Together%20for%20Freedom%20and%20Equality.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512003425/http://armeniainfo.am/about/?section=holidays to http://www.armeniainfo.am/about/?section=holidays
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509124057/http://russian.bishkek.usembassy.gov/kyrgyz_american_holidays_ru.html to http://russian.bishkek.usembassy.gov/kyrgyz_american_holidays_ru.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312022647/http://en.www.info.vn/society/traffic/20965-hanoi-streets-jammed-on-intl-day-for-women-.html to http://en.www.info.vn/society/traffic/20965-hanoi-streets-jammed-on-intl-day-for-women-.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311075325/http://www.agentia.org/monden/ziua-interna-ional-a-femeii-de-8-martie-google-posteaza-un-desen-pentru-acest-eveniment-8533.html to http://www.agentia.org/monden/ziua-interna-ional-a-femeii-de-8-martie-google-posteaza-un-desen-pentru-acest-eveniment-8533.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Women's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170308061547/http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/international-womens-day to http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/international-womens-day/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

International Working Women's Day
I have removed the statement that the day was "originally called International Working Women's Day" from the opening sentence. This isn't mentioned in the body of the article, and Kaplan's article and the Jacobin article don't support it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are these sources satisfactory, ? [1], [2], [3] ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs)
 * No. The first two draw on earlier versions of this article, and echo its mistakes. The third, written by Lenin in 1921, is interesting and could be used some way in this article, but simply because he refers to "this international working women’s day" (in lower case) does not mean that it was "originally called International Working Women's Day". The Socialist Party of America did not call it that in 1909, and the German poster from 1914 we use in the article simply calls it "Women's Day" [Frauen Tag].--Jack Upland (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mining the Marxists Internet Archive:
 * Alexandra Kollantai (1913) used the term "Women's Day".
 * Alexandra Kollantai (1920) called it "Women’s Day or Working Women’s Day" and said, "It was decided to hold the first International Women's Day on the 19th of March, 1911".
 * Joe Stalin (1926) called it "International Communist Women's Day!
 * Leon Trotsky (1930), writing about 1917, said: "The 23rd of February was International Woman’s Day".
 * Clearly there was some variation in the name, but we cannot say it was "originally called International Working Women's Day". I can't find the full text, but at the 1910 Copenhagen conference when Clara Zetkin and others proposed the day, the resolution called for the establishment of a "special Women's Day". That's as original as we can get. The American event in 1909 was not international, but was called a "Woman's Day".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Added a new section below (had not seen this section before) with further references and corrections to what is currently on the article - although it is not definitive that it was formally called IWWD, it is definitive that what is currently in the article is incorrect and is missing important information. 67.230.128.84 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup
Considering this has got over a million views these past few days, and considering it has been copied by numerous sites and publications, this is an inadequate article. International Men's Day, which is far less significant, seems to be a better article. I've tried to make some improvements, but these are some outstanding issues: Maybe we can improve the article by next year.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead is problematic. I tried to tidy it up (see above), but it needs to be rebuilt. Another editor then inserted a lot of information about the Russian Revolution. While I think this is an important fact about IWD history, the weight it now has in the lead is disproportionate. I didn't want to continue an edit war about this, so Wikipedia went through IWD with an article that implied the day was Russian. I am surprised this survived the day!
 * The "In modern culture" is a mess. It has no structure, the information is repetitive, and much of it is unsourced and out of date. Some of it is just random, like information about a drumming performance in Montevideo in 2005. Perhaps it could be structured by continent. There seems to be a general experience in post-Communist countries, and perhaps they could be put together.
 * The "History" section is better, but has gaps. There seems to be dispute about the origins of the day, and we could clear that up. There is very little about the second half of the twentieth century, and nothing about what the "second wave" feminists did with the day.
 * There is a list of "Other holidays honoring women" which includes Lady Day. Is this relevant?
 * I have removed a lot of misleading information in the article (see above), and there might well be more. There is a danger of circular sourcing, given the amount of sources that have copied this article.
 * There seem to be POV issues with people pushing various lines (see above). We need the article to be balanced and accurate.


 * removed my "cleanup" tag with the message, "Requests on the talk page should not be advertised on the article itself. Concerns with certain sections should only use the template on those sections." The above is not a "request". It identifies multiple problems with the article, over multiple sections, including the lead and the "See also" section. There is not a part of the article that doesn't need cleanup.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you've identified problems such as sections being "a mess" without structure, if you are hesitant to make such changes yourself as they may be major or controversial, I strongly recommend creating a draft of your ideal version and adding it to the talk page rather than adding a cleanup tag to the entire article. As a side note, I personally assert that information that emphasizes the Russian Revolution's impact on the holiday should not be removed or considered to necessitate cleanup; it has significant direct relation to the topic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, "Other holidays honoring women" list says "Lady Day (March 8)", while the linked article says it's celebrated on March 25 (not March 8). --Djadjko (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Brendon's comment above, my hesitation is mainly due to the masses of work involved. I have made many changes to the article as you can see. With regard to controversial changes foreshadowed above, I will make these if no one lodges a complaint — if I have time and energy. I have never suggested removing the Russian material, but it's an issue of weight. Russian material should be balanced with material about other countries. IWD did not start in Russia. I don't understand why you moved the tag and your comments make me none the wiser.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the unsourced information from "In modern culture". Some of it was tagged "citation needed" since 2009, and the "cleanup" tag has been on the article for a year.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the tag has now been removed without a meaningful comment. Oh, well, I have fixed a lot of the problems. The problem is that this article only gets spasmodic attention once a year.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Socialist origins / "International Working Women's Day" - for History section
To correct and add information at the start (2nd paragraph currently) of the History section:

From the official documents of the conference, it is stated "a special Women's Day" in the resolution (not "International Women's Day" as currently phrased) source: page 21 https://ia800200.us.archive.org/1/items/InternationalSocialistCongress1910SecondInternationalConferenceOf/172849.pdf or other formats https://archive.org/details/InternationalSocialistCongress1910SecondInternationalConferenceOf and further, that the main demand that the day is focused around, for Women's Suffrage, "... must be discussed in connection with the whole women's question according to the socialist conception of social things."
 * also it is described as the "Second International Conference of Socialist Women" not "an International Women's Conference"

Writing in 1920, Aleandra Kollantai explained further the context: "In 1910, at the Second International Conference of Working Women, Clara Zetkin [3] brought forward the question of organizing an International Working Women’s Day. The conference decided that every year, in every country, they should celebrate on the same day a “Women’s Day” under the slogan “The vote for women will unite our strength in the struggle for socialism"." She goes on to use the terms "Women's Day", "Working Women's Day", and "Women Workers' Day", and "International Women's Day" interchangeably in describing the first ten years of the day. source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/womens-day.htm

In 1913, Kollantai wrote an article a week in advance of the first March 8 day (although in Russia, it was "February 23" as they had a different calendar) and in the intro to this letter online, has an official ('capitalized') name, "the Day of International Solidarity among the Female Proletariat" (although, this would've been in Russian not English, and it is not referenced where this name came from - but perhaps if there was an original copy of the newspaper the article appeared in, i.e. Pravda, that could be ascertained) source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1913/womens-day.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.128.84 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Those things seem to be important when discussing the origins of IWD

A recent comic by artist Stephanie McMillan illustrates this point: "March 8 began as International Working Women's Day. But bourgeois institutions attempt to remove the content of class struggle." source: http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/red-wedge-comix/for-international-working-womens-day

67.230.128.84 (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have made the first two corrections you propose, which are supported by the sources we already have. With regard to the different names given to the day, I have demonstrated above (under "International Working Women's Day") that International Working Women's Day was not the original name for the day. It was called that by some socialists, but not consistently. As you say, Kollantai used various names. I don't think we should get hung up about the name. I also think that two paragraphs about Russia/USSR is about enough in the History section, given the size of the article. And we also have enough about the early history. There is very little from the 60s and 70s. It would be good to get some history from other countries and periods, not that I'm saying what we do have can't be improved. I also think the socialist origins of the day are quite clear in the article ("socialist" and "communist" are both mentioned a dozen times). There clearly is a capitalist attempt to take over the day — see EY's setting up a pseudo-official website and hash tag, as discussed above — but an encyclopedia has to document the way things are, not the way we think they should be.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Soviet poster
Hello everyone!

1932 Soviet women's day poster emphasizing the freeing of women from their second-class-citizen status.

Actually the meaning of this poster is different. "8th of March is a day of uprising kitchen slavery workers. Down with opression and subtopia of home life!"

Sorry for my English.


 * What's the difference?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, why not translate the text? A translation was already provided with the image.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We Can Do It!
A picture of this poster was recently inserted into the article. It is a piece of US wartime propaganda that was later appropriated by feminists. There's nothing in this article that makes a connection between the poster and IWD, and IWD isn't mentioned in the article about the poster. If it is included here, we need some kind of explanation, but I think it shouldn't be included. If we are going to have a poster, it should be a poster produced for IWD.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that We Can Do It is a wartime poster about working women but it is related to feminism and female empowerment and IWD is all about that. Bi-on-ic (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have pictures that are tenuously connected to IWD. And I don't think Westinghouse encouraging its workers to work harder is female empowerment. The history of that picture is so convoluted that its inclusion here is misleading and confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

American photo
Since we're on the topic of pictures, what's the point of the the photo of the American servicewoman in Afghan dress? It was part of a fashion show, apparently celebrating IWD, though it occurred on 3 March. It doesn't really illustrate anything mentioned in the article, and it's slightly strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

'Importance' ?
Observation & comment - - -

I live in the U.S.A. and have five 2019 calendars (all from different publishers/printers) around my house.

None of them have International Women's Day listed on them.

If this day is so important, or as important as 'everybody' is making it out to be, why is it not listed on any calendar?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you can see the answer looking at the article. It has had different importance at different times and in different places. In some countries it is a public holiday, but in the USA it is not.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Official website"?
There is a link in the "External links" section containing the text "Official website" and linking to a privately registered .com website. I can't find anything to indicate that the website has any connection to the Socialist Party of America, which according to the article originated the day, nor to the United Nations or any other international body, so I can't work out in what sense it might be called "official". The article says that the day was adopted in 1975 by the United Nations, and yet the UN does not seem to link to this website. I can see nothing to indicate that this website is anything other than a commercial enterprise set up by whoever happened to be first to register the domain name. I would therefore suggest that unless somebody can clarify exactly what this website is and what claim it has to be "official", the link should be removed. -- Oliver P. (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Socialist Party of America hasn't existed since 1972, and has never had any control over the international day. That website is run by EY (Ernst & Young). As mentioned in the article, EY has developed its own "theme" for the day, leading to the confusion discussed above. I agree it should be removed as the "official website", but maybe we should clarify its exact status somehow...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the references to the EY site except for the references to the "themes". I think these "themes" are problematic. The only connection between the EY theme and the UN theme is the word "change". I wonder how EY would deal with something like "Women and HIV". Yes, these themes get picked up, but that's because people think the site is an "official website". As far as I can see, there is nothing on the site about an organising committee or any endorsement of the theme and the contents of the website by anyone other than EY and the corporate sponsors. There doesn't seem to be any involvement of women's groups in the management of the website or the choosing of the theme. It seems to be just the work of PR hacks. Is this notable? I haven't been able to find any source talking about what EY is doing. We use EY's website as a source. This looks like a case guerrilla marketing and I don't think we should endorse it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for making those improvements. -- Oliver P. (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the time has come to decide what to do about EY. Since we have no source that endorses EY's "themes", apart from the EY website. I think they should all be deleted, which I will now do.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we were wrong. The site was set up by Aurora Ventures, and EY was the dominant sponsor in 2017 and 2018 (I think), but isn't now. I have added something about the website into the article because I have found a secondary source that discusses this issue, as well as an article that discusses corporate sponsorship more generally. This year no one tried to add in the website's theme. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because the article was protected.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting urgent help
Hi,

Just a while ago I completed my second article on Wikipedia namely Aurat_March - a Women's Day related article. while I was amidst to make correction and review request on various Wikipedia women projects. Some one has placed speedy deletion notice on the article for perceived copyright issue.

While most of the places I have tried to write in my own language, some of the third person statements reported by news portals may still need little corrections. While personally I do not think that is a serious copyright issue which can not be dealt with little more paraphrasing. But frankly I do not know how to deal with situation. Please help me either in necessary update or help me in transferring it to my sandbox page.

Bookku (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Factory fire
I have removed this from the lead where it was recently placed:
 * A New York textile factory caught on fire on 8 March 1908, with the owner trapping his female workers inside to prevent them from striking with other factory workers. He had been forcing them to work 10-hour days, making fabric of mauve and lilac color. 129 workers died in the fire. The colors of the fabric they were working on were chosen as the symbol of the international women's rights movement.

This seems to be another apocryphal story. It seems to be a reference to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which has been discussed here some years ago. Leotaud says the factory was at Washington Square, which is where the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was. However, that fire was on 25 March 1911, and the other details are wrong. The strike seems to be the New York shirtwaist strike of 1909, and the details of these two events seems to be stitched together and embroidered. The sources cited are not particularly reliable. None of the well-researched histories of IWD mention the fire or the strike. We know the date, 8 March, was chosen later, and the colours are only recent. Furthermore, if it was valid, it should have been placed in the body, not in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations in lead
The lead does not need citations. It is summarising the body of the article, and any claims should have a citation in the body, not in the lead. This article has no shortage of citations. There is no point in adding extra citations to the lead, especially if those citations are irrelevant or unreliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
I just requested "semi-protection" for this page because of the continuing vandalism, but it was declined.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Intro editing
I have removed this from the intro:
 * For women at that meeting, the day was about demanding the right to work without discrimination.

If this means the 1910 conference, our article says: "Though conference addressed a number of issues including social legislation, education, public health and the Czar's attempt to erode the sovereignty of Finland, its most animated discussions were on women's suffrage". The minutes of the conference state that women's suffrage was the main issue that the day was intended to promote. The removed text has no citation and doesn't reflect anything in the body.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Structure
Do we need a separate section for each year from 2010 on, especially seeing as we have a list of UN themes elsewhere?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the recitation of the UN themes from the yearly commemorations. I think it was pointless to repeat the themes in two places. However, as a result 2018 has disappeared.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Chinese and Cuban Revolutions
I have removed the suggestion that IWD was "related to" the Chinese and Cuban Revolutions from the infobox. Cuba is not mentioned in the article at all. China is, but it seems that the Kuomitang supported the day as well as the Communists, so it seems misleading to say IWD was related to the 1949 Chinese Revolution based on the facts we have. It is true that Mao's government inaugurated IWD as a public holiday, but so did many governments. Are we going to list them all?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Imbalance
Just to quantify and clarify the imbalance in the history section that I've mentioned earlier: there are 21 sentences covering from 1909 to 1917 inclusive. There are 7 sentences covering from 1917 to 1965. There are 5 sentences covering 1967 to 2000. There are 4 sentences about an incident in 2007.There are four sentences covering 2001-2019 in general, and then there's the yearly updates. The first decade gets the most attention. When people want to contribute it's usually in that decade. While that decade is important, and there is no reason not to add to what we have, it is problematic that the rest of the history is ignored. If anyone is inclined to add to the history, it would be good to focus from 1917 to 2007. There is a lot of history there, and we've missed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request of Help
I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support
I have been actively supporting some of south Asian women issues related article. While working on article Aurat March relating to International Women's Day protests in Pakistan, I realized public debate in Pakistan has come at cross road over 'My body my choice' and it would be difficult to include all facets in the same & English wikipedia deserves separate article for this issue so I have started an article in draft name space Draft:My body my choice (Feminism). I would welcome any copy edit support for article or links to relevant resources on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanking in anticipation.

Bookku (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting support
Hello,

Requesting to add women's rights issue article Aurat March to your 'watch list' during week of International Women's Day.

While I am steadily working on article to improve further as suggested in notification template. Article is coming across repeat anon vandalism of intentional misogynistic hate against women's movement plus some un-sourced original research attacks.

It seems to be, being women's day around I worry this vandalism may get repeated.

Please see if you can add article Aurat March to your 'watch list' at least until 12/15 March so any repetition of intentional vandalism can be duly reversed.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bookku, I am watching it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @ Thanks, It is very nice of you.

Bookku (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article now temporarily semi-protected. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there an international men's day?
Is there an international men's day? 77.96.139.8 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If only you had worked out how to use the Wikipedia search box, you would have found out that there is. You're welcome. Cnbrb (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Links
-Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The link http://actfast.oxfamamerica.org/index.php/issues/women regarding national day in Germany is Broken Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yearly commemorations subsections
Hello and happy International Women's Day!

I was just wondering what the need for subsections of Yearly commemorations to be titled "IWD [year]" is? I feel like just the year would be fine here; the fact that it is about the IWD from that year is implied by "Yearly commemorations". Thoughts?

Thanks, ritenerek talk :)  11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

8M
There are three images in the article captioned respectively "8M 2018 in Pamplona", "8M 2019 in Spain" and "8M 2020 in Spain". I gather (after a bit of Googling) that 8M means 8 March, and is fairly common shorthand in Spain (and maybe other Hispanic countries) for IWD, but some sort of brief explanation would be helpful. GrindtXX (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How is it related to the Russian Revolution
Not sure why it says it's related to the Russian Revolution when it's completely different thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
Change this: Americans continued to observer "National Women's Day" To this: Americans continued to observe "National Women's Day" Sunset7 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  ritenerek talk :)  22:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021
Please change "" to "an official UN holiday". Regards, 223.17.177.154 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Volteer1 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Corporate takeover
I've just added a sentence drawing on https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/cupcakes-and-google-juice-the-corporate-takeover-of-international-women-s-day-20200306-p547ly.html

I also found this investigative blog post (not RS) which I leave here for future editors. http://www.christinemcnab.com/cmcnab-blog/2017/3/10/who-owns-international-womens-day

--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Places and things named after IWD
When I googled "March 8", the top hit was this article. In other words, in certain circumstances IWD and 8 March are taken to be synonyms, like 25 December and Christmas Day. It has come to my attention that there are places named for 8 March, referring to IWD, and I'd like to indicate that in the article. To start with, I'll compile what I can find here:

Uruguay

 * Ciudad de la Costa, part of greater Montevideo:
 * "MARCH 8 SQUARE (SOUTH BECÚ). This space pays tribute to all women who fight for their rights and pursue gender equality. The intervention sought to redefine the space through this important social theme, as well as enhance the downtown area of ​​Ciudad de la Costa. The initiative was born from the feminist collective “Mujeres de la Costa”, who transferred it, in the first instance, to the Municipality of Ciudad de la Costa and then had the approval of the Departmental Board and the Mayor. Since its inauguration to the present, this space has become the point of reference for activities in favor of gender equality, including the commemoration of International Women's Day, every March 8." (auto translated)

Spain
Many, including Vigo, Ferrol, Almeria.
 * Santiago de Compostela: a public square:
 * "In 2004, Mulheres Nacionalistas Galegas suggested in the Municipal Women’s Council naming a square Praza 8 de marzo. [...] the proposal [was] finally approved in a plenary session of the corporation in November 2007. From then on, the Praza 8 de marzo became a meeting point for events organised by the city’s feminist movement. It is where the calls made every time that an attack or a male chauvinist murder happen in Galicia take place. Also the demonstrations on 8th of March and the 25th of November or to defend the right of abortion take place here." (NB "Gal" is not a feminist statement, but the top-level domain of the autonomous community of Galicia. 25 Nov is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.) Also the mayor said the plaza is "a space that symbolizes Santiago's commitment to feminist movement and [...] is an emblematic point".
 * A Coruña, near Compostela: Plaza 8 de marzo


 * Móstoles, near Madrid: Plaza Ocho De Marzo
 * Pontevedra: Plaza 8 De Marzo

Italy
Many, including Turin and Florence.
 * Melilli, in Sicily. "“Piazza 8 marzo” was born in Melilli, an initiative of the Municipality that thus wants to pay homage and remember the many stories of women who fought, heroines and victims. The new toponymy will be unveiled on the occasion of the International Women's Day, Sunday 08 March [...] “A space in the city to raise public awareness on various problems affecting women”, explains the mayor, Giuseppe Carta." (auto translate)
 * Bisceglie chose its existing Piazza 8 Marzo to affix a plaque to its first female politician, elected in 1946 and honoured in 2021.

Francophonie
There are "rue du 8 mars" in many places, e.g.
 * Biskra, Algeria
 * Brest, France
 * Le Port, Réunion

--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iosundare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmacfinn015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Communistic bias...
This article is trying to make International Women's Day about communism and not about women. "But it got its origins from there" is not an arguement, it is like putting bunch of crosses and religious symbols in article of Valentine's Day just because it got originated from Saint Valentine. --88.230.235.77 (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please specify how the article is trying to make International Women's Day about communism and not about women - it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Additionally, the Valentine's Day article does in fact contain tons of Christian imagery. wwklnd (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IWD *is* closely associated with the former Soviet Union in many of the countries of Eastern Europe, and is somewhat controversial there for that reason. --Ef80 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's difficult if not impossible to extricate IWD from its socialist history. wwklnd (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Beauty pageants?
I think beauty pageants are pretty far afield from the purposes of International Women's Day -- especially gender equality.

It seems to be a fringe view, without WP:RS to support it. In fact when I did a Google search, I came up with WP:RSs ridiculing the idea.


 * https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sexism-storm-after-army-holds-21651066
 * Sexism storm after army holds beauty pageants to mark International Women’s Day
 * Beauty pageants for Russia's armed forces and police held to celebrate International Women's Day have sparked accusations of 'ridiculous' sexism
 * By Will Stewart, Russia Correspondent
 * 7 Mar 2020


 * Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s armed forces and police have been attacked as sexist for holding beauty pageants to celebrate International Women's Day.


 * The forces were branded “ridiculous and absurd” in the wake of the decision to mark the March 8th annual day meant to celebrate women


 * One such parade organised by the Russian Black Sea fleet labels women naval personnel “military persons of the weaker sex”....

I think we should delete the reference to beauty pageants -- or at least treat it as controversial. And certainly not put it in the introduction.

Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd say delete.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Evie magazine
, can you please explain why you think Evie magazine is an unreliable source? Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant/non-sourced/biased sentence
"Some people say this day is not needed while others say it is a necessary step towards the representation of women, equal rights and justice." Who? Why? This is neither sourced nor relevant. It also makes those two positions appear as equivalent. This sentence should be removed. 96.22.108.71 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)