Talk:List of women's associations

POV text, bad
This article begins with text that is written in a very un-encyclopedic style:
 * Women's associations fall under wide and diverse set of categories, yet they all have a unified goal - helping women.
 * It would be almost impossible to track history of the earliest women's association, but an endeavor can be made to list the most noteworthy organizations with a mission to help women in various sectors of their lives.

Please, help. Wikipedia is not meant for this kind of moralistic, subjective, point-of-view, rhetorical talking. --Paulbe (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Country-specific, without indication, very bad
The list seems to be very country-specific. The author is so bigoted that she/he does not even mention in which country all these "national" organisations exist. Because there are also three "American ... associations" on the list and the only one with a clear gographical indication is in Los Angeles, i presume that there are only organisations on this list that are limited to the USA. I as a wikipeidianisticalist, see problems here: The English language wikipedia is meant, as all language versions (in principle for all versions, but certainly for en, eo, fr, ar, es, de, pt and nl) to be not country-specific. And there really is not any clear indication that this list is about one country/state. The entries in the list have no indcation of geography or are "National" or are "American". Information for people from the USA (estadounidenses): the adjective "American" is not owned by the USA. --Paulbe (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)