I agree that it is inappropriate to use "Women's March on Washington (2017)" to refer to anything other than the march that was officially named that. It certainly seems misleading to me to have a 4xx from "Women's March (2017)". IIRC, the "sister marches" each had their own names.

I think I would opt for 3: keep the NAR for the specific march (supported by the 2nd 670), and remove the 4xx and its supporting 670. I'm not sure if you need to qualify the name if it's unique in the file. [Tangentially, the second 670 in this record is a great showcase of why it is better practice always to include the URL when citing a Web resource. I have no way, as it is currently recorded, of knowing exactly which "Women's march website" was consulted on Feb. 8, 2017.]

Then, if it's still necessary, submit a SACO proposal for a subject covering the marches as a general phenomenon. Although I wonder if there may be a way to bring this out using existing Subject Headings. In this regard, it's a bit unfortunate that the scope note to the subdivision "Protest movements" limits its use only to named wars, instead of being more free floating; if such were not the case you might be able to construct something like, 

600 10 Trump, Donald, $d 1946- $x Inauguration, 2017 $x Protest movements.

But alas, it's only for wars. 	 


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moody, Honor M.
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] H 1592 and lccn n 2017007203, Women's March on Washington $d (2017)

Hello all,

I noticed that n 2017007203 Women's March on Washington $d (2017) seems to be doing double duty for both a specific named march ( that took place in DC and numerous other loosely affiliated marches ( held in other places on the same day (and with a variety of names).

I asked John Hostage about this, and he suggested that the marches do not meet the criteria for establishment in the NAF per H 1592, 2nd paragraph.

My questions for the list are: should lccn n 2017007203 
	1. be moved to the SAF (genericized)?
	2. remain in the NAF, but be qualified by place and representing only the specific march that took place in DC?
	3. remain in the NAF, qualified by place and representing only the specific march that took place in DC and also be established in a genericized way in 	 	the SAF?
	4. Some other option?

The Schlesinger has acquired posters and other ephemera from the Women's March on Washington and the Boston Women's March for America, and anticipate receiving material from other marches held that day as well (and would like to record the particulars as 6xxs). I would argue that the work cited in lccn n 2017007203's 1st 670, "Why we march" would be better served by a generic SH (I have it in hand; as far as I can tell, it is not an official publication of any march, and refers to them only collectively as the women's march or by location alone).

I would also be interested in hearing more generally about arguments for and against the establishment of marches/demonstrations in the NAF-I noticed several, and we have ephemera collected from the 2017 March for Life that wants cataloging as well.


Honor Moody
Schlesinger Library
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
3 James Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.: (617) 495-4223
Email: [log in to unmask]