Talk:Million Man March

crowd size

The crowd size controversy section says "March organizers estimated the crowd crapy size at between 1.5 and 2 people." This is certainly incorrect. I am assuming it means million, but does anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottledmark (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another March

I was just wondering if there is going to be another march on Washington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.178.186 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Typo in the Lead?

The closing paragraph of the Lead says:

Initially, the National Park Service issued an estimate of about 2,000,000 attendees; a number significantly lower than March organizers had hoped for.[6] After a heated exchange between leaders of the march and Park Services, researchers at Boston University estimated the crowd size to be 1,000,000 organizers’ estimate of over one million.

I see two problems with this. First, how can "2,000,000" (2 million) be lower than the estimate of "over one million"? Did the editor who wrote this mean to say 200,000? Since the source is not an online one, I cannot easily check this, but the Size Controversy section never even mentions this number; it instead says 400,000.

Second, I don't understand the grammatical structure of the closing sentence. Removing the word "1,000,000" would make it make sense, but with it, it doesn't. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

James Bevel

A biographer of James Bevel asserts that Bevel was the "co-initiator" of the MMM, perhaps based on Bevel's own assertions. The best other source I've found for Bevel's involvement is an article about a speech in which Farrakhan said that Bevel "helped formulate the event". If Bevel's involvement is understated then we should correct this article. The discussion is at Talk:James Bevel#Million Man March. If anyone has any information or insight their input would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"march"-"March"

This article seems to be inconsistent, as to capitalisation (or lack thereof). I'm assuming that when it is referred to as "the march", it should be capitalised, which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. It could be argued that the Million Man March was a march, and they can therefore be used interchangeably, but that seems to be quite a stretch. In any case, there should be consistency.Mk5384 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Crowd amount?

"Finally, within the first twenty-four hours following the March a conflict between March organizers and Park Service officials erupted over crowd size estimates. The March had an estimated, almost double, 1.8 million attendees. A number significantly higher than expected. Some have tried to lower the number but the overall March and its purpose was justifiably served."

Besides fragments and capitalization, there's no source there. Wasn't there this whole controversy that the NPS undercounted the amount of people there? Thus I doubt the crowd size was actually 1.8 million.

I got a different story here: http://www.menweb.org/mmmarch.htm

The initial NPS estimate was listed as 400,000, then some Boston group found it to be " 837,000, with a 20% margin of error, i.e., 669,600 to 1,004,400...".

That is not 1.8 million. Atomforyou (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, seniortrend! Atomforyou (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Willie Horton, O. J. Simpson, and Mike Tyson.

The writing in this article is not always perfectly clear. The example that stood out was the sentence involving Willie Horton, O. J. Simpson, and Mike Tyson. Not knowing who Willie Horton was, I assumed that these were three people who SPOKE at the March. It took a more careful look to realize that the idea here is that, on the eve of the March, certain people's attitudes towards black people were shaped by these high-profile, negative examples.

Sexism

I think that this section is extremely important and definitely needs to be longer. I would love to be a part of that process (busy at the time of writing this), but it is saddening to see this itsy bitsy stub of a section about the very serious reality of sexism in the Million Man March that lacks pretty much any citations and is simply someone's opinion. There is a breadth of social science work that could fortify this section and expand it in order to address the nuances of the situation, and the way it looks now even visually compared to the rest of the article appears to be a microcosm of the very problem it ought to address.

Does anybody agree that this needs to be expanded on?