Talk:List of rallies and protest marches in Washington, D.C.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Funny how all the marches are for liberal causes. Thatcher131 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think not," responds cafegroundzero, "unless you have not a clear definition of Liberal. May I direct your attention to the following discussion, the most pertinent part which i.m.h.o. is the very bottom entry of a greenspun.com discussion under the heading "San Francisco History", by attorney Rex Curry, at

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00018k

"I think the weak point in your argument is merely assuming, that by contrasting any group of protesters of a given status quo, you can apply the label "Liberal" to them. What of the Bolshevik and Marxist marches of the 19th and 20th centuries? Bolsheviks advocated forceful change, which is not an article of Liberal philosophy. Therefore, don't assume; go do your homework, rather than make sweeping generalizations. At the very least, you'll learn something substantial while not leading others astray(from a more accurate understanding of history).

Charles T. Kelly and the protest rides to Washington

Before I open a page dedicated to Kelly's Industrial March, I hope to do more research, and at least enough to provide a specific date for the departure from San Francisco. According to Susanne Bloomfield, who contributes to an online discussion under greenspun.com's San Francisco history, Elia Peattie, a nineteenth century journalist, authored an article on Kelly's army, telling of their passage through Omaha. This can be found in the April 22, 1894, issue of the 'Omaha World-Herald.' The article, 'Are They Anarchists,' is found on p.11. Writes, Ms. Bloomfield, "She basically lauds their high expectations and devoted leader. Interesting primary research for those interested in a citizen's point of view."

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00018k

Subdivide this list?

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to subdivide this list by date, but my quandary is that I'm not sure where to place the breaks. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting bias

The article gives the impression that, in the 1980s and since, the predominant protests have been for pro-life causes. The reality is that literally hundreds of protests have taken place that are not reported here, some larger than the pro-life marches. This leads to an inaccurate portrayal of protest behavior due to many protests not being documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.60.60 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you that the many March for Life links skew it somewhat. My solution on how to un-skew things would be to consolidate the March for Life events onto one entry on the first occurrence, and note that the event is held annually. I think that this solution would work, considering that it's basically the same event being held every year, and since each instance points to the same article link. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! With the current format the March for Life seems very minor, when in reality it is the most populous annual march (hundreds of thousands of marchers). Other marches get first and second marches listed, whilst the March for Life (happening every year for now 33 years) is only given one entry per section....Andy120... 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. And I agree wholeheartely with Andy120. If we are going to keep the big number of anti-war marches then we should also keep the number of march for life marches. The present solution makes it appear that the march for life is not a current thing but something that belongs to 1974, when in fact the contrary is true. It has become bigger with time. Also the fact that there are other marches not reported here is not the fault of the march for life. Why "penalize" the fact that the march for life happens meritoriously every year, by the fact that others do not report their march? This list should include all the major marches per year. That will be accurate reporting because it is exactly what happened. Lafem (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I've opened a request for comment regarding this matter. For those of you arriving from RFC, welcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing for those of you arriving from RFC: We're basically comparing this edit with the individual listings to this edit with a single listing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The trouble with the consolidated version is it dose not show that there were marches in the other years. But listing evry single one is overkill. So take each 'run' of marches and roll them in to one rather like this:

September 19, 1981, Solidarity Day march. AFL-CIO organized march to protest Reagan Administration labor and domestic policies. 260,000 march.
January 22, 1982 - March for Life
November 27, 1982 - Washington Anti-Klan protest 1982.
January 22, 1983 - March for Life (also: 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987)
October 11, 1987 - Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. The second march on Washington drew 500,000 gay men and women to protest for equal civil rights and to demand government action in the fight against AIDS.
January 22, 1988 - March for Life (also: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993)
April 25, 1993 - March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation. Organizers estimated 1,000,000 attended the March, but the National Park Service estimated attendance at 300,000.

Would that work? As more marches are added these 'runs' could get split up so the "march for life" will be listed more often, only after all of the missing marches are added. futurebird 08:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

The separate listing over every single instance of an annual march is unnecessary. Simply noting that the march has been held annuallly for 33 years suffices to inform readers of the facts. There's no reason to use 33 different lines of text to say what could be said in one line. Obviously, this would change if this article ever became an exhaustive Calendar of Events that lists every single march. But currently, it's just a "Best of" list, so there's no need to devote such a huge amount of space to one group. I've made the change to convey the facts in one line-- I have no preference for where list it falls: either at the bottom or in 1978. --Alecmconroy 10:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a list of every march is necessary. This is a list of protest marches, not a list of march topics or organizations. Every single march, which is populous enough to be notable, should be listed. Consolidating annual events into a single line is misleading as it seems that it has only occurred once....Andy120... 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if March against the Vietnam War has posts for every march, March for Life should be listed for every March as well. This is a list of individual marches and should portray that....Andy120... 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the compromise I proposed above? futurebird 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that compromise is that does not seem to have much order to the way the marches are listed. I would like to hear some more opinions on this matter, as I do believe the current version is still inaccurate and does not follow a NPOV....Andy120... 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Request for Comment

This has been debated before, but with the addition of more Marches against the Iraq War sponsored by ANSWER Coalition for different dates, I believe this must be clarified finally. No solution was reached before, so I think outside comment is necessary. Should each march be listed individually or should each type of march be listed with the repeat dates? Or another solution? I just think it has to be consistent either way to be NPOV....Andy120... (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are every one of the marches currently listed large? I'd say set a limit (perhaps 10,000 attendees? Anything will be arbitrary, and it would depend on who's figures you use...) and then include every one of these marches on the list, as notable marches. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "large" necessarily mean anything? The Georgetown march last October got news coverage and thus established notability (though no article currently exists on this topic), but it was far less than 10K. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pro-life marches have had 100,000+ in attendance each year...I believe this past year was about 200,000. Both ANSWER Coalition anti-war marches had between 10,000 and 100,000 in attendance. Therefore, this is not NPOV as it stands now with minor marches being listed individually and repeatedly but the larger pro-life marches are all grouped in once line. What can be done to fix this? ...Andy120... (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest text at the top of the page explaining that most marches and rallies in DC are organized as one-time events, but one notable exception is the March for Life, which is held annually. M Pinck (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough - most of these things are one-off events. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_6_17/ai_72272404/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227171639/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-01.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827215305/http://revolutionmarch.com/rallydetails.aspx to http://www.revolutionmarch.com/rallydetails.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-war protests for Nixon's inauguration Jan 20 1969

5000 demonstrators, according to Chicago Tribune http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1969/01/20/page/1/article/d-c-traffic-tied-up-by-war-protest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KKK rally count wrong?

The 1920's KKK rally count is estimated at 25,000 to 400,000. Surely this must be a typo, right? So is it 250,000-400,000 or 25,000-40,0000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5A3:EE0:A044:DEFF:BFCF:5467 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rallies and protest marches in Washington, D.C.. 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/20090622005131/http://www.millionmommarch.org/aboutus/2000march/ to http://www.millionmommarch.org/aboutus/2000march/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]