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

message: Funny how all the marches are for liberal causes. Thatcher131 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Subdivide this list?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reporting bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What do you think of the compromise I proposed above? futurebird 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems fair enough - most of these things are one-off events.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Request for Comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-war protests for Nixon's inauguration Jan 20 1969 

message: 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)
thread_title:  KKK rally count wrong? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified