Talk:March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

message: I reverted the title of the march to "March On Washington" from someone who changed it to "March In Washington." The official title of the march used "On" as you can see from the Lincoln Memorial Program. There is a valid argument that the political tone of the march was watered down from "on" to "in" at the insistence of the Kennedy administration and the more conservative organizations such as the NAACP, and that argument should be reflected in the article, but the title of the march remained "On," not "In." For a discussion of internal political issues among march organizers and the White House, see March on Washington for Jobs & Freedom (Civil Rights Movement Veterans).
Brucehartford (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "On" not "In"

message: Why was the march condemned by the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X? Jimp 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: The article talks about the logistics but doesn't talk about the goals or results. Needs more work 68.117.64.25 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: The main organizer of the march should be more prominent not an after thought. Its tough to fix given the layout of the article though. MATThematical (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that the march was "primarily Rustin's idea" is an over-statement. Randolph and Rustin were close allies and long-time political partners in a number of endeavors, and both had been thinking about a massive march for years. It's impossible from the outside to say that one was primary over the other. For more on the origins of the march see March on Washington for Jobs & Freedom. The term "organizer" can have two different connotations. Randolph was the central organizer from the political perspective — building and holding together the coalition of disparate and feuding organizations and personalities. Rustin was the primary organizer from the nuts and bolts perspective — recruiting marchers, chartering buses, organizing the logistics on the ground, providing signs and marshals, coordinating with government agencies such as the National Park Service, etc. So either one could legitimately be considered the "main" or "central" organizer. Lastly, while Rustin's sexual orientation (and his previous arrest on a "morals" charge) was an issue for some, a bigger issue was his association with leftist political causes and organizations. The red scare of the 1950s still held powerful sway in 1963 and many of the more conservative civil rights leaders (not including Dr. King) feared to be associated with Rustin because of his political background. Brucehartford (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rustin was not featured at all before I arrived and placed he and Randolph at the top of the article, where they belong.  --Potguru (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you gave the 1940s March on Washington Movement too much emphasis by making it the subject of the second paragraph of this article. Please see WP:LEAD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For which the solution would be to improve the sentence, not revert the edit.  1941 reference now gone while  A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin are restored to their rightful place in the lead.  --13:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rustin Not featured prominently enough

message: The article currently states: "... largest political rally for human rights in United States history." No one questions that the March on Washington was the largest up to that point in U.S. history (1963). The "largest" claim is sourced to a National Archives Article, Official Program for the March on Washington (1963). But there were subsequent marches around similar issues that were larger. For example, the Million Man March of 1995. So it seems to me that the language in this article should be either "... a large political rally" or "... largest political rally for human rights up to that point in United States history."
Brucehartford (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The perennial question of whose march is biggest isn't likely to be resolved soon, if ever. Either of your proposed solutions seems fine to me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Someone changed it to "the second largest" which is also unsupported by citations (the cite says "one of the largest"). I changed it to "one of the largest". .froth. (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largest ... in United States history?" 

message: The two Bob Dylan links to YouTube do not work anymore. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links. They were probably copyright violations anyway. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: Is there a source for 
:Observers estimated that 75–80% of the marchers were black and the rest were white and non-black minorities.
as stated in the main paragraph? FieryEquinox (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for demographic statistic 

message: I've started uploading photos at Category:50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. (More photos to come). Djembayz (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos from 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom 

message: I always thought that the common name for this event was the "March on Washington," not "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." I never heard of the last part of the title, although I do believe that it is the official event. Should the title of the article be changed in order to reflect what people usually call the event per WP:COMMONNAME? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. No agreement on whether this is the primary topic. Number 57 13:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom →  – March on Washington is the common name and should therefore be the title of the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But of all those marches the one people call the March on Washington is the March on Washington by black civil rights leaders. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I think what needs to be discussed here is primarily not whether it's the WP:COMMONNAME, but whether it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Personally, if I were to bring it up in conversation, I would probably include some topic clarification, such as calling it . —BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For me personally, I just say the March on Washington when referring to the Civil Rights Movement. For any other protest movement in DC I specify the year and possibly use a different name for it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: If it's wrong it should be removed and either contradicted with another source or just not mentioned at all. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: But none are as notable as the March on Washington for Civil Rights. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose dropping "for Jobs and Freedom" from the title, but support having a redirect (or disambiguation) from "March on Washington." The official, formal name of the event was "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" and that is reflected in the documents produced at the time (see Documents From from the March on Washington). Where space was a problem, for example on a banner or a small flyer, simply "March on Washington" was sometimes used, but those instances were exceptions to a pretty consistent general rule. According to both contemporary sources and later historians, addition of the words "for Jobs and Freedom" was a subject of some discussion and debate among the march organizers, so they were not added lightly. When creators deliberately choose a specific proper name for their creation, I think we should respect that in the official title of the article about whatever it is. To me, it's similar to acronyms, most people most of the time say and write NAACP, not National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but the title of the Wikipedia article is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People with a redirect from NAACP. Brucehartford (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article for the March on Washington is not an acronym. It's still simply called the March on Washington. On a separate note, in a Google search, "March on Washington" receives 220 million  results. "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" receives 76.5 million results.. By those results, WP:COMMONNAME applies. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose Changing the Name. I used "acronym" above as just one example of common parlance differing from formal name, to make the point that encyclopedia articles use the formal name with a redirect from the slang term. There are non-acronym examples such as a tabloid headline or common conversational reference to "J.Lo" or "JayLo," but the Wikipedia article is Jennifer Lopez. People of a certain era may commonly refer to New Orleans as the "Big Easy" but that's not the title of the Wiki article. Common terms change and evolve with some rapidity, formal official names don't. Suppose, for example, that this year or next there occurs a huge climate-change, global-warming protest in Washington that people start referring to as simply, "The March on Washington." That could happen, that's the problem with rapidly changing common parlance. Brucehartford (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think this discussion needs to be kept open longer.  I had the same thought... the article should be moved to "March on Washington".  SUPPORT!   --Potguru (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Its already closed. Kierzek (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but it's been closed for more than a year! Potguru, if you think there are good reasons why the article should be moved—based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, for example—you should familiarize yourself with some of the reasons people argued against moving it last year and be prepared to refute them. If you still think you have a winning argument, try starting a new move discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: conversation continues here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Randolph_and_Rustin --Potguru (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. Start a new requested move if you're interested in moving the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 January 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. 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  tag to http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130815/OPINION02/308150017/Rustin-finally-getting-due-recognition
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511150144/http://www.wdashistory.org/3.html to http://www.wdashistory.org/3.html
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) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article should mention that it is the 100y anniversary. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, twice. In the infobox in the top left corner of the page and in the "Background" section. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emancipation proclamation]] 

message: The caption about Lena Horne being “excluded from speaking” and why she and some others were escorted off the stage opens a question that is not answered here or on her page. What was going on? Marty Mangold (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lena Horne excluded? 

message: I am unsure how the nomination of Donald Trump as the 2020 Republican presidential nominee is relevant to the section "2020 Virtual March on Washington".
"An online tie-in event was also planned, called the 2020 Virtual March on Washington. It was held August 27 and 28, the latter being the anniversary of the iconic "I Have a Dream" speech, and the day after President Trump was scheduled to accept his party's nomination for President at the Republican National Convention."
It's inclusion is seemingly random and distracts from the purpose of the section.
- Leafy Beavre (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Donald Trump party nomination to 2020 Virtual March