This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. United States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 16, 2009 and October 16, 2015.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rarella1. Peer reviewers: Eavanh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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.

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.243.151 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking the same thing. The sexism is an important aspect of the Million Man March, and I plan to expand this section. Rarella1 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, at the moment, the section while small is terrible. There are a lot of quotes with no information clarifying who is being quoted. The existing section needs to state who had issue with the sexism and whether it happened at the time or was a later analysis. Any new additions to the section should also abide by this. Ashmoo (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion re: merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request received to merge articles: 20th Anniversary of the Million Man March: Justice or Else and Million Man March; dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support An IP editor merged the article two months ago and another editor objected, claiming here that "there is much more information to add to this article". The editor also said he would try to expand it tomorrow. Too many tomorrows later, it's time to call his bluff. Either expand the article or allow it to be merged. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge and redirect to here. Remaining unexpanded it would be better as a section in the original march article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, still. "User:Malik Shabazz" is right, I never got around to expanding this article, but I make many contributions to Wikipedia on a daily basis so I don't think an apology is needed here. I am not sure we should be spending energy merging an article about a notable event, but "User:Malik Shabazz" seems pretty adamant. Just to give an idea, there are plenty of sources to expand this article:

These are just form the first Google search returns. Notability is no problem here. I'd prefer to keep a start-class article, or even a stub, over a redirect/merge so someone is more inclined to expand the article in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, keeping the history, until the event gets more coverage. By the way, that's an impressive list. I wanted to update the article to include the attendance figure, but Google has failed me or i have failed it. The ladies from Real Housewives of Atlanta were in the audience, but an episode of RHoA isn't a "reliable source". ;) generic_hipster 03:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am revisiting 20th Anniversary of the Million Man March: Justice or Else, and invite page watchers and help expand this article about a clearly notable event. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Million Man March. 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/20100527214636/http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf to http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf

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) 04:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Million Man March. 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/20090908062254/http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/research/million-man-march/index.html to http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/research/million-man-march/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.millionmanmarch.org/

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) 03:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]