ObserverNY (talk | contribs) →Attendance: independent reporter |
→Image clutter: reply |
||
Line 450: | Line 450: | ||
::Just thought I'd mention that it was kinda rude of you to just go and delete the photo without responding to my question. So much for collaboration, eh? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
::Just thought I'd mention that it was kinda rude of you to just go and delete the photo without responding to my question. So much for collaboration, eh? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
||
:::1) The images you uploaded to Commons were copy-edited (added wikilinks, cats, etc.) by me. You're welcome. 2) Despite your name-calling during the past two weeks, my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxpayer_March_on_Washington&diff=315514120&oldid=315513676 initial revert] labeled your edit as being made in good faith, which it was. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxpayer_March_on_Washington&diff=315514905&oldid=315514120 revert] failed to include an edit summary. 3) The reason I started this section was to avoid any kind of negative interaction with you and to request feedback from other users. No one else replied and your comment includes "I don't care if you take it out, not an issue." I guess you did care, but I'm not a mind reader. 4) If you're going to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched_Davis&diff=316140152&oldid=316132965 continue talking trash about me] on various talk pages, especially to a user who doesn't know me, then try telling the complete story. Constantly portraying yourself as an oppressed Wikipedian is getting really old, especially when the person you claim is not willing to collaborate is the same person you've treated like shit. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><font color="#000080">'''APK'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|<font color="#99BADD">'''say that you love me'''</font>]] 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Time Lapse Video of March on YouTube == |
== Time Lapse Video of March on YouTube == |
Revision as of 18:14, 25 September 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Dubious tag on attendance
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've added the dubious tag on the grounds of WP:DISPUTED's "information which is particularly difficult to verify". New sources which have emerged since the original estimates have put the attendance number in jeopardy with a margin of error greater than 500,000. Until more official estimates can be determined, I feel the current numbers to be at present in dispute. This is not necessarily an attempt to bring truth to the article, but it is unclear which of these new sources should be used on this Wikipedia article per WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:RS, and numerous others. As for my opinion, I say let the debate rest for a week until we have something concrete. Then we can expand this article and perhaps compare its attendance to other protest marches on DC. --Triadian (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to the new sources? APK is a GLEEk 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record, many have been given already. I'm compiling now and double checking them against all your cited guidelines to make sure they pass. I did NOT edit the number, I simply added a tag showing that a DISCUSSION is ensuing on the talk page with a debate against sources. That is what the tag is for. --Triadian (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- None of the sources, with the possible exception of Daily Mail, are at all reliable. Blogs are not reliable sources. People without experience counting crowds who look at the pictures of the rally and they "there must have been a million people there" are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is you know not a forum and not a place to put stuff in articles because your counting method counts a million people at the rally. The figures from the fire department are the only really reliable numbers people have come up with, and they give us 60,000-75,000+ people. This figure has not been disputed by any source that is reliable.
- I do feel that, yes, the large number of people who question the numbers and the fact that a lot of people in the blogosphere and what not believe there were millions of people at this rally is notable, and, for the record, I think we should be neutral about describing them (yes, some at one point thought a 1997 picture of about a million people was Saturday's rally, but I will assume good faith and feel this was an unintentional error). I think things like the time lapse photo which people used to say "look, a million people were there" are notable, but, as far as I know, reliable sources haven't reported this yet.
- Yes, there are a lot of people who believe, for example, the earth is 6,000 years old, but this doesn't mean Age of the Earth takes young-earth creationist theories seriously. It doesn't matter how many people believe something; it matters what reliable sources say. That's Wikipedia policy. Samboy (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, reason with me here. Many sources prove that the estimates cannot easily be verified. The DC firefighter estimate is UNOFFICIAL according to this article and contradicts other estimates: [1]. We all know the picture is a fake, it's from another protest altogether. Another source: [2] interviews Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who states that the organization does not do crowd estimates and his PERSONAL estimate is not official. Therefore, like everyone else, the estimate has just as much reliability as the Daily Mail or Fox News. Yes, I am discounting the one source that you are citing is more valid than the others, which I have proven is not. --Triadian (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Amendment: The actual quote is this "That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up." The media ran with this fact and reported it as official, even though it was not. That is the new development that puts the only concrete estimate you have on the front page in jeopardy. Therefore, there needs to be a mention of this uncertainty. --Triadian (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- So despite dozens of reliable sources reporting (approximately) the same estimate, you think the 60-75,000 estimate is still in "jeopardy"? You added that the estimate was not official, which is correct. Mentioning the source of the estimate (a DCFD employee) is required (which you did). But mentioning (in the lead) there are conflicting estimates violates WP:UNDUE. (for the record, I think your edits and talk page comments have been made in good faith) The far-majority of people objecting to dozens of RS are those who have a political motivation (as evidenced by comments on this talk page and the various websites/radio shows promoting the "conspiracy"), and are using multiple estimates (Claims include hundred of thousands, 1 million, 1.5 million, and 2 million. There were even ludicrous claims being made such as the "largest march in Washington, D.C.'s history" and "more people than Obama's inauguration".) via tweets, personal accounts, debunked estimates (i.e. ABC News), photos, "gut feelings", etc. The quotes below are intended for several people commenting on this page. Please read them carefully.
- From WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."
- From WP:NOR - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced." "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material."
- APK is a GLEEk 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- After noticing the conspiracy theory has made it into the LA Times and WaPo, in addition to the already cited Politifact and Christian Science Monitor, I've added details. More content is on the way. APK is a GLEEk 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- APK - This is an important article: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/freedomworks-cuts-estimate-for-crowd-at-its-912-rally-by-one-half.php
- FreedomWorks, the main organizers of the Tea Party event in Washington this past weekend, has dramatically lowered its estimate for the size of the crowd at the event from 1.5 million, a number the group now concedes was a mistake, to between 600,000 and 800,000 people.
- The politically charged issue of crowd size is complicated by the fact that there is no official estimate -- not from the Park Service, not from the D.C. Police, nor the Fire Department, etc. In fact, a Fire Department spokesman that I talked to told me that whoever had given a figure of 60,000-70,000 to ABC News had not been authorized to do so. So there's no independent source to verify FreedomWorks' latest number.
ObserverNY (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- ObserverNY, you are pretty clearly across the line into WP:OR. We will not base crowd sizes on photos, videos, your phone calls (if I read the above correctly) or the like. Our job is simply to report from a WP:NPOV standpoint, by documenting sources that are already out there. I have done my best to assume good faith here, but the way in which you're making your argument seems to suggest that you want to disregard wikipedia policies (specifically WP:NPOV by giving weight to a fringe POV, and WP:RS by suggesting the use of Freedomworks' and conservative bloggers' crowd size estimates, and WP:OR by suggesting the use of crowd models and photos to cast doubt on expert opinions).
- The Fire Department Spokesman was not authorized to give an estimate, but he is the director of public affairs (in charge of large gatherings that the DCFD provides support for), and his expert opinion was given and deserves weight. Whether or not it was proper for him to do so is neither here nor there, unless we see a retraction or something. — Mike : tlk 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think we all know what happened. It's not many reliable sources reporting an independently verified estimate. They're all just reprinting the same estimate from a single source, Pete Piringer. Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up. "It was in no way an official estimate," he said.[3] So you have one guy giving an unofficial opinion in the morning (when the crowd didn't get full until the afternoon).
We're attributing this to the DCFD like it was their collective government estimate based on the entire day and something they do often, when it was one person giving an "in no way an official estimate". This needs to be rewritten to present the attributed facts, and include that their are other estimates, which are verifiable in the same sources. We should not take the opinion of the sources, regarding what they consider official estimates and present it as truth. If the reliable sources show that others have suggested higher estimates, than it is sufficient to include that their are other estimates based on the coverage and weight in the media.Morphh (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think we all know what happened. It's not many reliable sources reporting an independently verified estimate. They're all just reprinting the same estimate from a single source, Pete Piringer. Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up. "It was in no way an official estimate," he said.[3] So you have one guy giving an unofficial opinion in the morning (when the crowd didn't get full until the afternoon).
Glenn Beck is saying a University did an estimate and it came out to 1.7 million. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/glenn-beck-tea-party-march-had-17-million-people.php Morphh (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Haha. What university? Where is the study? Is it based on crowd modeling or a satellite photo? We may never know! I have a university study that says 2000 people were there, as long as you don't make me produce it or ask me any follow up questions. — Mike : tlk 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
What's with the hundreds of thousands and millions attendance figures now that have no verifiable, external source? This is like a circus of numbers now. What gives? (24.148.73.133 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
- When bloggers disagree with the news media, and the news media reports on the disagreement, it can be put in a Wikipedia article. This needs a rewrite, but after everyone is done tacking on the pieces of information they believe to be relevant. I would wager that the article will shrink substantially before we're done. — Mike : tlk 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mike - You did not read correctly, the two quotes were from the article I linked. Please don't accuse me of trying to pass off my personal phone calls as a WP:Verify source. Seriously. I'm insulted. ObserverNY (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- That's why I said "(if I read the above correctly)". You didn't put quotes around the statement that contains the phrase "my call", so I read it as your own telephone call. I didn't accuse you of anything as nothing has been added to the article, but you seem(ed) to be lobbying for permission to aim for truth instead of verifiability, because the reliable sources don't agree with what you believe to be true. I don't believe I'm out of line here, as you have several times used photos and video footage as "evidence" that reliable sources are incorrect, and this is clear cut WP:OR. Have some faith that if the facts are as wrong as you believe them to be, someone will write about it in a source that we can consider reliable, and then (and only then) we can cast doubt onto the sources we do have. — Mike : tlk 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just how many marched on D.C.?, WorldNetDaily source that discussed many of the estimates. Morphh (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we're going to include WND and Wizbang, we must also include sources like Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I'm not sure that this will improve the quality of the article. You'll notice that many of the higher estimates are from people who stand to gain substantially from the protest having had been a success (National Taxpayer's Union, ResistNet, FreedomWorks, "Tea Party Express", etc...). — Mike : tlk 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mike - You did not read correctly, the two quotes were from the article I linked. Please don't accuse me of trying to pass off my personal phone calls as a WP:Verify source. Seriously. I'm insulted. ObserverNY (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Mike - so after all of that, do you not consider the source I linked verifiable? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/about.php ObserverNY (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- It depends entirely on what statement you wish to use this as a reference for. We have already incorporated the "unofficial" nature of the DC Fire Department's Public Information Officer into the article, and this morning I added the information pertaining to FreedomWorks' estimate (and change of estimate). What are you trying to get into the article that isn't already there? — Mike : tlk 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
To respond to an earlier argument, I believe at this point with numerous sources discussing the actual debate of attendance figures that the statement on the front page "While there are conflicting appraisals among activists,..." does not violate WP:UNDUE because it does not give weight to minute minorities. Until we have some sort of official estimate put out by an independent reliable source, I believe the Intro to be fine. Removing the attendance figure altogether from the Intro and just saying that it is disputed is also agreeable to me. We can then cite all our reliable sources in the subsection for Attendance. I believe FreedomWorks is one of the sources that needs to be cited since they did some actual research. So what if it's partisan? Just balance it for a NPOV. What I will not approve of is the assertion that one spokesman's opinion is more valid than any other "spokesman", especially since the person in question cannot give that estimate as a belief of the organization. Yes, the media INITIALLY reported the DC Fire estimate as official, but now we know it is not. Bias is prevalent on both ends of the spectrum on this talk page. I believe in finding the truth, but Wikipedia believes in finding RS. I also believe, however, that the truth will emerge in future RS, uniting us all under one happy umbrella. --Triadian (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are we even discussing the unoffical estimate. this should be removed immediately. it is UNOFFICIAL and picked up by news organizations as official, the moment it was found to be unofficial it should have been removed. And actually if you review other march article from after the park service stopped estimating attendance, the attendance estimates are from organizers sometimes with notes abotu the bias they might or might not have. Please consider using the freedomwork estimate. see million moms march and million more men march.Solarguy17 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. What matters is what reliable sources say about the attendance. And they say 60,000-75,000+ (more or less) or "tens of thousands". Seriously, let it go; the mainstream press was very consistent about their numbers and the only sources claiming over 100,000 are fringe sources. Samboy (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Quote: It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. (wow this is the worst statement I have read here) fox isnt saying 75000....not all mainstream media is. just liberal. read this article, this is very interesting in regards to the idea of how high the population there was. it wont count for RS but it makes more since then anythign else I read. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/ Solarguy17 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The number attendees in the lead comes from The Wall Street Journal. Do you feel the WSJ is a biased, unreliable source? Samboy (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
i think they are reporting the commmonly report number which has now been proven to be unofficially said to a reporter by a PR for the WDCFD. There is a reason the government agencies dont estimate crowd size now and this is one. Most of the media is reporting this number becuase it was orginally thought to be an official estimate. I think the WSJ is just following the lead of other, but it is clear to many people that there are way more people in DC then the 75000. Im not putting in forward a RS but read the article I posted above and the writer does a very good througough job going through the estimates. I think the number needs removed from the lead since it isnt from an RS (unoffical report from the FD is not RS) if everyone quotes that PR Guy, that doesnt make the number true simply becuase it is from a supposed RS. I recommend using the organizing groups offical number (similar to other articles) or remove the attendance fromt he lead completely (other article have no attendance figures in the lead) and lead the attendence controvery section below.Solarguy17 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source and to claim something they reported is inaccurate without other reliable sources to back your claim up is original research. Samboy (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Contrary to Solarguy17's comment, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly said "tens of thousands" and "about 75,000", respectively. This has been debated ad nauseum. The issue has been resolved. APK say that you love me 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree per my argument above. I'll sum it up in a nutshell: I have proved that the Wall Street Journal article is NOT a reliable source. The article that you all are citing is dated SEPTEMBER 12. Many sources now published after SEPTEMBER 12 (including the two I have given) have shown that the article was published with unofficial information from the OPINION OF ONE MAN. Therefore, the figure given in the Wall Street Journal is not reliable since it a SINGLE MAN'S OPINION which is even rejected by the organization for which the man works. ABC News made a journalistic error TWICE, which is proven by sources and not my original research. Now, the debate is whether the line "While there are conflicting appraisals among activists,[3] the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department unofficially estimated the attendance of the event over 75,000 people.[1][4][3][5]" should even exist because it is just the OPINION of one man. There is such a thing as primary sources and secondary sources. When the secondary sources cite false primary sources that are proven false by other sources, it is by definition not reliable. --Triadian (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can disagree all you like, but no one is going to take someone seriously who claims the WSJ is not a reliable source. FreedomWorks itself cannot be cited as a source for their own event; we call that a conflict of interest, and they are doubly disqualified since they were caught lying about ABC reporting 1.5 million. There's really not much else to discuss on the subject; reliable sources report numbers in the 75,000 range, while unreliable and highly partisan sources from Pajamas Media to Freedomworks to RandomGuyWithABlog.com report eleventy kabillion. The Wikipedia will be going with the former. End of story. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to call criticism to my argument as ignorant, but here is the fact that many here are blatantly ignoring. I did not say THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is not a valid source. I said the article is not reliable. Look at what the Wall Street Journal's words are " A spokesman for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services estimated the crowd at 'in excess of 75,000' people. Local and federal law enforcement authorities don't provide crowd estimates. ". This is semi-false because it was an unofficial estimate made by a man who happened to be the spokesman. Point backed by [4] which cited Politfact: "Politifact, a nonpartisan journalistic fact-checking organization, checked in on Monday with Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the DC Fire and Emergency Department. Piringer 'unofficially' estimated that between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up." Notice the internal quotation.
- Quote further echoed by NPR [5] adding "It was in no way an official estimate".
- Continuing with the Washington Times, [6] "But it turns out that no official organization, including the Park Police, Capitol Police or the fire department, put out an estimate of the crowd size" with no mention what-so-ever of Piringer's personal opinion.
- Moving on to the LA Times [7], "Pete Piringer, a spokesman for the District of Columbia Fire Department, said he made an unofficial estimate of 60,000 to 70,000 at the beginning of the event."
With so much emphasis placed on the unofficial and opinionated part of the quote, THE ARGUMENT THAT NOBODY IS CHALLENGING is whether we should lead with this figure. It was the point brought up by Solarguy earlier in this section that was not properly challenged before this argument was deemed resolved: "the moment it was found to be unofficial it should have been removed". The 60-70 thousand number is from one man and has just as much authority as mine (if I were published), especially since all the reliable sources cited say this is so. Do we run into WP:POV "editorially neutral" problems with this? To give some quotes from the guide for discussion:
- "...This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
- "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"
- "However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included."
- "..." it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity"
And from WP:FRINGE:
- "If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."
- "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact"
- "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources"
Answer Solar's question and we can close this properly. I'm doing this in good faith and I believe the insistence to close this debate is premature. Personally, I think it be more neutral if we just summarized the Attendance section with a range of figures from sources to put in the Intro instead of just starting with one guy's opinion. As a sidenote, the Heritage Foundation has come out with a scientific estimate range. I don't have the source yet. Also, if you choose to debate here, I ask that you please stay on topic, actually read what is being said, and don't jump to conclusions. The next time somebody says I'm advocating for the 1 million + estimates, I'm going to lose it. --Triadian (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know, you just keep repeating yourself. As I said before: It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. What matters is what reliable sources say about the attendance. And they say 60,000-75,000+ (more or less) or "tens of thousands". Seriously, let it go; the mainstream press was very consistent about their numbers and the only sources claiming over 100,000 are fringe sources. Samboy (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
For the love of God, are you even listening to me? I AM NOT MAKING THOSE ASCERTIONS! I prove it over and over again and you just deny it. You once again said I'm advocating putting up fringe sources and I HAVE NOT done that at all. Its like I say these apples are green and prove they are green, but you keep saying they are red and ending the debate in bad faith. I'm letting the facts speak for themselves. The SOURCES DO NOT support your analysis. If many reliable sources say there is no accurate count, then who are you to say that there is? You're forming conclusions based on nothing but misinterpretations of quotes. --Triadian (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It appears you do not understand WP:NOR nor WP:V (those are links, click on them please). These are cornerstones and core rules for the Wikipedia. This discussion is closed; we can reopen it when and if you find reliable sources backing up your research. Samboy (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
so basically you dont care that the fact the 60,000-70,000 number came from one guy that had no authority or aibility to estimate the crowd and probably what happened was a local reporter asked me and he said unoffically its 60K-70K. The local reporter reported that then someone else picked it up and then it was picked up by MSNBC and CNN and then spread to new papers. The Orginal Source of this number is was is not a Reliabel Source. While MSNBC and CNN and FOX maybe RS, random PR guy for the DCFD is not. I think this statement should removed completely and maybe the statment just saying "for attendence figures plaease see the below section abotu attendance." Many other articles dont have the attendence in the lead or use the organzing group's estimate. I dont want it to say 1000000 or 500000, but rather be impartial and leave the attendance off and note it at the bottom. Maybe a summary list that say what various RS says the attendance was. We are trying to improve the article and you are clearly letting your POV skew your opinion regarding this. Solarguy17 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
also, I re-read the veriablity article and noted the following statement "Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included." this seems to be the case here.Solarguy17 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have read both of those many times, as I have participated in discussions about them in a fair manner. Do not forget WP:NPOV either. I believe I have given ample reliable sources and I don't know why you don't believe the Washington Times, LA Times, NPR, and so on. I just believe the intro of the article can be misleading because of misquoting the sources that you are harking on. They say for themselves that the figure is irrelevant. Why can't we state the same as the sources? The debate had become whether we should lead with a biased figure without giving criticism until further down in the article, something which Wikipedia does not necessarily approve of. Nobody has given a single response to that aspect of the article I believe Solar's valid point has been ignored. --Triadian (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"No Arrests Reported"
Do we consider this to be article-worthy? How many sources are reporting on the lack of arrests, other than the politico article? — Mike : tlk 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I consider it newsworthy. It was reported on Beck, Hannity and Greta last night on FOX. And while I'm sure some won't consider this newsworthy or a verifiable source, the condition the Capitol grounds were left in compared to BHO's inauguration is certainly astounding. [8]
- That's because at Obama's Inagural there was almost 2 million people there for over 12 hours. The taxpayer march was maximum 100-200 thousand for several hours. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- APK - STOP deleting my edits from this talk page. ObserverNY (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Explain here why your personal attacks and forum posts should remain. APK is a GLEEk 16:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. Leave me alone. APK. ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverN
Neither Beck, Hannity or Greta are reliable sources, nor is Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Ed Schultz. If we took these guys at their word, Wikipedia would resemble Star Magazine. — Mike : tlk 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You must keep in mind that Beck and Hannity are COMMENTATORS and not news reporters. I don't know what Greta is, but I believe if she reports something, she has a source, so I'd rather go with that underlying source. I do, however, believe that the lack of arrests is something that is article-worthy since it is a fact can be verified and is semi-unique to this protest. --Triadian (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Obama flew over crowd
Whatever the crowd count: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html As Mr. Obama traveled to Minnesota on Saturday to rally support for his health care plan, he flew over the assembling crowd in Marine One. The helicopter could be seen flying overhead as the demonstrators marched down Pennsylvania Avenue.. I move to include this statement or paraphrase thereof from the NYT in the article. Do I have a second? ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- My opinion is that this is a meaningless detail, that is reported on in very few WP:RS articles written on this topic. It gives the reader no additional insight into the protest. — Mike : tlk 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Meaningless detail? The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns. The size of the crowd may be disputed by various media sources, but the NYT (reliable?) reported that Obama flew over. So that means he had the ONLY aerial view of the crowd that day, as Marine One was the ONLY helicopter to flyover the rally. ObserverNY (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- President Obama's rally had been scheduled in advance, so please don't try to paint this as "trying to get the President to listen, but he ran off". That would probably be grounds for me to stop assuming good faith, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your mention of aerial views seems to be an effort to tie this in to crowd size estimates, which is not at all what the sources you refer to document. Am I wrong here? Why do you bring up that "he had the ONLY aerial view of the crowd that day", if not to try to relate this to crowd estimates? — Mike : tlk 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mike - Wow. What a weird interpretation. You'll give me the benefit of the doubt? Oh how very kind of you, should I wash your feet too? The NYT source DOES refer to a "sea of protesters", and it is a FACT that Obama flew over the crowd. Therefore, unless he had a paper bag over his head, he had to have seen for himself the mass of Americans assembled. The actual or estimated "count" is irrelevant without an official NASA or satellite/digitized photo. That was my point. Not whatever nonsense you are trying to project. ObserverNY (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Giving you the benefit of the doubt is a wikipedia policy, so I would appreciate you restraining yourself with the commentary. I never have disputed that Obama flew over the crowd, only that it is not a detail worth including. What I did dispute was the implication of your comment:
The implcation is:"The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns."
Whether you intended to do this, or it was accidental, it is still POV-pushing, and it is still WP:SYNTH. No source that mentions Obama's flight in any way connects it to aerial views for the purpose of gauging crowd size, and no source that mentions Obama's flight in any way implies (falsely) that he was avoiding a protest intended to be heard by him. — Mike : tlk 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns, and he flew away in a helicopter.
- Giving you the benefit of the doubt is a wikipedia policy, so I would appreciate you restraining yourself with the commentary. I never have disputed that Obama flew over the crowd, only that it is not a detail worth including. What I did dispute was the implication of your comment:
- Mike - Wow. What a weird interpretation. You'll give me the benefit of the doubt? Oh how very kind of you, should I wash your feet too? The NYT source DOES refer to a "sea of protesters", and it is a FACT that Obama flew over the crowd. Therefore, unless he had a paper bag over his head, he had to have seen for himself the mass of Americans assembled. The actual or estimated "count" is irrelevant without an official NASA or satellite/digitized photo. That was my point. Not whatever nonsense you are trying to project. ObserverNY (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I really don't see what it would add to a reader's understanding of the subject matter. The less trivia the better. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is it is next to impossible to find a "reliable" source that any editors in here will accept - PERIOD. The NYT is acceptable, yes? Good. I have no interest in your decidedly off base interpretation of my introduction of this statement and source. Obviously, the NYT felt it was "newsworthy" or they wouldn't have mentioned it. It certainly isn't POV, it is a statement of FACT. You want to keep trying to make it POV, have at it. I'm adding it. ObserverNY (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Please reread my comment. I am not disputing the fact that Obama flew over the crowd, and I am not claiming that the NY Times is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that it is a completely trivial detail that need not be mentioned in the article, and that to connect the fly-over to other things (like crowd size estimates) when the source does not make such a connection is a WP:SYNTH violation. "Newsworthy" does not mandate inclusion. What I'm trying to avoid is having random trivia tacked onto this article, whose topic is clearly defined. — Mike : tlk 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- No one is disputing that a reliable source mentions it; enough with the strawman constructions, if you would. Being mentioned in a WP:RS is not carte blanche for inclusion in an article. There is simply nothing important about the President traveling while a protest is going on. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
During the 2009 Inaguration, Bush flew over the crowd which chanted lyrics from Na_Na_Hey_Hey_Kiss_Him_GoodbyeI took a quick look and I do not see it in the Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama article. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the mall between the White House and the airport? If so, I think it would be notable if he purposely did not fly over the airport. AFAIK was scheduled to be flying over the mall, what's the big deal? Also, remember there were 2 events going on that day. A large family event, and the taxpayer event. Should we note Obama flew over the other event as well? Reliefappearance (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Time magazine article mentions attendance
Time Magazine has an article mentioning the attendance controversy. To wit: "If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic." Samboy (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you not see you are copy & pasting a sentence from the intro regarding what protesters rallied against? You're adding it to the attendance controversy for unexplained reasons. You're also duplicating references for unknown reasons. Stop. APK say that you love me 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think full protection is the only thing that will work. You refuse to undo the errors. APK say that you love me 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop reverting the good stuff along with the bad. It's causing me to go back and forth and correct things. I fixed the double source thing. Now, herein lies the problem. How do we add the DC Fire estimate as part of the attendance controversy without saying the same thing? That's why I did the generalized intro and moved the Fire estimate down to the Attendance subsection but you didn't like that so I just went with it. So now we have it written twice. You were right about the "east of the monument" part. --Triadian (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources
I have removed the following from the article:
The Heritage Foundation's Mark Kelly used figures from the the DC Metrorail system "Metrorail Service Information for Saturday, September 12, 2009". Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority. wmata.com. Retrieved 18 September 2009. and gave an deductive estimate of "313,000 to 433,000 attendees" Kelly, Mark (September 15, 2009). "Metro Delivers Hundreds of Thousands to 9/12 Rally". The Heritage Foundation. heritage.org. Retrieved September 18, 2009. {{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
Because it points to a blog posting. See Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F Samboy (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather it be actually from the think tank, but you're right it actually is a blog. --Triadian (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RS does not proscribe all blogs: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." The Heritage blog is "a product of Heritage's Center for Media & Public Policy" and the author of that particular posting is a staff member at Heritage. I suggest that it qualifies as a RS. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is the Heritige Foundation a reliable source to the point that we can consider a blog of theirs reliable? I don't think so, myself; the Heritage Foundation has a pretty strong political agenda which affects their ability to report crowd sizes at this political march in a neutral manner. Samboy (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I won't get into original research, and know this comment borders on "Forum" like, but the comments section on that same page in response shows clearly why the Heritage Foundation estimates are based on bad data. They compared 9/12/09 with 9/6/08 when Tropical Storm Hanna hit DC and city authorities warned people not to come into the city. In short, the days they used for comparison of traffic numbers were not at all comparable. USColonial 4:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Astroturfing
Should there be more talk about astroturfing on the article or not?
- Only if it's supported by reliable sources Samboy (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If and only if a WP:RS refers to it, specifically, as astroturf. Even just being involved with an organization that is frequently characterized as "astroturf", like FreedomWorks isn't enough to label this specific event as such. — Mike : tlk 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
full protection
Just like Mark Lloyd.
- We don't need it. There's not a massive rush to change things; there was just an edit war because two editors thought the policies supported their arguments. --Triadian (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just like Glenn Beck.
- Just like Van Jones.
- Just like ACORN. However, it is apparently still ok to edit Eliot Spitzer
All of the articles you listed, with the exception of Mark Lloyd (which has been repeatedly vandalized and POV-pushed), are semi-protected. Semi-protection shouldn't affect your ability to edit the article at all unless you are anonymous or just created your account. — Mike : tlk 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Logo
The logo has been discussed in a few sources, The Politico and Los Angeles Times to name two examples. Does anyone think it should be mentioned? APK say that you love me 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was actually used at the event, sure. Its kinda cute in a way...as the image caption at politico.com attests...how conservative protesters emulate what the once viciously condemned. If that sort of observation begins to gain traction, it may be worth a mention, too. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate line
This sentence, "The protesters rallied against what they consider big government, the dismantling of free market capitalism, and President Barack Obama's proposals on health care reform, taxation, and federal spending, among other issues.[7][8][3][9][10]", occurs verbatim twice in the article. It seems to me that the copy of it in the attendance estimates section is misplaced and should be removed as a duplicate and as not really dealing specifically with attendance estimates. Opinions of other editors on the subject would be appreciated. Koumz (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. It was a copy & paste error that was removed earlier today, but somehow found its way back into the article. APK say that you love me 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was the reason I started the "User:Triadian" section above. APK say that you love me 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Interjecting bias into article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seem to be many editors trying to interject bias into the article. At first it was from those wanting the 1+ million estimates in there. Now it's those attempting to downplay the event by drawing conclusions from the articles that just simply aren't there. I have argued here many times that the sources that have been put into this article do not come to the same conclusions that many of the editors are. The conflicting estimates are coming from more than just "conservative activist" sources. I agree, blogs are going nuts with large estimates, but they aren't the only ones out there. There's a plethora of articles previously given over and over and over and over and over again on this page discussing the various estimates and even some articles talking about how many estimates there are. "While there are conflicting appraisals" covers all and doesn't null those that aren't conservative giving estimates either HIGH or LOW. See WP:NPOV. --Triadian (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- See the resolved tag above, and the message in regards to where you should voice your concerns. APK say that you love me 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. I think the wording can go either way. In other words, I'm neutral. APK say that you love me 23:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
And to clarify again, the source states: [9] "Some conservative blogs claimed 2 million attendees." Note the word SOME. Also, "But even before the march was over, the news media, bloggers and rally supporters were wrangling over the crowd count, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million.". Note who gave conflicting estimates there. "Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University research professor and expert on crowd estimation..." <--- is he conservative leaning, no. "The Daily Mail in England..." a conservative activist or event planner? No. I rest my case. --Triadian (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're forgetting the language in question. We are talking about figures that are in conflict with what all the reliable sources are saying (75,000 or so). Farouk El-Baz is not in conflict with this. He affirms it. The Daily Mail is a marginally unreliable source, and, while they haven't issued a retraction from that story published the same day (something they rarely do unless threatened with a lawsuit), they've certainly backed away from it when questioned and have since admitted that they got their figure from the erroneously reported "ABC News" figure (which ABC News has vehemently denied is true). Oh, and yes, the Daily Mail is conservative, but that's not really at issue. Can you find a single reliable source other than conservative outlets that questions the accepted attendance figures? If not, then your edit is incorrect.
- Also, note WP:3RR, which you are already in violation of. Rather than vowing to continue reverting, you should wait until there is consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Same to you. You started reverting us, not the other way around. I didn't vow to continue reverting, I was only going to revert once more and stressed that if you tried again, you'd be in violation of what you're accusing me of. Maybe you didn't interpret it that way, but that's what I meant by it. --Triadian (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't have source backing Daily Mail other than the originals like the LA and Wash Times which is the cited source for that line, which I have been criticized for not following to the letter. Yes, many conservatives believe there were over 70,000 but that's not the point. What source says all criticism comes from conservative opinion sources or event organizers? That's what you want put in the article, but you can't back that up. Regardless, I believe the issue is now semi-resolved with recent edits. Yes, the intro still suggests conservatives are the only ones giving conflicting estimates, but at least there is now an upper limit given and sourced correctly by a non-biased source, even if the professor didn't do a detailed review. At least this conveys a sense of uncertainty without putting sole blame on a particular group of individuals that may or may not be correct. I hope we can learn from this. I've been at Wikipedia for a fairly long time. Article-writing means being accurate with what the sources are saying and not jumping to conclusions based on part of what was said. --Triadian (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"Attendance Controversy" section corrections
Pete Sepp's name is spelled wrong. And, he is a spokesman, not a spokesmen. Kenatipo (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
[== "hundreds of thousands" NBC News ==
is NBC News a reliable source? they reported "hundreds of thousands" on NBC Nightly News on 9-12-2009. watch here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32813988#32813988 Kenatipo (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- "...our own people think hundreds of thousands" is the exact quote. Its a genuine news report and he didn't misspeak so I think it's good enough to put in the Attendance controversy section. This is what I meant before. It's not only conservative activists. --Triadian (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see zero problems with it. The Squicks (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
MSNBC videos are no more a WP:RS than Youtube Videos are a WP:RS. Written news (hopefully) goes through an editorial process, whereas televised news often is broadcast live. — Mike : tlk 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you kidding? There's no difference between this and any other news reporting done by MSNBC, which is a solid reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Mike, i couldn't help noticing that over on the Glenn Beck wiki article discussion page, you mention MSNBC as a Reliable Source. so, you're not only disingenuous, you're mistaken: the link i posted is not an "MSNBC video" as you put it. it's an NBC News clip from the program called "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams". it aired nationally on 9-12-2009. did you even bother to look at the clip before bloviating? Kenatipo (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll remind you to assume good faith, and not accuse other editors of "bloviating" or being "disingenuious". It is a video hosted on MSNBC.com, of a MSNBC broadcast, and is thus a "MSNBC video". I did misread WP:RS, which uses the word "published sources", but then later says
so the source is appropriate. As I said before, since there's no editorial review process for a correspondent's story in a news broadcast of this type, you will need directly attribute the opinion to its owner. The quote from Tom Costello is "Park Police estimate the crowd at tens of thousands, our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here". I'll start looking in to videos from other reliable sources for crowd estimates, since as I said before, I was unaware that they were WP:RS. — Mike : tlk 23:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.
Would wording it in this article as something like NBC reporter Tom Costello stated that "our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here" on the 12th. make sense? The Squicks (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which of the three enumerated categories in the excerpt from WP:RS does this video fit into? "recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party"?. It is not "recorded then broadcast" as NBC Nightly News is broadcast live. It is not "archived by a reputable third-party", since it is MSNBC its self that we're getting it from. It must then be "distributed" to be appropriate, but I don't see that as being clear-cut since you cannot get a copy. Could someone please make a case for "distributed" so we can figure out if we're following Wikipedia policy by adding this as a RS? — Mike : tlk 23:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Squicks, what is your rationale on omitting the Park Police estimate of "tens of thousands" (directly attributed to MSNBC as well, since it's being treated as an op-ed) ? — Mike : tlk 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That estimate is already here, so there's no point to cite the same Police agency twice. The Squicks (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict
- Could someone please make a case for "distributed" What kind of arguement are you talking about here? It seems like an open and shut thing to me. It is posted on their news website for others to take out, and thus it is distributed. I don't know much about precedent, but in my experience in Israeli-Palestinian articles= News things posted on YouTube are acceptable. Look at, say, how Wiki refers to Al Jazzera English's YouTube dispatches. The Squicks (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just thinking that if you distribute something, the recipient generally takes (or can take) possession. This is true for written content, since you can save it to disk or print it out. This might just be semantics, but I'm trying to figure out why I have seen videos rejected as not WP:RS so consistently.— Mike : tlk 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are talking about. Thanks to Firefox and related software, you and I can take virtually every piece of media that we get our hands on and keep it. The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just thinking that if you distribute something, the recipient generally takes (or can take) possession. This is true for written content, since you can save it to disk or print it out. This might just be semantics, but I'm trying to figure out why I have seen videos rejected as not WP:RS so consistently.— Mike : tlk 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- To those who think I'm a biased, evil liberal (hey ObserverNY!) , my pointing out the following article will come as a shock: The Guardian says "Tens – or even perhaps hundreds – of thousands of livid demonstrators filled the capital,..." Before claiming the author agrees with the higher estimate, note the "even perhaps" phrase. APK say that you love me 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Squicks, I don't believe that Park Police is mentioned anywhere in the article. We just have DC Fire Department's "exceeding 75,000". — Mike : tlk 23:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see what the issue is. If The Guardian states that it was probably tens of thousands but could have been 100s of thousands, than what is wrong with that? Why not put that in the article? As for Park Police, apparently persons unknown have removed their estimate from the article and I support re-including that immediately. What's the issue here? What's wrong with the sources? The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Guardian would be fine. I'm seriously trying to figure out why so many editors think embedded (not downloadable) videos on news sites are not WP:RS. At this point, I would be fine with the MSNBC video as well, I'm just making sure there's not some policy we're overlooking. — Mike : tlk 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the NBC bit where an individual reporter shares their opinion on the crowd having hundreds of thousands of people. Ditto with the Guardian. It shows how people who were there at the attendance thought the rally was larger than the estimates provided by people who have a lot of experience estimating crowd sizes. In both cases, we just have to make it clear it was the opinion of a reporter reporting live about the rally. Samboy (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that MSNBC guy has just as much pull as that DC Fire guy who gave his opinion. The only difference is that the DC Fire unofficial estimate was cited by many sources the day of the rally and the day after the rally for some reason. Apples to apples. I also have no problem with the Guardian or Park Police. I have to say hat's off to those that have written the article as it reads today. It flows very well and covers all the points I think in a very fair manner. Huzzah! --Triadian (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Lead change
The lead of our attendance section is more in line with NPOV, is more descriptive, and provides proper weight to the different views. I replaced the prior statement in the lead of the article, with a slightly modified version. It provides primary weight to the most reported estimates, but does mention the wide range speculated. It also addresses the geography of the crowd. Morphh (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please wait for more feedback before changing the lead. APK say that you love me 21:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Feedback or not.. the current lead fails in several areas with regard to crowd attendance. Per WP:LEAD, the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. This current lead does not summarize the attendance controversy and barely introduces it. While the most reported figures should be given top weight, there is a lack of weight (an exclusion) of other estimates in the lead, in violation of WP:NPOV. Again, they should not be detailed, but they should be mentioned in an unbiased, neutral, and encyclopedic tone - not presenting one side as truth. The current lead fails this. The statements also may have an issue with article structure by creating an apparent hierarchy of fact. The coverage of other estimates has been covered sufficiently in reliable sources to present them. Reading through the lead of the attendance controversy section, it provides a far more balanced and neutral presentation. Since this has already been vetted to some degree by editors, I suggest we remove the greatly lacking sentence in the lead and replace it with a more complete summary based on the attendance controversy section. Morphh (talk) 0:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Replace
While there are conflicting appraisals of the crowd size,[1] the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department unofficially estimated the attendance "in excess of 75,000" people.[2][3][1][4]
With this
A wide range of crowd estimates, ranging from 60,000 to 2 million,were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media.[1]The space occupied by the crowd extended from the Capitol lawn down around the National Mall as far as Third Street.[5]MostManynews outlets reported "tens of thousands" and "between 60,000 and 75,000",[2][6][7] with many sourcing the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department who unofficially estimated there were "in excess of 75,000" people in attendance.[2][3][1][4] National Taxpayers Union reported peak size from 200,000 to 300,000, FreedomWorks suggested between 600,000 and 800,000, and an expert in crowd estimation indicated "likely under 100,000".[1]
- "Feedback or not.." Er, that's the spirit. Anywho, is anyone still claiming the 2 million estimate? APK say that you love me 00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer to just say A wide range of crowd estimates were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media. in the beginning. The 2 million claim appears to be an unreliable outlier. It also seems to me that you are giving undue weight to the estimates by the organizers there. Maybe just the statement by NTU would be reasonable. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- To answer APK, as far as I'm aware, I don't think anyone is suggesting 2 million any more. While the 1.5 / 2 million figure it is part of the controversy with FreedomWorks/ABC, I'd agree with just saying "A wide range of crowd estimates were reported ..." and leaving it to the section to discuss this point, since it is no longer suggested as a valid estimate by anyone. I would disagree with removing the FreedomWorks estimate, while I believe it to be way over estimated, they are one of the central players in the attendance controversy, as discussed in the section. I think both NTU and FreedomWorks estimates should be stated in their most basic and summarized form (they're only given about 6 words each, compared with about 36 words for the primary estimates and being stated first). Morphh (talk) 1:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, this is far too long for the lead and does not reflect what reliable sources say about the topic. Most sources said "tens of thousands", a few said "60,000-80,000", and some biased conservative sources have said all sorts of wild numbers up to 2,000,000. Oh, some biased liberal sources have reported as low as 40,000, but I don't see a bunch of people trying to put 40,000 in this article. Samboy (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not too long for the lead based on the amount of the article spent addressing the attendance controversy. However, if we did remove something, the second sentence would be an option, although I think it should be included - perhaps moved to the first paragraph in the lead where they discuss the location. As far as weight, it states that most media reported tens of thousands and where they derive that information. We're not suggesting otherwise. It is not up to us to determine or imply who is biased - we must present it neutraly. It represents a minority viewpoint, and needs to be included. These are two of the primary organizers of the event, they have a basis to make their argument for crowd estimation and it's been reported in reliable sources. The other is an expert on crowd estimates from a university. If the liberal sources have some degree of involvement or reference and can be attributed to reliable sources, than I say we include them as well. Morphh (talk) 2:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- As part of a compromise to reduce the size, I've added a strike to the second sentence describing the geographical area occupied by the crowd. Perhaps we can look at integrating this material elsewhere in the lead if we find it appropriate. Morphh (talk) 3:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Since there are no major objections that would prevent this inclusion and I believe the current version is in violation of policy, I've updated the article to suggested trimmed and modified content. Morphh (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Garbage. We're not going to give prominence to the over-inflated estimations of the group that organized the rally. The previous version notes there is a controversy and then gives the most reliable numbers, with further detail of the controversy found in its own section. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not up to you to decide what is "over-inflated", "most reliable" or to state what is the "truth". That is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. It is a minority viewpoint, and we have presented it as such, but a very brief inclusion of the competing estimates is required. Morphh (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It violates WP:UNDUE to put crowd size numbers that come only from fringe sources in the lead. The 1,000,000 estimates and what not are not "minority viewpoints"; they are fringe theories, plain and simple. Samboy (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't come from fringe sources, it comes from the same sources that we're using for the other figures. The primary one used was the LA Times. This material is pulled directly from our article, which is sourced. Many reliable sources reported on the controversy. It's in no way a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory - the controversy does exist and their are easily identifiable prominent adherents to alternate estimates. It's minority opinion reported by those directly involved with the event. Per WP:UNDUE, we must include their point of view in a neutral way. It should be brief and we should identify it as a minority view, which we have done by stating most report the other figures. Morphh (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD should provide an overview of the article, not a duplication of what is covered in greater detail later in the article. I propose that the current paragraph be changed to as follows:
- A wide range of crowd estimates were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media resulting in controversy and allegations of doctored photos.[15]
Most news outlets reported "tens of thousands" and "between 60,000 and 75,000",[1][2][16] with many sourcing the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department who unofficially estimated there were "in excess of 75,000" people in attendance.[1][17][15][18] National Taxpayers Union reported peak size from 200,000 to 300,000, FreedomWorks suggested between 600,000 and 800,000, and an expert in crowd estimation indicated "likely under 100,000".[15]ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Excellent. I was actually going to move it up to the preceding paragraph myself, and then forgot. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Um, what happened? The "60,000 to two million" was a direct take from the cited source. I will be happy to put it in quotes but it is not WP:Undue ObserverNY (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Samboy - the discussion is here. I restored the agreed to edit. Please discuss here if you are in disagreement with the cite. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- The current language does not work because it gives undue WP:WEIGHT to the 2 million figure which does not come from any reliable source (and frankly, is just absurd). Yes, the LAT reported on the 2 million figure, but only in the context that some other (unreliable) sources are claiming this. We can mention in the "attendance controversy" section, but it's inappropriate for the lede unless we add the caveat that reliable sources put the figure at around 75,000. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Loonymonkey - I fail to understand your claim of undue weight when the sentence as I worded it included the range of 60,000 to 2 million as reported in the LA Times. Both figures are given equal weight and reflect the reporting of the LATimes and reason to read the controversy section below. Adding the "unofficial" FD 75,000 source gives undue weight to the minimal figure. Why did you revert it without discussion? ObserverNY (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- One more thing, the opening paragraph of the LATimes article says: But even before the march was over, the news media, bloggers and rally supporters were wrangling over the crowd count, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million. ... there fore your claim that the reference is only to "bloggers" as justification for removal is not accurate. ObserverNY (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- No reliable source, not a single one, has estimated the attendance at 2 million (probably because it would be absurd). To say that that estimate (which comes from some blog somewhere) is equivalent to what the reliable source actually do estimate is the very definition of undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned about the lead as it is now, since it appears to imply that only the organizers gave counts into the 100s of thousands range. That's not entirely accurate-- after all, even the doggedly pro-administration The Guardian said that 'prehaps 100s of thousands attended'. And then there's the MSNBC reporter who said a similar thing. The Squicks (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never declared that either 2 million or 60,000 is a legitimate report count. That was the range of crowd estimates. The LATimes, a verifiable source, reports a "wild range" from multiple sources and that is what I accurately paraphrased. The fact of the matter is that there IS NO accurate, official count, hence the controversy where we cover the various reportings later on in detail. ObserverNY (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- The fact that there is no accurate official count is not a justification for including a wildly inaccurate and unreliable figure as if it were equivalent to what the reliable sources are reporting. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(Moved conversation's indentation left). See, this is what I was talking about when all my attempts to discuss the lead were closed without any consensus. We're going to end up talking about it anyway because the slight bias in the lead sticks out like a sore thumb and some editor at some point is going to want to make it better for Wikipedia by making it more generalized. I've given-in to the way the article is currently read because it at least indirectly shows that there is doubt for the attendance numbers, even though I think the whole controversy could be summarized in the lead in a much more simplistic and nonpartisan way. How to exactly summarize the lead is up for debate. There seems to be a clash of editors here. You can't necessarily see your own inherent bias, but it's there and easily pointed out by the opposing viewpoint. I would encourage everyone here to be more open-minded. Here is what we have in the most unbiased format I can make (with a little of my own opinion):
- There is a legitimate point about the accuracy of the DC Fire estimate... it's unofficial; yet, it was widely reported, sometimes forgetting to add the "unofficial" part of the primary source.
- Some sources suggest numbers in the millions; yes, most are conservative blogs, but not all. Daily Mail reported it and hasn't retracted. That's the only outlier though.
- Some sources initially reported higher numbers, but then retracted them and went with other sources as justification. ABC News did this. It's important to decipher which organizations have done this and what they have cited.
- A lot of sources did say "tens of thousands", but almost all of those sources got that info from the original DC Fire estimate. Those that did not simply guessed, but they did in fact report this, so it should be taken as journalism, even if it is bad journalism.
- It's difficult to tell which estimates take into account the event after the march down Pennsylvania Ave. There were people going in and out after the march, so things get shady.
- The National Black Family Reunion festival took place near the Wash Monument on the same day.
- Farouk El-Baz, a professor, gave his upper limit of 75,000. This is an informal estimate however. He did not clarify which crowd he was estimating (in front of capitol or the march).
- An MSNBC reporter said "our people believe hundreds of thousands", which is in fact a legitimate report just like the "tens of thousands" from the WSJ.
- Freedomworks, the organizers of the event currently claim 600,000 to 800,000. This fact must be included SOMEWHERE in the article, even if it is biased, because it gets its footing from being the actual organizer. You can counter it if you like with another source. Does it need to be in the lead? No, not necessarily... only if other figures are given that are biased toward the small end of the spectrum.
- There are no official estimates from any highly credible organization.
- The National Taxpayers' Union estimated the crowd at 75,000 in the morning and from 200,000 and 300,000 as the day went on. This is a biased source and fits in with Freedomworks.
- Giving a range of attendance for the lead is likely to bring about controversy over and over again.
- The obvious solution is to compile all the sources for a simple generalized statement that is unbiased. If people want controversy, they can go to that section.
- The maximum range is 60,000-2,000,000. Most sources, though, I believe say that it's more than 75,000 and less than 300,000. Is any of this relevant? Not really because to give a low estimate for the lead would null the opinions of some and giving a high estimate would give more credit to the organizers and promoters of the event. See "rock and a hard place".
Personally, I think those that will not settle for anything but a low estimate should give up on that fight because I don't think you're ever going to win. Likewise, those advocating that the "millions" or even high hundred-thousands estimates should also drop that argument because the dissenting editors here will never go for it. We've got to meet somewhere in the middle or just not give a figure at all in the lead, saying it's all up in the air... go see the Attendance controversy section for more details. For the record, this is not original research, it's just research. --Triadian (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Triadian - I am trying to be as unbiased as possible for the lead statement, which is why I suggested using the LA Times reference to reflect the "maximum range". This addresses the low-ballers and the high-ballers, defines a major controversy (because clearly there is a huge difference between 60,000 and 600,000 or 1,600.000) and is presented by a verifiable source. I don't see why specific details regarding the crowd estimates need to be brought into the lead. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
No crowd estimates from RS were 2 million. The range of all crowd estimates may extend to 2 million, but not the range of RS crowd estimates. Just because something is in a RS article does not mean it should automatically be included. So all that plus, there were not 2 million people there and you know it Observer. You were there right? It's EXTREMELY difficult to assume good faith when you insist on including the 2 million number while even Freedom Works has backed away from it. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reliefappearance - please refrain from personal attacks and assume WP:good faith ObserverNY (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Estimates from RS did say up to 2 million from whatever source they used. Like I said though, those are outliers, and while they're worth mentioning, I agree that in the lead they shouldn't have any prominence. --Triadian (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, no RS said that there were 2 million people there. A few reliable sources (such as the LA Times) did report that other (unreliable sources) claimed 2 million, but that's not nearly the same thing. And let's be honest, the notion that 2 million people showed up for this thing is just laughably absurd. The simple fact remains that no reliable source gives an estimate that high and mentioning it, especially in the lede is undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let me ask this... are we trying to limit the controversy on the crowd sizes by excluding estimates we find unreasonable? It's obvious to me that 2 million is obsurd and FreedomWorks is way overstated, but that is me as a reader forming my own opinion. We have two things going on here, we have the estimate primarily reported by the media, then we have a controversy of the size of the crowd that ranged into the ludicrous. Should we not just represent the controversy over the attendance in a neutral and unbiased way, attributing the figures, and implying the primary reported viewpoint. Many of you are debating the fact that 2 million is an absurd number for the size, and it is... but that's exactly the point. The overblown ridiculous estimation - the wild range that was reported for this event. I don't know if we should include the 2 million range or not in the lead (I offered it above when I first started the tread), but I think many of you are looking at it as presenting a valid estimate, instead of the controversy that surrounds the crowd size. ObserverNY general statement is focused on the controversy aspect, and others are focus on including the most reported size of the event. I think both are valid things to include. In the lead, I think we need to state the controversy and list some of the opposing minority estimates, making clear the reported majority. I think the current lead accomplishes this. Morphh (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Fox News ad in Friday's WaPo
I've added quite a few possible sources (links are in the "personal reminder(s)" section at the top of this page), including this NYT article. Fox News took out a full-page ad in Friday's WaPo, leading to quite a stir among several news outlets. Should this be mentioned, or does it belong elsewhere. Also, does anyone else have an opinion on mentioning the logo's design? APK say that you love me 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reporting on the logo's design may border on violating WP:POINT, since the "analysis" is mocking Beck's "art critic" segments. — Mike : tlk 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this issue is not worth mentioning here since the ad is something done by Fox and is that relevant to them and their pages. It's not really suited for here rather than there because the ad controversy does not relate to what the protester's thought or discussed. This is a tangent. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)The Politico article is mocking Beck? About the WaPo ad, that's what I figured. Thanks for the feedback. APK say that you love me 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Prehaps something like a sentence about the ad would be worth mentioning here, but- once again- we should not really be giving undue weight to something that is a controversy about Fox News and not about the protesters per se. The Squicks (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Fox ad in WAPO appears to point specifically to the crowd estimate controversy [10] The two featured pictures are the clearest overview shots of the crowds from that day. Are there any verifiable sources from any of the mainstream media targeted by the FOX ad that include those images? CNN's "You lie" response is correct in that CNN did cover the event, but did it use either of those photos? Thanks.ObserverNY (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Reliable source for the name of this article?
Forgive me if this was already discussed, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why is this article titled "Taxpayer March on Washington"? Every reliable source I've seen refers to it otherwise. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Several RS already used in the article label it the "Taxpayer March on Washington" (ex: The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Hill, The Politico), while other sources used a similar title "March on Washington" (ex: The Daily Telegraph, The Associated Press). I've also seen 9-12 March, 09.12.09, etc. What RS are you seeing and what do they call the event? APK say that you love me 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm ok with leaving the article title as "Taxpayers March on Washington", but perhaps we could add the (9/12 Project) after? Not crucial, just a suggestion. ObserverNY (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Yeah, that's fine with me. I say keep article title like it is. It's the best we can do. Keep in mind though, it was a 9/12 protest partially attended by people of the 9/12 Project. This event is not necessarily the actual 9/12 Project though. (Sidenote: Oooh, a red link? Perhaps a future article awaits. I think it could be done.) --Triadian (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The title of the march is "Taxpayer March on Washington" There is no ambiguity. Freedom Works is a RS for the name of an event they organzied. [11] Reliefappearance (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Image clutter
In this edit summary, ObserverNY asked if the image was located in a "better spot?" My reply was that the page looks cluttered. ObserverNY reverted, without an edit summary, so I'm raising the issue here. I also noticed the phrase "denounced governmental elitism" was added to the "Signage" section. Is the phrase mentioned in one of the sources? APK say that you love me 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey APK - are you ok with the way it looks now? I was playing around with the placement of the photos and I think it looks nice now. Do you? The new photo fills in some of the big white blank space that was in the WP:LEAD. (and yes, I'm biased as I took that photo and thought those were two of the cleverest signs I saw) Yes, I added that phrase, but I don't care if you take it out, not an issue. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Just thought I'd mention that it was kinda rude of you to just go and delete the photo without responding to my question. So much for collaboration, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- 1) The images you uploaded to Commons were copy-edited (added wikilinks, cats, etc.) by me. You're welcome. 2) Despite your name-calling during the past two weeks, my initial revert labeled your edit as being made in good faith, which it was. Your revert failed to include an edit summary. 3) The reason I started this section was to avoid any kind of negative interaction with you and to request feedback from other users. No one else replied and your comment includes "I don't care if you take it out, not an issue." I guess you did care, but I'm not a mind reader. 4) If you're going to continue talking trash about me on various talk pages, especially to a user who doesn't know me, then try telling the complete story. Constantly portraying yourself as an oppressed Wikipedian is getting really old, especially when the person you claim is not willing to collaborate is the same person you've treated like shit. APK say that you love me 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Time Lapse Video of March on YouTube
hello, Looneymonkey. can you be a little more specific about which part of EL this inclusion violates? this video is the best evidence we have of crowd size. our readers can view it and decide for themselves how large the march was. have you watched the video? 96.255.139.75 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps because this encyclopedia is not in the business of doing such things. We report on what reliable sources have to say, not on what subjective pictures are available for open interpretation. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think he is talking about external link policy, not adding it as a source. So I don't think it would apply to WP:OR. What I think Looneymonkey was referring to is WP:YOUTUBE and the questionable copyright status of the video. Morphh (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- wasn't logged in earlier. i added a link to the YouTube Time Lapse Video of the march, and Looneymonkey removed it, citing EL violation. i don't see how pictures taken by a publically accessible video camera can be described as "subjective". i will try and check into the copyright issue. Kenatipo (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is not an appropriate external link as it does not add any new information to the article. In fact, it contains no information whatsoever. Also, it being user-uploaded content, it fails WP:VERIFY. Better to stick with reliable sources (of which we have plenty). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to side with those saying leave it off the page. It's user-submitted content. The only way it could be put on the page is if some reliable sources linked to it or it could be converted to the Commons to be played here as video evidence of the series of events. Until then, it's not really worth arguing about. All the guidelines basically rule against it. --Triadian (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Loonymonkey is correct. It's not an appropriate EL, mainly because it fails to provide any information. APK say that you love me 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it provides no information. I was prepared to argue for leaving it in, on the basis that, even if uninformative about crowd size, a video would give a subjective impression of the types of people participating, their mood, their signs, etc. Upon viewing the video, however, I found that it's from so far away that there's no such information. Also for that reason, it could easily have been doctored, with the same portions of the crowd shown marching past the vantage point more than once. Therefore, even the limited information it contains is unreliable, being the video equivalent of a blog posting. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- One picture is worth a thousand words. Any picture can be doctored. All that it took to add pictures of the march to this article was for APK to download them from Flickr. This time he can download from YouTube! Wikipedia rules are not engraved in stone. How about linking the time-lapse video and letting the people decide if it shows "tens of thousands" of people? It is the best evidence of crowd size. Kenatipo (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are trying to use an external link as "evidence" to support the idea of the crowd size being more than "tens of thousands". Youtube is not a reliable source, and WP:RS applies even if you are lobbying to put a link to the video in the external links section instead of in the body of the article is irrelevant. This should be a no brainer, especially when we know that doctored crowd photographs were passed around to try to create the illusion of larger crowd sizes. — Mike : tlk 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- One picture is worth a thousand words. Any picture can be doctored. All that it took to add pictures of the march to this article was for APK to download them from Flickr. This time he can download from YouTube! Wikipedia rules are not engraved in stone. How about linking the time-lapse video and letting the people decide if it shows "tens of thousands" of people? It is the best evidence of crowd size. Kenatipo (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. You're suggesting I download someone else's work from YouTube? That's not allowed. (my apologies if that's not what you're suggesting) Anyway, if someone thinks the images I uploaded from flickr have been altered, then by all means, we should have them deleted. But I see no evidence of that. APK say that you love me 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- APK, my point is: just as we have no reason to believe that the pictures you downloaded from Flickr are not genuine, so we have no reason to believe that the time-lapse video is not genuine. why are we assuming good faith for pictures posted on Flickr but not for frames taken by a public-access webcam? that's where my confusion comes in. the YouTube time-lapse video is still the best evidence of crowd size --- it was taken from a high point looking down on the crowd (the highest i've seen) and the frames are from a public access camera that anyone had access to. it should be linked somewhere in the article. and, yes, i am lobbying for it! and, no, i didn't mean to suggest that you download from YouTube -- i should have said "link" to YouTube instead.
- Mike, i know of one photo of the PromiseKeepers rally that was mistakenly described as the 912dc march, but it was not "fake" or "doctored". it was just of a different event. even if you assume, as you seem to, that the mis-attribtion was in bad faith, it still has nothing to do with the authenticity of the time-lapse video on YouTube. "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this (EL) page." Kenatipo (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- APK, my point is: just as we have no reason to believe that the pictures you downloaded from Flickr are not genuine, so we have no reason to believe that the time-lapse video is not genuine. why are we assuming good faith for pictures posted on Flickr but not for frames taken by a public-access webcam? that's where my confusion comes in. the YouTube time-lapse video is still the best evidence of crowd size --- it was taken from a high point looking down on the crowd (the highest i've seen) and the frames are from a public access camera that anyone had access to. it should be linked somewhere in the article. and, yes, i am lobbying for it! and, no, i didn't mean to suggest that you download from YouTube -- i should have said "link" to YouTube instead.
Attendance
Not that I'm trying to beat a dead horse, but the DC Fire Department has released a statement that they did not release an estimate of the crowd size, nor do they actually estimate crowd sizes. This would suggest that the "unofficial" reports are not verifiable.
No one is really standing by the 60,000 to 70,000 estimate. I am thinking they should be removed.
I think the best way would be to get a impartial crowd calculator... Aren't there professors at universities that do this? Don't they have aerial shots of the mall which allow them to count a small segment of the photograph, and then multiply to get an estimate? I found a few things on the web in blogs, but most seemed quite amateurish...
Thanks,
--thequackdaddy (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- And I think I just answered my own question. I like the citing Farouk Al-Baz, but the source says that the estimate was "informal." The same article says that the DC Subway experience 87,000 additional riders. I'm not sure if they count a per going there and then coming back as 2 people... Anybody else find anything?
- Thanks,
- --thequackdaddy (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing that someone has suggested that I may be opening a can of worms, let me re-iterate that I'm fine with mentioning the Farouk Al-Baz estimate of 75,000 in the title paragraph. That number is about the same. I think that number is more reliable than reports the DC FD doesn't want to stand behind.
- I apologize if I'm coming off as a Johnny-come-lately, but the other attendance centered sections were both listed as resolved and both resolved prior to 9/21/2009, which is when this press release was published. If someone who is more up-to-speed with Wikipedia protocols would let me know, I'd very much appreciate it.
- Thanks,
- --thequackdaddy (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be deleted as it is the most widely reported information, and we're about verifiability, not truth. It is the majority viewpoint. But, we do have a obligation to include this information and make sure all the facts are presented, so that readers can make their own assessment. Morphh (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I added the new information to the article. We'll see how the worms shake out. Morphh (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)"we're about verifiability, not truth." I suppose that is the major problem I am having in trying to edit Wikipedia, especially on a topic which I know the "majority viewpoint" expressed in the "mainstream" media was not the truth. By insisting on only reflecting that which the mainstream media reported and disallowing video such as the time lapse of the march, Wikipedia is foisting an untruthful representation of history, rather than allowing the reader to visually decide for themselves if the mainstream reports of 75,000 or the blog reports of up to 1 Million are the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- Morph, Thanks for the clarification. I've read the edits and I think I am fine with them. I think the sources are verifiable and the article is clear enough that the estimate from the DC Fire Department was from the Public Information Officer who was not acting in his official capacity. I think what is written there is fair. I appreciate your viewpoint. I'm satisfied. Thanks! --thequackdaddy (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- The recent statement by the DC Fire Department is self-contradictory. The first sentence states categorically that they don't do crowd estimates. The second sentence says, I think, that they estimated 60,000 people in Lafayette Square. Unfortunately, Lafayette Square was not a staging area for the march, according to the 912dc.org website. Kenatipo (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the fire people want to be contradictory, that we certainty can't stop them. All we can do is fairly and neutrally present their changing stories.
As for the crowd counts, since there's no reliable source that stands by the million mark that can't be included. The Squicks (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide me with your input if you feel that Sophia Elena, [13] as an independent reporter, can be referenced for her reporting on the 9/12 march and rally. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
- ^ a b c d e Markman, Joe (September 15, 2009). "Crowd estimates vary wildly for Capitol march". Los Angeles Times. latimes.com. Retrieved September 15, 2009.
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
wsjournal
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
goldman
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b "ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size". ABC News. abcnews.go.com. September 12, 2009. Retrieved September 13, 2009.
- ^ Koppelman, Alex (September 14, 2009). "The final word on crowd size". Salon.com. salon.com. Retrieved September 15, 2009.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
atlanta
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
politifact
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).