Jump to content

Talk:Boston Free Speech Rally

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media

[edit]
  • Lots of media to migrate here:

https://www.voanews.com/a/left-wing-activists-plan-to-protest-boston-free-speech-rally/3992220.html Victor Grigas (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas?

[edit]

This also happened at the same time but according to this news report its was unrelated:

Dallas protest http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/thousands-attend-rally-against-white-supremacy-in-dallas-/465652079

Victor Grigas (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would a better name than Dallas rally against white supremacy exist for this? Wondering if it was registered under an official name. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dueling rallies

[edit]

CNN kept throwing around this phrase in reference to Boston even though there was minimal confrontation compared to Charlottesville. Phrase worth mentioning? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. TheValeyard (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag lady

[edit]

Noticing much coverage of her, requesting input on how to incorporate.

  • http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/19/boston-braces-for-spirited-protests-at-free-speech-rally
    • TV cameras showed a group of boisterous counterprotesters on the Common chasing a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him. But other counterprotesters intervened and helped the man safely over a fence into the area where the conservative rally was to be staged. Black-clad counterprotesters also grabbed an American flag out of an elderly woman’s hands, and she stumbled and fell to the ground

Obviously a lot happened but I think it is worth highlighting events getting press. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Sun article is probably good, but I don't think the Heavy article is: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_226#Murder_of_Seth_Rich_article_and_source_Heavy.com. I haven't seen a ton of coverage about her, but I might just be seeing different news sources than you are. If you can find another reliable source, I'd say add it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ScratchMarshall can you point me directly to any video of the event with the "counterprotesters on the Common chasing a man" I haven't been able to find it on the 'cited' page. The "grabbed an American flag out of an elderly woman’s hands" was easy to see, though. 220 of Borg 02:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this was in any of the video I've seen so far, I didn't notice it, although it all kind of blurs together. Presumably Steve LeBlanc (TorSun article writer) would be the one to ask about this. ScratchMarshall (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

protester / counter-protester

[edit]

The Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville was organized as a protest against the removal of civil war memorials; the protesters were therefore styled counter-protesters i.e. against the protesters. If the opponents of the Free Speech Coalition rally at Boston Commons are styled counter-protesters, shouldn't the article make clear what the Coalition were protesting? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we should look at how to describe the BFSC rallies. Were they rallying for free speech or protesting against censorship of free speech? Rallies do not necessarily need to be identified using "protest against" instead of "rally for". Perhaps it would be more neutral to identify both sides by their designations instead of p or counter-p. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

name

[edit]

Pretty much every source out there puts the "free speech" part in quotes. For a reason. We reflect reliable sources. Doesn't matter what the organizers called it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking really quickly, Boston "Free Speech" rally, with quotation marks gets 1.25 mill hits. Boston Free Speech Coalition rally, without the quotation marks gets .8 mill hits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more than Google hits need to be taken into consideration when naming articles. Putting a word or phrase in quotes is often done to mock it or call into question its veracity. Imagine "Peace" rally being used. Do you have any examples for comparison where we use this type of presentation? Official name of group doing the rally (or if they had an officiap name for it) takes priority over some biased media throwing in their air quotes as a criticism. What's next, "President" Trump? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason it's being done here is because that's how most sources do it. If you don't like the google hits, then just look through ..l. the sources actually used in this article. And no, "official name of the group doing the rally" does NOT "take priority" over "some biased media" (sic - you realize this part pretty much gives your game away, right?). We rely on reliable sources on Wikipedia. Indeed, if most reliable sources used ""President" Trump", we would to. But they don't so I have no idea what you're going on about.
Actually, I'm interested. Do you have any sources of sources which use "President" Trump? No? Then stop trying to bs people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yea, this is especially true since the actual big story about this event is not this "free speech" (sic) rally, but the counter-rally and its big ass size. I mean, I can see it being renamed to something which emphasizes the counter-protests, but not sure what a suitable name would be (yeah Failed fake ass free speech forum might be a bit POV, though it alliterates nicely.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marek is moving overtop of a redirect restricted to administrators? I am concerned about WP:INVOLVED admins abusing their privileges here. You unilaterally moved it there and back there again without actually presenting an analysis of reliable sources or seeking input. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions) "Avoid quotation marks". Also, note that while many outlets say "so-called Islamic State", "Daesh" or put Islamic State in quote marks, our title is just Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant NPalgan2 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where does it say "Avoid quotation marks"?
The issue with Islamic States is that most sources actually DON'T use quotation marks, which is not the case here where almost all sources - certainly all the ones used in the article - use the quotation marks. Except for one single source that ScratchMarshall found.
And ScratchMarshall, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped edit warring without addressing the issue. I did make an argument. You didn't. Just reverted and said something something about "WP:INVOLVED" (not sure why). Do I need to do that again? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to link to Wikipedia:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS "Quotation marks (avoid them)". Also, ScratchMarshall, Marek is not an admin so WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply to him; there's just a difference of opinion. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did Marek do a page move overtop of a redirect then? I got an error saying I couldn't do it when I tried to move it back. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "pretty much every source" is not any kind of cohesive argument. Let's actually analyze some:
Media deciding to get tongue-in-cheek later on doesn't change the neutral name of the event. Media was neutral during setup until protesters showed, then the attitude appeared. Putting quotes does not help with identifying the event. BFSC capitals indicate a proper name, not media slang. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. You have eyes, I have eyes, other people looking at this article have eyes. They can see how many sources use quotes.
Right now there's 18 sources in the article. First one, newsweek is one you just added after going out there and specifically looking for a source without quotes. That leaves 17.
This source calls it a "self described free speech rally". It also notes that Boston Police referred to the rally with quotes around "free speech".
Next three sources, ABC News, Vice and CBS both use quotation marks.
I can't check the next source because it's behind a paywall. But another Boston Globe source down the list uses quotation marks.
Next two sources use quotation marks
Then there is the CBS source which you list above. It doesn't use quotation in the title of the article but it uses quotation marks in the article itself. So you're off on this as well.
Then there is the Time source which you list above. Indeed, this source does not use quotation marks. So you're 1 for 9 so far. Maybe 1 for 8 if we're being generous.
Next three sources, WaPo, RCP, and the Guardian use quotes. That makes it 1 for 12.
Next source, ABC news does not use quotation marks. 2 for 13.
Next two sources, WaPo and BBC use quotation marks. 2 for 15.
Final source is a police tweet. It doesn't call the rally anything. But we do know from the other source that the police used quotes in tweets which DID name the rally.
So yeah, "pretty much every source" is accurate. It's a "cohesive argument" (whatever that is suppose to mean). Your "Let's actually analyze some" is a very transparantly and obviously cherry picked two sources out of more 15 to pretend that something which is false is not false. This is disruptive in terms of talk page discussion. It's hard to have a good faithed conversation with someone who is willing to misrepresent what is right in front of everyone's eyes to get their way so blatantly.
And like I said, other metrics, such as Google search show that the phrasing with quotation marks outnumber without quotation marks by a large margin.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you want to complain about "The Media", Wikipedia is not a place for that. See WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query notability; maybe Merge?

[edit]

Less than a month later, it's hard to see why this is encyclopedia. Wondering if there is an appropriate merge target, but it there's not, suggest bringing it back to AfD in September 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was possibly the largest anti-racist demonstration in Boston's history. Marches do not have to be violent to be notable; I think the mere size of it makes it significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why this is encyclopedia (sic) aside, a large protest that received national coverage amidst the nation's deplorable race relations under the current administration is without question notable. The OP is reminded of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. TheValeyard (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November rally

[edit]

The same phrase is being used to describe a 2nd rally which happened 3 months later, saw it on the news tonight.

  • Sharma, Vaishnavee (18 November 2018). "Boston free speech rally draws supporters, protesters". Washington Post. Boston police detain a protestor during Boston's Free Speech Rally held on the Boston Common. Saturday, Nov. 18, 2017 in Boston

Furthermore in the image caption does appear to assign a unique name to the 2nd event though:

Boston police confirmed the arrests of two counter-protesters Saturday at the “Rally for the Republic” event planned by conservative groups Resist Marxism and Boston Free Speech on the Common.

So I was thinking, while I'm not sure if the groups Resist Marxism or Boston Free Speech, their version of Rally for the Republic (possibly put a disambig statement there) could be covered in a section here as a followup. I'll do that tentatively. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as a brief section, as in this version of the article. Not notable for a stand-alone article, but suitable for inclusion here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be changed to organization not just an event

[edit]

This page really should be changed to and organization and not a single event. This group has hosted or taken part in over 11 public political rallies in the boston area. This is according to their website and many news sources. www.bostonfreespeech.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoEYE (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization is notable by Wikipedia standards it should have its own article. Don't appropriate the article on the event for the organization. I've reverted your change to the lead paragraph. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Free_Speech_Rally&oldid=1200282544"