Talk:Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Moved here from Discussion on other page as part of the merge with these two edits [1] [2]

Just curious as to why the March and the coinciding Rally to Restore Sanity need notability tags...seeing as how they were announced by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on national cable television.Shrekums (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

-Wait until tomorrow morning - it'll be national news. 165.123.229.61 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the real question is whether or not this is a separate rally from Stewart's. It probably isn't, so the two articles should probably be merged. Teemu08 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's national news now alright, google news has like 800 stories. Taking down the notability box, but I agree the two rally pages should probably be merged eventually, as they're definitely part of a unified whole. --CreedShandor (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC) <

Merge

I just completed the merge here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could incorporate a bit more of the content from the Old Keep Fear Alive Article, as it had a much better account of the origins of the idea at Reddit (I believe it was originally concieved as a Colbert rally, but <WP:OR> it was probably only logical to get Stewart in on the act.</WP:OR> MildlyMad^T_C 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Replied on your talk page but to keep it central I'll say it here too. Putting a Whole Reddit manifesto Seemed extreme and WP:UNDUE to me thus I mentioned it in the new article but did not focus on it. If you feel I am in error go for it just keep it balanced. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How to treat March to Keep Fear Alive (MKFA?)

I'm struggling with how this article should treat the March to Keep Fear Alive as satire. Clearly, the two rallies are "competing" as they were presented on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, but the satirical nature of the Report (and the fact that we have one article for both rallies) suggests that, below the surface, they are ultimately one and the same. I'm going to take a stab at re-writing the lede to reflect this, possibly at the risk of violating WP:SYNTH. In the meantime, any more ideas are more than welcome. MildlyMad^T_C 21:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For our purposes let keep them as two rallies at same time, same place under one umbrella but separate none the less. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I Strongly object to the removal of Competing rallies as most Sources use some phrasing to indicate their "Versus" "dueling" "battling" or "countering" nature. The rest of it looks fine though. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-added; agreed that it's good to preserve the advertised (and reported) nature of the rallies. IMO, "Colbert = Satire" probably falls under "Common Knowledge", although it would really add to the article quality if we could dig up a citation for it. MildlyMad^T_C 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweeked a little more, Does it seem to fit? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Title quibbles

Apparently there's an MOS wp:Ndash niggle about discriminating between hyphenated names and names conjoined in lieu of "and," "versus," or "to," etc., such as Mason-Dixon Line, etc.: which, when you get redirected to these articles' respective article pages, use endashes in place of hyphens.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, should the event be singular or plural? According to New Jersey Newsroom, "National Park Service spokesman Bill Line said the Park Service had received an application from Comedy Central, a New York political communications firm and a D.C. events company seeking a single permit for a "special event" on the north half of the Washington Monument grounds for Oct. 30." Also, one of the dual events is termed a march.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A march is a Raley while a Rally might not equal a march. I think really the title works as is. We can spend days argueing about the exact nature of a "dual rally" and whether or not it is actually a one event. They are being advertised as two seperate rallies alot of sources are saying they are "battling" (or a simliar phrase). Let not get caught up on the exact technical semantics and the exact nature of the event. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Although I'm not attached to it in any way, the current title should suffice until the precise relationship between the two events is better defined (i.e. if Colbert "concedes defeat", causing them to merge; or if there's going to be a rumble on the National Mall). See my comments from a couple days ago; this issue is the largest barrier we have to improving the article right now, and I really have no idea what to do with it. MildlyMad^T_C 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep thats where I am. These too event are too intertwined to have separate articles but the relationship is not clear either to each other is too undefined as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that I would list the RtRS and MKFA as "competing events". It is put on by the same organizers and is indeed a single unified event that uses a satirical faux antagonism to illustrate the point that politics in the US has gotten to such an extreme state. I'm also not sure how to phrase this. From what I am seeing and reading, attendees are very much treating this as a serious protest rather than a simple comedy show. Trysha ^(talk) 19:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart-Colbert or Colbert-Stewart?: News reports give primacy to Stewart, hence I think the title "Stewart-Colbert" is correct; however, the logo is Colbert-Stewart, hence should top billing be given to Colbert in the event infobox?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I now see that The Resident Anthropologist put Colbert on the left in the fair-use image file, which I believe a good choice.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NYT ref wrt ostensibly non-partisan nature of--emm, (ironically) dueling rallies

I added a reference to this NYT post in the lede. (Pertinent quote):

The purpose, he said, is to counter what he called a minority of 15 percent or 20 percent of the country that has dominated the national political discussion with extreme rhetoric. He tarred both parties with that charge, mentioning both the attacks on the right against President Obama for being everything from a socialist to un-American and on the left against former President Bush for being a war criminal.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

An excellent and much-needed addition. I hereby award you one WP:NPOV point :-) MildlyMad^T_C 03:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The actual wiki entry misinterprets and fallacious equates anti war movement as a extreme leftist viewpoint. The nytimes article merely states Stewart calling out those who think Bush is a war criminal as extremists. Not the entire anti war movement...This is a highly inaccurate and misleading interpretation and should be changed to reflect accuracy!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag238 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Half the work disappearred

I had been working on a bunch of stuff related to the Stewart-Colbert rally that got removed as 'cruft'. I wish we got a chance to go point by point rather than delete it all.

For example, the original post that started it all isn't my synthesis-- WashPost has sourced that that is the right post, for example-- it's not just my own interpretation that the post was an impetus, it's fact. Another is a timeline that I don't think was controversial.

Please give me some better guidance as to what specifically needs to be improved. Just reverting it all leaves me little clue which direction or what specifically needed to be changed. CreedShandor (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the WaPo ref included? Add that ref and reinstate a reasonable portion of the info abt that post.

As for a timeline, sometimes when there is a lot of dates and concise milestone like data they are appropriate: for example, here's an article's timeline section that is about the invention of radio. Another possibility is to have a prose section discussing the development, run-down, and aftermath of an event--or some combination of these three things--yet a handy chart might be floated to the right margin. (for example, the article on the Beck rally has a prose section on attendance estimates, and on its right margin is a chart presenting concise figures and sources).

So, for whatever it's worth, I myself believe you could now respond by such things as (A) adding a source or sources and recontribute text to the article, and/or (B) suggesting possible contributions that you post here to the talkpage and/or (C) composing a section in prose that you could illustrate with your timeline, etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

Wouldn't it be more correct to title the page "2010 Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Joint Rallies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.101.39 (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sound the same. The hyphenated version implies they are joint rallies already, and the first names seem unnecessary. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Right-- if anything they should be a slash, rather than a dash, since the rallies are sequential. But in practice, I don't think it's worth worrying over. The current name works. --CreedShandor (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some info

Starting at 2:10, Jon talks about how it started. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWukJmK1rg --Mahanga (Talk) 03:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "radical"

I removed "radical" in the following sentence in the intro section. "The rallies are planned specifically as a satirical response to the Restoring Honor rally and its counter march "Reclaim the Dream[1] but also to the radical political movements like the Tea Party in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections [...]"

My original edit summary was: Remove POV - TP not described as radical even in its own article. Which it is not. You would think if "radical" were a word that is more or less universally accepted as a descriptor for the Tea Party movement, it would be described matter-of-factly as such in the Tea Party's own article.

I frankly don't think the word is encyclopedic at all. In colloquial use "radical" is an emotion-laden opinion word. It does not belong in an encyclopedia independent of a notable person's opinion. At the very least it requires a sourced attribution of a notable figure whose opinion it is.

But I suppose if you were to provide a logically rigorous definition of "radical" and then prove deductively that the Tea Party falls under that definition, I would concede.

I seem to be in a revert war over this. I am going to revert one more time and let others handle it, as I really don't have time to babysit a Wikipedia article. Have it your way, but I will have my opinion heard on this page anyway. Mbarbier (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence include both the tea party and Anti War protestors and it was Stewart's description of the groups. As a Member of "Censored," Tennesee Tea party I am not trying to insert my POV in The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is fair; I may be the biased one here. On his show when he announced it, he did make a big deal about how the rally was for ordinary people with no time for activism and without extreme hateful views one way or the other (although speaking for myself I wonder how they personally feel about TP). This would seem to imply that the recent activism such as in Glenn Beck's rally is "radical", at least as compared to the norm. And I'd probably agree.

Still don't think the sentence as it stood gives the right impression. It might just need to be reworded so that it does not seem to present "radical" as a simple descriptor of the Tea Party, as that's the impression I immediately got when reading it. Mbarbier (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion? for rewording? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The only way for the word 'radical' to remain and still be NPOV is to directly attribute it to the hosts, which I've edited in.

And to be clear about this, I think it's very important that some term like 'radical' be included in order to point out why the rally is a reaction to these particular groups: because, in the hosts' opinions, these groups are radical. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the meaning should remain in the article; it's an important aspect of the purpose of the rallies. Perhaps "polarized" is a better word? (I'm not a huge fan of "extreme") MildlyMad^T_C 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

nah, radical involves moving forward and looking to the future, the tea party is reactionary because they want to try to relive the past even though that could destroy the world 69.140.35.147 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Radical refers to the extent and pace of change, moreso than the direction. You can be radically reactionary. Progressive is more of an antonym for reactionary than radical, as both can be radical. I think radical is a fair descriptor of the Tea Party, given the extent and nature of their rhetoric and platform. However, I also recognize that the common usage of the word has an emotional context that may cause issues. Jbower47 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not billed as a response to Beck-Sharpton rallies

Per Stewart.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus a little nuance: "When I'd heard about what was happening, Glenn was going to do a rally to restore honor, I thought that's a great idea, it's perfect. ... What I thought would be great is if Stephen could be my Al Sharpton, he's going to do a counter-rally."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jaxent, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add link to www.rallymao.com in the links area. It has a complete list of satellite rallies being planned.

Jaxent (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please read WP:EXTERNAL. elektrikSHOOS 16:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose move to "official" title

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now that the rallies have officially merged, we should move the article to "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" Mildly MadTC 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) You have a source? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC) It was announced on their shows last night.[3] I think we should move the page there. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Here's a source from a Time Magazine Blog, and another from LA Times. Mildly MadTC 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) No opposition here i Haven't watched the last night episode yet, but i dont think the software lets us do slashes in titles becuase it messes with the URL. Could be wrong here so I say be bold and try it. Since an offical name is always better than a Generic Description like the one we have now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Should be fine. Somebody set up a redirect from there to here already. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Marked the Redirect for Deletion under G6 criteria, so the move can be preformed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Ah. I just went to the requested move page. Your way might be easier. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The entry on the requested moves page should suffice. There dosen't appear to be significant opposition. Guess we should just let the process run its course.--JayJasper (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 151.204.151.220, 29 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The "Restoring Sanity" event is a blatant attempt to ridicule Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor event.

151.204.151.220 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article already makes this clear, I think. Do you have a specific change you think should be made? Algebraist 12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Satellite Rallies

Add any mentions of the sattellite rallies? Theres one in LA ... --75.82.253.4 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The schedule

Should we keep that schedule as it was listed? They aren't exactly on schedule. Staples and Tweedy are performing, but someone removed them because of the unreported "Train War" (as I will forever call it). --Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There will probably be a source for a time schedule later. Grsz¹¹ 18:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On the schedule, we have Ozzy Osbourne, but I noticed that Gus G. was on stage with him. Should probably mention that, whoever has the clearance to edit the page.--67.162.123.121 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It will need to either be reverted back to the schedule that was presented before the show, or updated for post-hoc accuracy. We'll see what we decide. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just remove the schedule and have a list of performers? The times of events and performances isn't really relevant for an encyclopedia article. Beach drifter (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. The question is: how have similar events been presented? --Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Video

Does anyone have or can get a hold of any video (PD or CC license of cause) of the rally? -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wbuchmaier, 28 October 2010

Not done: No longer applicable, the rally is over. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following: "The website RALLYMAO.com is acting as a central clearinghouse for satellite rallies, coordinating Twitter feeds and Facebook pages. In addition, the discussion section of the Rally to Restore Sanity Satellite Rallies page on Facebook has been a spot where many such events have been conceived." (Source: http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/jon-stewarts-rally-to-restore-sanity-is-coming-to-a-town-near/19670863) Wbuchmaier (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Crashnet, 28 October 2010

Already done —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

As referance 2 makes no mention of the tea party movement: "He tarred both parties with that charge, mentioning both the attacks on the right against President Obama for being everything from a socialist to un-American and on the left against former President Bush for being a war criminal."

This should be cleaned up (for reason's sake)

The request is as such (preferred suggestion listed first):

Append "the anti-war movement that opposed the presidential administration of George W. Bush" with: such as Moveon.org

OR

Replace the Tea Party reference to: Anti-Tax and opposition to the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

OR

Replace the anti-war movement that opposed the presidential administration of George W. Bush with: Moveon.org

Crashnet (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Crowd Size

We need to put in a section on crowd size. This NPR article states that Comedy Central's park permit places the attendance at 60,000. --Ninja Auditor (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at that link. We can add a legit estimate of crowd size when we have it. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The statistic came up here too, there also the 150,000 estimate by the Mythbusters and the joke 10 million estimate by Stewart himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja Auditor (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The 60k appears to be a pre-rally estimate, and may not be accurate. The 150k estimate may not be based on anything more than a guess. A citation someone added estimated it at 200k, but I don't know if that's a legit count or an author making a guess. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"An estimated 215,000 people attended a rally organized by Comedy Central talk show hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021284-503544.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.83.202 (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That works very well. Now, how should we integrate information on crowd size into the article? Under media response as a sub section? or it's own section?--Ninja Auditor (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It should go under "Rally". "Response" refers to the response to the announcement. "Rally" is about the rally itself, and I'm sure we'll have a new section titled "Reaction" where we integrate praise with criticisms from after the fact. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

174.79.147.29 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The following statement "A crowd size estimate commissioned by CBS News and carried out by AirPhotosLive.com estimated the crowd at 215,000 people, plus or minus 10%;[32] in comparison, their estimate for the Restoring Honor rally was 87,000, plus or minus 9,000." Since much of this article has to do with this event as a satirical response to the Restoring Honor rallies, then in context the low estimate by CBS appears to be a dig to somehow discredit the Restoring Honor rally. It should be marked and noted as "their controversial estimate" since the vast majority of sources claimed that there were between 100,000 and 500,000 attendees at the Restoring Honor rally. 174.79.147.29 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the estimate of the Beck crowd by AirPhotosLive.com was "controversial" except amongst Tea Partiers. I believe their methodology is the strongest, and you'd need to provide evidence to the contrary. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The beck rally CBS estimate is controversial beacuse there were so many others that estimated much higher. The BBC photos show a crowd three times larger than anything shown by U.S. press, and larger than the Sanity Rally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.32.57 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The estimate for the Beck rally was made on August 31, 2010, long before Stewart's rally was planned to take place; it's not an issue of bias. They also had a professor perform a calculation from the photos and he came up with 80,000. Wild estimates of 100,000 to 500,000 are obviously grossly unscientific and not worthy of inclusion. That just says "we have no clue", in which case, the scientific estimate wins. If you have a good BBC reference, please post it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Must be added - Washington DC Metro has released ridership data for Saturday - and it was a recordbreaker at 825,437. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2093626 --Schubash (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering other events (Marine Corp Marathon today and American Cancer Society's Breast Cancer walk), that may not be totally due to the rally. Soxwon (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bemused of Europe

Hi, I'm a European and I don't quite follow all of this. I've read the article. Looked it up on the internet. But I'm still not sure I get what this rally is about? Is it just a joke? Or is it a serious statement by the (I assume) centre and left - a kind of 'anti-ultra-conservative' rally? Or have I just missed the point altogether...?!? AiFWww (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that people become crazed when discussing politics and demonize each other, which is counterproductive. We should be more willing to engage in reasoned discussion. If you're not sure about that from reading the article, we need to edit it to be more comprehensive. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Muboshgu. I'm afraid I did not glean that from the article. But I think it makes good sense. There does seem to be an increasing tendency to go for ever more bizarre statements rather than to actually debate sensible politics. AiFWww (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Euro-guy here. I do agree that while the Rally seems to have been quite a big nice party full of nice people, the goals and outcomes are not really clear for someone who is not immersed in the day-to-day proceedings of the American political show. I hope that after the midterm elections are over, someone will write a more international and synthetic introduction paragaph. Herix (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added Muboshgu's text to the lead. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.233.201.172, 31 October 2010

Done —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

I just checked the website for the Trust for the National Mall. Donations are over $185,000 as of 12:01 am, October 31, 2010.

https://www.nationalmall.org/donationform.php/rtrs?fund=Rally%20to%20Restore%20Sanity 67.233.201.172 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In-character benediction; Stewart's closing speech; etc.

Well God, I don't know your schedule, but, uh, I imagine you must be pretty busy, you got the whole world in your hand and all that stuff. But before I go, I just wanna say God, eh, on behalf of all of us, thank you for making the universe. And thank you for giving us all the good things, like trees, and animals ... dogs, especially thank you for dogs. And thank you for all of the good things that we do in your name, like charity and eh forgiveness, thats an idea we would never come up with thats for sure you know that better than anybody, so on behalf of all of us thank you very much, and we really mean it Amen.---Fr. Sarducci

(USA Today link) Mention?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need the whole quote. There are lots of details from the actual event that are waiting to be summarized in the the article. Be bold. —UncleDouggie (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And now I thought we might have a moment, however brief, for some sincerity, if that’s OK. I know there are boundaries for a comedian/pundit/talker guy, and I’m sure I’ll find out tomorrow how I have violated them.

I’m really happy you guys are here. Even if none of us are really quite sure why we are here. Some of you may have seen today as a clarion call for action. Or some of the hipper, more ironic cats, as a "clarion call for action(!)" Clearly, some of you just wanted to see the Air and Space Museum and got royally screwed. And I’m sure a lot of you were here just to have a nice time, and I hope you did. I know that many of you made an effort to be here today, and I want you to know that everyone involved with this project worked incredibly hard to make sure that we honored that you put in and gave you the best show that we could possibly do. We know your time’s valuable, and we didn’t want to waste it.

And we are all extremely honored to have had a chance to perform for you on this beautiful space, on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

So--- What exactly was this? I can't control what people think this was, I can only tell you my intentions.

This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are, and we do.

But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus, and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke.

The country’s 24-hour, political-pundit perpetual-panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the "dangerous, unexpected flaming ants epidemic"! If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

There are terrorists, and racists, and Stalinists, and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned! You must have the resume! Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Party-ers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult--not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more.

The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything, we actually get sicker--and, perhaps, eczema. And yet--- I feel good. Strangely, calmly, good. Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us, through a funhouse mirror--and not the good kind that makes you look slim in the waist, and maybe taller, but the kind where you have a giant forehead, and an ass shaped like a month-old pumpkin, and one eyeball.

So why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle, to a pumpkin-assed forehead-eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, of course our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution, and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?

We hear every damned day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe, torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. The truth is, we do! We work together to get things done every damned day! The only place we don’t is here [inside the Beltway] or on cable TV!

But Americans don’t live here, or on cable TV. Where we live, our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done--not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.

Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do! But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.

[Points to video screen, showing video of cars in traffic.] Look on the screen. This is where we are, this is who we are. These cars. That’s a schoolteacher who probably think his taxes are too high, he’s going to work. There’s another car, a woman with two small kids, can’t really think about anything else right now--- A lady’s in the NRA, loves Oprah. There’s another car, an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter; another car, a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan.

But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief, and principles they hold dear--often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers’. And yet, these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze, one by one, into a mile-long, 30-foot-wide tunnel, carved underneath a mighty river.

And they do it, concession by concession: you go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. ‘Oh my God—is that an NRA sticker on your car?’ ‘Is that an Obama sticker on your car?’ It’s okay--you go, then I go.

And sure, at some point, there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder, and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare, and he is scorned, and he is not hired as an analyst!

Because we know, instinctively, as a people, that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is there will always be darkness, and sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land.

Sometimes, it’s just New Jersey.

---JON STEWART

TBD link, The Moderate Voice link.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to the article to take a small slice of that and put it in one of those side quote boxes. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I added some choice excerpts. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News

Did Fox News have any reporting on this? Any reaction at all? If they did, quotes from it should be included. If they didn't, that would be even more important to include.

72.208.145.184 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the closing speech. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about after the rally, but during the lead up they simple called it a democratic rally to get the youth vote. --120.145.138.217 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you missed the point. The entire idea behind the rally is that we shouldn't care so much what the 24 hour cable news networks tell us to think. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Response" after "Rally"?

What is in the "Response" section happened chronologically before the "Rally" as it's not the response to the actual rally, but it's the response to the announcement of the rally. So should it stay after the "Rally" section? --Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I think about it, this is the way it should be. Maybe there should be more demarcations of pre-rally response and post-rally response, as the post-rally response happens. Has it happened? I don't watch the Sunday talk shows. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing Guests

Both Kid Rock and R2D2 should be added to the 'Guests' section of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.219.207 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I have to go out now but someone should find a source that lists them, if none of the already cited sources do. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

someone needs to correct the crowd size figure

215,000 not 215,000,000 people were estimated in attendance under the crowd size section. someone with the proper permissions should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikhariskakos (talk • contribs) 23:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sit vis nobiscum

In the article it is translated as "may the force be with you", but nobiscum should translate as with us... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herix (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Shall with us be the Force"?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no good translation. We should just go with what was said by Colbert as the translation. Latin and "the force" don't mix. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Standard Time?

I think that should be Eastern Daylight Time, according to Eastern_Time_Zone. The change to standard time will be next week. --194.24.138.4 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad, you're right. I always get the two confused. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I remember which is which, in case it's helpful, is to remember that the British call it "British Summer Time". Funny part is, it was also incorrect on some of the official sites for the rally, which were then picked up by news outlets: [4]. Regardless, this is a clear example of Wikipedia's anti-DST bias at work! Jouster  (whisper) 13:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC) (For those who have trouble picking up sarcasm in text—that last sentence was sarcastic.)

How many people?

I think the article should give estimates of the number of people at the rally. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It should. Do you see any legitimate estimates out there? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any official articles to cite (as there haven't been any articles out yet as far as I know), but I was at the Rally and asked a police officer. The estimated expected amount was 150,000 to 200,000. But the actual amount was between 450,000 to 500,000. 147.9.224.87 (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a cop's estimate isn't good enough for us. I'm sure the media will announce the numbers soon enough, and we'll add it when they do. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Stewart said something like 10 million. :) Grsz¹¹ 01:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually 10 million was the low end of his estimate; the high end was 6 billion :P --Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Though according to Glenn Beck, more like a few dozen. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but that dude saw 84,000 ppl in front of him and thought it was 500,000, so who you gonna beleive, im going with the 6 billion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.88 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comedy Central (via USA Today) estimated 250k [5]. That's probably high. I heard that the company that did the best estimate of the Beck event estimated this one at 150k but don't remember their name (and can't find a link). DP76764 (Talk) 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's talk it could be around there, but I'd wait for something official [6] --Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

AirPhotosLive is the company that did good estimates before. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

CBS gives 215,000. That sounds reasonable to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to mention the low CBS estimate of the Beck rally, then you have to mention the NBC,MSNBC, Walstreet Journal, etc. that estimated the crowd size at 300-500,000 for the Beck rally. The initial reports from security have been that the Beck rally was just as large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.32.39 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know what methodology they used to come up with those numbers. It seems they may have pulled them out of thin air, which doesn't give them much credibility. There's only one scientific estimation of crowd size being employed for these rallies. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The only aerial photos published so far do not show a larger crowd than the Beck rally (as shown in BBC photos). Airphoto shows a map with a shaded area in some wooded spots that would not make sense as to why there would be people in the vegetation, but not in the open space. I've walked the areas shown and based on the photos I have seen, the Beck rally crowd was larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.32.39 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a photo that shows both events. The wooded areas hold lots of people, and both events had people in those areas. Three experts examined the air photos independently of each other for both events. It's the most scientific estimation there is. Filmfluff (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The methodology for counting is shown in these two images: image with grid, grid with numbers. This is from another Tea Party rally. Filmfluff (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JPmuggle, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following line

News organizations also sought the rally schedule listed in the permit.

and please add the reference link below.

Insert the new line in section "Response," after the sentence "Many news organizations sought media credentials to cover the rally." Reason: Because this wikipedia article does not currently link to a historical record of the event schedule submitted to the National Park Service.

Please insert the link within the citation below: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1027/Revealed-schedule-for-Rally-to-Restore-Sanity-and-or-Fear

Goodale, Gloria (October 27, 2010). "Revealed: schedule for 'Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear'". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2010-10-31.[46] JPmuggle (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation #20 already has the announced schedule. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation 20 does not include the information that reporters obtained the schedule by talking over the phone with NPS representatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.107.163 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to crowd size of Beck rally

I've restored the text comparing to the size of Beck's rally. The same company performed both estimates in a scientific manner. The comparison is valid in this article due to the origins of the rally in response to Beck's rally, as already covered in the article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be relevant: http://i.imgur.com/AoxXh.jpg Zuchinni one (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice graphic. What it doesn't show is the grass showing through in the sparse sections of Beck's rally. It's best to just use the scientific analyses by AirPhotosLive.com. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comparison is valid, but if we're going to include that, we should include some context around it, since it looks like an indirect comparison for POV sake. Get a third party reliable source that makes the comparison, not a direct primary source. It looks like a WP:SYN to push a POV. Morphh ^(talk) 17:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI regarding crowd size & a mediation controversy

Apparently there has been a HUGE dispute regarding the crowd size of Beck's Rally to Restore Honor. The edit warring was so bad that it eventually went to mediation and is currently still being discussed.

LINK: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally

I'm just posting this here so that people are aware that there may be some spillover of the debate and edit-warring into this article. Some of the parties involved in the dispute have already been making edits to the crowd size estimates here, but I'm not sure if it's actually an issue and I think we all need to assume Good Faith unless it actually becomes an issue. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens when editors become slaves to anything that a source who is otherwise reliable might say. True journalists report their sources and the reliability of the source for the type of information described can then be taken into account. A wild personal estimate by a reporter with no experience in crowd estimation, and who can't possibly personally inspect such a large area, is worthless, even if they do work for The New York Times. Certainly any estimate from a source with a vested interest should be immediately thrown out, but yet Beck and Michele Bachmann are both referenced as sources in the Restoring Honor rally estimates. That whole mess sullies the reputation of Wikipedia IMHO. We shouldn't let such insanity creep into this article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It'll wind down. --Kizor 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so far the only really questionable edit I noticed was someone who removed some of the crowd estimates comparing the two rallies. Zuchinni one (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we're to report what reliable sources state based on prominence. We're not to report or give undue weight to what we think is "true" or exclude estimates we believe are "worthless". This is the core of NPOV policy. Morphh ^(talk) 20:31, 01 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I'd go further and state that we should keep things thoroughly scientific, and only report those numbers with a known source and methodology, in observance of WP:RS—"The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable." As the Brian Stelter number clearly violates that requirement, I'd argue strongly, barring ample justification otherwise, that it should be deleted. Any resistance? Jouster  (whisper) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that such inclusions be scientific - such an exclusion would be pov. Unscientific estimates are just as notable if reported by reliable sources (particularly secondary sources). Report what is in reliable sources based on their prominence. If scientific estimates are more prominent in reliable source, then give them more weight, if unscientific estimates are more prominent, then give them more weight. If an estimate is scientific, then describe the methodology and who did it. Just because an estimate is based on a scientific methodology, does not make it the majority viewpoint. Keep those things in mind - follow WP:NPOV. Morphh ^(talk) 23:46, 01 November 2010 (UTC)

Your are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Such an approach leads to the crazy view that Beck's rally was somewhere between 80,000 and 1.6 million. I agree 100% with the quotes Jouster gave from WP:RS. Our job is not to report all sources. Our job is to speak the truth in a verifiable manner. Citing reliable scientific sources is verifiable. Citing unscientific, biased sources is not verifiable. It's not a very hard concept. I also agree that the Brian Stelter quote should be taken out. I'm out of reverts for today, so I'll leave it to someone else to do. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Scientific estimates are POV? They're decidedly NPOV, while the estimates given by reporters are uneducated guesses. The scientific estimates should get much more weight. Beck and Bachman's estimates of their crowd size should only serve as humor. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V). All sources have bias. NPOV does not mean absence of a POV. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (WP:NPOV). This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. The suggestion that unscientific estimates are not verifiable is completely wrong. I can certainly agree that the more scientific the publication, the more reliable the source may be, but that does not exclude other sources (WP:SOURCES). If the estimates are published, particularly by a third-party, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then it is a verifiable reliable source and should be given due weight. Morphh ^(talk) 2:30, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

The only source for the crowd sizes on both rallies that is acting as a third party is CBS News, who contracted a scientific study. The other estimates are just the personal opinions of reporters, so far as I can see. That's not something that can be fact checked. It's more important than ever these days to separate fact from opinion. When reliable sources report facts, we should use them. When they report opinions, we should go look elsewhere for facts. Many of those "sources" have put out wildly different opinions from their various reporters. If they were facts, everyone at MSNBC would be saying that there were 280,000 people (just an example) at Beck's rally and listing their source. That's not what they are doing, which makes them unreliable for this particular information per WP:RS. Some sources have reported "tens of thousands" or "over one hundred thousand" for Beck's rally, seemingly based on an unscientific feeling of the crowd size. Both statements are in-line with the scientific study. 87,000 + 9,000 is pretty darn close to 100,000 and I doubt that a reporter who claimed a gut reaction of over 100,000 would be willing to press the issue in the face of a scientific study. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually do agree with WP:NPOV, so let me explain it a different way. WP:RS should be used as a front-end filter to discard unreliable sources. What's left should be fed through WP:NPOV as Morphh has described. The root issue is that CBS News is the only journalistic organization on this subject. I'd love to have more sources to verify against, but the rest of them have just dropped the ball and we need to stop pretending otherwise. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

CBS News is still an opinion, be it a scientific one. What we fact check is that the opinion can be verified to a RS. We then attribute the opinion and give it weight based on its prominence and let the reader decide. Since we state that CBS's estimate is scientific and we're giving it the most weight, readers will take that information into account and form their own conclusions, just as you have. NPOV is all about opinion and presenting it fairly. I agree that if we only have CBS News, then we are limited in that regard and that should be reflected in the weight given. This NY Daily News article has several crowd size estimates. Morphh ^(talk) 13:01, 02 November 2010 (UTC)

And that Daily News article leads with the scientific estimation and gives it more weight than the others. Science isn't opinion, it doesn't fall under issues of NPOV. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it should be given more weight - that's not what is being discussed. Nor is the issue of equal validity. "Science isn't opinion" and "doesn't fall under issues of NPOV"? Where do you get that? Science is continually changing and in may cases scientists and theories differ. Crowd estimation is not an exact science. This is stated directly by those doing the scientific estimation. They use certain models and methodology to come up with their expert opinion as to the crowd's size. Different scientists using different models and methodology may come up with a different opinion. Air Photos Live (at the Beck Rally) used three experts using different models and they came up with different estimations - CBS selected the higher estimate. Science certainly falls into NPOV - it's usually given much more weight since it's usually well represented in reliable sources and the majority view, but that doesn't mean it is excluded from one of our core policies. Morphh ^(talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Crowd estimation is not an exact science." That's why they will also give you a margin of error. Even tough crowd size estimation is not "exact science" (you probably mean: they are not counting each head by hand), science is not "opinion". In contrast to "opinions" scientific estimates are backed up by facts, logic and proven methods. Scientific crowd estimates generally divide the area of the crowd, analyze the various densities in several areas by counting the people and using those information to estimate the size of the total crowd. That's is something much more evidence based than things like "Ermm.... I would say those have to be 1.6 million people". Besides, there are completed unrelated facts than you can use. The Washington Metro had a new record of about 825,000 trips for the Steward/Colbert-Rally. The Top 5 Saturdays list the 5th place at about 650,000 (If I remember correctly). The Beck rally was also on a Saturday, but is not in the top 5, so there have been less than 650,000 trips on that day. If they would have been 600,000+ people, like some are pretending, then why were there at least(!) 175,000 less Metro trips that day compared to the Steward/Colbert-rally? Those are facts (not opinions) that make most of the guestimates of the Beck rally highly improbable. --78.54.120.145 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what is probable or not. I agree with the scientific estimates - that's not the point. The point is you can't exclude the other estimates if they're presented by reliable sources. We just have to attribute the viewpoints. Likewise, we should not state in the Wikipedia voice that the crowd size was 215,000 as a statement of fact. We should attribute it, as we would an opinion, to the scientific study done by ALP commissioned by CBS, which we're already doing. Morphh ^(talk) 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"The point is you can't exclude the other estimates if they're presented by reliable sources."

No, that is not correct. WP:NPOV policy makes it clear that insignificant fringe and minority positions can and should be excluded, even if attributable to a reliable source. That, alone, justifies exclusion of many of the more unsupported guesstimates. Furthermore, that same policy also instructs us, when we are faced with conflicting information of equal prominence from reliable sources, we are to defer to sources that examine and report on that conflicting information. Information doesn't automatically earn a spot in Wikipedia articles just because it can be found in a reliable source. Citing WP:V policy in order to include information that is obviously inaccurate, and against NPOV, but "verifiably" in a reliable source, goes against the core policy admonition: "The [three core policies] should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." That's why you don't see us citing the AOL News reliable source to claim there were actually 1.8 million at Beck's rally. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about a fringe view? It is tiny minority views that are to be excluded, which is based on weight in reliable sources. Minority views which can be attributed in secondary reliable sources should be included. Since we're not talking about a lot of viewpoints here, it doesn't take much to include and attribute those views, giving weight where appropriate. CBS should have more weight. Keep in mind that controversy over crowd size and the different numbers is part of the story. We're not just relaying the accurate figures, but the foolish ones as well. The readers can tell what is obviously inaccurate, bolstering, or comedy based on the scientific estimates. Morphh ^(talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're not just debating about policy - I have no problem with the way the article currently reads. Morphh ^(talk) 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock.[7] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)