Jump to content

Talk:Restoring Honor rally

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

Mediation

[edit]

I am very glad we are all working amicably and we've made solid progress. However, there are still some disputes. User:AGK is asking if we still want to proceed with mediation and will assign a new mediator if we are. Are folks still interested in mediation? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still supportive of mediation. We may need to file a new request though since some editors may be no longer interested or no longer active. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start a detailed list of topics that we potentially could take to dispute resolution. For some of these items, posting the issue on a noticeboard may be more suitable than mediation. Please comment on the need for dispute resolution on each of the items below, but do not discuss the actual dispute. The is just a quick list, please add more items if you like. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Items potentially requiring dispute resolution

[edit]
  1. Inclusion of the Domenico Montanaro Tweet.
  2. Inclusion of the 300,000 estimate from NBC News.
  3. Use of the term "scientific" regarding the CBS News estimate of 87,000.
  4. General issue of whether to include all estimates, and if so, which ones.

Reliable sources

[edit]

In hopes of stopping the attempted diminuation of internet only news sites, AKA blogs, that has persisted though the Huffington Post was sold for 300 million to AOL, and Bob Keller's insulting regard for the Huff Post was thoroughly smacked down and made to look silly and ignorant by Arianna Huffington in reply, here is the relevant WP on internet only news sources. Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. BTW, The Raw Story has 3 million uniques and a full on professional staff. Since we are citing republican sock puppets like Fox News and The Washington Examiner, idealogical objections to Raw Story seem selective and situational. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it doesn't matter whether you think Fox News and the Washington Examiner are reliable sources. They are. You would vehemently object if I cited something like TheBlaze.com, which also has a full time professional staff. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TheBlaze is not an issue until someone cites it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it doesn't matter, and my opinion, though true, had nothing to do my restoration of reliably sourced content . The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Concerning this edit, is The Raw Story a reliable source? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WP were followed, Wikipedia:Third opinion should have been requested. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll offer a third opinion. Although it's clear to me that Air Photos Live produced the only scientific estimate and the TRS article is relevant, phrasing it by saying it was reported as the only scientific estimate is probably the best choice because it's 1) still a very accurate statement, and 2) is a reasonable compromise for balance. Thus, I would return it to the original wording of "Reported as the only scientific measurement..." that NYyankees51 prefers, while also retaining the additional citation The Artist AKA My Anonymous added just now, so that any interested readers call follow the cites and judge for themselves. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the estimate was "reported to be...", while accurate in and of itself, unfortunately also suggests an equivocation when the sources were very direct in their reporting. To compromise in this matter would mislead the reader to think the CBS estimate was somewhat questionable, when, in fact, no RS has been produced that says it is so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

[edit]

I reverted this edit by an IP address because it changed the entire meaning of the two sentences. From what I understand the current wording for the crowd size was established by consensus. Please feel free to revert my edit if I was in error. Alpha Quadrant talk 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a minimum/maximum as the editor added, but yes, we'd have to find consensus, though I'm not sure consensus was ever found in the first place. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If a consensus had been reached, there wouldn't be a section describing a plethora of widely ranging measurements and opinions. While it's a messy read, I doubt any efforts to prune it down will result in anything other than massive edit warring. — Mike :  tlk  04:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Packed" the National Mall

[edit]

NYyankees51 and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, why are you flipping it back and forth over whether the word "packed" has quote marks around it in the sentence "The Wall Street Journal said attendees packed nearly a mile of the National Mall"? Please explain your rationale here and discuss it; I'm not keen to see an edit war erupt over the crowd section again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

packed w/o quotes, besides being bad writing and not a word an editor of good taste would use, is an estimate of the vaguest sort, therefore the quotes. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I doubt that Azure understands what is in dispute, (while I just wonder why it is a dispute). NY's edit summary suggests strongly that he thought the word "packed" had been excised, and was unaware that instead the word was sensibly just given quotes when he said of the word"It's what the source uses..." I couldn't agree more, and my edit makes that plain. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Restoring Honor rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally&oldid=1233708082"