Jump to content

Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

"From the media" section cleanup

This section has a lot of quote fragments flying around that make it hard to read. We should either include the full quotes, or at least sentences, or delete them altogether. BS24 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it a mess at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree that it is a mess. The quote fragments are there to ensure accuracy and make it clear to the reader that the phraseology is not the interpretation (i.e. WP:OR) of Wiki editors, but the literal terminology of the aforementioned parties.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Having all the quotes in italics may make it easier to read and more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BritishWatcher, we should include the context instead of just random one-word snippets from what they said. The current version seems to interpret the quotes instead of reporting them. BS24 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed some of the qt marks that were not essential, however the remaining ones I would contend are necessary to show that those remarks are theirs specifically and not our interpretation.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoofs on 10/30/10

  1.  RALLY TO
    RESTORE
      SANITY
      10.30.10     (link: Stewart)     -- "'Maybe we would do a "March of the Reasonable," on a date of no particular significance,' Stewart says." (New York magazine)
  2.       MARCH TO
            KEEP
            FEAR
           ALIVE™
           10.30.10
     WASHINGTON, D.C.     (link: The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.)

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter said Comedy Central's promotional material trumpets that rivalry between the two marches slated for the same venue and date to be "bigger than Nixon/Kennedy, Ali/Foreman, Aniston/Jolie, 50/Nas, Joe/the Volcano, Alien/Predator, Bunny/Fudd and Ecks/Sever combined."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking advantage

BS24 unilaterally inserted Akerans proposal in the edit, presuming Wikipedia to be a democracy. It would have been better to have left it as it is while the RfC is very much under way with many unsettled issues. Especially nervy is BS24 asking for other editor's to leave his edit alone. It would be considerate of BS24 to restore the section to as it was while we work towards consensus, rather than be open to charges of trying to take advantage of the situation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The present RFC is very misleading and was set up with no consensus or support. The proposal now in the article has far more support (it was 6-1) during the vote. It was rightly inserted as none of us had any confidence in the previous wording, atleast this one has some wording. We can then wait a few weeks to see if any new consensus from the RFC comes about, but i want that RFC wording changed to something atleast half neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You could discuss the RfC in the RfC and give us an idea of what half-neutral might be.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I made my feelings known about the RFC in the first comment after it was started, sadly my concerns were just ignored. I have never been a fan of RFCs, they are infact an awful method of dispute resolution and the fact there appears to be no mechanism to ensure neutrality or requiring agreement before going to a RFC has strengthened my negative opinions of them. It is a process that simply stalls things for a month as we are all expected to halt debate and progress. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Then why say anything about half neutral wording? You seem to be going in circles.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Because I will continue to restate the fact i am unhappy about this RFC, especially in response to people suggesting we do nothing until it is completed. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That much is obvious, and has been taken for granted. But what I actually asked about, and am asking for the third time, since you brought it up, was what do you mean by half-neutral wording?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems obvious enough that he believes it to be slanted and presented in a way to favor the point of view of the writer. Let's not be disruptive. Morphh (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I said it would be nice if it was "half neutral" to highlight i dont even consider the present wording to come close to being "half neutral". Id rather the wording was completely neutral, but i cant expect miracles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what I assumed. I'm still interested in what is not neutral, and what would be half-neutral?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything about it was not neutral it also failed to detail the actual problem we were facing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
To be candid, you seem to circling the issue, and I have no idea what is in dispute. What specifically do you find fault with.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If you really need me to explain, ok. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


The RFC said..

CBS News explains quite in detail how it commissioned two scientific crowd size calculations of the event. All other news organizations just report different numbers without any explanation (possibly just wild guesses). Should Wikipedia (1) just report the numbers of all estimations and ignore the difference of weight in the original sources, or (2) explain the scientific CBS estimate more detailed but also mention all the other estimates, or (3) only report the scientific CBS estimate? See also "Proposal for reaching a consensus" above.


Problem 1 - It did not explain the problem. The fact we had (at the time) 3 paragraphs in the section, a small paragraph explaining the numbers were disputed and no official number existed. A huge second paragraph (larger than paragraph 1 and 3 combined) which simply covered Stephen Doig and CBS, then a smaller 3rd paragraph covering all other sources. Nowhere did he explain this clearly which was our concern and why we kept mentioning Undue Weight.

The RFC very clearly explained the problem of weight. You may have the feeling that your "side" was not explained detailed enough, but this must be not part of the RFC itself, but should be part of the discussion of the RFC. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem 2 - The 3 restrictive options given were not the only options possible and option 2 for example covers a wide range of opinions. It could cover the previous wording (as i described above) or it could mean give 2 sentences to CBS instead of 1 sentence like all the others get for example.

Feel free to suggest further options - as done by people! Why is there a problem? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem 3 - He links to his proposal for reaching consensus, yet many editors have proposed wording, so why was only his linked?

The link was not to a proposal, but to the current version online, with the idea to use this editable text to find a consensus. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 points are on top of the fact there was no discussion about going to a RFC, there was certainly no agreement for it. It was also rather strange timing when there appeared be consensus being made on the proposal that has now been introduced to the article, which at the time had 4 supports and 1 oppose, when the 1 person that was opposing it at the time decided to start the RFC. I suppose that could be a complete coincidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence. The reason is simply that first I got the impression that there is the try to push for a particular wording not by arguments, but by voting down just by majority. Which in my understanding is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, to the idea to get outside views. I had no idea how to get outside views until someone suggested to me to start a RFC. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Under Actual RfC,[1] here are two other opions 4&5. Any thoughts about them?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I support the status quo. It resolves the matter fairly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by status quo?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The version that is now in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus on the version, there is an ongoing RfC, and that version which made no accounting for the controversy. Status quo means "the existing state" and is not an argument without any merit for leaving an edit as it is.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you consider a consensus, but the vast majority supported the current wording and they seemed well aware of the said "controversy". So until the RFC or we form a new consensus, that which has been agreed will be maintained. We should spend our efforts making the arguments for the case instead of this back and forth. Morphh (talk) 5:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The "status quo" is not "fair" and was never. It is clear Undue Weight, since it ignores completely that the CBS/AirPhotosLive calculation has MUCH more weight in the sources. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for reverting the claimed crowd size consensus which was no consensus

Please don't create a fait accompli if there is no consensus yet and the discussion and RFC are still active. This is really a bad style.

And in general, since there is still so much discussion between many people, how can someone seriously claim that there is a consensus? Samples (beyond my disagreement) include:
(1) It does not address AKA's issues.
(2) It contradicts Minnecologies's opinion: The claimed "consensus" version obviously contradicts Minnecologies's suggestions that he "definitely wouldn't include Glenn Beck's" estimate, to "explain the scientific CBS estimate with slightly more detailed but also mention all some of the other estimates" and "I'd also put the last sentence of the long paragraph as a footnote ("Doig said conservatives..."), as well as slim his (Doig's) methodology". He even made an own proposal, which was never part of a "straw poll", and he voted only "Yes" to a completely different porposal that the current version, which contains much more information about the CBS estimate (which opponents want to erase).
(3) It contradicts Hodgson-Burnett's opinion who suggests to include a "brief allusion to Air Photos Live/Doig's methodology/ies".
(4) It contradicts to Dflocks80's opinion, who agrees with Minnecologies's and suggests even to give "slightly more detail on CBS' estimate".
(5) It contradicts to Morphh's opinion, who explicitly says that "per NPOV, we must give weight based in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint published in reliable sources". He says that "we can present the fact they hired AirPhotoLive to do a scientific estimate", and also notes that "this does not give it additional weight".
(6) The only reason for claiming a "consensus" is a WP:VOTE, but this vote was participated only a minor fraction of people. You cannot claim a "consensus" by just ignoring known dissent opinions just because they didn't vote. Note that all of the above persons didn't vote for the claimed "consensus". Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case.

Since obviously there is no consensus, I reverted to the previous version. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it back. There was clear support for that change. Just because you and another editor dont like that fact can not be helped, the tags have been kept because of your concerns. The wording in the article now has more support than the previous wording which most opposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
All of those responses came from your RFC which was a grossly biased explanation of the situation and had no support to start in the first place. Even taking into account the comments in the RFC you started because you were losing the debate, there was still majority support for the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the points (1) to (6) above! Of course there was "clear support" for that change, but far away from being a consensus. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I am glad you recognise there was clear support for that change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not glad that you don't know the difference between "clear support" from some versus consensus. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:VOTE - these are basics about Wikipedia! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You are trying to insert wording into the article that has no support, the wording that got added a couple of days ago has been far more stable and is supported by far more editors than the previous wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I just went back to the version which was locked by an administrator last week before start of the discussion. Please, don't try to create fait accompli, this is not Wikpedia style. Good Wikipedia style is to try to reach a consensus. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, the current version is not final. This is also the reason why it contains the tags warning the user about the ongoing discussion. If there is a consensus, then this consensus will be implemented, and the tags deleted. This is Wikipedia approach. Not just putting in the change you like if you know exactly that it is highly controversial. And if you have doubt about reaching a consensus, than an administrator should decide, not just one side creating fait accompli. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No one was saying the discussion was completely over that is why the tags still were kept there. However it was clear that the majority supported a change to that wording, the previous wording that got locked in previously had no support. Its strongly opposed by most editors here yet you want to reinsert it. So instead of something that has majority support we have one that no one supports. How wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, ok, we can try to improve this (without creating an onesided fait accompli). As preliminary solution there should be at least a less controverse text. What about using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally#Second_proposal_by_BS24 until a consensus is found? Besides having already your and BS24's support (and Akerans seemed to be not against), it does not contradict all the opinions I listed above, which were completely ignored by the so-claimed "consensus". And while AKA does not like it, I guess it is still better for him than the so-claimed "consensus". And while I also think it has still serious flaws, I think it is at least better. Of course, also this not as final version, but preliminary compromise until a real consensus is reached. Ok for you? 82.135.29.209 (talk)
(I also have the feeling that this text is a better starting point for seriously looking out for a consensus.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you didn't answer anymore, I guess you only get notifications if the article itself is changed, so I did this change. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Got distracted. I am prepared to support that proposal if it resolves this matter once and for all. Although id ditch that final sentence that appears in the proposal. But if that wording does not solve the problem, then i think we should stick with the more limited wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back. :) I don't mean it as final proposal, but as better intermediate proposal. Nobody seems to be enthusiastic about it, but it seems to have less fundamental opposition, and - which I think is most important - it corresponds better with the various outsider views coming from the RFC listed above. But again, still preliminary. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
82.135.29.209, Per Wikipedia:Consensus, sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. Your statements of so-claimed or real consensus is bothering - there was a majority agreement for wording. You need to respect that while the discussion continues. With an article that has already been locked and discussion that has gone on for days, we need to work from the point with the most agreement. It doesn't help anything to go go back and forth on the article. Leave it alone - take a break. Inserting something you think is more in line with what should be consensus does not help - it just causes disruption and more unproductive back and forth. Start a new section from the text in the article and what specific additions you would like. We all know your reasoning at this point. We can then discuss each entry and agree or disagree, reword or whatever. Morphh (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the text I put in is not only a "majority agreement", but additionally has support from both "sides". And regarding your proposal of "starting a new section from the text ..." - this is exactly what I tried (unsuccessfully). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Current wording now is ok with me and it did get support (although not as much support as the other proposal), but i am ok with either. I would like this issue resolved, its been dragging on abit an got us both into trouble and could get others too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, fine with me, too. While I think there is still a factual error (also Doig's number belongs to CBS's "only scientific estimate"), I tend to accept the current wording to not launch a big fight again but reach a consensus. Regarding AKA, I read his comments again, I think he has valid points, but my impression is that the main issues AKA mentioned are basically addressed in the current version, and while he disagreed with this version, maybe it's not too hard to get him into the boat, too, maybe with or possibly with some changes. But of course none of us can speak for AKA. But maybe since originally you, BritishWatcher, and me are from "different sides", it may help if we point out that at least we reached an agreement, promoting it together to skeptics on both side. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I certainly think the wording now in the article is a fair compromise and several editors expressed their support for it prior to going back to the prior proposal. I think in its current form its good enough and justifies removal of the other tags, if others are prepared to support this wording. It does go into detail of the CBS figure but it fits in more with the paragraphs in that section being larger than before. Seems like the middle ground. If AKA is prepared to reconsider support others may accept this as a compromise rather than trying to push back for the other wording which makes a single line mention of CBS. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem with that error being fixed although its probably best to let someone else do it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

This article just came off of protection for edit warring, those who want to put it right back into an edit war will be blocked as I just had to do. 3RR is a guideline, not an edge you are to run up to at full speed and then suddenly stop. I highly recommend WP:ROWN. --WGFinley (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size change proposal

Ok, after all I make a change proposal. I think the following part is not correct:

CBS News commissioned ... CBS claimed theirs was the "only scientific estimate" of the crowd size. Professor Stephen Doig used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000.

When looking into the source, it is clear that by "only scientific estimate" CBS refers also to Doig's number. Therefore I suggest the following wording:

CBS News commissioned ... CBS also reports that Professor Stephen Doig used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000. CBS claimed that their numbers are the "only scientific estimate" of the crowd size.

To avoid big fights again, I don't plan to add this change by myself. Ideally, someone else see's my point and makes this change. If no agreement is possible, I prefer to accept this mistake in favor of a consensus. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CBS said, "AirPhotosLive.com calculated that there were approximately 87,000 people there, plus or minus 9,000 people. It was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally." Which is in reference to AirPhotosLive.com's estimate, not Doig's. In fact, the article is written as such to claim CBS has the only scientific estimate, which is incorrect. The correct way to word it would be to say that "CBS claims that AirPhotosLive.com has the only scientific estimate." Akerans (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we are looking at two different sources. The cited source I am looking at says:
  • The company (AirPhotosLive) sometimes uses these images for crowd estimates, both generating its own estimates and partnering with Professor Stephen Doig of Arizona State University, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert, to come up with figures.
  • The company (AirPhotosLive) generated its own estimate and asked Doig to separately do one on his own.
  • Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant different since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate.
It is clear to me from this source that CBS commissioned AirPhotosLive to do an estimate, and AirPhotosLive brought in Doig to assist with it. The results of the independent scientific study were forwarded to CBS, and CBS chose to report the higher number. Doig is indeed part of the (according to CBS) only independent and scientific crowd estimate. The present wording in the Wikipedia article incorrectly attributes "independent" only to Doig, and "scientific" only to AirPhotosLive or CBS -- depending on how you read the unclear wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Arzel above detailed why the estimates of CBS (done by Shuler), and Doig vary. If I'm correctly reading Arzel, Doig and Shuler caculated crowd denisity under the trees differently, with Shuler thinking there was more under the trees due to the hot weather than Doig. I think we could avoid contention by saying CBS released a scientific estimate and not bog down the section with minutia in the name of clarification.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Arzel above detailed why the estimates of CBS (done by Shuler and Doig) vary. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation compromise idea

There is a request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-09/Restoring Honor rally by User:BS24 for mediation. After reading though quite a bit of talk page comments I think I have a idea for a compromise. This dispute appears to be over the accuracy of the sources, because of the sources contradict each other having different estimates and there looks like there is a argument over which news sources should be considered valid. There also appears to be a dispute over what order the estimates should appear in, the two dispute factions appear to be over the particular order of the sources. I think the article would look fine either way, but I know that you do. So I propose a compromise, the information can be listed in chronological order, i.e. the time it was published. As there is a dispute over what news sources should be considered reliable why not list all of them? It might be helpful to the reader. Do you think this is a acceptable compromise? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Note: I archived the extremely long talk page because I couldn't get my browser to send the information before crashing.

I would rather we all just accept the compromise wording that is now in the article. I have scars from this debate and would like to move on. The order they appear was not the problem the issue was if we go into detail about CBS figures whilst only briefly mentioning each of the other estimates. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
That could work. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the compromise text. The CBS position is still given undue weight. It seems to violate NPOV policy, which is that weight is based in proportion to the prominence in reliable sources. CBS being more "scientific" is a great argument, but CBS's figures have no more prominence in reliable sources that I've seen than other estimates, so why are we giving them an entire paragraph and the other news entities one sentence each? It seems to be a compromise to the point of violating policy because editors are giving up in frustration. I'm fine with giving CBS a little more leeway, weight is not an exact science, but we need to follow policy and the current text doesn't. Morphh (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand your disagreement, CBS's information may not be accurate. However there is a dispute here over whether on not this is accurate. Continuing this would be Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse. What needs to happen is a compromise that everyone can agree upon. Then everyone will need to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about presenting what we believe to be "true" or "accurate". It's not our place to say which numbers are the most accurate and present them with more weight. We report what reliable sources believe is true or accurate and we do so in proportion to the viewpoints in reliable sources. What can be done to convince many of us is show that the CBS viewpoint does in fact have more prominence in reliable sources. Then I could except giving it the weight that it is currently given, until then, I think it should be trimmed to be in line with policy. Morphh (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Morphh. CBS' view is not supported by other sources. If more sources agree with CBS' position, then they can be given more weight. That said. I don't mind mentioning that CBS commissioned an outside company to conduct an estimate for them. Akerans (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether they agree or disagree with CBS's position. They could just be reporting CBS's position. The main point is that the CBS's position is reported more than other positions, justifying it be given more weight than other positions. If many of the articles we source mentioned CBS's opinion, but rarely mention other news organizations, then that would show their view is more prominent in the sources. I do think it important to mention that CBS hired an outside company to do the crowd estimate in whatever version we agree on. Morphh (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I had limited my thought to peer-reviewed, to right and wrong. But, your right, we don't limit in that way. All that matters is that their number is talked about more than other numbers. Akerans (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. WP:DUE does not define weight solely as how often is is repeated by other sources. WP:DUE says that reporting should be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". This definition is much more broad. And CBS clearly spends an order of magnitude of more words and explanation, hence more "prominence", compared to other sources, which don't explain at all. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd archive censorship

What is really going on? Alpa Quadrant archives active threads and leave signed note in the name of The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. The The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous them removes it. Looks a bit odd to me. Anyway, I have reverted the threads Alpa archived. Let them be automaticaly be archived. --Kslotte (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alpa Quadrant is attempting mediation. If he's having trouble posting, then perhaps a compromise and lower archive to 2 or 3 days to help reduce the size of the thread, so s/he can post. Akerans (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
AlphaQudrant reported to me a computer froze while trying to shrink the talk page to a reasonable, and I just repositioned my talk section to account for AlphaQuadrant's subsequent restoration. No harm was intended, and AQ acted with good intentions.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Has AQ tried to only edit specific threads, not the complete page? And if a new section is created use the "New section" tab. Those two things are the first work around steps. I assume somewhere exist more how to handle the sitation. Anyway, this page is that active that supressing with an effective archiving is not a good idea. Other users need some time to respond. One alternative is to create a talk subpage for the mediation. --Kslotte (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Questions for AQ should be made on that editor's talk page. I have found the editor to be responsive and reasonable.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable Event on the August 28 page *BUMP*

From an archive page:

On the August 28 page, some wikipedians continue removing this event from the list of events occuring on that day, citing that it is a non-notable event. I disagree because of the size of the event and the attendees on stage. What do others think - if it's big enough to have its own page, should it not be listed on the article of August 28th? I don't do a lot of editing on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd ask since it made no sense to me.

Thanks. Albert109 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with your assessment; it seems like if it's notable enough to get so much coverage it's notable on the events page. Removing sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. I don't like it either, but it's definitely notable. Millahnna (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It's presentism, give it a year and it will just be a relatively minor political event of many. Not notable enough Snapdragonfly (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It was a completely apolitical event, but I still get your point. I disagree, however, because of the points I made - if it's such a minor event, why does it have its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert109 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Certainly belongs on the events page. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If anyone agrees with me on the notability of the event, can the more experienced wikipedians help out on the august 28 page. Either making the argument for the notability or doing the lock thing so these biased politickers can't keep reverting. Albert109 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, if anyone agrees with me that this event is notable enough to be posted on the page of August 28, please post your opinion on the page.Albert109 (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Albert109 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size 1st paragraph proposal=

According to the Wall Street Journal the crowd "packed nearly a mile of the National Mall", but how many attended is "hotly contested."[2][3] The New York Daily News answers to the question of how many attended depended dramatically on whom was asked, and controversies over crowd estimates of recent large political events, including the rally, seemed to draw almost as much attention as the event itself.[4] Missing was the National Parks Service estimate, which, since since it was threatened by organizers of the Million Man March with a lawsuit over alleged under count of the crowd, has withheld its estimates from public view.[5]
Without any comment, I'm going to insert this paragraph.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart/Colbert rally

Certainly the upcoming 2010 Stewart–Colbert rallies are partly in response to the Restoring Honor rally, but do we have to call it a "counter rally"? That suggests that there's an inherent political message here that's in opposition to that of the Restoring Honor rally, and I don't think that's the intent. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Certainly, the "Restore Honor" rally only claimed to be a fundraiser for the Special Forces group and did not have any explicit political agenda. Similarly, whatever political viewpoint the "March to Keep Fear Alive" and "Rally to Restore Sanity" have will cancel each other out (one being on the right and the other being on the left.) Racepacket (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both above. I don't think it deserves a whole subsection, or any mention whatsoever for that matter. The subsection makes no direct connection to Beck except that it's going to happen after his. So are we going to start adding every rally that happened after his? If so, where is the Taxpayer March on Washington, Black Family Reunion, 10/2 rally, etc.? I'm re-adding the off-topic template until further discussion. BS24 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've taken down the template because the reference in the article makes a very clear connection to this rally. However whatever (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the name "Subsequent rallies" because Colbert and Stewart are not continuing the same message of this rally. All they are doing is ridiculing Beck. However whatever (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Second CBS article

CBS seems to have removed the second crowd size article entirely. Anyone know where it is? BS24 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Second crowd size article? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
1st article and 2nd article. Akerans (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lmao woops. i read the question thinking it meant there was a second article on wikipedia just about crowd size. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find it anywhere. BS24 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

scientific estimate

CBS did not say theirs "was the only scientific estimate." They said, "It was the only scientific estimate," in reference to the 87,000 estimate by AirPhotosLive.com. (source) If the source is ambiguous, then we should find another source for this information, quote it directly from the source, or pull this information from the article. I'm open to other suggestions as well. Akerans (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited source I am looking at says:
  • The company (AirPhotosLive) sometimes uses these images for crowd estimates, both generating its own estimates and partnering with Professor Stephen Doig of Arizona State University, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert, to come up with figures.
  • The company (AirPhotosLive) generated its own estimate and asked Doig to separately do one on his own.
  • Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant different since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate.
It is clear to me from this source that CBS commissioned AirPhotosLive to do an estimate, and AirPhotosLive brought in Doig to assist with it. The results of the independent scientific study were forwarded to CBS, and CBS chose to report the higher number. Doig is indeed part of the (according to CBS) only independent and scientific crowd estimate. The "it" that CBS refers to as scientific is not the 87,000 result, but the "commissioned independent estimate" requested by CBS, which includes input by Doig and possibly others at AirPhotosLive, as indicated here:
  • However, a firm hired by CBS News to estimate the crowd put attendees at between 78,000 and 96,000. The firm, AirPhotosLive.com, had three estimators go over high-resolution aerial photos of the event, and then combined the three estimates. (One of the estimators talks about the experience here.)
...in this CSM article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment. "it" usually refers to something in present context, or previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned. I seriously doubt the writer of that article meant for "it" to refer to something said two sentences ago, rather than something said one sentence ago. But, if "it" is still unclear, I would rather quote the source to provide proper context and let the reader decide, instead of editors deciding in what context "it" is referring. Regarding the other sources, they don't help clarify the situation. Doig claims AirPhotosLive combined estimates, whereas CBS said the estimates were "separate" and they chose one over the other. I'm not sure what to make of that, other than there is conflicting information. But, we should not combine these sources to claim "it" refers to something other than what was said in the CBS article. Akerans (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It is The Christian Science Monitor, not Doig, that claims three estimators were used and three estimates were combined -- and they cite Doig as one of the estimators. The current sentence in our article reads: According to CBS, theirs was the "only scientific estimate" of the crowd size. It sounds like you would like to reword that to specifically imply the "87,000" number CBS chose is the whole "scientific estimate" CBS received. As for quoting the source to provide proper context, in order to let the reader decide, please note that the above three italicized lines are quotes from that same source, and the context they convey is that Doig's work was part of (although done separately, and with slightly different methodology) the commissioned estimate. There are other sources explaining the commissioned estimate:
  • CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes. CNN
Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the following quote. "CBS News commissioned the company AirPhotosLive.com to offer an independent estimate of how many people showed up for the event. AirPhotosLive.com calculated that there were approximately 87,000 people there, plus or minus 9,000 people. It was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally." Those three sentences seem to cover the main points people want to include about CBS. If those sentences imply anything, then that's not my fault. CBS wrote the article, not me. As far as Doig is concerned. CBS is clear that Doig's estimate was 80,000, "separate" from AirPhotosLive.com, that both used "slightly different methodologies," and that they "elected to use the higher estimate." What CBS did not do, is make clear that the "separate" and "slightly different methodologies" were all scientific. CBS doesn't even acknowledge the third estimate in their article, so its highly unlikely they are referring to all the estimates in the first paragraph. Akerans (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
"Those three sentences seem to cover the main points people want to include about CBS. If those sentences imply anything, then that's not my fault."
Incorrect. If those three sentences are extracted, by you, from a much more detailed article, and then presented as if they "cover the main points" -- I do believe that would be your fault. Especially if that quote is mined from an article that feels the need to " bring more clarity to the crowd estimation process" with more than a dozen more paragraphs (including some on the role of Doig in the whole process), without conveying that clarity. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If Akeran's is proposing what he has quoted above, then I can agree with that. I think too much has been made of the methodology. Nonetheless, one of the main points not mentioned by Akerans is the controversy over the crowd size: a major aspect of the reporting on crowd size and it would be wrong to exclude mention of how much controversy there was generated. If we could do that while also including representative estimates, but not all of them - the box does that well enough, I think the section could be less bloated. The Million Man March article limits comment on the controversy, and I think is a good model to follow. I also think my suggested first paragraph above limits how much we need to go into comparing the relative merits of differing estimates by giving context to the controversy. BTW, if we could stick to discussing CBS herewith in this section, that would be a relief.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue I'm attempting to address is a sentence not following the cited source, not the crowd estimation process or past controversies. Although, CBS made clear in the crowd estimation process that Doig's estimate was "separate" of AirPhotosLive's estimate. We should not combine other sources with the CBS source to make CBS' claim of "separate" disappear. Akerans (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
CBS made clear Doig's estimate was separate from AirPhotosLive estimate? No, CBS did not. Their wording in one article can be read that way, but it is clear from the sources that while Doig's, and Shuler's, and a 3rd estimator's estimate were all "separate", they were all part of the independent scientific estimate process commissioned by CBS.
  • AirPhotosLive.com, had three estimators go over high-resolution aerial photos of the event, and then combined the three estimates. -Christian Science Monitor
  • They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. -CNN
  • Meanwhile, CBS News actually paid for some research and arrived at a figure between 80 and 90,000. Stephen Doig helped calculate it by using aerial photos. -On The Media
It almost sounds like you are disputing that Doig was part of the "only scientific estimate" conducted, despite CBS pointing out that the three separate estimates were all based on the same APL images, and used only "slightly different" methodologies to arrive at their figures. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We could say CBS offered a scientific estimate, and that Doig separately issue an estimate. BTW, Doig did use the same methology, refer to Arzel above.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article already says Doig did a separate estimate. It also already says CBS' estimate is the only scientific estimate (according to CBS, anyway). What are you proposing to change? BTW, if CBS says the methodologies were "slightly different", and the Arzel Free Press says they are the same, I think we should probably go with the CBS source:
"Though Doig and AirPhotosLive.com employ slightly different methodologies, both use a method that involves laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell." -CBS
Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm disputing the use of different source material to arrive at a conclusion not specifically stated by CBS. CBS specifically referred to each estimate by name, they talked about estimates separate from one another, and only used one of those names when claiming "It was the only scientific estimate." CBS never said the estimates were "combined." Other sources claim the estimates were "combined." If other sources want to claim these estimates as scientific, then we can cite those sources for those estimates. But, we should not synthesize other sources with CBS, to make CBS sound as though they said something which they clearly did not. Akerans (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We should also not use the wording from a single source when that wording is contradicted (or simply made more clear) by a dozen other equally reliable sources on the same subject. I fully agree with you that we should not make CBS sound as though they said something which they clearly did not; they did NOT say Doig's estimate is separate from the "scientific estimate" they commissioned. You would like to imply that Doig's efforts were not part of the scientific estimate process, but that isn't the case. You say CBS used only one of those names (AirPhotosLive; Doig) when making their "only scientific estimate" claim, but this is what that source said: Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant different since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate. -- and that was after explaining that APL asked Doig to make an estimate.
You say the "only scientific estimate" claim by CBS applies only to the 87,000 APL number, and I say it applies to the "estimate commissioned CBS" (which includes Doig's input, which CBS had to consider when deciding which numbers to use). I would agree 100% with you, Akerans, if your source only consisted of the first three sentences and then stopped. But, as you can see, the source is much longer than that, and it goes to great lengths to explain the process in detail -- something we can't ignore. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well summarized. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Akerans, could you propose a change of wording here that you feel would address your concern? I've made a similar request of Mr. Anon above. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Something like : CBS hired AirPhotoLive to take and use aerial photos to estimate crowd size in a manner CBS called scientific. Of the estimates submitted, CBS chose Ryan Shuler's of 87,000 (+/- 9,000). Another estimator of AirPhotoLive, Steve Doig, calculated differently from Shuler how many people were under trees and came up with an estimate of 80,000.
We could go into the question of whether there was only one scientific estimate. But to what end? All sources used agree that the estimate was scientific (with no good source to dispute it) and to leave it at that spares us the bloat from trying to reconcile sources which may or may not contradict each other. As far as I know, no reliable source has made an issue of the difference between Doig's and Shuler's estimates casting doubt on CBS's chosen estimate.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, one estimate is stated as scientific, the others are not. At best, the other numbers were implied. However, we should not claim what is implied as explicitly stated. Akerans (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Akerans, one estimate is stated as scientific, correct: The one commissioned by CBS. CBS published one of the several numbers (all statistically identical, as far as the margin of error goes) generated by the independent, scientific study. Of course we should not claim what is implied, when we have several sources that explicitly state the process and results. That's been my point from the start. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
CBS did not explicitly say that the entire process and all three numbers were scientific. That's the phrase I've yet to see. If you can show me that phrase, then I'll agree that's exactly what CBS said. Akerans (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way that this might matter? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Accuracy; the source needs to directly support the material in question. The CBS source did not directly support what was written, and I've challenged the material. Your changes more accurately follow the source than what was previously written. Akerans (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Call that beating a moot horse. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Akerans, if you read the source, it is very clear that CBS considers also Doig's estimate as scientific. CBS writes it "commissioned the company AirPhotosLive.com to offer an independent estimate of how many people showed up for the event. AirPhotosLive.com calculated that there were approximately 87,000 people there, plus or minus 9,000 people. It was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally. ... The company generated its own estimate and asked Doig to separately one on his own. ... Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant different since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate. " (highlighting by me). Don't invent a contradiction where is none. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The part that reads and asked Doig to separately one on his own indicates Doig's number was not part of AirPhotosLive.com's number. In other words, Doig is not a part of AirPhotosLive.com, and CBS didn't ask Doig to conduct an estimate. CBS got Doig's estimate because AirPhotosLive.com asked Doig to separately one on his own. No where does the source explicitly state that Doig's number was commissioned by CBS. Akerans (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Akerans said: "CBS did not explicitly say that the entire process and all three numbers were scientific. That's the phrase I've yet to see. If you can show me that phrase, then I'll agree that's exactly what CBS said."
That's a convenient strawman argument, but fortunately for us Wikipedia editors, we are not restricted to using just one reliable source. Please note that the scientific process was investigated by CNN (they even contacted AirPhotos directly) and CSM as well:
  • CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes. CNN
  • However, a firm hired by CBS News to estimate the crowd put attendees at between 78,000 and 96,000. The firm, AirPhotosLive.com, had three estimators go over high-resolution aerial photos of the event, and then combined the three estimates. (One of the estimators talks about the experience here.) CSM
Glad I could help, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd Size Still Brewing

Folks, might I suggest that maybe if there wasn't a listing of each and every crowd size quotation that could be found there wouldn't be this constant debate over what NBC quoted? Is there a real need for a table showing all the different sources and different numbers? Why can't it just state "media reports of crowd size varied from tens to hundreds of thousands" and then cite the specific studies which are direct secondary sources? The incessant nitpicking over what are at best tertiary sources or WAGs is really holding back this article. Perhaps a straw poll of how many of the size quotes are necessary would be a good start to get a consensus? --WGFinley (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, a straw poll? Last time one of those happened the dispute got worse. See archive 4. There was a MEDCAB mediation request and I opened it. From what I understand now the debate is several reliable sources disagree with each other. Since the sources are reliable it is rather a discussion over what source is the most reliable. Wikipedia policies conflict on this issue, hence the discussion. What about creating a article titled Restoring Honor Rally Controversy. There are enough sources the article can compose of the fact that there is a disagreement between sources. Would that work? --Alpha Quadrant talk 02:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose a new Wikipedia article Controversy about how to resolve the Restoring Honor Rally crowd size controversy. Any objections? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the article is quite long, I think it is better to report all information of all sides instead of removing information - I think the former has a chance of consensus, the latter will cause blood and thunder. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me throw in an amen and suggest a compromise: leave the box in, and edit down the section by...

  • a) Reducing explanation of CBS's methods (just say they analyzed their own aerial photos) and let Doig's skeptical comment about the estimates offered by rally organizers and supporters stand in response to the conservative questioning of the lowball estimates.
  • b) Reduce the paragraph listing estimates by consolidating the varied reports, as WGfinley suggests. There are good sources that summarize the range and nature of the many estimates. Leaving the box as it is lets all estimates be included well enough.
  • c) Reduce Beck's disputations being given more space than those of any one else. (BTW, when it comes to crowd estimates, he is an unreliable source as indicated by his fabricated citation of a university he interestingly could not rememeber the name of, and with time his memory has not as of yet aided his ability to recall, estimating 1.7 people at the 9/12 Tea party rally.) But because he is an organizer, what he says should be listed, just not at worshipful length. [6]

BS24 falsely rm the OTM reference saying there was a consensus that it was not a good source. Myself, Alpha Quadrant, and IP209 disagree. BS24 has completely ignored arguments as to why OTM is not a opinion talk show and has persisted with nothing more than gainsaying . He has also contradicted himself. Earlier BS24 conceded that the NBC estimate was proved to be erroneous, when he conceded my point that there was no NBC estimate of 300,000 and the NYT was in error, In his words he said: "Congratulations, you "debunked" the New York Times. You should get an ward for journalism." [7]. The lack of civility shown by the sarcasm is another unfortunate trait of BS24 that has not been helpful at all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave up on the estimate earlier because I didn't know Brian Williams himself had said it. Alpha Quadrant does not agree with anyone, he was just asking questions. He hasn't said anything one way or the other. Your arguments are not based in policy. And please don't criticize me for lack of civility when you have been heckling me for "unanswered challenges" this whole process. BS24 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You've mistakenly and baselessly taken challenges to your edits and arguments personally, and have never responded to being solicited to detail what has so bothered you. In any case, no presumed license to be uncivil is appropriate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I neither disagree nor agree with anything on this topic. If I start to, then I will have to resign from the MEDCAB case, because then I will no longer be neutral. However, I believe based on the sources, that the New York Times was incorrect. This is quite possible, even the most reliable of sources can make a mistake. However what confuses me is this CBS article which I quote, "Rally organizers had a permit for crowd of 300,000." So CBS writes that the rally organizers had a permit of 300,000. Maybe NY Times miss-quoted CBS. Or maybe NY Times and CBS are plotting to keep changing the facts so they can write a newspaper article about this Wikipedia controversy :). --Alpha Quadrant talk 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have CBS confused with NBC? The New York Times was quoting NBC's estimate, not CBS' estimate. NBC estimated 300,000. I don't think we have a secondary source for that information (I haven't seen one used in the article), but, in addition to The New York Times, Huffington Post, On the Media, Yahoo News, and Brian Williams (time index 17:31) on Meet the Press all claim that NBC News estimated 300,000. Akerans (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We're still giving too much weight to CBS. They have an entire paragraph, while everyone else get's one sentence. It's ridiculous and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Morphh (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See the section below for my proposal about reducing undue weight. BS24 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On The Media as a reliable source

Here is how On The Media describing itself:

Since OTM was re-launched in 2001, it has been one of NPR's fastest growing programs, heard on more than 200 public radio stations. It has won Edward R. Murrow Awards for feature reporting and investigative reporting, the National Press Club's Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism and a Peabody Award for its body of work.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that they, as a third party observer, cannot correct Brian Williams about his own network. BS24 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't question if it's a reliable source. In fact, I'm assuming it is a reliable source. However, it's a primary source, not a secondary source for this content (see WP:PRIMARY). So that knocks it down a few pegs. Then we have to consider WP:WEIGHT to a single primary source in relation to the body of secondary sources attributed to other content. Once we do that, On The Media becomes a "tiny minority" viewpoint and thus should not be included per our policies. Morphh (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Morphh! Taking a look at WP:PRIMARY per your suggestion, I'm confused. Are you certain it's not the other way around, i.e., Brian Williams is really the primary source and On The Media is actually a secondary source? The policy you've cited says primary sources are the people who were directly involved, while secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event and often make analytic or evaluative claims about the primary sources.--AzureCitizen (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
We're sourcing On The Media's comment, not Brian Williams. On The Media is used to support the statement of On The Media - that's a primary source for their statement. A secondary source would be Fox News reporting On The Media's statement. There are many secondary sources that report the crowd estimate of Brian Williams (including On The Media - it's a secondary source for Brain Williams' estimate). We're not relying on a direct source from Brian Williams to source the fact that he said it. With On The Media, we don't have secondary sources (one step removed from On The Media itself) reporting that On The Media rebutted Brian Williams. If we did have secondary reliable sources reporting that, we'd have to take that weight into account with the weight given to Brian Williams in such reliable sources. Morphh (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OTM is a secondary source reporting (WP:SECONDARY) on Williams making an error (using truthiness it seems) with Doig agreeing. Here is the pertinent policy which should not have to be explained:
Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs)
No, OTM is a Secondary source for Williams making the crowd estimate, but it's a Primary source for OTM's comment that Williams made it in error. OTM is not being used as a secondary source for Williams, it's being used as a Primary source for OTM's comment regarding Williams. The "event" being sourced is OTM correcting Williams. OTM is not one step removed from that event. In any case, we can't justify based on sources giving OTM any weight in the article - primary, secondary, or otherwise. Morphh (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"No, OTM is a Secondary source for Williams making the crowd estimate..."
That's odd. I don't see anywhere in the OTM source that Williams made a crowd estimate. Am I looking at the wrong OTM source? All I see in that source is that NBC estimated 300K, and OTM explains NBC got that figure from Montanaro. As for primary & secondary sources: OTM is indeed a secondary source reporting on NBC's estimate error. Williams' role is peripheral and incidental; he didn't make any estimates or errors, he just repeated it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You have the right article. As stated above, secondary sources rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Which is exactly what OTM did, as a secondary source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Doig

Stephen Doig redirects to Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Crowds_and_general_ticket_holders. Anyone else find this very odd use of a redirect? I think I'd rather have a red link for the guy, so someone can create a stub. Morphh (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should put it up for RFD, or maybe even speedy it. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
wp:R#DELETE's redirect deletion rationale #10.: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself"--may or may not have been a stretch, but in any case, "Stephen Doig" is now a stub.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Sanity...

not a response to Restoring Honor, Stewart said in a Q-n-A in NY. He says, rather, it's a spoof of the role of media in the American polical culture/its fanning the flames of radicalism<my paraphrase>.

I think authors of a historical event should have their own intentions reflected in an encyclopedia article about it; if we quote the reporting that the 10/30/10 events are spoofs directed specifically at Restoring Honor, we should specifically credit it to whatever news sources offering this, well, "paraphrase" of Colbert/Stewart's stated objectives, IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of crowd size section

I don't want to start another feud, but does anyone agree that if CBS gets their own paragraph, then the paragraph on the rest of the media estimates should go first? This could solve the undue weight issue. Thoughts? BS24 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Weight does factor both placement and content size. I don't believe that placement alone would overcome the large balance issue given to CBS, but it's a start. We need to reduce the size of the CBS paragraph, and perhaps split the other paragraph into two. Morphh (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Concur with your edit. BS24 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I trimmed down the CBS paragraph slightly but I think I maintained all relevant content. With the reorder, paragraph split, and slight trim. I think it accomplishes enough to satisfy the policy concerns. Please correct any mistakes you see that might have occurred in the rewrite. Morphh (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"...the large balance issue given to CBS..."
Could someone please explain to me, in clear terms, what exactly this "large balance issue" is with CBS? CBS' scientific lowball estimate obviously had the greatest media buzz. When I look at the Crowd Size section of the article, many of the sources used to justify all the other guesstimates also mention the CBS estimate in the same source:(Yahoo; Associated Press; TPM; CNN; NY Daily News; etcetera). After the event, the blogosphere and media chatter was all about the "87,000" estimate, either ridiculing it or praising it, depending on their partisan slant. That appears to be some significant "weight" there. Are we sure "personal preference" isn't being confused for "weight" policy here? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they mention CBS, but they also mention in most cases the other news networks. Are you suggesting that CBS crowd estimates are mentioned 5X more than other networks in reliable sources? That's not what I see and that's not what you've shown. We can't use the blogosphere or "media chatter". What is the weight in reliable sources? As far as I can tell, CBS is not mentioned significantly more than other media estimates. You've now bloated the paragraph again disrupting the already undue weight given. Morphh (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've tried again to trim it slightly but maintaining the particular additions Xenophrenic added, along with prioritizing the content in the paragraph. Morphh (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Xenophrenic bloated it again so it's now equal to the size of two paragraphs with the comment "untrimmed (again) 'independent estimate', methodology spec, and Doig's expertise - all of which speak to the credibility of the estimate process. Left the other edits". This is getting tiresome. It's a violation of policy. It's not our job here to speak to the credibility of the estimate process. We need to summarize the estimate process and leave the details for the sources if people want to know the "density per unit of each grid cell". The statement of "independent" is a matter of opinion - it was commissioned by CBS. Commissioned research is not independent. I included the methodology and that Doig along with the others were "experts", even expanding on Doig's background. Now we have duplication, unsourced entries, POV, and bloat. Morphh (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The statement of "independent" is a matter of opinion - it was commissioned by CBS. Commissioned research is not independent.
That is backwards. "Commissioned research is not independent" is a matter of opinion (and inherently incorrect, as well). The statement of "independent" is made as a factual assertion in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unless you are also claiming that it is "opinion" that AirPhotosLive did an estimate; Doig is a professor; and Beck held a rally on the mall? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a tiny bit as I don't want to edit war, but it needs to be addressed. We can't have all this bloated detail, while everyone else gets one line. Morphh (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help you add weight to "everyone else", if equal weight is your concern. That way we don't deprive the reader of significant and relevant information. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What significant and relevant information was removed?[9] Duplication was removed like calling Doig a crowd expert twice and repeated statements like "of the crowd size" that didn't add anything except fluff. Morphh (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where Doig was called a crowd expert twice. Diff, please? I do see where APL explained that they had 3 experts (like an image analyst - which is a type of expert, but not a crowd estimate expert) make separate estimates, and I also see where Doig is specifically described as a "crowd estimate expert", but I don't see the duplication. If you are suggesting that we lump them all under a single description of "crowd estimate experts", it would save space, but might tread into synth. As for the "of the crowd size" phrase, I agree with you and have deleted it. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, I have been participating in this process since hours after it was created, and Morphh has been involved for a long time as well. Please read through the archives before uprooting all the consensus we fought over for a month. BS24 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't have one extremely detailed and/or large section on crowd size, and less detailed and/or smaller size sections throughout the rest of the article. In other words, not only are we giving undue weight to CBS, we're giving undue weight to the entire section. So, trimming would be preferred to making the section even larger. If people want detail, then they can click the links to learn more. For example, we can include a link to the Crowd counting article, where people can learn more about the detail of crowd counting, rather than presenting that information here in this article. Akerans (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumed consensus in violation of WP:SECONDARY

We can not have a consensus to exclude analysis done by secondary sources. This is contrary to what Wikipedia is all about, and such a policy would exclude all other analysis done by secondary sources, such as Brian Williams virtually uncited claim that NBC estimated 300,000, which exists nowhere but in his mind. I have no idea where this presumed consensus originated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

For one, WP:V is not WP:NPOV, which is what directs what is included/excluded. Secondly, you're misreading Secondary as I described above. Brian Williams estimate is covered in many secondary sources. On The Media is a secondary source for Williams' NBC estimate. On The Media is not a secondary source for it's own analysis. Someone else would need to report on the analysis, then that would be one step removed from the event (analysis) being sourced. You can not take the secondary source for Williams, and claim it to be a secondary source for On The Media. It doesn't work like that. They're two different events - Williams statement, and OTM statement. They each have their own WP:WEIGHT based on coverage in reliable sources. Even if we have a secondary source for an analysis, we have to place that in proper weight for the section. If we have 20 sources that report Williams, and 1 or 2 that report the analysis of Williams, we'll that 2 is a tiny minority and will be given due weight. Morphh (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Your very mistaken: Brian Williams made no estimate and never said he did, and no one has attributed an estimation to him. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
To NBC then, I was using the two interchangeably. Still doesn't change the primary / secondary. Morphh (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How many sources do report Williams saying there is an NBC estimate of 300,000? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
At least two independent sources, NY Times and Yahoo News, report the NBC estimate of 300,000. Zero independent sources report On the Media's dispute. BS24 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No more than two? Since OTM is a very respected secondary source, they should be enough for citation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=NBC+estimate+300000+Restoring+Honor+-wiki Morphh (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A Google search is not answer, and I still don't see more than two tertiary souces that are also reliable sources. Could you show me to be in error? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the question asked was, "How many sources do report Williams saying there is an NBC estimate of 300,000?" NY Times and Yahoo News did not. The hits in that google listing did not. Sure, there are plenty of sources that repeat NBC's Montanaro estimate, but I'm not seeing any reliable secondary sources conveying that Williams says there is an NBC estimate of 300K. Are you guys mixing them up? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It was our article that had said Williams because he was the one that reported it on NBC News (see the Meet The Press Transcripts). However, our article no longer states Williams by name. So I expect AKA is talking about NBC News, since that's the only thing in the article. Here are some sources (Telegraph, Bloomberg, AOL News, The Americano, MSNBC, Mediaite, RawStory, NewsBusters, BuzzTab, Fox Nation) Morphh (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You cited Newsbusters? The Fox Nation?? -- ok, I LOL'd.  :-) Seriously, though, it really sounded as though AKA was talking about Williams, and not NBC in general. What NBC sources are there that specifically say that NBC estimates 300K? (Besides the afore mentioned transcript from Meet The Press, of course.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he cited those, the fact remains that numerous reliable sources confirm the NBC estimate of 300,000, including MSNBC. As I have said before, Brian Williams is the leader (at least the public leader) of NBC News and he's the most important figure they have. If he says it, then it's true. BS24 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was on TV, so it must be true. No argument from me on that. I am still unclear on the dispute here. No one is arguing that Williams didn't say that NBC estimated 300K into the camera (and no, he never said it was true -- don't put words into his mouth). I think the dispute is over what Williams was basing that statement on, with the most likely answer being: Montanaro's tweet referencing an unnamed source. Looking more closely at the "numerous" sources mentioned above, I see that the Telegraph didn't confirm NBC made an estimate - they instead link to the NY Times. I see the AOL News didn't say NBC made an estimate, instead they cite Montanaro's tweet. "Including NBC", you offer - but look more closely; they, too, refer to Montanaro's tweet. Mediaite? Same thing: Montanaro's tweet; they never say NBC made an estimate of their own. Is there any source that indicates NBC made an actual estimate, or is it all an echo of the Montanaro tweet? Just wondering. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NBC News estimate

The issue is a certain estimate of 300,000 that Brian Williams himself said belonged to NBC News as a whole. Other user requests to add information from a talk radio program that it was not official and that Williams was mistaken about his own network. BS24 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling On The Media, without explanation as BS24 did above or below, "a random 'opinion' talk radio program" is a stretch. OTM features extensive reporting far more than anything else. In this case the story "The Art and Artifice of Crowds"[10] featured recorded interviews with three expert estimators of crowd size. And OTM doesn't feature call ins such as Dr Luara or Rush. The issue of NBC's purported estimate has been discussed previously see [11]. BS24 has made only token attempts at discussion, and has avoided direct response to many valid points. Turning this section into an RfC seems to be an attempt to use a WP dispute resolution mechanism to game the system. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous.

(talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That NBC News estimated 300,000 is backed up not only by the NY Times but by Brian Williams himself. As the anchor of NBC News's only daily program, he is the most significant figure at NBC News. Mr. Anon said he "debunked" this estimate with a ref from "On the Media", but on this shouldn't Wikipedia trust Brian Williams over a random opinion talk radio program? Not trying to start a fight or insult Mr. Anon, but it's common sense. BS24 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian Williams is accurately quoted. BS24 has been challenged[12] on his views on On The Media, but he exited those discussions and has never substantiated why OTM is not a reliable source. It would be much better to change tactics and discuss the point of exactly how On The Media is "a random 'opinion' talk radio program." An explanation of the use of the adjective "random" is very much anticipated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Direct source vs. indirect source. They are "random" because they have no connection to NBC or the rally or anything. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not enough. P.S. Please stop "challenging" me. It's very unprofessional. BS24 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Challenging edits and arguments is what Wikipedia editing is about, and BS24 has hardly been a model of restraint. Because WP is an amateur driven enterprise, no WP policies on professionalism exists. (In response to BS24's previous complaints, I've solicited the editor for what had aggrieved s/he to accuse me of being unfair, yet nothing has been said in return.) Arguments by shortcuts to WP policies are not arguments if there is no specifying of how they apply, and they oblige no response. Defining "random" sources as not self-generated or unconnected to "anything" is just too bizarre to comment on further. Williams, as well as Calderone, was referring to Montanaro's tweet (no NBC estimate of 300,000 exists), and, as Pulitzer prize journalist Doig noted, NBC was not a source for the estimate; it came instead from an unidentified official. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, not another Request for Comment so soon after the last one. :( Did everyone not learn their lesson from the last one? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If inserting the RfC before following RfC protocols of Before requesting comment, and to not use an RfC to fait acompli a preferred edit, the answer is no. Here is what should have been done.[13]


Wow, the article is looking really good. Is there still a dispute or should I close the Medcab case. From what I can tell a comprimise has been reached. --Alpha Quadrant talk 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
it seems more resolved than it was, although there are still problems. Perhaps you could help respond to the issue raised in this RFC< id rather we had a quick resolution to it than wait another 30 days for feed back on this one issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, it does appear NBC is still in the center of the dispute. So the current dispute is over whether Brian Williams opinion is a reliable source, is this correct? --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope. It's over whether On The Media is a reliable source. Williams was quoted, and OTM and Doig pointed out that NBC was not the source as Williams asserted. BTW, I've looked a lot for an NBC estimate of 300,000 and have not found one.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I too just checked, I couldn't find any sources from NBC on a estimate of 300,000. Could Williams have been mistaken? --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
According to OTM and Doig yes. 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk

Here is the New York Times crediting NBC News with 300,000. On the Media and Doig can criticize anyone they want, but that doesn't change the fact that the New York Times is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Akerans (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of Judith Miller? The Times is not the source, the Times thinks NBC is the source, but it is not, as Doig and OTM pointed out. We could also point out in the article that the NYT replayed the bogus estimate, but why bother? We would just create a confederacy of dunces, and by reliable sources point it out. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems quite ridiculous to me that we are saying Brian Williams is mistaken about his own network's number and some obscure opinion radio program is correct. BS24 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems like WP:UNDUE. We're treating it with equal weight to NBC itself. How many secondary sources do we have reporting On the Media? I see a single primary source. This is insufficient. It's giving undue weight to a tiny minority based on reliable sources. Thus, it needs to be removed. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, opinion or not. We have not seen that it is sufficiently represented in reliable sources to be considered. Morphh (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Morphh, you basically claim that all information of a source which usually is reliable is always reliable. In this case it is quite obvious that they made mistakes, as explained by On The Media. So while NYT and NBC usually are more reliable, the factual information makes the On The Media more reliable in this case. I think WP:DUE requires that this information is not withhold from the reader. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not make that claim. I'm discussing WP:WEIGHT, not WP:V. On the Media may be more reliable in this case, but that is a matter of opinion. However, we're talking about weight given to viewpoints. Weight states that the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Views are based on prominence in reliable sources. This view is not prominent in reliable sources as far as we've seen. In fact, we've yet to seen it published in a secondary source. It should not be given equal weight to NBC, and being a tiny minority view (based on sources), it should not be included at all. It may very well be a reliable source, and may even be more reliable than NBC for this case, but since it's not covered by anyone but themselves, it's not anything we should include per policy. Morphh (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So basically you agree that OTM "may very well be a reliable source, and may even be more reliable than NBC for this case", but you want to withhold this information from the reader because of your interpretation of a formal Wikipedia policy? I think the whole idea of Wikipedia policies is to ensure that verifiable facts are reported, not to prevent it. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, your assumption that only OTM is reporting it is wrong: The information comes also from Doig. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you really think that Doig is an "obscure source"? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if it's true or not" - really? So even if some information was clearly debunked as being factual wrong by other reliable sources, it should be still reported as fact, just because usually the source is reliable? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Doesn't matter if editors think Doig and On the Media are right about NBC, what matters is if readers can check that the information about NBC was published by reliable sources (i.e. verify). Since there are a number of sources reporting that NBC's estimate was 300,000, and only one source criticizing NBC's estimate, we give greater weight to NBC's estimate over NBC's criticism (i.e. weight). In other words, we count the number of times a piece of information appears in different sources and give the information weight based on how many times the information appears in different sources. We don't analyze the information in sources to determine which sources are right and wrong, and give weight based on that. Akerans (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It is absolutely outrageous that you (IP user) are calling Brian Williams wrong about his own network and some obscure radio program is "factual". Please use some common sense. BS24 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure it's helpful either way if Williams is right or wrong. It's an opinion. What matters is the coverage in reliable sources - Williams has it, On the Media doesn't. Thus, right or wrong, Williams get's included, On the Media doesn't. Morphh (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is Williams no "opinition", but OTM does? And why is Doig no reliable source? Doig is definitely a reliable source. So if he criticizes Williams numbers (and Doig has good arguments), this should be included. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally/Archive_5&oldid=1137155425"