Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Time magazine article mentions attendance

Time Magazine has an article mentioning the attendance controversy. To wit: "If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic." Samboy (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Triadian

Do you not see you are copy & pasting a sentence from the intro regarding what protesters rallied against? You're adding it to the attendance controversy for unexplained reasons. You're also duplicating references for unknown reasons. Stop. APK say that you love me 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think full protection is the only thing that will work. You refuse to undo the errors. APK say that you love me 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am fixing the errors. One a time. --Triadian (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting the good stuff along with the bad. It's causing me to go back and forth and correct things. I fixed the double source thing. Now, herein lies the problem. How do we add the DC Fire estimate as part of the attendance controversy without saying the same thing? That's why I did the generalized intro and moved the Fire estimate down to the Attendance subsection but you didn't like that so I just went with it. So now we have it written twice. You were right about the "east of the monument" part. --Triadian (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing

Should there be more talk about astroturfing on the article or not?

Only if it's supported by reliable sources Samboy (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If and only if a WP:RS refers to it, specifically, as astroturf. Even just being involved with an organization that is frequently characterized as "astroturf", like FreedomWorks isn't enough to label this specific event as such. — Mike :  tlk  20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

full protection

Just like Mark Lloyd.

We don't need it. There's not a massive rush to change things; there was just an edit war because two editors thought the policies supported their arguments. --Triadian (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like Glenn Beck.

Just like Van Jones.

Just like ACORN. However, it is apparently still ok to edit Eliot Spitzer

???????? --Triadian (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles you listed, with the exception of Mark Lloyd (which has been repeatedly vandalized and POV-pushed), are semi-protected. Semi-protection shouldn't affect your ability to edit the article at all unless you are anonymous or just created your account. — Mike :  tlk  20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the unsigned IP editor should know that to edit a semi-protected page, create an account and wait four days. --Triadian (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Logo

The logo has been discussed in a few sources, The Politico and Los Angeles Times to name two examples. Does anyone think it should be mentioned? APK say that you love me 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was actually used at the event, sure. Its kinda cute in a way...as the image caption at politico.com attests...how conservative protesters emulate what the once viciously condemned. If that sort of observation begins to gain traction, it may be worth a mention, too. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate line

This sentence, "The protesters rallied against what they consider big government, the dismantling of free market capitalism, and President Barack Obama's proposals on health care reform, taxation, and federal spending, among other issues.[7][8][3][9][10]", occurs verbatim twice in the article. It seems to me that the copy of it in the attendance estimates section is misplaced and should be removed as a duplicate and as not really dealing specifically with attendance estimates. Opinions of other editors on the subject would be appreciated. Koumz (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was a copy & paste error that was removed earlier today, but somehow found its way back into the article. APK say that you love me 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that one. --Triadian (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It was the reason I started the "User:Triadian" section above. APK say that you love me 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Interjecting bias into article

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seem to be many editors trying to interject bias into the article. At first it was from those wanting the 1+ million estimates in there. Now it's those attempting to downplay the event by drawing conclusions from the articles that just simply aren't there. I have argued here many times that the sources that have been put into this article do not come to the same conclusions that many of the editors are. The conflicting estimates are coming from more than just "conservative activist" sources. I agree, blogs are going nuts with large estimates, but they aren't the only ones out there. There's a plethora of articles previously given over and over and over and over and over again on this page discussing the various estimates and even some articles talking about how many estimates there are. "While there are conflicting appraisals" covers all and doesn't null those that aren't conservative giving estimates either HIGH or LOW. See WP:NPOV. --Triadian (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See the resolved tag above, and the message in regards to where you should voice your concerns. APK say that you love me 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

These are new edits, not those from that past. --Triadian (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I think the wording can go either way. In other words, I'm neutral. APK say that you love me 23:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not clarifying; my fault. --Triadian (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And to clarify again, the source states: [1] "Some conservative blogs claimed 2 million attendees." Note the word SOME. Also, "But even before the march was over, the news media, bloggers and rally supporters were wrangling over the crowd count, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million.". Note who gave conflicting estimates there. "Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University research professor and expert on crowd estimation..." <--- is he conservative leaning, no. "The Daily Mail in England..." a conservative activist or event planner? No. I rest my case. --Triadian (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting the language in question. We are talking about figures that are in conflict with what all the reliable sources are saying (75,000 or so). Farouk El-Baz is not in conflict with this. He affirms it. The Daily Mail is a marginally unreliable source, and, while they haven't issued a retraction from that story published the same day (something they rarely do unless threatened with a lawsuit), they've certainly backed away from it when questioned and have since admitted that they got their figure from the erroneously reported "ABC News" figure (which ABC News has vehemently denied is true). Oh, and yes, the Daily Mail is conservative, but that's not really at issue. Can you find a single reliable source other than conservative outlets that questions the accepted attendance figures? If not, then your edit is incorrect.

Also, note WP:3RR, which you are already in violation of. Rather than vowing to continue reverting, you should wait until there is consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Same to you. You started reverting us, not the other way around. I didn't vow to continue reverting, I was only going to revert once more and stressed that if you tried again, you'd be in violation of what you're accusing me of. Maybe you didn't interpret it that way, but that's what I meant by it. --Triadian (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS backing up the Daily Mail backpedaling on the 1 million attendance number they originally gave? In terms of sources, the Time article I link to above points out that conservatives believe there were over 70,000 there. Samboy (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have source backing Daily Mail other than the originals like the LA and Wash Times which is the cited source for that line, which I have been criticized for not following to the letter. Yes, many conservatives believe there were over 70,000 but that's not the point. What source says all criticism comes from conservative opinion sources or event organizers? That's what you want put in the article, but you can't back that up. Regardless, I believe the issue is now semi-resolved with recent edits. Yes, the intro still suggests conservatives are the only ones giving conflicting estimates, but at least there is now an upper limit given and sourced correctly by a non-biased source, even if the professor didn't do a detailed review. At least this conveys a sense of uncertainty without putting sole blame on a particular group of individuals that may or may not be correct. I hope we can learn from this. I've been at Wikipedia for a fairly long time. Article-writing means being accurate with what the sources are saying and not jumping to conclusions based on part of what was said. --Triadian (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blogs are not reliable sources

I have removed the following from the article:

The Heritage Foundation's Mark Kelly used figures from the the DC Metrorail system "Metrorail Service Information for Saturday, September 12, 2009". Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority. wmata.com. Retrieved 18 September 2009. and gave an deductive estimate of "313,000 to 433,000 attendees" Kelly, Mark (September 15, 2009). "Metro Delivers Hundreds of Thousands to 9/12 Rally". The Heritage Foundation. heritage.org. Retrieved September 18, 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Because it points to a blog posting. See Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F Samboy (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather it be actually from the think tank, but you're right it actually is a blog. --Triadian (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not proscribe all blogs: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." The Heritage blog is "a product of Heritage's Center for Media & Public Policy" and the author of that particular posting is a staff member at Heritage. I suggest that it qualifies as a RS. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the Heritige Foundation a reliable source to the point that we can consider a blog of theirs reliable? I don't think so, myself; the Heritage Foundation has a pretty strong political agenda which affects their ability to report crowd sizes at this political march in a neutral manner. Samboy (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't get into original research, and know this comment borders on "Forum" like, but the comments section on that same page in response shows clearly why the Heritage Foundation estimates are based on bad data. They compared 9/12/09 with 9/6/08 when Tropical Storm Hanna hit DC and city authorities warned people not to come into the city. In short, the days they used for comparison of traffic numbers were not at all comparable. USColonial 4:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Attendance Controversy" section corrections

Pete Sepp's name is spelled wrong. And, he is a spokesman, not a spokesmen. Kenatipo (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it :) --Triadian (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Triadian. Kenatipo (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[== "hundreds of thousands" NBC News ==

is NBC News a reliable source? they reported "hundreds of thousands" on NBC Nightly News on 9-12-2009. watch here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32813988#32813988 Kenatipo (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"...our own people think hundreds of thousands" is the exact quote. Its a genuine news report and he didn't misspeak so I think it's good enough to put in the Attendance controversy section. This is what I meant before. It's not only conservative activists. --Triadian (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see zero problems with it. The Squicks (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC videos are no more a WP:RS than Youtube Videos are a WP:RS. Written news (hopefully) goes through an editorial process, whereas televised news often is broadcast live. — Mike :  tlk  19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you kidding? There's no difference between this and any other news reporting done by MSNBC, which is a solid reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, i couldn't help noticing that over on the Glenn Beck wiki article discussion page, you mention MSNBC as a Reliable Source. so, you're not only disingenuous, you're mistaken: the link i posted is not an "MSNBC video" as you put it. it's an NBC News clip from the program called "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams". it aired nationally on 9-12-2009. did you even bother to look at the clip before bloviating? Kenatipo (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll remind you to assume good faith, and not accuse other editors of "bloviating" or being "disingenuious". It is a video hosted on MSNBC.com, of a MSNBC broadcast, and is thus a "MSNBC video". I did misread WP:RS, which uses the word "published sources", but then later says

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.

so the source is appropriate. As I said before, since there's no editorial review process for a correspondent's story in a news broadcast of this type, you will need directly attribute the opinion to its owner. The quote from Tom Costello is "Park Police estimate the crowd at tens of thousands, our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here". I'll start looking in to videos from other reliable sources for crowd estimates, since as I said before, I was unaware that they were WP:RS. — Mike :  tlk  23:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would wording it in this article as something like NBC reporter Tom Costello stated that "our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here" on the 12th. make sense? The Squicks (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Which of the three enumerated categories in the excerpt from WP:RS does this video fit into? "recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party"?. It is not "recorded then broadcast" as NBC Nightly News is broadcast live. It is not "archived by a reputable third-party", since it is MSNBC its self that we're getting it from. It must then be "distributed" to be appropriate, but I don't see that as being clear-cut since you cannot get a copy. Could someone please make a case for "distributed" so we can figure out if we're following Wikipedia policy by adding this as a RS? — Mike :  tlk  23:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, what is your rationale on omitting the Park Police estimate of "tens of thousands" (directly attributed to MSNBC as well, since it's being treated as an op-ed) ? — Mike :  tlk  23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That estimate is already here, so there's no point to cite the same Police agency twice. The Squicks (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Could someone please make a case for "distributed" What kind of arguement are you talking about here? It seems like an open and shut thing to me. It is posted on their news website for others to take out, and thus it is distributed. I don't know much about precedent, but in my experience in Israeli-Palestinian articles= News things posted on YouTube are acceptable. Look at, say, how Wiki refers to Al Jazzera English's YouTube dispatches. The Squicks (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking that if you distribute something, the recipient generally takes (or can take) possession. This is true for written content, since you can save it to disk or print it out. This might just be semantics, but I'm trying to figure out why I have seen videos rejected as not WP:RS so consistently.— Mike :  tlk  23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Thanks to Firefox and related software, you and I can take virtually every piece of media that we get our hands on and keep it. The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To those who think I'm a biased, evil liberal (hey ObserverNY!) , my pointing out the following article will come as a shock: The Guardian says "Tens – or even perhaps hundreds – of thousands of livid demonstrators filled the capital,..." Before claiming the author agrees with the higher estimate, note the "even perhaps" phrase. APK say that you love me 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, I don't believe that Park Police is mentioned anywhere in the article. We just have DC Fire Department's "exceeding 75,000". — Mike :  tlk  23:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is. If The Guardian states that it was probably tens of thousands but could have been 100s of thousands, than what is wrong with that? Why not put that in the article? As for Park Police, apparently persons unknown have removed their estimate from the article and I support re-including that immediately. What's the issue here? What's wrong with the sources? The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian would be fine. I'm seriously trying to figure out why so many editors think embedded (not downloadable) videos on news sites are not WP:RS. At this point, I would be fine with the MSNBC video as well, I'm just making sure there's not some policy we're overlooking. — Mike :  tlk  00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the NBC bit where an individual reporter shares their opinion on the crowd having hundreds of thousands of people. Ditto with the Guardian. It shows how people who were there at the attendance thought the rally was larger than the estimates provided by people who have a lot of experience estimating crowd sizes. In both cases, we just have to make it clear it was the opinion of a reporter reporting live about the rally. Samboy (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that MSNBC guy has just as much pull as that DC Fire guy who gave his opinion. The only difference is that the DC Fire unofficial estimate was cited by many sources the day of the rally and the day after the rally for some reason. Apples to apples. I also have no problem with the Guardian or Park Police. I have to say hat's off to those that have written the article as it reads today. It flows very well and covers all the points I think in a very fair manner. Huzzah! --Triadian (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NOR, and WP:NOR. It doesn't matter what you think of the DC fire guy; the bottom line is that a number of reliable sources used his number as an estimate of the crowd size, so we need to report this in the article. Samboy (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said. :-) --Triadian (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox News ad in Friday's WaPo

I've added quite a few possible sources (links are in the "personal reminder(s)" section at the top of this page), including this NYT article. Fox News took out a full-page ad in Friday's WaPo, leading to quite a stir among several news outlets. Should this be mentioned, or does it belong elsewhere. Also, does anyone else have an opinion on mentioning the logo's design? APK say that you love me 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on the logo's design may border on violating WP:POINT, since the "analysis" is mocking Beck's "art critic" segments. — Mike :  tlk  23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this issue is not worth mentioning here since the ad is something done by Fox and is that relevant to them and their pages. It's not really suited for here rather than there because the ad controversy does not relate to what the protester's thought or discussed. This is a tangent. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But the picture, and the story they're referring to is the topic of this article. Perhaps the controversy doesn't belong here, but perhaps mention of the ad does. — Mike :  tlk  23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The Politico article is mocking Beck? About the WaPo ad, that's what I figured. Thanks for the feedback. APK say that you love me 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Prehaps something like a sentence about the ad would be worth mentioning here, but- once again- we should not really be giving undue weight to something that is a controversy about Fox News and not about the protesters per se. The Squicks (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fox ad in WAPO appears to point specifically to the crowd estimate controversy [2] The two featured pictures are the clearest overview shots of the crowds from that day. Are there any verifiable sources from any of the mainstream media targeted by the FOX ad that include those images? CNN's "You lie" response is correct in that CNN did cover the event, but did it use either of those photos? Thanks.ObserverNY (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"No Arrests Reported"

Do we consider this to be article-worthy? How many sources are reporting on the lack of arrests, other than the politico article? — Mike :  tlk  15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider it newsworthy. It was reported on Beck, Hannity and Greta last night on FOX. And while I'm sure some won't consider this newsworthy or a verifiable source, the condition the Capitol grounds were left in compared to BHO's inauguration is certainly astounding. [3]

That's because at Obama's Inagural there was almost 2 million people there for over 12 hours. The taxpayer march was maximum 100-200 thousand for several hours. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

APK - STOP deleting my edits from this talk page. ObserverNY (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Explain here why your personal attacks and forum posts should remain. APK is a GLEEk 16:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Leave me alone. APK. ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverN

Neither Beck, Hannity or Greta are reliable sources, nor is Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Ed Schultz. If we took these guys at their word, Wikipedia would resemble Star Magazine. — Mike :  tlk  16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You must keep in mind that Beck and Hannity are COMMENTATORS and not news reporters. I don't know what Greta is, but I believe if she reports something, she has a source, so I'd rather go with that underlying source. I do, however, believe that the lack of arrests is something that is article-worthy since it is a fact can be verified and is semi-unique to this protest. --Triadian (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama flew over crowd

Whatever the crowd count: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html As Mr. Obama traveled to Minnesota on Saturday to rally support for his health care plan, he flew over the assembling crowd in Marine One. The helicopter could be seen flying overhead as the demonstrators marched down Pennsylvania Avenue.. I move to include this statement or paraphrase thereof from the NYT in the article. Do I have a second? ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My opinion is that this is a meaningless detail, that is reported on in very few WP:RS articles written on this topic. It gives the reader no additional insight into the protest. — Mike :  tlk  16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless detail? The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns. The size of the crowd may be disputed by various media sources, but the NYT (reliable?) reported that Obama flew over. So that means he had the ONLY aerial view of the crowd that day, as Marine One was the ONLY helicopter to flyover the rally. ObserverNY (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

President Obama's rally had been scheduled in advance, so please don't try to paint this as "trying to get the President to listen, but he ran off". That would probably be grounds for me to stop assuming good faith, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your mention of aerial views seems to be an effort to tie this in to crowd size estimates, which is not at all what the sources you refer to document. Am I wrong here? Why do you bring up that "he had the ONLY aerial view of the crowd that day", if not to try to relate this to crowd estimates? — Mike :  tlk  17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike - Wow. What a weird interpretation. You'll give me the benefit of the doubt? Oh how very kind of you, should I wash your feet too? The NYT source DOES refer to a "sea of protesters", and it is a FACT that Obama flew over the crowd. Therefore, unless he had a paper bag over his head, he had to have seen for himself the mass of Americans assembled. The actual or estimated "count" is irrelevant without an official NASA or satellite/digitized photo. That was my point. Not whatever nonsense you are trying to project. ObserverNY (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Giving you the benefit of the doubt is a wikipedia policy, so I would appreciate you restraining yourself with the commentary. I never have disputed that Obama flew over the crowd, only that it is not a detail worth including. What I did dispute was the implication of your comment:

"The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns."

The implcation is:

The American people peacefully assembled to try and get Congress and the President to listen to their concerns, and he flew away in a helicopter.

Whether you intended to do this, or it was accidental, it is still POV-pushing, and it is still WP:SYNTH. No source that mentions Obama's flight in any way connects it to aerial views for the purpose of gauging crowd size, and no source that mentions Obama's flight in any way implies (falsely) that he was avoiding a protest intended to be heard by him. — Mike :  tlk  18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what it would add to a reader's understanding of the subject matter. The less trivia the better. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is it is next to impossible to find a "reliable" source that any editors in here will accept - PERIOD. The NYT is acceptable, yes? Good. I have no interest in your decidedly off base interpretation of my introduction of this statement and source. Obviously, the NYT felt it was "newsworthy" or they wouldn't have mentioned it. It certainly isn't POV, it is a statement of FACT. You want to keep trying to make it POV, have at it. I'm adding it. ObserverNY (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please reread my comment. I am not disputing the fact that Obama flew over the crowd, and I am not claiming that the NY Times is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that it is a completely trivial detail that need not be mentioned in the article, and that to connect the fly-over to other things (like crowd size estimates) when the source does not make such a connection is a WP:SYNTH violation. "Newsworthy" does not mandate inclusion. What I'm trying to avoid is having random trivia tacked onto this article, whose topic is clearly defined. — Mike :  tlk  20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that a reliable source mentions it; enough with the strawman constructions, if you would. Being mentioned in a WP:RS is not carte blanche for inclusion in an article. There is simply nothing important about the President traveling while a protest is going on. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Tarc. It's more trivial than necessary. --Triadian (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

During the 2009 Inaguration, Bush flew over the crowd which chanted lyrics from Na_Na_Hey_Hey_Kiss_Him_GoodbyeI took a quick look and I do not see it in the Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama article. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe this debate is concluded. It's not an important fact. --Triadian (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the mall between the White House and the airport? If so, I think it would be notable if he purposely did not fly over the airport. AFAIK was scheduled to be flying over the mall, what's the big deal? Also, remember there were 2 events going on that day. A large family event, and the taxpayer event. Should we note Obama flew over the other event as well? Reliefappearance (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead change

The lead of our attendance section is more in line with NPOV, is more descriptive, and provides proper weight to the different views. I replaced the prior statement in the lead of the article, with a slightly modified version. It provides primary weight to the most reported estimates, but does mention the wide range speculated. It also addresses the geography of the crowd. Morphh ^(talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please wait for more feedback before changing the lead. APK say that you love me 21:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback or not.. the current lead fails in several areas with regard to crowd attendance. Per WP:LEAD, the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. This current lead does not summarize the attendance controversy and barely introduces it. While the most reported figures should be given top weight, there is a lack of weight (an exclusion) of other estimates in the lead, in violation of WP:NPOV. Again, they should not be detailed, but they should be mentioned in an unbiased, neutral, and encyclopedic tone - not presenting one side as truth. The current lead fails this. The statements also may have an issue with article structure by creating an apparent hierarchy of fact. The coverage of other estimates has been covered sufficiently in reliable sources to present them. Reading through the lead of the attendance controversy section, it provides a far more balanced and neutral presentation. Since this has already been vetted to some degree by editors, I suggest we remove the greatly lacking sentence in the lead and replace it with a more complete summary based on the attendance controversy section. Morphh ^(talk) 0:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Replace
While there are conflicting appraisals of the crowd size, the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department unofficially estimated the attendance "in excess of 75,000" people.

With this
A wide range of crowd estimates, ranging from 60,000 to 2 million, were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media. The space occupied by the crowd extended from the Capitol lawn down around the National Mall as far as Third Street. Most Many news outlets reported "tens of thousands" and "between 60,000 and 75,000", with many sourcing the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department who unofficially estimated there were "in excess of 75,000" people in attendance. National Taxpayers Union reported peak size from 200,000 to 300,000, FreedomWorks suggested between 600,000 and 800,000, and an expert in crowd estimation indicated "likely under 100,000".

"Feedback or not.." Er, that's the spirit. Anywho, is anyone still claiming the 2 million estimate? APK say that you love me 00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to just say A wide range of crowd estimates were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media. in the beginning. The 2 million claim appears to be an unreliable outlier. It also seems to me that you are giving undue weight to the estimates by the organizers there. Maybe just the statement by NTU would be reasonable. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer APK, as far as I'm aware, I don't think anyone is suggesting 2 million any more. While the 1.5 / 2 million figure it is part of the controversy with FreedomWorks/ABC, I'd agree with just saying "A wide range of crowd estimates were reported ..." and leaving it to the section to discuss this point, since it is no longer suggested as a valid estimate by anyone. I would disagree with removing the FreedomWorks estimate, while I believe it to be way over estimated, they are one of the central players in the attendance controversy, as discussed in the section. I think both NTU and FreedomWorks estimates should be stated in their most basic and summarized form (they're only given about 6 words each, compared with about 36 words for the primary estimates and being stated first). Morphh ^(talk) 1:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this is far too long for the lead and does not reflect what reliable sources say about the topic. Most sources said "tens of thousands", a few said "60,000-80,000", and some biased conservative sources have said all sorts of wild numbers up to 2,000,000. Oh, some biased liberal sources have reported as low as 40,000, but I don't see a bunch of people trying to put 40,000 in this article. Samboy (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not too long for the lead based on the amount of the article spent addressing the attendance controversy. However, if we did remove something, the second sentence would be an option, although I think it should be included - perhaps moved to the first paragraph in the lead where they discuss the location. As far as weight, it states that most media reported tens of thousands and where they derive that information. We're not suggesting otherwise. It is not up to us to determine or imply who is biased - we must present it neutraly. It represents a minority viewpoint, and needs to be included. These are two of the primary organizers of the event, they have a basis to make their argument for crowd estimation and it's been reported in reliable sources. The other is an expert on crowd estimates from a university. If the liberal sources have some degree of involvement or reference and can be attributed to reliable sources, than I say we include them as well. Morphh ^(talk) 2:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As part of a compromise to reduce the size, I've added a strike to the second sentence describing the geographical area occupied by the crowd. Perhaps we can look at integrating this material elsewhere in the lead if we find it appropriate. Morphh ^(talk) 3:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Since there are no major objections that would prevent this inclusion and I believe the current version is in violation of policy, I've updated the article to suggested trimmed and modified content. Morphh ^(talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Garbage. We're not going to give prominence to the over-inflated estimations of the group that organized the rally. The previous version notes there is a controversy and then gives the most reliable numbers, with further detail of the controversy found in its own section. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what is "over-inflated", "most reliable" or to state what is the "truth". That is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. It is a minority viewpoint, and we have presented it as such, but a very brief inclusion of the competing estimates is required. Morphh ^(talk) 15:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It violates WP:UNDUE to put crowd size numbers that come only from fringe sources in the lead. The 1,000,000 estimates and what not are not "minority viewpoints"; they are fringe theories, plain and simple. Samboy (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't come from fringe sources, it comes from the same sources that we're using for the other figures. The primary one used was the LA Times. This material is pulled directly from our article, which is sourced. Many reliable sources reported on the controversy. It's in no way a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory - the controversy does exist and their are easily identifiable prominent adherents to alternate estimates. It's minority opinion reported by those directly involved with the event. Per WP:UNDUE, we must include their point of view in a neutral way. It should be brief and we should identify it as a minority view, which we have done by stating most report the other figures. Morphh ^(talk) 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD should provide an overview of the article, not a duplication of what is covered in greater detail later in the article. I propose that the current paragraph be changed to as follows:

• A wide range of crowd estimates were reported by organizers, protesters, and members of the media resulting in controversy and allegations of doctored photos.[15] Most news outlets reported "tens of thousands" and "between 60,000 and 75,000",[1][2][16] with many sourcing the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department who unofficially estimated there were "in excess of 75,000" people in attendance.[1][17][15][18] National Taxpayers Union reported peak size from 200,000 to 300,000, FreedomWorks suggested between 600,000 and 800,000, and an expert in crowd estimation indicated "likely under 100,000".[15] ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The controversy makes up half the article and should describe the most reported figures, and those stated by the event organizers. But I do agree that this version is better than the one sided inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I was actually going to move it up to the preceding paragraph myself, and then forgot. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, what happened? The "60,000 to two million" was a direct take from the cited source. I will be happy to put it in quotes but it is not WP:Undue ObserverNY (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Samboy - the discussion is here. I restored the agreed to edit. Please discuss here if you are in disagreement with the cite. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The current language does not work because it gives undue WP:WEIGHT to the 2 million figure which does not come from any reliable source (and frankly, is just absurd). Yes, the LAT reported on the 2 million figure, but only in the context that some other (unreliable) sources are claiming this. We can mention in the "attendance controversy" section, but it's inappropriate for the lede unless we add the caveat that reliable sources put the figure at around 75,000. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey - I fail to understand your claim of undue weight when the sentence as I worded it included the range of 60,000 to 2 million as reported in the LA Times. Both figures are given equal weight and reflect the reporting of the LATimes and reason to read the controversy section below. Adding the "unofficial" FD 75,000 source gives undue weight to the minimal figure. Why did you revert it without discussion? ObserverNY (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

One more thing, the opening paragraph of the LATimes article says: But even before the march was over, the news media, bloggers and rally supporters were wrangling over the crowd count, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to 2 million. ... there fore your claim that the reference is only to "bloggers" as justification for removal is not accurate. ObserverNY (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No reliable source, not a single one, has estimated the attendance at 2 million (probably because it would be absurd). To say that that estimate (which comes from some blog somewhere) is equivalent to what the reliable source actually do estimate is the very definition of undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the lead as it is now, since it appears to imply that only the organizers gave counts into the 100s of thousands range. That's not entirely accurate-- after all, even the doggedly pro-administration The Guardian said that 'prehaps 100s of thousands attended'. And then there's the MSNBC reporter who said a similar thing. The Squicks (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)ObserverNY, that is just a casual mention of the wide range that both reliable and unreliable sources have given, it is not a direct citation that 2million is a legitimate head count. What you are pushing for is not actually supported by the source. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I never declared that either 2 million or 60,000 is a legitimate report count. That was the range of crowd estimates. The LATimes, a verifiable source, reports a "wild range" from multiple sources and that is what I accurately paraphrased. The fact of the matter is that there IS NO accurate, official count, hence the controversy where we cover the various reportings later on in detail. ObserverNY (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The fact that there is no accurate official count is not a justification for including a wildly inaccurate and unreliable figure as if it were equivalent to what the reliable sources are reporting. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Moved conversation's indentation left). See, this is what I was talking about when all my attempts to discuss the lead were closed without any consensus. We're going to end up talking about it anyway because the slight bias in the lead sticks out like a sore thumb and some editor at some point is going to want to make it better for Wikipedia by making it more generalized. I've given-in to the way the article is currently read because it at least indirectly shows that there is doubt for the attendance numbers, even though I think the whole controversy could be summarized in the lead in a much more simplistic and nonpartisan way. How to exactly summarize the lead is up for debate. There seems to be a clash of editors here. You can't necessarily see your own inherent bias, but it's there and easily pointed out by the opposing viewpoint. I would encourage everyone here to be more open-minded. Here is what we have in the most unbiased format I can make (with a little of my own opinion):

• There is a legitimate point about the accuracy of the DC Fire estimate... it's unofficial; yet, it was widely reported, sometimes forgetting to add the "unofficial" part of the primary source.
• Some sources suggest numbers in the millions; yes, most are conservative blogs, but not all. Daily Mail reported it and hasn't retracted. That's the only outlier though.
• Some sources initially reported higher numbers, but then retracted them and went with other sources as justification. ABC News did this. It's important to decipher which organizations have done this and what they have cited.
• A lot of sources did say "tens of thousands", but almost all of those sources got that info from the original DC Fire estimate. Those that did not simply guessed, but they did in fact report this, so it should be taken as journalism, even if it is bad journalism.
• It's difficult to tell which estimates take into account the event after the march down Pennsylvania Ave. There were people going in and out after the march, so things get shady.
• The National Black Family Reunion festival took place near the Wash Monument on the same day.
• Farouk El-Baz, a professor, gave his upper limit of 75,000. This is an informal estimate however. He did not clarify which crowd he was estimating (in front of capitol or the march).
• An MSNBC reporter said "our people believe hundreds of thousands", which is in fact a legitimate report just like the "tens of thousands" from the WSJ.
• Freedomworks, the organizers of the event currently claim 600,000 to 800,000. This fact must be included SOMEWHERE in the article, even if it is biased, because it gets its footing from being the actual organizer. You can counter it if you like with another source. Does it need to be in the lead? No, not necessarily... only if other figures are given that are biased toward the small end of the spectrum.
• There are no official estimates from any highly credible organization.
• The National Taxpayers' Union estimated the crowd at 75,000 in the morning and from 200,000 and 300,000 as the day went on. This is a biased source and fits in with Freedomworks.
• Giving a range of attendance for the lead is likely to bring about controversy over and over again.
• The obvious solution is to compile all the sources for a simple generalized statement that is unbiased. If people want controversy, they can go to that section.
• The maximum range is 60,000-2,000,000. Most sources, though, I believe say that it's more than 75,000 and less than 300,000. Is any of this relevant? Not really because to give a low estimate for the lead would null the opinions of some and giving a high estimate would give more credit to the organizers and promoters of the event. See "rock and a hard place".

Personally, I think those that will not settle for anything but a low estimate should give up on that fight because I don't think you're ever going to win. Likewise, those advocating that the "millions" or even high hundred-thousands estimates should also drop that argument because the dissenting editors here will never go for it. We've got to meet somewhere in the middle or just not give a figure at all in the lead, saying it's all up in the air... go see the Attendance controversy section for more details. For the record, this is not original research, it's just research. --Triadian (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Triadian - I am trying to be as unbiased as possible for the lead statement, which is why I suggested using the LA Times reference to reflect the "maximum range". This addresses the low-ballers and the high-ballers, defines a major controversy (because clearly there is a huge difference between 60,000 and 600,000 or 1,600.000) and is presented by a verifiable source. I don't see why specific details regarding the crowd estimates need to be brought into the lead. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No crowd estimates from RS were 2 million. The range of all crowd estimates may extend to 2 million, but not the range of RS crowd estimates. Just because something is in a RS article does not mean it should automatically be included. So all that plus, there were not 2 million people there and you know it Observer. You were there right? It's EXTREMELY difficult to assume good faith when you insist on including the 2 million number while even Freedom Works has backed away from it. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance - please refrain from personal attacks and assume WP:good faith ObserverNY (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Estimates from RS did say up to 2 million from whatever source they used. Like I said though, those are outliers, and while they're worth mentioning, I agree that in the lead they shouldn't have any prominence. --Triadian (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no RS said that there were 2 million people there. A few reliable sources (such as the LA Times) did report that other (unreliable sources) claimed 2 million, but that's not nearly the same thing. And let's be honest, the notion that 2 million people showed up for this thing is just laughably absurd. The simple fact remains that no reliable source gives an estimate that high and mentioning it, especially in the lede is undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement anyway. No 2 million estimate needs to be in the lead... case closed. --Triadian (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask this... are we trying to limit the controversy on the crowd sizes by excluding estimates we find unreasonable? It's obvious to me that 2 million is obsurd and FreedomWorks is way overstated, but that is me as a reader forming my own opinion. We have two things going on here, we have the estimate primarily reported by the media, then we have a controversy of the size of the crowd that ranged into the ludicrous. Should we not just represent the controversy over the attendance in a neutral and unbiased way, attributing the figures, and implying the primary reported viewpoint. Many of you are debating the fact that 2 million is an absurd number for the size, and it is... but that's exactly the point. The overblown ridiculous estimation - the wild range that was reported for this event. I don't know if we should include the 2 million range or not in the lead (I offered it above when I first started the tread), but I think many of you are looking at it as presenting a valid estimate, instead of the controversy that surrounds the crowd size. ObserverNY general statement is focused on the controversy aspect, and others are focus on including the most reported size of the event. I think both are valid things to include. In the lead, I think we need to state the controversy and list some of the opposing minority estimates, making clear the reported majority. I think the current lead accomplishes this. Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for the name of this article?

Forgive me if this was already discussed, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Why is this article titled "Taxpayer March on Washington"? Every reliable source I've seen refers to it otherwise. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Several RS already used in the article label it the "Taxpayer March on Washington" (ex: The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Hill, The Politico), while other sources used a similar title "March on Washington" (ex: The Daily Telegraph, The Associated Press). I've also seen 9-12 March, 09.12.09, etc. What RS are you seeing and what do they call the event? APK say that you love me 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with leaving the article title as "Taxpayers March on Washington", but perhaps we could add the (9/12 Project) after? Not crucial, just a suggestion. ObserverNY (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yeah, that's fine with me. I say keep article title like it is. It's the best we can do. Keep in mind though, it was a 9/12 protest partially attended by people of the 9/12 Project. This event is not necessarily the actual 9/12 Project though. (Sidenote: Oooh, a red link? Perhaps a future article awaits. I think it could be done.) --Triadian (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of the march is "Taxpayer March on Washington" There is no ambiguity. Freedom Works is a RS for the name of an event they organzied. [4] Reliefappearance (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Image clutter

In this edit summary, ObserverNY asked if the image was located in a "better spot?" My reply was that the page looks cluttered. ObserverNY reverted, without an edit summary, so I'm raising the issue here. I also noticed the phrase "denounced governmental elitism" was added to the "Signage" section. Is the phrase mentioned in one of the sources? APK say that you love me 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey APK - are you ok with the way it looks now? I was playing around with the placement of the photos and I think it looks nice now. Do you? The new photo fills in some of the big white blank space that was in the WP:LEAD. (and yes, I'm biased as I took that photo and thought those were two of the cleverest signs I saw) Yes, I added that phrase, but I don't care if you take it out, not an issue. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just thought I'd mention that it was kinda rude of you to just go and delete the photo without responding to my question. So much for collaboration, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

1) The images you uploaded to Commons were copy-edited (added wikilinks, cats, etc.) by me. You're welcome. 2) Despite your name-calling during the past two weeks, my initial revert labeled your edit as being made in good faith, which it was. Your revert failed to include an edit summary. 3) The reason I started this section was to avoid any kind of negative interaction with you and to request feedback from other users. No one else replied and your comment includes "I don't care if you take it out, not an issue." I guess you did care, but I'm not a mind reader. 4) If you're going to continue talking trash about me on various talk pages, especially to a user who doesn't know me, then try telling the complete story. Constantly portraying yourself as an oppressed Wikipedian is getting really old, especially when the person you claim is not willing to collaborate is the same person you've treated like shit. APK say that you love me 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You said: I also noticed the phrase "denounced governmental elitism" - it was that that I was referring to that I didn't care if you removed, not the picture. No one is asking you to be a mind reader, just a reader. (me)- "Yes, I added that phrase, but I don't care if you take it out, not an issue." You chose not to respond to my question about how the page looked after I tweaked it, instead just deleting it. I found that to be rude. If you start a section to allegedly "avoid any kind of negative interaction", you might want to try to respond civilly instead of simply deleting and flexing your Wiki muscle. ObserverNY (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"you might want to try to respond civilly" Pot, meet kettle. APK say that you love me 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dodge away, APK, dodge away. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have nothing to dodge, unlike others. APK say that you love me 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Attendance

I'm not a psychic, but... APK say that you love me 05:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to beat a dead horse, but the DC Fire Department has released a statement that they did not release an estimate of the crowd size, nor do they actually estimate crowd sizes. This would suggest that the "unofficial" reports are not verifiable.

[5]

No one is really standing by the 60,000 to 70,000 estimate. I am thinking they should be removed.

I think the best way would be to get a impartial crowd calculator... Aren't there professors at universities that do this? Don't they have aerial shots of the mall which allow them to count a small segment of the photograph, and then multiply to get an estimate? I found a few things on the web in blogs, but most seemed quite amateurish...

Thanks,

--thequackdaddy (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think I just answered my own question. I like the citing Farouk Al-Baz, but the source says that the estimate was "informal." The same article says that the DC Subway experience 87,000 additional riders. I'm not sure if they count a per going there and then coming back as 2 people... Anybody else find anything?

Thanks,

--thequackdaddy (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that someone has suggested that I may be opening a can of worms, let me re-iterate that I'm fine with mentioning the Farouk Al-Baz estimate of 75,000 in the title paragraph. That number is about the same. I think that number is more reliable than reports the DC FD doesn't want to stand behind.

I apologize if I'm coming off as a Johnny-come-lately, but the other attendance centered sections were both listed as resolved and both resolved prior to 9/21/2009, which is when this press release was published. If someone who is more up-to-speed with Wikipedia protocols would let me know, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks,

--thequackdaddy (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted as it is the most widely reported information, and we're about verifiability, not truth. It is the majority viewpoint. But, we do have a obligation to include this information and make sure all the facts are presented, so that readers can make their own assessment. Morphh ^(talk) 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added the new information to the article. We'll see how the worms shake out. Morphh ^(talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"we're about verifiability, not truth." I suppose that is the major problem I am having in trying to edit Wikipedia, especially on a topic which I know the "majority viewpoint" expressed in the "mainstream" media was not the truth. By insisting on only reflecting that which the mainstream media reported and disallowing video such as the time lapse of the march, Wikipedia is foisting an untruthful representation of history, rather than allowing the reader to visually decide for themselves if the mainstream reports of 75,000 or the blog reports of up to 1 Million are the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Morph, Thanks for the clarification. I've read the edits and I think I am fine with them. I think the sources are verifiable and the article is clear enough that the estimate from the DC Fire Department was from the Public Information Officer who was not acting in his official capacity. I think what is written there is fair. I appreciate your viewpoint. I'm satisfied. Thanks! --thequackdaddy (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent statement by the DC Fire Department is self-contradictory. The first sentence states categorically that they don't do crowd estimates. The second sentence says, I think, that they estimated 60,000 people in Lafayette Square. Unfortunately, Lafayette Square was not a staging area for the march, according to the 912dc.org website. Kenatipo (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the fire people want to be contradictory, that we certainty can't stop them. All we can do is fairly and neutrally present their changing stories.

As for the crowd counts, since there's no reliable source that stands by the million mark that can't be included. The Squicks (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide me with your input if you feel that Sophia Elena, [6] as an independent reporter, can be referenced for her reporting on the 9/12 march and rally. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Who is she, and why would she be considered reliable? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently she's just an intern at CNN [7]. But, and this is just the opinion of someone who was at the event, her video footage and reporting of 9/12 was quite impressive and accurate. An intern trying to make a mark in journalism would try and be as professional and accurate as possible, no? ObserverNY (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What a reporter does in his/her free time in that manner would likely fall under the "no self-published/blog sources" restrictions. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then at what point does a blog, or does it ever, become a WP:RS? For example, what about Breitbart TV? Breitbart produced those independent filmmakers who are bringing down ACORN ... is Breitbart acceptable? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to draw some lines in my mind. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I say just keep the intro like it is with regards to attendance. Mention the DC Fire estimate, as it was widely reported, even if it turned out to be unverifyable. We're not saying the estimate is official. The media just widely cited it knowing full and well it was unofficial and opinionated. As long as we clarify that it's a useless and pointless number that some guy came up with off the top of his head, it can stay. It's not our fault a lot of journalism sucks in America and the WaPo, LA Times, and ABC News can't get off their lazy butts and count heads with some of those high-tech cameras and high resolution photos. --Triadian (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DC Fire and EMS has corrected its press release to now say "Freedom Plaza" instead of "Lafayette Park". Kenatipo (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

request to semi-protect

This article is getting hit by IP vandals (see recent history). WP:Requests for page protection ObserverNY (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. tedder (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

APK - since you and I seem to be the ones busy reverting the IP vandals, will you keep an eye on this as well? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If vandalism becomes an ongoing problem, I'll request semi-protection. APK say that you love me 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

isn't the word "range" a collective noun which normally takes a singular verb? it should say "a wide range . . . was" instead of "a wide range . . . were" in my opinion. Kenatipo (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An adjective such as "wide" or "narrow" should describe the noun 'range'. ObserverNY (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

it does, ONY. it says "A wide range of crowd estimates were suggested for the event ". i'm saying the verb here should be "was" instead of "were". Kenatipo (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. "Range" is the subject; "estimates" is the object of preposition. APK say that you love me 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

i changed the other instance in the lead. Kenatipo (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

Without citing a RS that mentions flickr having tens of thousands of 9-12 photos, it's OR. APK say that you love me 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

let me find an RS. Kenatipo (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Signage section bias

I happen to agree with the IP editor here [8] who Tarc reversed, that the section is biased. I agree with Tarc that no one should simply remove an entire section without discussion. That said, I had previously inserted what I thought was a very good pic of signage from 9/12 that I registered with WikiCommons which APK removed claiming it "cluttered" up the page. I would like to reintroduce that picture

File:9-12 Signs.JPG

Signage at 9-12 Washington D.C. rally

as "balance" to the very denegrating selection of signage representation in the section. ObserverNY (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In regards to the image, read this to understand why she's bringing up this discussion again. She's mad at me, again. shocker APK say that you love me 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, why don't I interject with something here. I'm sorry Observer, but the picture will make things crowded because you have to make it about 250px to view it and be able to read the words. The other pics are just fine. Regardless, even though I like your picture, I don't think any viewer really cares which ones we use as long as they're nice. Let's use your picture on another page if you have to have it. (As you can tell, I am so sick and tired of this back and forth, but I must go on) --Triadian (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Am not "mad" at anyone, just trying to get some balance for the signage section. I can read the words at 150px, can you? It just seems to me the language of the signage section is totally anti-Obama narcissism (and let's face it, this guy's narcissism is unparalleled) but that was not the sum total of the signage.ObserverNY (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TO Jiminheatl - if you have a problem with the edit I made to the signage section, please discuss it here before arbitrarily deleting it and claiming POV propaganda. Both cites are perfectly legitimate and provide balance to a VERY lopsided representation of the signage at the event. Furthermore, you were in error trying to revert Agnostic Preacher Kid's edit which removed the phrase "witch doctor" as not one of the 4 cites use that phrase. ObserverNY (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Self-serving promotional materials by the event organizer add nothing to the section, and it's not a RS. Before adding, why don't YOU discuss it.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to leave out the 912.dc organizer's statement as you have seen fit to leave in the Cato statement. Fair? ObserverNY (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I never objected to or deleted the Cato Inst. . It's fine by me.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess here: you were among the crowd of 3-4 million? What does it add to the article? Nothing. And your hypothetical is a very weak straw man.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To Jimintheatl, littlegreenfootballs.com is not a reliable source. The "witch doctor" phrase is unnecessary because the article already mentions three types of signs that are considered controversial. We don't need to mention another controversial sign per WP:WEIGHT. The paragraph has been stable for several days; adding "witch doctor" will lead to more debates. APK say that you love me 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that removing the phrase "witch doctor" was a WP:good faith effort on APK's part to provide more balance to the section during the course of discussion re: the pic. ObserverNY (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I never deleted (or read) the Cato Inst. ref, but the summary in the article is a gross simplification, and needs amending.Jimintheatl (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't read it without squinting at 150px. Bad pic for the article. We don't have to go nuts here with a sign balance debate. What's wrong with the sign "Obamacare is Elderly Genocide"? I happen to somewhat agree with it. In the name of cutting costs, it's not too farfetched to say that it's possible some elderly people are going to get cutoff from healthcare. It makes no difference. Signs were there. Now if we just showed the Obama joker sign here, then I WOULD have a problem because that's selecting a sign from the FRINGE! --Triadian (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote: Who in their right mind names a blog "Little Green Footballs"?!?!?! --Triadian (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version includes the "witch doctor" phrase without citing a reliable source (as I've already mentioned, littlegreenfootballs.com is not a RS and the phrase brings up WP:WEIGHT issues) The "most common 9/12 themes..." sentence is plagiarism from a CATO opinion piece. (From the CATO article: "The most common 9/12 themes were pro-Constitution, anti-czar, anti-Obamacare, and anti-bailout." From the Wikipedia article: "The most common 9/12 themes were pro-Constitution, anti-czar, anti-Obamacare, and anti-bailout.") Until this is resolved, unreliable sources and plagiarism can not stay in the article. APK say that you love me 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

APK - My bad, I did just copy and paste that sentence. I found two other sources which ran the editorial from Cato [9] & [10]. What if we were to re-word it to read: Many of the grassroot signs were focused on pro-Constitution, anti-czar, anti-Obamacare, and anti-bailout themes. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Because it's an opinion piece, we have to include the author's name and we can't use his opinion as a statement of fact. (example: According to Gene Healy, author and vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute, signs generally focused on opposition to government bailouts, Obama's proposal on health care reform, and presidential "czars".) APK say that you love me 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Ok to add? ObserverNY (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess, since no one has objected. APK say that you love me 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See how nice and long I waited before barging ahead with an edit? I must be learning patience. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's a Kodak moment. APK say that you love me 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have an objection, or at least a clarification. Since we are adding the partisan opinion of one individual are we going to expand that section to include contrary opinions (ie. "According to so-and-so, the marchers were carrying racist and misspelled signs.")? Once we go down this path, obviously we can't present one side's opinion but not the other. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Liberal/Democratic "opinion" is already well represented by WAPO, NPR and the Herald Democrat. The section was seriously unbalanced. Now APK & I were singing Kumbaya - here, have a s'more! ObserverNY (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, you're being rather inconsistent with your editing of this article. You removed the ElBaz reference saying it's "not notable" yet argue strenuously for the inclusion of Gene Healy's opinion here. The only differences seems to be that you like one and you don't like the other. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looneymonkey - could you be more specific or provide a cite? Gene Healy doesn't ring a bell to me.Thanks, ObserverNY (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Gene Healy is the subject of this thread. He's the guy from the CATO institute that made a statement about the content of "most of" the signs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is heavily biased. Why not just say there was a wide variety of signs which covered a wide variety of topics. This is 100% true; I was there and saw everything from czars to abortion to bailouts to Obamacare to...you get the point. Let's just say there was a wide variety and call it a day. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Farooq Al-Baaz

Resolved

 – This thread has turned into another discussion on the time-lapse video. Unsourced theories and criticisms of El-Baz, a BLP, will not be tolerated. Further concerns regarding El-Baz's credibility should be raised at the appropriate forum: WP:RSN.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to challenge the notability of his estimate of 75,000. The claim of "expert on crowd estimation" is backed up by nothing, and his Wikipedia page says nothing about it. And it was "informal" research of press coverage, which means all he did was look at a few news stories and decide what he thought was true. Anyone could do that. If there is a consensus let's remove his estimate in the last sentence of the Attendance section. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"The claim of 'expert on crowd estimation' is backed up by nothing". Huh? The Los Angeles Times reference describes him as "a Boston University research professor and expert on crowd estimation". A columnist for The News Journal said "This man knows his stuff: He helped map the surface of the moon for the Apollo 11 mission. El-Baz, whose geek cred is so high that a Star Trek ship is named after him, did two rigorous, scientific studies of the Mall during the Million Man March, using the mapping technology he employed to measure desert sand dunes in Kuwait, and came up with well over 800,000, twice the Park Service estimate. He drafted a protocol for the government to get accurate counts on the Mall. Problem is, no one wants to pay for such an elaborate method." His National Public Radio interview from 2003 discussed estimates of protesters in Washington, D.C. A Boston Globe article from 2004 quotes him on crowd estimates. I could go on. What his Wikipedia article says makes no difference. I think "informal" research from an expert trumps informal "research" from conspiracy theorists on several sites that have continued their inflate the attendance mission. APK say that you love me 14:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i chuckle every time i see Professor Farook al-Baaz's name in relation to the 9-12 DC crowd estimate: in my opinion, it's pretty clear that he just mailed it in on this one. "an informal estimate based on press coverage". lots of deniability there! he became an expert in crowd estimation by counting sand dunes from space! for 912dc, what he did was read the WSJ article, look at a few photos (obviously excluding the time-lapse video) and conclude "75K? yep, close enough for tea-bagger purposes. and when the press calls me, since i'm the expert here, i'll call it an informal estimate based on press coverage for CYA purposes, in case it goes wrong." Prof. al-Baaz didn't have the time or the resources to do a real estimate. when he did his estimate for the Million Man March he had 16 (sixteen) grad students helping him; he had high resolution aerial photos of the crowd on the Mall and he had a lot of time to do it in. (and he still GOT IT WRONG!). with the 912dc march he had no aerial photos, most of the crowd hidden under trees around the Capitol, 2 days to generate the estimate, and didn't even see the time-lapse video! so, what is his 'expert' opinion worth? at least he didn't fall for the silly low-ball description "tens of thousands". Kenatipo (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you said discredits his opinion. Making light of his expertise while putting words in his mouth doesn't change anything. APK say that you love me 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

everything i said discredits his opinion. did you know that the National Park Service never backed away from their estimate of 400,000 for the MMMarch? did you know that the real expert in the crowd estimation field, Clark McPhail, agrees with the NPS estimate and not with el-Baaz? by the way, i never heard how much the Nation of Islam paid Professor el-Baaz for his gross overestimation of the MMMarch. do you know what his fee was? to his credit, if you read the end of the LAT article, el-Baaz says it's practically impossible to do an estimate of an event like 912dc. too bad no-one showed him the time-lapse video! Kenatipo (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your obsession with the video and theories on El-Baz being paid off by the Nation of Islam doesn't help your case. APK say that you love me 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, i was wrong about the payoff -- the research was funded by ABC-TV. but i still think el-Baz mailed it in on the 912dc march. regarding the time-lapse video: it has been validated by NBC Nightly News. right after Tom Costello says "our people think hundreds of thousands of people were here" they show about three seconds from that traffic camera showing Penn Ave full of people. no wonder the NBC people thought hundreds of thousands of people were there -- they saw the traffic cam video. Kenatipo (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

APK removed the following comment, without discussion, in which i correct some of my own statements:

- - let me just revise and extend my remarks: Dr. el-Baz had 10 (ten) researchers and grad students helping him when he estimated the Million Man March, not 16 as previously stated. also, he was working from 35mm aerial photo negatives, not "high resolution" photos. and, his final report was issued 11 days after the MMM, on October 27, 1995. thank you for your kind attention. Kenatipo (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Kenatipo (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Kenatipo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Time Lapse Video of March on YouTube

Resolved

 – Loonymonkey said it best: "It is not an appropriate external link as it does not add any new information to the article. In fact, it contains no information whatsoever." Further discussion should take place at the appropriate forum, WP:ELN.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hello, Looneymonkey. can you be a little more specific about which part of EL this inclusion violates? this video is the best evidence we have of crowd size. our readers can view it and decide for themselves how large the march was. have you watched the video? 96.255.139.75 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Kenatipo (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because this encyclopedia is not in the business of doing such things. We report on what reliable sources have to say, not on what subjective pictures are available for open interpretation. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he is talking about external link policy, not adding it as a source. So I don't think it would apply to WP:OR. What I think Looneymonkey was referring to is WP:YOUTUBE and the questionable copyright status of the video. Morphh ^(talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

wasn't logged in earlier. i added a link to the YouTube Time Lapse Video of the march, and Looneymonkey removed it, citing EL violation. i don't see how pictures taken by a publically accessible video camera can be described as "subjective". i will try and check into the copyright issue. Kenatipo (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page ". N37BU6, who did the time-lapse video, has given permission to link in Wikipedia article. Kenatipo (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not an appropriate external link as it does not add any new information to the article. In fact, it contains no information whatsoever. Also, it being user-uploaded content, it fails WP:VERIFY. Better to stick with reliable sources (of which we have plenty). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to side with those saying leave it off the page. It's user-submitted content. The only way it could be put on the page is if some reliable sources linked to it or it could be converted to the Commons to be played here as video evidence of the series of events. Until then, it's not really worth arguing about. All the guidelines basically rule against it. --Triadian (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Loonymonkey is correct. It's not an appropriate EL, mainly because it fails to provide any information. APK say that you love me 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it provides no information. I was prepared to argue for leaving it in, on the basis that, even if uninformative about crowd size, a video would give a subjective impression of the types of people participating, their mood, their signs, etc. Upon viewing the video, however, I found that it's from so far away that there's no such information. Also for that reason, it could easily have been doctored, with the same portions of the crowd shown marching past the vantage point more than once. Therefore, even the limited information it contains is unreliable, being the video equivalent of a blog posting. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One picture is worth a thousand words. Any picture can be doctored. All that it took to add pictures of the march to this article was for APK to download them from Flickr. This time he can download from YouTube! Wikipedia rules are not engraved in stone. How about linking the time-lapse video and letting the people decide if it shows "tens of thousands" of people? It is the best evidence of crowd size. Kenatipo (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to use an external link as "evidence" to support the idea of the crowd size being more than "tens of thousands". Youtube is not a reliable source, and WP:RS applies even if you are lobbying to put a link to the video in the external links section instead of in the body of the article is irrelevant. This should be a no brainer, especially when we know that doctored crowd photographs were passed around to try to create the illusion of larger crowd sizes. — Mike :  tlk  01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. You're suggesting I download someone else's work from YouTube? That's not allowed. (my apologies if that's not what you're suggesting) Anyway, if someone thinks the images I uploaded from flickr have been altered, then by all means, we should have them deleted. But I see no evidence of that. APK say that you love me 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

APK, my point is: just as we have no reason to believe that the pictures you downloaded from Flickr are not genuine, so we have no reason to believe that the time-lapse video is not genuine. why are we assuming good faith for pictures posted on Flickr but not for frames taken by a public-access webcam? that's where my confusion comes in. the YouTube time-lapse video is still the best evidence of crowd size --- it was taken from a high point looking down on the crowd (the highest i've seen) and the frames are from a public access camera that anyone had access to. it should be linked somewhere in the article. and, yes, i am lobbying for it! and, no, i didn't mean to suggest that you download from YouTube -- i should have said "link" to YouTube instead.

Mike, i know of one photo of the PromiseKeepers rally that was mistakenly described as the 912dc march, but it was not "fake" or "doctored". it was just of a different event. even if you assume, as you seem to, that the mis-attribution was in bad faith, it still has nothing to do with the authenticity of the time-lapse video on YouTube. "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this (EL) page." Kenatipo (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

traffic-cams don't provide information??????? is that why motorists access them a million times a day -- because they don't provide information? i'm afraid to ask what you people are smoking !!! when a motorist accessed this traffic-cam on the morning of 9-12 it provided him with the INFORMATION that Pennsylvania Avenue was full of people from 14th St to the Capitol!! Kenatipo (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

APK, my question to you was not rhetorical: why are photos from Flickr considered RS, verifiable, NOR, etc., etc., but stills from a traffic camera are not? Kenatipo (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the editors of "NBC Nightly News" apparently don't agree that this traffic camera provides no information: i refer you to seconds 50, 51 and 52 of the segment of the show aired the evening of 9-12 here http://www.blinkx.com/video/thousands-pack-c-to-protest-spending/yfKGrATsI0-EKUKLbJ-SLg . also at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32813988#32813988 this is the segment discussed earlier in which NBC News reporter Tom Costello says "our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here." Kenatipo (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

APK, you haven't answered my question here about Flickr photos vs YouTube webcam. the time-lapse video is not going to go away. Kenatipo (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.