Jump to content

Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Dr. Faruk el-Baz, part II

- - 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)

Beck

Jimintheatl says "national unity" is too POV. Loonymonkey says the reference doesn't mention "national unity".

From The Wall Street Journal reference - "Glenn Beck, the Fox News television commentator, seized on the date -- the day after the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks -- as a symbol of what he called national unity and began promoting 9/12 demonstrations."

I changed the wording from: "The event was also promoted by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck." to "The event was also promoted by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck as a symbol of national unity following the eight-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks."

Explaining why he thought the event should be promoted is problematic, how? The current version simply mentions his name; readers won't know why he felt so strongly about the event without an explanation. APK say that you love me 14:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Readers still won't know why he felt so strongly about the event; they might know what he claimed to feel. Given the description of the protest in the article (against this, opposed to that, critical of the other) calling the event a "symbol of unity" is disingenuous at best.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, we are not calling the event a "symbol of unity"; we are describing his reasoning for promoting the event. APK say that you love me 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but notice the irony: Jimintheartl thinks adding a partisan HuffPo link where the author wrote "You'd have thought that the candy-snatch technique would have been sufficient to bring tears to Beck's eyes as well." is apparently NPOV on Beck's article, but adding Beck's "national unity" view on this article is POV. Mmmmk. I guess we all have different opinions on what is NPOV. APK say that you love me 15:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong ref, the one right after the quote, not the one you added later in the paragraph. The issue remains though, this is Beck's opinion, not fact. As such, we either have to quote him directly or source it to him. The WSJ link you added says "as a symbol of what he called national unity" which is more clear. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write it as being a fact; I'm not sure why this is being brought up. Maybe the sentence was unclear, but it was saying he promoted it as a symbol...aka Beck advertised the event as a symbol... So how would you propose wording the sentence? APK say that you love me 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If we just use the language of the WSJ quote above, it's fine. It just needs to be clear that it's Beck's opinion (I think most people would find the idea that this was about "national unity" laughable). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done I added the phrase "what he called" and placed quotation marks around "national unity". APK say that you love me 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Much better than original edit.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's swell. FWIW, when a sentence can be easily corrected (i.e. adding "what he called"; adding quotation marks), make the easy correction instead of reverting the entire thing. APK say that you love me 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions about editor's rights

Resolved
 – Baseless accusations and personal attacks may be discussed at WP:ANI.

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.

1) by what right does APK remove my comments from the discussion page when all i was doing was correcting some facts in my own previous remarks?

2) by what right does APK decide an issue is "Resolved" when neither he nor anyone else has even bothered to answer my questions on the issue?

i'm obviously new at this, so if there's a better place to ask these questions, please let me know. Kenatipo (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the talk page is not a forum. The section had nothing to do with the Taxpayer March on Washington, the subject of this article. The header located at the top of this page states: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Taxpayer March on Washington. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored." Your second question has already been answered. APK say that you love me 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
with all due respect, APK, these questions are not here for you to answer. i would prefer answers from a completely neutral party. if you can't be bothered to answer my previous questions, please don't bother yourself to answer these. frankly, your "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude is as unprofessional as it is irritating. Kenatipo (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"i'm obviously new at this, so if there's a better place to ask these questions, please let me know." Yes, there is. Your questions have already been answered (though not the answers you may want to hear), but go to WP:HD and keep the insults to yourself. APK say that you love me 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Kenatipo, Wikipedia is run by a thousand or so unemployed bureaucrats with a liberal agenda and no real authority. They use a bully pulpit to police articles and punish anything not up to their standards. Editing political articles is pretty much a waste of time because the liberals will undo it like that. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider this a warning, both of you, to stop the name-calling and baseless accusations. If you think we're "clowns" or "unemployed bureaucrats with a liberal agenda", vent your frustrations on another site. APK say that you love me 03:46, 7 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.


Resolved
 – There is no cabal. APK because, he says, it's true 05:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

External links policy says "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." The Life magazine slideshow in the External Links section has a clear POV: it is pro-Obama, condescending toward the protesters and has several sneering picture captions. It should be described as such in the EL section, by WikiPolicy. The Time magazine photo-essay also in the EL section is a model of NPOV by comparison. Kenatipo (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between the two is that, as our current text indicates, the Life presentation is a slideshow but Time ran a photo-essay, with explanatory paragraphs. I'd favor putting the Time link above the Life one because it has more information. It's not as if either is dedicated to a particular point of view, though. Both of them have photos of the "Parasite in Chief" cutout of Obama, an "Obama bin Lyin" sign, the guy in the tricorn hat holding up the New Testament, and the kid with the "YOU LIE" sign. Life does have some criticism implied in the captions, while Time has a couple quotations in support and no criticism quoted or reported, but neither of these is so one-sided as to require some kind of tag from us. JamesMLane t c 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just for my own information, how many of the Life captions need to be critical before you deem the slideshow to be POV? Do you agree that the verbiage beneath slide 1 is POV? Kenatipo (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Somewhere around 60,000 demonstrators, many from the so-called "Tea Party" tax protest movement, gathered in Washington on Saturday, September 12, 2009, to express concerns about President Obama's health care reforms... One reason the Life slideshow is POV is because it attempts to persuade you that most protesters marched for the purpose of calling Obama names: ". . . while also taking the opportunity to voice their belief that Obama is not really an American; is a threat to liberty; is a "spoiled brat"; and is a socialist, or a fascist, or a Maoist, or an Islamist, or perhaps all of those things, and more. Their signs say it all." But as you know from the Wikipedia, that was not their main reason for coming to DC and marching. If it's not POV, why the sneering words "so-called 'Tea Party'"? The Life editor is fascinated by the Obama Joker image. In the first 4 photos, we see it 10 times. But, it was not that prevalent at the march. You can review dozens of 912dc photos on Flickr without seeing it. Out of 22 photo captions, 9 captions are negative, 8 are neutral and 5 are questionable/borderline. The negative captions are on slides 1 (the intro comments), 10, 11, 13, 15, 18,, 19, 20 and 21, the most offensive being 20, "somebody's kids apparently need help". If the Life editor had been more honest, the piece would have been titled "Tea Party Protesters Insult Our President". That's why I describe it as pro-Obama -- because it's more concerned with perceived insults to Obama than it is with what most people there were protesting. If you compare the Time photo-essay verbiage with the Life slideshow verbiage, you should be able to see the difference in POV. Time is NPOV, Life is not. Kenatipo (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Both are WP:RS, WP:Notable and relevant to the article. If an additional slideshow from a reliable source can be found which portrays the crowds more "favorably", then that could be added as well. Moreover, WP:POV does not prevent the inclusion of sources which themselves have a point of view (see WP:Verify), but rather is primarily in reference to us as editors not inserting our own point of view into the article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:POV is an essay; WP:NPOV is policy and it says that "views must be presented fairly ... in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." What matters is not the POV of the editors but the POV of the various sources. Some sources may cherry pick photos to emphasize a particular POV - on one side or the other. Other sources may take care to choose neutrally among hundreds of photos so as to fairly represent the thousands of signs. We should take care to choose photos (or external links) to fairly represent the many signs. E.g. if 10% of the signs were racist in tone, if we chose an EL site that showed 50% of the signs were racist, that would not be neutral. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Red, I'm not lobbying for the removal of the Life slideshow. I just think the EL guidelines say it should have a comment attached indicating its point of view. Right on, Bowers! Kenatipo (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sbowers, I believe you are referring to WP:Undue. However, in order to diagnose what percentage of signs were "racist" (in your example), we would need to analyze reliable sources who comment on that. It would be WP:OR for editors to unilaterally on their own make judgments on what % would be accurate to depict.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Kenatipo, do you have a source that comments on the accuracy of the Life slideshow?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No. But, it's not a question of accuracy, it's a question of POV. More importantly, I just looked at dozens of articles at random and of the ones that had External Links, not a single EL is footnoted. So, what we need to decide on is the wording of the comment to add. How about "slideshow editorial critical of anti-Obama signage"? Kenatipo (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh? How can you claim a POV when 100% of the signage was negative towards Obama, the Federal government, Democrats, etceteras. And not a single sign was negative towards any Republican or conservatives in general? GreenMountian (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, ya - because lack of term limits, massive debt, not reading bills, power corruption, monetary inflation, bailouts, wealth redistribution, and drifts toward socialism are only problems with Democrats? Your statement is absurd. Morphh (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about the actual in situ signage. Almost all of which was as I described above. What the heck are you referring to, an entirely different protest? GreenMountian (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I just glanced at signs in the pictures and those were some I noted. Certainly many were about Obama since he was pushing or continuing certain policies, but the suggestion that "not a single sign was negative towards any Republican or conservatives in general" is just false. Morphh (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
GreenMountian, to see what i'm saying, compare the captions between the Life and Time photos of the young man holding the sign that says "You Lie" with the Obama campaign emblem on it. Kenatipo (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any agreement here to remove the link. But in this edit, User:John Asfukzenski removed it anyway (and with no edit summary). -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

After looking at his talk page and block log, I'm not surprised. APK because, he says, it's true 09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenatipo, to answer your question from October 12, there's no strict numerical bar. I'll agree with you that the Life slideshow tilts pro-Obama if you'll agree with me that the Time photo essay, which includes some comments favorable to the march and none that are critical, tilts pro-Tea Party. It's my subjective judgment that neither of the tilts is so pronounced as to justify deleting the link or even flagging it for our readers. There's no reason to think that a little parenthetical editorial comment in the EL section would give the reader any information not readily apparent from the cited source itself. JamesMLane t c 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

James, i just looked at the Time photoessay again and i find each caption to be neutral and descriptive of either the photo or of the event itself. in fact, the Time photoessay is not an 'essay' at all -- it does not push the Time editor's opinion. the Life item, on the other hand, is an editorial highly critical of the 9-12 dc march. if you honestly can't see this, then all i can tell you is that you've been drinking the LLM (liberal legacy media) kool-aid so long, you can't even tell me what flavor it is. but, what the heck, you've got lots of WP company! Kenatipo (talk) 03:46, 1 November 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.

Take down Signage section

Resolved
 – Blocked sockpuppeteer making a point. See here. APK because, he says, it's true 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

It was suggested by User:Ratel in reference to 350.org that articles should not mention unofficial signs that put the organizers in a negative light. I tend to agree with him/her/it at this point. We shouldn't "smear" the FreedomWorks organizers because some crazy people brought crazy signs, right? What happens at the protest is not as important what was supposed to happen, correct? --Moonbatssuck (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Define negative light. Was there any official signage that was handed out, prior to, or at, the rally? Did Freedomworks explicitly state something to the effect of "don't bring your own signage, as only official signage will be allowed" or "stand or sit and stare with your hands in your pockets and don't say/show/display anything?" Kind of defeats the whole concept of freedom works, don't you think? At least half of those in attendence were carrying signage. Most were poster size, meaning fairly large. You can't show any visual media of this rally without showing the signage. A protest of any kind, by it's very nature, is a display of opposition. Are you suggesting that no visable media be used to describe those in attendence? What happens at the protest, is the protest itself. 350.org is about an organization not events of a very specific nature held on one specific date.GreenMountian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Moonbatsuck, (wow tell us how you really feel ;o) - Wikipedia is WP:Notcensored. Our job is to reflect the information in the same proportion (Wp:UNDUE) that the reliable sources do (WP:RS) per WP:Verify. We should do our best to use a neutral vernacular W:NPOV - but to intentionally not display signs from a protest where the prominent feature was signs - would actually defy npov from the other side.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:18, 29 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.

H.RES.870

Someone added the House resolution introduced by 75 Republicans:

On 27 October 2009, Rep. Tom Price introduced House Res. 870, a resolution to officially commemorate the march. 75 Republicans co-sponsored the resolution. The full text is available here.

Is it notable? The resolution, which includes crowd estimates three times higher than the estimates made by organizers, was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I seriously doubt Democratic committee members are going to allow a vote on the House floor. Thoughts? APK because, he says, it's true 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The original thread starter's link is broken, it should be;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.+Res.+870: (just clicked this link, it also doesn't work, just click on the PDF link as it works, sorry for the confusion)

Or in PDF format from the GPO;

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hr870ih.txt.pdf

Note the section of text which states;

Whereas estimates of the number of people who peacefully marched from Freedom Plaza to the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2009, range as high as 1,700,000 marchers;

Where did Rep. Price pick that number from? Note it explicitly is in reference to the morning march and not the afternoon rally itself. Why is that? Is there a RS for this 1,700,000 morning march estimate? GreenMountian (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Sean Hannity Show

Doesn't this belong on The Sean Hannity Show?

Footage of the march was aired on The Sean Hannity Show amidst other video of a smaller protest which had taken place on November 5, 2009, during an interview of Congressman Michelle Bachmann. Several political news media organizations, including Talking Points Memo and Salon.com, have suggested that this was an effort to "pump up the attendance numbers" of Bauchmann's lesser-attended event.

I don't see how this is directly related to the September 12 event. APK because, he says, it's true 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is directly related to the event, because the protest is related (same/similar cause, same location, same network reporting on it, etc...). It also is another occurrence of disagreement and controversy regarding attendance numbers. It has been reported on significantly by reliable sources, so therefore it meets WP:WEIGHT requirements. I do understand that the topics of "The Sean Hannity Show", "Fox News", "Michelle Bachman", "Tea Party Protests" and "Taxpayer March on Washington" are all related to the two sentences I added, but the information most directly pertains to disagreement regarding attendance figures of tea party protests. Thus, this is the most sensible location for the information by far, if we want to place it in the most specifically relevant spot.
The subsection I inserted the info into was about discrepancies regarding attendance estimates of the protest, and the content I added pertained to discrepancies regarding attendance estimates of a very similar protest -- and what's more, footage of the 9/12 march was involved in the confusion. I don't see what the problem is here. — Mike :  tlk  21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not directly related. The focus of the story is Jon Stewart discussing The Sean Hannity Show's coverage of the November 5th Tea Party protest, not the Taxpayer March on Washington. If this one event is indeed notable, it belongs on The Sean Hannity Show, Tea Party protests, or "November 5, 2009 Tea Party protest". The five sources you added repeat the same story - a segment aired on The Daily Show, so I'm not sure why questionable sources like The Moderate Voice and Mediaite are needed. The Talking Points Memo and The Minnesota Independent links are short one-paragraph descriptions of The Daily Show clip; not really in-depth coverage of a supposedly notable news story. The Salon link is a longer description of The Daily Show clip, but again, not really in-depth coverage. If the story is picked up by a major news organization, that may indicate notability, but it still wouldn't belong on this article. In a somewhat related discussion, The Squicks said, "we should not really be giving undue weight to something that is a controversy about Fox News and not about the protesters per se." APK because, he says, it's true 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but coverage of coverage of the event is not unlike coverage of the event. One could use the same logic to hide all negative coverage of ACORN in the articles of individuals who made the critical remarks. Please provide a logical argument (instead of an unsubstantiated assertion) as to why you believe swapping footage of the protest that this article documents with footage from another protest is not related to BOTH protests. The subsection of this article on attendance is all pertaining to various news organizations commenting on the attendance of the rally. Would you insist that Beck's estimate of the attendance be placed on his show's page? Should his "Obama is a racist" comment be placed on Fox and Friends since that is where it aired? — Mike :  tlk  01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, here is an article that reports on the very high degree of similarity between Bauchman's protest and the 9/12 march (even to the extent of referring to the 11/5 event as "part II" of Beck's rally) - http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Capitol_Hill_Tea_Party_II.html . Although this is categorized on politico as a blog, it is by a regular and well-respected author, and thus is permissable by WP:RS as long as his opinion is directly attributed. Here's another article that describes the 11/5 event as a "mini-sequel" to the 9/12 march, and here's another that compares the two as similar events. — Mike :  tlk  02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Please provide a logical argument (instead of an unsubstantiated assertion) - I've already provided an extremely logical argument, and with snarky comments like the one you just made, I'm done with this conversation. APK because, he says, it's true 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No, your argument centered on your opinion of how "in depth" the coverage of the numerous sources is, and whether or not some of them were "questionable". Both of these are subjective concepts. Feel free to jump back into the conversation if and when you choose to constructively improve this aspect of the article. Also, please understand that multiple sources covering the same story may be redundant, but it is necessary to establish WP:WEIGHT. — Mike :  tlk  02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) What pray tell does this paragraph about a separate Tea Party event tell us about the attendance of the 9/12 event? Nothing. What does the fact that footage of the march was aired on some TV show tell us about attendance? Nothing. What does an opinion that the purpose of airing the footage was to pump up attendance of this other event tell us about the attendance at the subject of this article? Nothing. This article is about a specific Tea Party (and 9/12 organization) event. There are other articles about other Tea Parties. The Bachmann event is appropriate to include elsewhere, not here. This article should answer Who, What, Where, When, Why for the subject of this article and section. The paragraph under discussion does none of that and I am removing it. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson

Why is he mentioned in the speaker section if he didnt speak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman279 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it. APK whisper in my ear 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, I just wasnt sure if there was some other reason Jman279 (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taxpayer_March_on_Washington/Archive_3&oldid=1136384088"