Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mildly Mad (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 9 November 2010 (→Unprecedented Success Of Rally: r: agreed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:35, 9 November 2010 by Mildly Mad (talk | contribs) (→Unprecedented Success Of Rally: r: agreed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear at the Reference desk.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComedy
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 


Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Reference to crowd size of Beck rally

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

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

Nice graphic. What it doesn't show is the grass showing through in the sparse sections of Beck's rally. It's best to just use the scientific analyses by AirPhotosLive.com. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the comparison is valid, but if we're going to include that, we should include some context around it, since it looks like an indirect comparison for POV sake. Get a third party reliable source that makes the comparison, not a direct primary source. It looks like a WP:SYN to push a POV. Morphh 17:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI regarding crowd size & a mediation controversy

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

LINK: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally

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

That's what happens when editors become slaves to anything that a source who is otherwise reliable might say. True journalists report their sources and the reliability of the source for the type of information described can then be taken into account. A wild personal estimate by a reporter with no experience in crowd estimation, and who can't possibly personally inspect such a large area, is worthless, even if they do work for The New York Times. Certainly any estimate from a source with a vested interest should be immediately thrown out, but yet Beck and Michele Bachmann are both referenced as sources in the Restoring Honor rally estimates. That whole mess sullies the reputation of Misplaced Pages IMHO. We shouldn't let such insanity creep into this article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It'll wind down. --Kizor 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so far the only really questionable edit I noticed was someone who removed some of the crowd estimates comparing the two rallies. Zuchinni one (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we're to report what reliable sources state based on prominence. We're not to report or give undue weight to what we think is "true" or exclude estimates we believe are "worthless". This is the core of NPOV policy. Morphh 20:31, 01 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; I'd go further and state that we should keep things thoroughly scientific, and only report those numbers with a known source and methodology, in observance of WP:RS—"The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable." As the Brian Stelter number clearly violates that requirement, I'd argue strongly, barring ample justification otherwise, that it should be deleted. Any resistance? Jouster  (whisper) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no requirement that such inclusions be scientific - such an exclusion would be pov. Unscientific estimates are just as notable if reported by reliable sources (particularly secondary sources). Report what is in reliable sources based on their prominence. If scientific estimates are more prominent in reliable source, then give them more weight, if unscientific estimates are more prominent, then give them more weight. If an estimate is scientific, then describe the methodology and who did it. Just because an estimate is based on a scientific methodology, does not make it the majority viewpoint. Keep those things in mind - follow WP:NPOV. Morphh 23:46, 01 November 2010 (UTC)
Your are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Such an approach leads to the crazy view that Beck's rally was somewhere between 80,000 and 1.6 million. I agree 100% with the quotes Jouster gave from WP:RS. Our job is not to report all sources. Our job is to speak the truth in a verifiable manner. Citing reliable scientific sources is verifiable. Citing unscientific, biased sources is not verifiable. It's not a very hard concept. I also agree that the Brian Stelter quote should be taken out. I'm out of reverts for today, so I'll leave it to someone else to do. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Scientific estimates are POV? They're decidedly NPOV, while the estimates given by reporters are uneducated guesses. The scientific estimates should get much more weight. Beck and Bachman's estimates of their crowd size should only serve as humor. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth (WP:V). All sources have bias. NPOV does not mean absence of a POV. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (WP:NPOV). This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. The suggestion that unscientific estimates are not verifiable is completely wrong. I can certainly agree that the more scientific the publication, the more reliable the source may be, but that does not exclude other sources (WP:SOURCES). If the estimates are published, particularly by a third-party, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then it is a verifiable reliable source and should be given due weight. Morphh 2:30, 02 November 2010 (UTC)
The only source for the crowd sizes on both rallies that is acting as a third party is CBS News, who contracted a scientific study. The other estimates are just the personal opinions of reporters, so far as I can see. That's not something that can be fact checked. It's more important than ever these days to separate fact from opinion. When reliable sources report facts, we should use them. When they report opinions, we should go look elsewhere for facts. Many of those "sources" have put out wildly different opinions from their various reporters. If they were facts, everyone at MSNBC would be saying that there were 280,000 people (just an example) at Beck's rally and listing their source. That's not what they are doing, which makes them unreliable for this particular information per WP:RS. Some sources have reported "tens of thousands" or "over one hundred thousand" for Beck's rally, seemingly based on an unscientific feeling of the crowd size. Both statements are in-line with the scientific study. 87,000 + 9,000 is pretty darn close to 100,000 and I doubt that a reporter who claimed a gut reaction of over 100,000 would be willing to press the issue in the face of a scientific study. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually do agree with WP:NPOV, so let me explain it a different way. WP:RS should be used as a front-end filter to discard unreliable sources. What's left should be fed through WP:NPOV as Morphh has described. The root issue is that CBS News is the only journalistic organization on this subject. I'd love to have more sources to verify against, but the rest of them have just dropped the ball and we need to stop pretending otherwise. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
CBS News is still an opinion, be it a scientific one. What we fact check is that the opinion can be verified to a RS. We then attribute the opinion and give it weight based on its prominence and let the reader decide. Since we state that CBS's estimate is scientific and we're giving it the most weight, readers will take that information into account and form their own conclusions, just as you have. NPOV is all about opinion and presenting it fairly. I agree that if we only have CBS News, then we are limited in that regard and that should be reflected in the weight given. This NY Daily News article has several crowd size estimates. Morphh 13:01, 02 November 2010 (UTC)
And that Daily News article leads with the scientific estimation and gives it more weight than the others. Science isn't opinion, it doesn't fall under issues of NPOV. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree that it should be given more weight - that's not what is being discussed. Nor is the issue of equal validity. "Science isn't opinion" and "doesn't fall under issues of NPOV"? Where do you get that? Science is continually changing and in may cases scientists and theories differ. Crowd estimation is not an exact science. This is stated directly by those doing the scientific estimation. They use certain models and methodology to come up with their expert opinion as to the crowd's size. Different scientists using different models and methodology may come up with a different opinion. Air Photos Live (at the Beck Rally) used three experts using different models and they came up with different estimations - CBS selected the higher estimate. Science certainly falls into NPOV - it's usually given much more weight since it's usually well represented in reliable sources and the majority view, but that doesn't mean it is excluded from one of our core policies. Morphh 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"Crowd estimation is not an exact science." That's why they will also give you a margin of error. Even tough crowd size estimation is not "exact science" (you probably mean: they are not counting each head by hand), science is not "opinion". In contrast to "opinions" scientific estimates are backed up by facts, logic and proven methods. Scientific crowd estimates generally divide the area of the crowd, analyze the various densities in several areas by counting the people and using those information to estimate the size of the total crowd. That's is something much more evidence based than things like "Ermm.... I would say those have to be 1.6 million people". Besides, there are completed unrelated facts than you can use. The Washington Metro had a new record of about 825,000 trips for the Steward/Colbert-Rally. The Top 5 Saturdays list the 5th place at about 650,000 (If I remember correctly). The Beck rally was also on a Saturday, but is not in the top 5, so there have been less than 650,000 trips on that day. If they would have been 600,000+ people, like some are pretending, then why were there at least(!) 175,000 less Metro trips that day compared to the Steward/Colbert-rally? Those are facts (not opinions) that make most of the guestimates of the Beck rally highly improbable. --78.54.120.145 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what is probable or not. I agree with the scientific estimates - that's not the point. The point is you can't exclude the other estimates if they're presented by reliable sources. We just have to attribute the viewpoints. Likewise, we should not state in the Misplaced Pages voice that the crowd size was 215,000 as a statement of fact. We should attribute it, as we would an opinion, to the scientific study done by ALP commissioned by CBS, which we're already doing. Morphh 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"The point is you can't exclude the other estimates if they're presented by reliable sources."
No, that is not correct. WP:NPOV policy makes it clear that insignificant fringe and minority positions can and should be excluded, even if attributable to a reliable source. That, alone, justifies exclusion of many of the more unsupported guesstimates. Furthermore, that same policy also instructs us, when we are faced with conflicting information of equal prominence from reliable sources, we are to defer to sources that examine and report on that conflicting information. Information doesn't automatically earn a spot in Misplaced Pages articles just because it can be found in a reliable source. Citing WP:V policy in order to include information that is obviously inaccurate, and against NPOV, but "verifiably" in a reliable source, goes against the core policy admonition: "The should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." That's why you don't see us citing the AOL News reliable source to claim there were actually 1.8 million at Beck's rally. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we talking about a fringe view? It is tiny minority views that are to be excluded, which is based on weight in reliable sources. Minority views which can be attributed in secondary reliable sources should be included. Since we're not talking about a lot of viewpoints here, it doesn't take much to include and attribute those views, giving weight where appropriate. CBS should have more weight. Keep in mind that controversy over crowd size and the different numbers is part of the story. We're not just relaying the accurate figures, but the foolish ones as well. The readers can tell what is obviously inaccurate, bolstering, or comedy based on the scientific estimates. Morphh 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Just so we're not just debating about policy - I have no problem with the way the article currently reads. Morphh 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rally vs demonstration

I harmonized the two opposing articles (Beck's and Stewart's rallies) by using "rally". This one had "demonstration" added, which in American English implies more than just a gathering, but also marching, usually with police involvement and sometimes arrests. This was hardly a "demonstration", so I removed it as a superfluous and misleading word. Rally is more accurate. My edit was reverted with this edit summary:

"Undid revision 394216330 by Filmfluff (talk) Link is definitely helpful in defining the subject. See WP:LEDE#Links)"

The last part is totally weird and has no bearing on the edit, and I still consider the use of the term "demonstration" in the beginning to be superfluous and misleading. The word "rally" is enough, just like in the Restoring Honor rally article, where, considering the militant nature of the Tea Party movement, "demonstration" might be more appropriate, but "rally" is used. Filmfluff (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hooray WP:BRD! I apologize for being a little quick on the revert trigger; the lede is acceptable either way, although I still prefer the first version. Since my edit summary was lacking, I'll do my best to justify my opinion here. If "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" were a descriptive title, I would be in favor of your version, but I would venture that most pages on WP that have a proper noun as the title have the first sentence in the form: <subject> is a <description> that <reason for notability>. In this particular case, I will also point out that rally is a DAB page: the type we're talking about here ("Political Rally") redirects to, and is a sub-set of Demonstration (people), but it can also be a type of auto racing or a stock market behavior. Mildly MadC 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
But the word "rally" isn't wikilinked, and "demonstration" is rather misleading. There were no confrontations as is usual with demonstrations, where both sides often confront each other and the police get involved. If anything it was about as peaceful as a picnic. There is only one other (and unreferenced) use of the word demonstration in the article. It is overwhelmingly (43 times) described as a "rally". Filmfluff (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I'm not particularly attached to the word "demonstration", but I think it is a definite improvement to the article to have a link to the article about what it is. If the main objection is that "demonstration" is too general, perhaps, at the risk of being a little redundant, we could use Political rally (which unfortunately redirects to Demonstration (people))); that's the reason "demonstration" was originally added. Otherwise, if we want to keep the language introduced by Filmfluff, we could simply use "The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear took place on..." Mildly MadC 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If the choice is to keep the word "demonstration", then it should also be added as a descriptor to the lead of the Restoring Honor rally article. Filmfluff (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was originally turned off by the use of "demonstration", but after reading Demonstration (people), I have to agree that is what both rallies were. Both events had other elements of a demonstration, such as a large number of signs brought by the participants. A non-violent rally is one of the types of demonstrations listed in the linked article. I suggest we make the change in both rally articles. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to correct a statement above, the Restoring Honor rally did not have signs brought by the participants. We have many sources that describe the events as rallies - that's how they were advertised. Do we have many sources describing them as a demonstration, or is that just a label we're applying based on the general definition. I don't have an issue with the word, but if we're going to put it in the lead, we should have something to back it up, since the term can have a negative connotation. Morphh 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
More on the general definition (e.g. to distinguish it from Rallying). "Demonstration" is perfectly appropriate here; a rally is a type of demonstration. Merriam-Webster defines a demonstration as "a public display of feelings towards a group or cause"; Demonstration (people) and Wiktionary are much the same. None of them make any mention of whether the people are moving, bring signs, or get arrested. In short, "demonstration" is not strictly a synonym for "protest" or "march". Mildly MadC 15:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BS24

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

Beck Rally

The crowd size at the Beck rally is enormously contested, and therefore no number should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's contested by Beck and Bachmann. The real numbers are safe to include. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's actually contested by more than just Beck and Bachmann...try doing a little research first. TforTwo214 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request Add Satellite Imagery to External Links Images

Geoeye has posted a Satellite Image of the rally capturing almost the entire crowd it should be added to the article to give a sense of scale http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/gallery/detail.aspx?iid=327&gid=1 --65.217.222.254 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added it as an external link. Unfortunately, he Geoeye terms of use are not acceptable for including the image directly in the article per WP:NONFREE. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

link to other website in article?!?

airphotoslive.com has a link to there website in the first paragraph of this page. I didn't think wikipedia allows links to other websites in the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented Success Of Rally

Need a new paragraph on what a great success the rally was. Just 72 hours after the rally the people voted overwhelmingly to restore sanity...72.209.63.226 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like original synthesis to me. Do you have any reliable sources to back it up? Also, please remember that Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Mildly MadC 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
As you can see by the edits done by that IP, this is a Republican possibly Tea Partier trying to inject political discussion to rile things up. That's why I've removed the comment more than once. This is talk page vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize that. Just hoping that some judiciously applied sanity (heh) and over-the top WP:AGF will scare him away :-) If it continues, I'm all in favor of pursuing other actions. Mildly MadC 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories: