Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 8 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Restoring Honor rally article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Politics Unassessed

This 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia Unassessed

This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Restoring Honor rally article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Crowd Demographics

The section on Crowd Demographics has been challenged by two anons, one of whom just left a message on my talk page about it. I was the one who initially added that section and who has reverted both removals of it; however, I'd like to see what other editors think of that section. I still think we ought to point out the contrast between the Beck and Sharpton rallies (the former being almost 100% white, the latter one mostly black), as well as the fact that the LaRouchies tried to hijack the event for their own purposes, but the source currently used for these statements is one both of the anons have objected to, with one of them calling it biased. Any thoughts, better sources, or suggestions for how we could improve the section?

I don't see how this warrants it's own section. A single line saying Beck's rally was mostly white and Sharpton's mostly black integrated into the article would be fine without adding unnecessary weight by giving it it's own section.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That section caught me earlier as well; if I am not mistaken there is not a citation for the Sharpton demographic, or if there is, it isn't explicit enough. Does that make sense? I will look again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only implied in the source given, but since there are over 3,000 articles relating to this topic currently available online which could be used as potential sources, it would be quite easy to find another source that says so more explicitly. Start here. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK. In my view, though, the Star piece leans on the editorialized side, however informative it is. That's going to upset folks. Any objective demographic information out there or perhaps some will surface? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just caught the BBC article. Better, much more objective. My thought is to delete the Star and use the BBC.Ntomlin (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't label a section "crowd demographics" when it only points out a few individuals saying or doing things that weren't in line with the rest of the crowd. I agree with editors above that a sentence is sufficient. BS24 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the whole section was unnecessary and WP:Undue the way it was written, and took the WP:bold step of removing it. I anticipate however that I will probably be reverted.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the section was a bit out of place as well, but didn't want to start an edit war over it. Count me as supporting the removal.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also leave it out for now. Can always revist it in a few days/weeks. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with either removing it/revisiting or just a sentence. A whole section is unnecessary. Falcon8765 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size

Please, try to work professionally:
(1) Don't remove numbers which are sourced by established media sources. The numbers may contradict, but so what? It makes no sense if pro-Beck people delete all low numbers, and anti-Beck-people delete all high numbers.
(2) Make clear the background of each estimation: Is the number from the organizer or from a neutral news organization? Does the source say just in passing a rough estimate, or does the source refer to a scientific analysis, including for example also a margin of error?
(3) Always link to the source of the number.
(4) The most scientific analysis from a neutral source should be reported in the box, of course linked to the source.
93.244.200.166 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's been removing numbers.

What exactly are www.airphotoslive.com's qualifications for estimating crowd size?

Even if there is a "whole article"(a whole six sentences long blog post) if that post doesn't provide analysis and reasoning behind it's estimation, there is no reason to assume it's any different from the estimations of others.

The "most scientific analysis"? Are you kidding me? What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on. Saying "with a margin of error of 9,000" might sound scientific to you, but it really doesn't indicate that a whole lot of science is going on any further.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one can assume airphotoslive.com has no credentials whatesover, we'll see what reliable sources some to say about it other than CBS.--Milowent • 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a big difference between noting a number just in passing without explaining in any way where this number comes from (maybe its just from the organizer's website? Journalists are lazy.), or when at least laying out which independent source (in this case www.airphotoslive.com) determined the numbers, including an error of margin. Currently all of these estimates are far away from being bullet-proven; but this is no reason to ignore obvious differences of what we know or don't know about the source of the number82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? Or at least try to figure out the credentials of this company to see if we should? They do have quite some notable clients mentioned on their site (CNN, National Geographic, etc.). 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on." From CNN: "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes." This seems scientific to me. Any second opinions? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the citations that say tens of thousands or less than 100,000, are all from the 28th, while the 300,000 plus citations are from the following day or later? Its obvious that the numbers from the following day are more accurate. A MSNBC citation is used in this article to say "Tens of thousands", yet on the "Today Show", (also NBC), Brian Williams said that the crowd was perhaps north of 300,000. Why would he say that just this morning? Because the early numbers were obviously wrong. The whole section needs to be revamped with correct and updated information and we need to stop using the old and outdated citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh we can probably keep the early estimates, but you're right that we need to revamp a little. We'll just have to change the text to refer to them as early estimates and then note the updated stats from various outlets after that. Millahnna (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

82.135.29.209 removed many inconvenient estimates with this edit, especially the part about the misleading CBS estimate. I am restoring it to the way it was. BS24 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also removed Michelle Bachmann's(sp) commentary, not sure we need her fringe stuff/commentary, maybe add to her bio if it gets alot of coverage, but doubtful. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed this again, as undue weight. We have various MS media outlets reporting and then 1 fringe type comment from whom exactly, a US rep? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We need an edit war over something as trivial as crowd estimates. The final tally may nevr really be known, but its obvious now that the early estimates were WAY OFF. I say we make sure that when wee refer to the citations on the 28th, we say that those were early estimates and that the final count was much higher.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could see adding that back in is if several sources start exaggerating similarly and then more sources report on that. Otherwise, I agree that it currently has no place in this article since Bachman is in no way notable to this event itself (not a speaker, not a crowd counting expert, etc.). It probably has merit in any entry about her own event on her page. Millahnna (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "remove inconvenient estimates". I removed a source (Politico) which only quoted NBC, when the NBC numbers are already quoted in the article.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? " I didn't see crowd size estimation listed as one of their services, so it doesn't seem they do this regularly. As for scientific, does this sound scientific? "By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters." "These are relatively small estimates compared to some, so let’s just note that I’m taking a very conservative approach: -I’m only using photographs of the reflecting pool area itself. -I’m not attempting to add in the people around the Lincoln Memorial, since I don’t have a good photo of that. -I didn’t attempt to include people between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool. So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say,... about 330,000 people." I don't think we need to add weight to the number 86,000 when the person behind the numbers said it could easily be about 330,000.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That person isn't the same person as who made the CBS estimate, right? Here (http://stevedoig.com/archives/250) is a blog from one of the couple of people who made the estimate for airphotoslive.com/CBS. It maybe gives some insight. He notes he has some experience in this. I'm still not sure on what I think should be done with the CBS estimate, I suppose we'll have to wait for the train/bus numbers to get a better idea. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to summarize the siutation: Obviously the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number is on much more solid ground: They obviously explicitly invested resources into calculating the crowd size, and they openly describe how they worked. CNN explicitly says that CBS/AirPhotosLive.com "took a scientific approach". See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/. All other numbers are not explained at all: Very likely may be just subjective guesses from one short look at a photo, or maybe even just rumors and taken from someone else, who got the number from someone else etc. In other words, these numbers are great to make politics with it, but they are not reliable at all. Therefore I suggest:
(1) Make clear in the article that the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number was calculated scientifically.
(2) Add a link to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/ and http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ABCPolitics&tid=373590 to the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number.
(3) I think it is fine to report all the other numbers (both higher and lower numbers than the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number). But it should be clear that all of them have no backing.
I know that proposal (3) will draw a lot of resistance by Back-Fans. But the job of Misplaced Pages is not to make a particular group of people happy, but to provide knowledge and facts based on solid sources.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

I added two proposal in the following, a long and a short version. I tried to keep the changes as minimal as possible. But I also deleted the Politico source, see my explanation belong on this talk page. In my opinion, the shorter version is the best, because I think this would be the most legitimate approach for Misplaced Pages: Stick to facts, but also report unfounded claims, but put not too much weight on them.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this "Beck said 100,000 people streamed the live video of the rally on Facebook." should be removed, viewer numbers are not crowd size. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Yes, but it's still notable. BS24 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size - proposal - long version

(See my reasoning in the previous section.)

CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd size estimate with aerial pictures by the company AirPhotosLive.com taken at noon. They calculated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".

Various other press organizations and reporters mentioned very different numbers, ranging from few ten thousands to half a million. NBC Nightly News host Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". NBC reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that a Parks Service official at the top of the Memorial unofficially estimated 300,000-325,000. MSNBC estimated "tens of thousands who stretched from the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the grass of the Washington Monument," and MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said "500,000" during his August 30th Morning Joe show. ABC News estimated "hundreds of thousands of people from around the country". The New York Times called it "enormous", and Fox News wrote about "huge crowds" and "thousands in attendance returned home carrying a message of making America better". The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". According to The Washington Post, "The crowd stretch densely back to the World War II Memorial, spilling onto the hill at the Washington Monument and onto the fields north and south of the reflecting pool." A preliminary Associated Press article put the total at "tens of thousands".

In the press, the number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue.

Beck mocked the media's reporting of attendance at the rally, saying, "I have just gotten word from the media that there are over a thousand people here today." He continued, "The reflecting pool holds about 200,000 people. This field back here holds about 250–300,000 people. They are not only full here, they're full in that field, they're full behind me, and they are now across the street approaching the Washington Monument!" He later said he "heard the crowd was between 300,000 and 500,000...if that's coming from the media, God only knows how many." When a helicopter flew over the rally while he was speaking, Beck remarked, "It must be a big crowd, because they violated the airspace to get a shot of it." Beck's website later posted two aerial photographs of the event, showing the crowd extending well towards the World War II Memorial and substantial crowds on the sides. In an interview recorded after the rally by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace — aired the day after on Fox News Sunday — Beck said, "I can tell you that it was in the hundreds of thousands...Let's be on the low end, 300,000, and maybe as high as 650,000." Palin lamented about an AP story that put the crowd at only "tens of thousands" and when asked by a Politico reporter about whether she thinks there were more than 100,000, she replied, "Oh yeah."

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(Added missing reference 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Crowd size - proposal - short version

(See my reasoning in the previous section.)

CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd size estimate with aerial pictures by the company AirPhotosLive.com taken at noon. They calculated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".

In the press, the number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue. Various press organizations and reporters mentioned very different numbers, ranging from few ten thousands to half a million.

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) (Added new link to CBS article explaining the Crowd Estimate.)82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Added all references from the "long" version 82.135.29.209 (talk))

Again, you can't pick and choose which you think is scientific. Consensus has been to keep it the way it is. BS24 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't just deny which is scientific because you don't like it either. CNN says it's scientific, CBS explains the method, mentions Airphotoslive.com does this more often, and they hired a professor, Pulitzer prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert to come to this number. Which makes me feel not enough weight is given to it in this article. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Yeah, and ABC, NBC, NY Post, Wall Street Journal, and others all disagree, plus a Parks Service official whose job it is to do this. Plus, the CNN article you refer to is on a CNN blog, not an official news story, and may not necessarily meet WP:RELIABLE. BS24 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this again is not correct: The others don't disagree explicitly, they just said other numbers before. And without explaining the numbers at all! It is not even clear whether these other sources stand by their numbers after the CBS article. Again, I'm repeating the obvious: The CBS estimate is the only one explaining in detail how they calculated the number and having a track record of calculating crowd sizes, while all other numbers have no explanation at all, and it's very likely that the are just wild guesses, rumors or copied from someone else before there was the CBS article. Do you really want to claim that you don't see the difference there?? Come on!82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that really the park service guy's job? My understanding from the articles mentioning him is that his number was just an estimate based on his knowledge of the max capacity of the areas in question and that he was standing at ground level, therefore not witness to the crowd density issue identified in the attempts at scientific counting. Put another way, I didn't get the idea that counting those people was his job so much as he had max capacity knowledge and was guessing based on that. Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So I went looking for sources talking about the discrepancy to see if I could find some noting the scientific nature of the NBC CBS 87,000 count. I don't know if yahoo's news blog, The Upshot, is a source we can actually use but this article of theirs notes the debate (and lists many of the the facts we currently have in the article), as well as the fact that so far, NBC is the only news source to commission an official estimate. They also point out that the Park Service stopped providing crowd size estimates after 1997 due to complaints about their estimates of the 1995 Million Man March. So no, it was not the Park Service's job. But I'm hoping if we can find some more articles like this, we can go ahead and note the scientific nature of the NBC CBScount without having to worry about OR issues. Millahnna (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe CBS, but not NBC was intended by Milhanna.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct and fixed. Thanks for the catch. Millahnna (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size source

Anyone know where NBC makes their 500000 estimate. We're currently using Politico to source what NBC said, which is funky. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I.e., is this an "NBC determination" or just some commentator's offhand comment at some point.--Milowent • 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we change it to something like "A Politico article said NBC estimated 500,000, though the NBC source for that number is unclear."? BS24 (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Until we find the NBC source, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There ARE NBC sources! NBC reported various numbers, even mentioned in this article. For example, maybe Politico just repeated Joe Scarborough's number. It is definitely wrong to report sources (Politico) quoting other sources (NBC), if these other sources are available (NBC), especially if the first source (Politico) even doesn't explain where exactly the number comes from - they just report a rumor. Is Misplaced Pages really the right place for rumors? Therefore I'm going to delete that reference.06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I just saw that the page is readonly. So I propose that this Politico-quotes-NBC quote is be removed, because the article already reports NBC numbers.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the "politico says nbc says" numbers, as well as any other references which aren't based on estimates. On NBC's site, all we get is that some guy told them a number: "One park service official told NBC News that the number was somewhere around 300,000.". One of the few (3?) people who actually did a thorough evaluation of the crowd says NBC and others made/commissioned no estimate at all. This section really needs to focus on scientific discussions and accurate measurements, otherwise it is floating into the realm of wp:UNDUE and violating issues with wp:RS. It should focus on actual estimates using actual methods, such as CBS's estimate, and the DC Metro's reporting of 180k extra riders (divide by 2, you get 90k). 206.188.60.75 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

206.188.60.75 -- see section Crowd size again below. Just because CBS sounds scientific to you doesn't mean there's any real science going on. BS24 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. While reading the article I noticed the "Politico says NBC says" problem, so I fixed it. We've gotta be mindful of Misplaced Pages:Citation_overkill and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. I see that some of you have expressed concern that only AirPhotosLive.com seemed to use a scientific method, and you might be interested in this author, who explains the method he used to come up with an estimate of 86,000 to 215,000 attendees: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/glenn-beck-rally-how-big-was-the-crowd/ Benccc (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Martian, the author at PajamasMedia is an unreliable source. He is an amateur, without prior crowd size estimations to his credit, who used publicly available images from the press and Google Earth to arrive at a range of 86,000-215,000. AirPhotoLive.com has it own images obtained from its balloons.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attendance section is bloated

due to possible bickering between sources Attendance is a number. Is there any particular reason that all of these numbers need to be in there. This is a case where excessive "completeness" creates total confusion. The reader reaches the end of the section having no clue of even the order of magnitude of the attendance.

I propose the following

1) Remove Beck's estimate of the size of his own event. The event permit from the National Park Service was for 300,000 people, so throwing a number out there like 650,000 is well outside the range of reasonable. I am not doubting that he said this number, or that the source in which he is quoted is reliable, but simply whether it makes sense to include his own estimate of crowd size on equal footing with third parties (news outlets, arial photo analysts) who have less to gain from inflating the number.

2) Track down the estimates from the news outlets to their primary sources. If news outlets retract an estimate and replace it with a new one, there's no need to report on the retraction unless it is somehow relevant to the event.

3) Pare down the section in its entirety (even if that means removing a few reliable sources). Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a dumping ground for all information in the media about a given event.

We went through these same problems for the page on the 9/12 rally. I look forward to working with you other editors to create a more encyclopedic and accurate article. — Mike :  tlk  03:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Already being discussed in an above section.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size again

There's a new article which probably many of you have already seen, and which hardly can be ignored: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html Yes, there will be always Beck fans who want higher numbers and Beck critics who want lower numbers. But Misplaced Pages is not about wishes, but about knowledge and facts. To put it bluntly: Is there really anybody out there who seriously denies that the CBS estimate is the only real scientific estimate? Again, when reading the detailed explanations of the CBS article, remember that all other numbers have no explanation at all, it's very likely that the are just wild guesses, rumors or copied from someone else.
I updated the "Crowd size - proposal - short version" proposal above by adding this link. I suggest
(1) use this text for the article, and
(2) use the CBS number for the box again (which was deleted some few days ago).
I would wish that some Misplaced Pages moderator ends this children's theatre. I'm not an Misplaced Pages expert, but isn't it possible to vote about this? Preferable moderators only? (Which I'm not btw) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Yes, I deny that it's the only real scientific estimate. Just because it sounds scientific to you doesn't mean there's any real science going on, especially when AirPhotosLive.com doesn't even mention crowd estimates in its list of services and we still don't know whether the overflow crowds were included or just the folks in the perimeter of the rally. You can't just pick this estimate because you like it, especially when the mainstream media, including hardly conservative outlets such as NBC, ABC, etc., is in agreement about hundreds of thousands. Is the media practicing "children's theatre"? The size is disputed and we need to report it as such. People can read all the estimates we have and make up their own minds. BS24 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we can not just accept one estimate. It should state the range in the introduction and the detail within the section of the article. Provided we have sources for the estimates and explain it within the article, i do not see the problem with the current method. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, this estimate of 215,000 around the reflecting pool alone is far more scientific than CBS's. He lays out step-by-step the method he used and discloses all the disclaimers. And seeing as there is nothing to suggest AirPhotosLive.com has any experience or credibility in estimates, even according to their own website, this estimate is just as credible as theirs. So by your thinking we should use "at least 215,000" because this looks like the most scientific. BS24 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't just say it's far more scientific than CBS's is. You also can't just deny the CBS estimate being considerably more researched and scientific than the NBC, ABC, etc. ones because you don't like it. With this new CBS blog/video, which by the way says the AirPhotosLive does provide this service more often, the blog of one of the people who estimated this, Professor Stephen Doig, ("a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert") who writes he DOES have experience in providing crowd estimates, (and even the people under the trees were counted so I doubt he'd miss the overflow area's,) and CNN declaring it to be a scientific estimate, it's really a stretch to keep saying CBS is not taking a scientific approach with this. Again, the guy helping to calculate this is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert, what credentials does this pajamasmedia guy have that he'd be a bigger authority on this?87.208.166.234 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no authoritative source for an estimate, we there for must continue to state the lowest and the max estimates. It is reliably sourced as an estimate, it should be within the range stated in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I do think that with all the things I mentioned above more weight should be given to the CBS number within the Crowd Size piece of the article. And this: Bloggers have questioned CBS's estimate of 87,000, noting that AirPhotosLive.com doesn't mention crowd estimates in their list of services. can I think be removed, given that this new CBS piece explains Airphotoslive.com does give crowd estimate services, and they hired an credited expert, it does not seem like such valid criticism anymore. I think Stephen Doig and his credentials should be mentioned.87.208.166.234 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we should mention bloggers questioned it, but add that CBS responded explaining in more detail because of bloggers and beck questioning it. But even with the more detailed explanation, we should continue to state the range in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that's a good way for us to put it, but adding the bit on bloggers questioning plus CBS' explanation does make the section even larger than it already is. This line: Beck said 100,000 people streamed the live video of the rally on Facebook. doesn't actually say anything about crowd size, so that should not be in there. But other than that I don't really know how to make the section more concise and have everyone be OK with it. Do you think we need to? Or does anyone have ideas on how to shorten this bit? I personally think Mike (in one of the above discussions on the crowd) gives some good options. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

BS24, you even didn't read your new source! It does NOT say 215,000. It does not say a final number at all, because it does not estimate the density - whereas the CBS calculation does! In contrary, your source is no contradiction to the CBS number of 87,000. And the CBS explicitly explains why the crowd wasn't so dense in many areas, making a density number of below 40% not unlikely. So no contradiction.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IP user, What is your stock in this article? This is the only one you've edited aside from a couple others. Why is it so important to you to try to give credibility to this estimate and dismiss all others? The bottom line is that we can't report one estimate as fact when virtually all other outlets say something different and there are still questions around it. We need to report them all. BS24 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You really shouldn't question motives of editors, even anon ip editors. It reeks of Bad Faith is not helpful to the collaberative process. That being said, this mess of crowd estimates is not just a wikipedia problem. Other news organizations are commenting on the wide range of the numbers. So I guess were stuck with what we got until someone comes up with a better option.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've edited Misplaced Pages before, although really not that much, it was under an account which I lost the password from when my previous laptop crashed, so now I'm just using this. I mostly read Misplaced Pages a lot though. I just got kind of sucked into this discussion I guess. I'm not looking to dismiss or remove all the other estimates, but these unexplained estimates are not equal to a scientific one. Even so I'm not viewing the CBS estimate as a fact, just as more credible. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your last sentence is a very good summary of my view.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I made various changes to various articles, just not under this IP. But in fact I'm not a regular Misplaced Pages editor. My stock is really very simple: I think Misplaced Pages should be a place of information and facts! I think it is ok to report all contradicting numbers (see my "long" proposal above). But on the other hand, if there are obvious differences between the reliability of sources, they should be weighted corresondingly. Don't forget: the CBS estimate is the only one explaining in detail how they calculated the number and having a track record of calculating crowd sizes, while all other numbers have no explanation at all, it's very likely that the are just wild guesses, rumors or copied from someone else. Do you really want to claim that you don't see a difference there?? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the current online version is very dishonest: It does not include the important reference which explains in detail the CBS estimation and their track record in crowd size calculations, but instead contains the stupid argument that "the company doesn't mention crowd estimates in their list of services". Not talking about the dishonesty of suggesting that the other widely guessed numbers are as scientific as the CBS number. Sorry, but this IS really children's theatre, not really improving the reputation of Misplaced Pages... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added all the references to the various crowd sizes to the "short version" of the article proposal above. As more sources, as better, even if they are contradictory (or BECAUSE they are contradictory). In contrary to the "long" version, the numbers of non-scientific sources are just summarized as range, because they are obviously not as "hard" as the scientific CBS number.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer the question of whether the crowds on the sides were counted?

Yes, and the answer is of course yes, see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size table?

Perhaps we could make a table for all the various crowd size estimates at the bottom of the section? We should keep the full write up as it is, but it may be helpful to make a table. I'll try to make one if I can figure out how. What do you all think? BS24 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Helps summarize quite nicely. Millahnna (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, a table is great, but the current table is very misleading and dishonest: The reader should get the information that the CBS estimate is the only scientific one explaining in detail how they calculated the number, by a company having a track record of calculating crowd sizes, while all other numbers have no explanation at all, being it very likely that the are just wild guesses, rumors or copied from someone else before there was the CBS article.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a blurb mentioning the aerial (balloon) photography.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe an asterisk note next to some of the numbers to indicate where they got their information? I know we explain this in the prose already, but if someone has a tl;dr moment and just skims to the table, you're right that we would want to indicate HOW they got their numbers. I don't do notes other than regular references very often so I'm not sure how that would work. Millahnna (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Without giving the context of the numbers, the table is still very misleading: The table is suggesting equal reliability of the numbers, which obviously is not the case. The CBS numbers are not more reliable just because of the baloon technique. And as mentioned above, neither the table or the main article contain the important reference where the CBS number is explained in detail.82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) The table is not only highly misleading, but also contains no additional information and bloats the oversized crowd section even more without reason. Therefore it should be deleted. Are there any reasons to keep it?
(2) To fix at least the main bias in the article, I suggest to add the missing reference explaining the CBS method and their track record and to delete this silly "Bloggers have questioned AirPhotosLive.com's credibility" sentence.
(3) I suggest summarizing the oversized crowd section by the "Crowd size - proposal - short version" proposal. This proposal contains all information and all reference, and is honest regarding the sources. It seems that not only the crowd numbers are growing and growing, but also the crowd section is growing and growing...82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The table presents the figures in a very clear way, it should remain. It looks pretty good in my opinion. No problem with the details on CBSs figure being more explained with that new source, should continue to mention the bloggers though as CBS itself says its bloggers an becks comments that are making them reply in more detail. I think the crowd section is a reasonable size, it is clearly an important factor relating to the event and its been disputed following the event with lots of different figures, so its justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I agree with your criticism, but it would be nice to have a better oversight than the block of text we have now. Maybe make a slightly bigger table from the section itself instead of adding an additional one next to it, and add a column for necessary explanations within that table? Or would a big table like that take up too much space?

2) I'd also say the "bloggers have questioned" bit isn't really useful, but I've had some disagreement on that. I too think the explanation from the CBS article should definitely be mentioned in the section though, especially if we're to keep the "bloggers have questioned" bit, as it answers their questions which now seem unaddressed.

3) This would be a good option I think, as the section is too big right now in my idea, but I'm not sure many agree. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the CBS blurb in the table is unnecessary, because if we include one outlet's estimation method in the table, we should include them all. Just because CBS commissioned one doesn't mean theirs gets special treatment or more credibility. The table is meant for quick glancing and people can find out the method used in the write-up. IP user, you are the only editor on this article who believes the CBS estimate should be taken as correct and yet you still keep pushing to delete all other estimates. Not even the media is taking CBS's seriously and their all sticking with their own numbers. I am assuming good faith and I don't believe this is true, but it almost seems like you're a CBS or AirPhotosLive.com employee or something because you're crusading for this so heavily. But as I said, I don't actually believe that's true. Anyway, the table looks great on the side now, thanks to Hodgson for tidying it up. BS24 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's original research to give the CBS estimate special treatment. Unless reliable sources say it's better than the rest, it's equal. It doesn't matter if we think it's more scientific or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see. wp:BALANCE says, "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

...It's true we don't tell readers what to think, rather, we repeat the important details that have been reported in the media--and, in this case, a number of press reports go into some detail about about Westergard's Air Photos Live company's methodology. Anyway, here is the corresponding subsection of the Obama Inauguration article. In it, one of the section's three paragraphs is given over to Doig's opinions, the same guy hired by Air Photos for an attendance estimate for Beck's rally.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To more clearly explain my premise: AirPhotoLive's methodology is notable and should be stated; and, the sources of the other estimates' methodologies would become eligible for inclusion, too, to the extent they ever come to be remarked upon by the media.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do this in the new proposal below. While in my personal opinion the article is far to long (see by short proposal above), I was careful to not delete information but only to add missing information, so that every "side" can be happy that "their" information is contained. Any objections to the new proposal?82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've already told you, but I don't view the CBS estimate as correct, only as more reliable as they're the only source using scientific methods, have hired a crowd estimate expert, and explained how they came to the number. I'm fine with adding the other sources estimation methods, but again, they don't give any, it might be guesswork from an glance for all we know, while CBS does give their method. I'm not the only one who thinks so, at least the other IP user also does. I'm also *not* pushing to delete all other estimates. If you don't believe I'm an CBS or Airphotoslive.com employee, why even mention it? All I'm crusading for is shortening this section, and adding the new CBS article/response to the mentioned bloggers to it. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, another "sign" that lets me doubt about BS24's interest into objectivity is that his table he claims has "all" estimates interestingly misses the Fox News number, which "surprisingly" is the lowest number.82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that Fox News wasn't making an estimate. They just said thousands to be sure without having to do one. BS24 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable Event on the August 28 page

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

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

Concur with your assessment; it seems like if it's notable enough to get so much coverage it's notable on the events page. Removing sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. I don't like it either, but it's definitely notable. Millahnna (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's presentism, give it a year and it will just be a relatively minor political event of many. Not notable enough Snapdragonfly (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a completely apolitical event, but I still get your point. I disagree, however, because of the points I made - if it's such a minor event, why does it have its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert109 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly belongs on the events page. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone agrees with me on the notability of the event, can the more experienced wikipedians help out on the august 28 page. Either making the argument for the notability or doing the lock thing so these biased politickers can't keep reverting.

Albert109 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Beck's saying he held document

Mother Jones:

Beck did receive a special VIP tour of the archives, arranged by an as-yet unidentified member of Congress. During that tour, he did get a peek inside the "legislative vault," which isn't open to ordinary visitors. But Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper insists that Beck didn't lay a finger on any precious documents, much less George Washington’s inaugural address. That would be a major violation of policy. "Those kinds of treasures are only handled by specially trained archival staff," she explains. Cooper acknowledges that someone at the archives did show the document to Beck, but that was the extent of it. Regarding Beck's claim that he held the document, Cooper says that seeing such documents for the first time can be a very emotional experience. "I'm certain it was a figure of speech," she says.

According to my understandings of balance, the brouhaha can be covered but the belief of a misstatement by Beck should be worded in such a way as to credit the assertion to its sources without subtly implying Misplaced Pages to interpret the evidence one way or the other (i.e., Beck's lying, saying he physically touched the papers, versus Beck's not literally lying so much as using the metonym that he held the papers in view or in his eyes, that he beheld them). Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow up (from Mediaite). Beck:

Yesterday I went to the National Archives, and they opened up the vault, and they put on their gloves and then they put it on a tray. They wheeled it over and it's all in this hard plastic and you're sitting down at a table and you can't, because of Sandy Berger, I had a long conversation with him about this, you can't actually touch any of the documents, these are very very rare. So what they do, they have it in this plastic thing and they hold them right in front of you, you can't touch them but then you can say 'can you turn it over,' and then they turn it over for you and then you look at it. I thought it was a little clumsy to explain it that way.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

From the media section

After reading through this article, I have to say, it's coming along well in giving a factual and neutral account of the event. However, the From the media section in reference to the response seems to be a petty "tit-for-tat" scenario in keeping NPOV. From what I can tell, the first paragraph in this section was intended to give "positive" media perspective on the event, and the second was to give the "negative." As it seems now, the first paragraph gives some decent and valid perspective by Clarence B. Jones, while the op-ed piece cited speaks of actual happenings at the event (the prayer and the audience picking up trash). The second one however seems to be more of a paragraph filled with generic name calling and sarcasm, with no real unique relevance to the event. Although I am a fan of some of Glenn Beck's work/actions, I am sure that there are valid criticisms to the events of the day, and a paragraph like this juxtaposed with the one before it seems to portray any media criticism to the event as pure and simple name calling. Dflocks80 (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, this fragment:

"After noting how the crowd refused to when Dave Roever gave the closing prayer thanking God for President Obama and members of Congress,"

is just floating around in the first paragraph in this section. Was something mistakenly deleted, or is this another problem caused by a quick edit in the NPOV conflict? Dflocks80 (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dflocks, I fixed the typo, which was missing the word "boo".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dflocks, per your critique of the substance of the criticism, unfortunately that is the criticism that is present. As a stated "fan" of Beck, I am sure that it obviously resembles pure name calling and lacks merit in your view. However, a "non-fan" of Beck would likely disagree with that assessment. More importantly, it isn't for us to decide if the evaluations have merit (to us), but whether they can be verified in reliable sources - which these can. Obviously if more "substantive" criticisms arise, they should be added, but presently this is what exists.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see mainstream media criticism of the rally boiled down to simple name calling of Beck and the attendees. Of the four points of criticism cited, 3 (Bill Press, Slate Magazine, and The Huffington Post) are left-leaning people/organizations, and Howard Dean really isn't the "media," but a natural political enemy of Beck. These four sources would have thrown these same, generic, negative reactions towards Beck regardless of whether or not he held a rally, so I don't really see why they hold merit as being pertinent in this article. I'm not bringing this up in order to defend or promote Beck, it just seems that this section added in this shallow criticism to take up space and make the quantity appear equal to that of the positive reaction. Like I said earlier, I'm sure that there's criticism to this rally that is actually substantive and unique to this rally, not muddied by previous ideological conflict towards the person who organized it. Under this thought process, I wouldn't even mind if the Bill O'Reilly quote was removed as well, because we really don't need a section that basically says "the conservative media agreed with Beck, and the liberal media didn't." If anything, I'm asking for more effective criticism of the rally, something a "stated 'fan' of Beck" wouldn't do if he was letting his feelings sway his views. Dflocks80 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size - new (long) proposal

I deleted no information, but added the crucial missing information as discussed above.

Crowd size

Photo of central swath of the crowds, taken from the east side of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool
Crowd figures in media reports
Pulitzer Prize winner Prof. Stephen Doig	80,000
CBS News / AirPhotosLive.com	87,000, scientific error given as +/- 9,000 (see text)
Fox News	Thousands
NBC News	300,000–325,000: Unofficial, credited to anonymous officer of National Parks Service
NBC Nightly News	Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
MSNBC	Tens of thousands
ABC News	Hundreds of thousands
Wall Street Journal	300,000
Associated Press	Tens of thousands
New York Post	300,000 (Overflow crowd)
Glenn Beck	300,000–650,000
Washington Examiner	Hundreds of thousands, later 300,000

The number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue.

CBS News refers to scientific methods based on aerial pictures by the company AirPhotosLive.com. The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally". AirPhotosLive.com based its estimation on photos taken at noon. After conservative bloggers have questioned AirPhotosLive.com's credibility, since the company doesn't mention crowd estimates in their list of services, the company published their past experiences in crowd estimation and explained their method used for calculating the crowd size more in detail. The method is based "on laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell". Curt Westergard, the president of AirPhotosLive.com also explained what he calls "mistake" of other crowd estimiations, and that with other methods the crowds "tend to look more dense" when looking from the wrong angle.

Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, who also estimated the crowd size at the Inauguration of Barack_Obama, calculated 80,000 people. His calculation involves "laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell".

Various other press organizations and reporters mentioned very different numbers without further explaining the source of the numbers. Such numbers range from "thousands" to half a million.

For example, NBC Nightly News host Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands" attended. NBC reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that a Parks Service official at the top of the Memorial unofficially estimated 300,000-325,000. MSNBC estimated "tens of thousands who stretched from the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the grass of the Washington Monument," and MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said "500,000" during his August 30 Morning Joe show. ABC News estimated "hundreds of thousands of people from around the country". The Wall Street Journal said 300,000. The New York Times simply called it "enormous", and Fox News wrote about "huge crowds" and "thousands in attendance returned home carrying a message of making America better".

The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". According to The Washington Post, "The crowd stretch densely back to the World War II Memorial, spilling onto the hill at the Washington Monument and onto the fields north and south of the reflecting pool." The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures" and a later editorial said 300,000. A preliminary Associated Press article put the total at "tens of thousands".

Beck mocked the media's reporting of attendance at the rally, saying, "I have just gotten word from the media that there are over a thousand people here today." In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday the day after, he said the crowd was at least 300,000 and as high as 650,000.

Ridership of the Washington Metro subway system spiked on the day of the rally, with roughly 510,000 people riding, about 180,000 more than any other weekend day in August, suggesting the rally was the cause.

82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Changed, see below. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning

The proposal intends to fix the most serious flaws in the current crowd section:
(1) The table misses the Fox News estimate.
(2) The current article reports the bloggers critics of the CBS numbers, but does not mention the lengthy answer and explanations of CBS and that company.
(3) The article misses the information that CBS says/claims they used an scientific approach which they describe quite detailed. While the other news organizations just noted numbers without explaining how or from whom they got their number.
As mentioned, personally I would like to shorten and summarize the section (see my "short" proposal above). But there seems to be too much resistance to it.... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose treating the CBS figures in that table separately to all other estimates, they must all appear in line together as they do at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the new wording which puts CBS right at the top giving its estimate undue weight over the others without the current first sentence which says "The number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue," . I am sorry but theres no way i can support any of this proposal whilst it remains like that, the status quo is more reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is good that you give an reason instead of just saying how it "must" be in your opinion. But what exactly do you think is OR? Really every piece of information is straight from the sources.82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If something like "The number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue, and no official crowd estimates were made" was the first line of the section, would you be OK with the edit then? Other than the table thing? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher and Peregrine Fisher, what do you want to say? Are you really for the status quo and against fixing (1), (2) and (3)? Or are you in favor of fixing (1), (2) and (3) but don't like some paricular wording of the proposal? Then don't just say "no", but improve the proposal! This is what the "talk" page is for! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, I did all changes you asked for: Adding the "hotly contested" sentence (why not?), and put all estimates "in line together" (which, in my opinion, introduces undue weight again because of (3), but it is still better than the status quo because it partly fixes the issues mentioned above).
Any other change wishes? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I added another useful estimate: Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Doig, who also estimated the crowd size at the Obama Inauguration. Seems a scientific approach to me: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html93.244.168.165 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

For the last time, no one gives a rat's hoot what it seems like to you. Stop. BS24 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern about Beck's Mormonism section not very strong

I know it's fun and sassy to include a "reasonable people were concerned with Beck's Mormonism" kind of line, but the section entitled "Concern about Beck's Mormonism" doesn't really include enough concerns about Beck to justify its being more than a sentence in the main article, if that. So Brannon Howse, one guy who puts on conferences and thinks Rick Warren and John Piper shouldn't be called Christians, said his brand of Christians shouldn't put Beck in charge of their spirituality. Then a Richard Land saying Beck is more orthodox than Jim Bakker's network and as good as Billy Graham. Then Falwell saying there's no issue to be had. Then a guy who works at a Southern Baptist school saying the event was generally secular anyway. SO, how could someone read those four quotes and give the section that title? They were basically four quotes saying "quit trying to stir up this non-issue." I think, long term, the whole section will be removed, but in the meantime I'd recommend someone either make the section stronger or the title weaker. --Mrcolj (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The section has been re-worked.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Mormonism section is bloated and irrelevant section below. BS24 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies with regard Beck's Mormonism

Mormonism section is bloated and irrelevant

I added an off topic template to the "Concern about Beck's Mormonism" section because it doesn't belong here. It really belongs on Glenn Beck's own page. This controversy should get a sentence or no more than a paragraph on this article, let alone a huge section. Thoughts? BS24 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the inclusionists will happily agree :) (j/k) --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, I am not sure how you find it to be "off topic", when all of the sources were written in response to this rally. The reality is that the "restoring honor" rally carried a heavy religious component, and Beck continually referenced "God" throughout the event, thus yes it is relevant if some of those same evangelicals who Beck was appealing to, are now questioning his God based revival, since a good number of them carry the belief that Beck's God, is not the same as their God. As to your statement that it belongs on Beck's page, I agree that a section discussing Beck's religious views and the public reception to them - belongs on his page as well, however his biographical article is on his entire life up to this point, and much of this Evangelical opposition to Beck's Mormonism is very recent and has taken place as a result of this rally (where Beck made his religious beliefs a central theme). As for shortening the section, I agree that it could be trimmed as well, and believe that as more information on the matter comes out, perhaps the overall narrative might change. However, what is present currently, are what the printed sources are saying at the moment.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, I have tried to shorten the section some, adjusted the sub-title to "Theological concern about Beck's Mormonism", removed the poll, and made sure that all of the references and comments are directly related to Beck and this specific rally. I also removed the off-topic tag, however if you disagree with me, please re-add the off topic tag and explain here how any of the remaining section is "off-topic". I don't believe any of it is, it seems that you are making more of an WP:Undue argument, than an off topic one – (although I would dispute that charge as well).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy that arose after the rally is notable and relevant to this article. But I don't think several paragraphs of debate belong in this particular article. The section would be perfect by itself in Glenn Beck's article. Concerns about Sarah Palin's ability to govern arose as a result of her being chosen as the VP nominee, but does that mean a big section about those concerns belongs on the 2008 Republican convention page? No, because event pages should cover the event itself. That's probably not the best example but it's the best I can think of at the moment. I have no objections to the section itself, just to the location of the section. All we need is a simple sentence or two saying, "Theological concerns about Beck's personal religion, Mormomism, arose as a result of the religious nature of the rally." I'm replacing the template for now per further discussion. BS24 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, all of these references and statements were in reference to the rally itself. Nearly every sentence in the section mentions the rally, or is in response to the rally specifically. How is it specifically not "relevant" or off-topic? The "on-topic(ness)" seems pretty clear. Furthermore, those "paragraphs of debate" are in relation to Beck taking such a new religious role at the rally, these criticisms weren't there for Beck when he was simply a radio host or political commentator. In fact, many of these evangelicals couch their statements by saying that they agree with Beck on everything politically, their concern just arose out of his new desire to lead a religious revival and bring people to "God".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have further trimmed down the section with the hopes of being more targeted with specificity to this particular rally. All of the remaining statements are in direct relevance to this rally, and I lessened the long quote on some of the theological specifics. BS24, let me know what you think and if you still find it "bloated" or "off-topic"? As you can see from the discussion below, Hodgson also finds the section relevant to the article and offers additional points of emphasis with an array of sources to corroborate his (+ my) view.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

The fact that Beck is a Mormon is his personal business and the section on his Mormonism is a WP:BLP violation. He does not bear the burden of the world's bias for or against Mormonism. This entire section and any criticism of him based on his religion should be removed.Malke2010 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean "he does not bear the burden of the world's bias for or against Mormonism"? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Fixed it. But of course, the way it reads right now, it does appear someone thinks he bears the burden. Malke2010 20:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody will respond, but I've posted a notice here: wp:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn Beck's Mormonism.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke,

(a) The fact that Beck is Mormon is not his "personal business" in relation to composing biographical articles on his life and religious events. Beck has also produced his own DVD for sale on Amazon entitled Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck and openly speaks about himself being a Mormon repeatedly on National television. It isn't like this is a secret he is trying to hide. Nor does Misplaced Pages concern ourselves with withholding (or censoring) reliable public information as it relates to notable individuals. We do not concern ourselves with the “privacy” of public individuals - see WP:Censor

(b) The section is clearly not a WP:BLP violation. The section is merely the cited comments of certain evangelical Christians in magazines and on websites that have commented on the matter. In no way does it slander or make false accusations against Beck.

(c) Of course Beck doesn't "bear the burden" of anti-Mormon sentiments in America, however they do exist and have arisen as a result of him holding a public religious-themed rally, where he openly spoke of God and one's duty to "get behind the shield of God", thus naturally, people will ask the question, well which "God" is Beck referring to when mentions his own personal relationship with God? Well, according to a sizable minority (near majority) of Evangelical Christians, the God that Mormon's pray to, in their view, is not the same God that Christians pray to. I actually don't have a personal opinion on the matter, nor does it matter what I or any other editor here thinks on the matter. What is important is what the sources say people think.

(d) Misplaced Pages does not have a policy saying that "any criticism of someone for their religion should be removed from their page". In the case of Beck, he has made religion a central theme of his show and speaks on religious matters daily to millions of people. By doing this, he has made his religion a relevant matter, per the sources. Moreover, the utilized sources have all come out since the rally, and are in response to the rally having taken place.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is a violation of WP:BLP. It is grossly anti-Mormon and should be deleted. This is a personal attack on the man, using his religion.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply shouting "BLP violation" without specifics, doesn't make it so. I'm not sure at this point from your comments, that you even understand how WP:BLP works.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I understand enough to know that using the man's religion is a very low stoop to be standing on.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well take that up with Mark Caleb Smith - director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University, Russell Moore - dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Brannon Howse - a professional organizer of Christian conferences, Breakpoint's Diane Singer, Warren Cole Smith - associate publisher of the Christian-themed World magazine, and The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer. Our threshold is WP:Verify, not religious sensitivity.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The section could be trimmed but it isn't a blp vio, IMO.

Let me approach my thinking by way of analogy. Wikipedi's touching on controversies about Steven Spielberg's Jewishness--or Lex Hixon's being a Muslim or such new religions practitioners as Greta Van Susteren in her Scientology beliefs or author Richard Bach in his Christian Science beliefs--in their bios or another article may easily veer into vios of BLP policy: Why use Spielberg's biography to point out the theological differences between Judaism and other faiths? (etc.) But, in this case, the Restoring Honor rally answers that question because these several evangelical thelogical conservatives don't directly criticize Beck's faith so much as they criticize fellow evangelicals' taking part in a religious revival with him. (Such criticisms would analogously relate to whether evangelicals should join in explicitly religious enterprises with professed evangelicals such as Pentacostals who might include theological interpretations that some of these critics don't take to be part and parcel of Christian evangelical faiths, as well.) The bottom line is, if there are Misplaced Pages articles about religious events popular specifically with evangelicals yet headlined by somebody not of that faith, mention of the contrast between the headliner's and evangelicals' beliefs, as this becomes part of the commentary about that event from such sources as the NYT, WSJ, high-brow opinion journals, well-known religious publications, and so on, becomes notable within that context, rather than its just serving as a hook to hang general kvetching about the individual's non- Christian-evangelical status.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hodgson, you are exactly right.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They are making bigoted statements about this man's religion in order to discredit him with his followers who may or may not be Christian. Repeating these attacks here is a violation of WP:BLP.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you are welcome to your own opinion, unfortunately for you, it isn't backed up by Misplaced Pages policies. In addition, most of the people cited are "his followers" politically, and even state how they agree with Beck on everything but the theology of his chosen religion. Repeating "factually true" attacks is not in violation of BLP (true as in they took place, not that the particular criticism is true, we as editors do not concern ourselves with ---> WP:Truth). Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is our guideline, as Hodgson accurately reiterated to you above.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the Mormon section isn't Notable. His religion isn't irrelevant solely based on it being his religion. It's irrelevant because it didn't affect the event. A few people with sound bytes saying they were worried about the direction his event could take doesn't mean there was a huge concern that affected attendance. Kennedy's Catholicism or both Obama's "Christlam" are Notable because they affected the voting percentages. If a major religious figure would have forbidden his followers from attending, or found out about a legion of busses attending and cancelled their trip, that would be Notable. But I just can't see a PoliSci professor (even I've taught at a college), a guy at a seminary (I've taught at a seminary too), or some guy who organizes a competing conference, each making comments on how the event is ironic or potentially of concern, is of itself Notable.--Mrcolj (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrcolj, all of the sources utilized were released "after the event" so your first point is irrelevant. None of these individuals were "concerned at the direction that the event could take", because they all were commenting after the event had taken place. If you missed such an obvious distinction of the section, then I am not sure on how seriously you even read a section that you are claiming isn't "notable". As for what you've done, that is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. With relation to notability, those commenting have done so in the usual publications, sources, and websites that would deal with matters related to the theology or Christianity. These are not random or anonymous people commenting on their own personal websites.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So this standoff comes down to four people who think it's off-topic, and you who think it's on-topic. I could defend myself point-by-point again, but you know our opinion and we know yours. Only one of the quotes grammatically states that it was after the event, what I've done is terribly relevant since I was demonstrating that these people's ranks aren't, and you've dropped into ad hominem. But again that whole preceding sentence won't do any good. And despite my being active on the wikipedia for nine years now, I don't know the protocol for how to resolve these things. The vote is obviously 4 to 1 right now, and that should be enough to drop the section.--Mrcolj (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrcolj, interesting, where to start. (1) I'm not sure about your counting, but it looks to be 2-2 in this section in relation to be it being a "BLP violation", as Hodgson's comment up above actually argues that it is not a BLP violation (once again are you actually even reading, or merely commenting?). At most I guess you could claim 3-2 if you include the additional section above, however BS24 wants the section relocated to Beck's article rather than here (a different issue), while Malke seems to want any mention of Beck even being Mormon deleted, and you offered some convoluted argument dealing with notability and the lack of pre-event skepticism, despite the fact that all of the articles were post-event and in the "post-rally" section. (2) Nevertheless, Wiki is not a WP:Democracy, and it wouldn't necessarily matter what the tally was, 3-2 is not WP:Consensus for anything. In addition, If you have been on Misplaced Pages for 9 years as you state, then you should realize that the most likely solution is to first be specific with Wiki policy and determine if those that want it removed have a procedural basis for doing so, or if it is a case of WP:Idontlikeit.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There being some dichotomy between Beck's minority faith or belief and that of those ascribing to more common faiths among those in Beck's conservative fan base is quite plainly part of the dynamic of the event and of the story told in the sources; and, per wp:Manual of Style (summary style), if we were so inclined we could source a whole article on the question, leaving just an introductory overview in the present article about Beck's rally. (By the way, Beck's denomination is comparatively tiny (according to Pew survey, 1.7% of the US say they are Mormon) whereas lots of Americans say they are evangelical Christian (26.3%). Let's add in the Mainline Protestant Christians (18.1%), Christian adherents of historically black churches (6.9%), Roman Catholic Christians (23.9%), Eastern Orthodox Christians (0.6%), and total all of the foregoing with the tiny slice of remaining self-professed Christians in the U.S. until we've got a fairly large percentage of United States professing a faith that would lead them to affirm the theological sentiments expressed in the hymn "Amazing Grace.") Still, that Beck is Mormon and many in his audience are conservative Evangelicals/other conservative Christians and the tensions this theological contrast entails has been widely noted in the press.

Where? Well, the Mormon press has soft pedaled it some. Still, the official point man for public affairs for the Mormon Church said this. Jews? well, Tikkun said this (among a host of other commentators who are Jewish, of course). Practicing Catholics? Well, The American Catholic said this and NYT's Ross Douthat said this (among other commentators that happen to be Catholic). Religious, Protestant journalists? Well, how about the following posts from The Christian Post, Christianity Today, Black Christian News, Christian Broadcasting Network, First Things, Get Religion, Associated Baptist Press, Christian News Wire, Cross Walk, and on and on and on.

Secular news? Time, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Week, Mediaite....--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentary by Sarah Posner (Religion Dispatches), Chris Good (The Atlantic Wire), Goldberg (National Review Online), Zaitchik (The New Republic), another Goldberg (this time Michelle, The Daily Beast), Ben Smith (Politico), and history prof/weblog(co-)master Paul Harvey (Religion in American History)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And, the Rev. Jim Garlow's web posting (evangelical-Christian Beck-rally participant; at To Renew America). Plus, D. Sirmize commentary (at a Mormon blog The Millennial Star), Christopher Jones essay (a Mormon pursuing a PhD in early American history, published at Religion in American History), McKay Coppin's piece (a Mormon journalist; in Newsweek)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I agree Hodgson. The relevance is clear, as is the ability to cite WP:Reliable sources for notability.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's no Wiki policy that supports this kind of thing. It could be that criticizing Mormons has a low priority effect on the general population of the world and that is why there isn't a bigger outcry here. So stand back for a moment, and substitute another religion like Muslim for Mormon. Or Jew, or Catholic, or Buddhist. Or your own religion, or your own core beliefs. I guarantee you, you'll see this in a different light. If this section remains, I think it's a sad day for Misplaced Pages.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, there is plenty of Wiki policy that supports "this kind of thing", and no Wiki policy that prohibits it. Additionally, Religion is not a "sacred" topic on Misplaced Pages above reproach, critical analysis, or criticism. Below are some current articles on Misplaced Pages:

(Mormon) Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mormon sacred texts, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr., (Christian) Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Christian doctrine, Criticism of the Bible, Christianity and slavery, Christian terrorism, Christian evangelist scandals, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Catholicism, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Moses, Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, (Judaism) Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Judaism and violence, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Zionism, (Islam) Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of Islamism, Islam and domestic violence, Islamic terrorism etc etc.

Does that make it a "sad day for Misplaced Pages"? Well I guess that is up to each individual editor to decide. As for the relevance to this section, Beck held a rally with 100-300,000 people where God played a central theme, thus of course it is relevant what "God" he himself subscribes to and the fact that many of his conservative political allies after the rally are becoming concerned with him being Mormon (as they don't view his faith as part of orthodox Christianity). These issues are just facts, and it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to censor or scrub referenced ideas from reliable sources, regardless of the fact that some editors (such as yourself in this instance) are personally offended by the conclusions of those individuals cited. Now if you simply just don't like the section, then your objection has been noted, but there really isn't anything left to debate.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hodgson, per your suggestion, I have tried to trim the section somewhat, and target the comments for direct relevancy to the rally and Beck. Let me know what you think.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, Redthoreau. Of course, a percentage of the links I listed above mention their own variations of Russell Moore's "civil religion" critique-- which you took out, leaving twenty people who mention over and over again the straight-up "Beck is a Mormon and we're not" critique. It would represent the breadth of the commentary out there more accurately to include Moore or another person who references concern about civil religion but then shorten some of the rest of the section.

Come to think of it, another section of the article includes a lot of people criticizing Beck for hijacking MLK's message. There also I would include a sampling of the principal or most characteristic instances and delete the rest (if I had that much interest in researching that type of commentary to touch that particular section, which I don't...).Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked up Palin's WP coverage and here is talk of her religion: Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Religion_in_public_life. I think if we're just going to give a quick "one-two" on something of this nature, something about the length/depth given for Palin is about right, I suppose. However, if we were to source a deeper analysis about issues pertaining to a particular opinion leader's religious beliefs, then we would obviously end up with something a bit more substantial than that. What we've included so far in the Beck section doesn't go that deep. So, as I've said already, maybe commentators that say the same thing could have their position combined and summarized.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is where Obama's religion is discussed on WP: Public_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, previously the article had the diplomatic, modulated words of Richard Land to PBS, from an interview after the rally, where Land said that charitably, Mormonism could be considered a fourth Abrahamic religion, before Land went on to express his opinion that Beck's words at the rally were more than acceptable to evangelical Christians. However, this was deleted once, then I returned it, and then it was deleted again. There is simiply a harshness of tone in LDS ears of "You're not Christian!," a la Bill Keller. And the substance and tone of Land's remarks (he's the SBC's point man for interactions with public officials and with other faiths) have a bit more nuance and depth and work more toward interfaith understanding--i.e., are more "encyclopedia friendly"--than are more typical theological statements by evangelicals offered primarily for an audience of fellow evangelicals.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All Things Considered, August 30, 2010

:       ... We had rabbis praying. We had Catholic priests praying. We had Muslim imams praying and participating. We had Protestant Christians. And he kept saying over and over again: This is not a political event, and politics is not the answer. The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person; one family; one church, mosque, synagogue, temple and one community at a time. ... There were lots of differences of religion that were present at the rally. I mean, you know, you had Jewish rabbis and as you can imagine, I would have some differences of opinion with Jewish rabbis, and with Muslims and with Catholics. ...

:       Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Is that brand of Christianity as distant, or more so, from yours than the National Council of Churches mainline Protestantism you----

:       Probably more so.

:       More so.

:       And look, Glenn knows this. He said, "Look, I'm a Mormon. Most Christians don't think that I'm a Christian; and so, you know, I'll quote the pope, when he's talking about liberation theology." I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hodgson, now that you have adapted the sectional sub-title, I think that Land's remarks of a "4th Abrahamic faith" should be re-added. What was difficult is that editors wanted trimming per WP:Undue, but by trimming, some of the context and counter arguments were lost. I think now that you have broadened the scope that Land would fit nicely as a counterpoint to those Evangelicals that deny this "4th" status. I also think it would be nice if you added Land to the section and trimmed what you see fit. Of note as well, I wanted to publicly thank you for your WP:Collaboration and efforts to work together. Your behavior and effort exemplifies what makes Misplaced Pages great.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

8/27 mentioned after 8/28

Doesn't it seem weird that the 8/27 Kennedy Center event is mentioned after the 8/28 event? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I changed that.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Airphotolive.com

The content of AirPhotoLive.com is copyrighted by Digital Design + Imaging Service (DDIS). DDIS.com describes its "Crowd Counting Methology" The photos used are copyrighted by airphotolive.com, and the methodology example was the Tea Party Express of April, 15 2010. They were also involved in estimating the crowd size of the Obama inauguration of 2009. CNET Quoted DDIS describing it's methods for the inauguration as follows:

"'Crowd counting is an art,' said Curt Westergard, president of Digital Design and Imaging Service, which took photos of the event with 360-degree spherical panoramic cameras attached to balloons bobbing 500 feet above and a few blocks away from the White House. Fiber-optic cables tethered the balloons to a special launch trailer, which transmitted live shots to CNN.

'We're trying to contribute some of the oblique-angle photos of the scene that might see things under trees that satellite photos might miss (or) people standing in alcoves,' he said."

The citation disputing the company's expertise is unreliable.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

People have concerns about the credibility of the estimate and we need to report them. BS24 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Our obligation is to use reliable sources, not those that are too easily shown to be laughably uninformed. We don't treat seriously "concerns" that are empirically shown to be wrong. Look at the citations and quotes above and then have a look at how mistaken the blogger is:

It turns out CBS commissioned a crowd estimate from an outfit called AirPhotosLive.com. That's all fine and dandy except the company makes no claim on its website that it has any kind of expertise whatsoever in crowd counting.

In short we are being asked to include garbage if we let this weak citation stand. The blogger's baseless suspicion is on the same level as Moon landing conspiracy theories, which are deservedly not given any weight in the Apollo 11 article. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

This blogger made no mention of the list of services page at airphotolive.com and no citation supported this. I'm curious to know if this wasn't original research.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial estimate

The Park Service made no official or unofficial estimate, The cited tweet in fact said:

There won't be official #s. Parks Svc/police don't do that anymore. But official at top of memorial said 300-325K. There are a LOT of people

We have no idea who made the estimate.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also noted this with the source I provided above (see Crowd Size proposal short version). Millahnna (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)s

Who said they did make an estimate? The article says it's credited to a Parks Service official. I fixed the sidebar. BS24 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We have no idea who the official was or was from. We can no more say the official is from Parks Service (though it's not a dumb guess), or if he/she is from the Dept. of Silly Walks. We have nothing to go on and make such a deduction.69.224.150.70 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be also a "dump guess". For example, one of hundreds Parks Servical officials may have just said: "Hey, this will be a great event, I guess 300,000 or more will come!" - some reporter picks this up, voila! The truth is, nobody knows, since no further information is guessing. As for many other numbers, which are also not explained at all. In my opinion, the most professional way would be to include only scientific numbers from which we know where the numbers come from.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a mainstream source for this? I don't think using a synthesis of tweeter feeds is the best way to present this information. Akerans (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I added this one. BS24 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. I noticed he had a blog over there at MSNBC, and I was searching to see if he had posted anything there; with no luck. I think that works better than using twitter feeds. Akerans (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size section trimming

In place of reptitious detailing of crowd size estimates, I used a reliable summation of the estimates range. This greatly reduced the length of the section without loss of content, meaning or NPOV while using a reliable source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trimming is fine, wholesale removal is not. I disagree with leaving 3 mentions there, when almost every mainstream source had something to say on the matter. Akerans (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source to say "almost every mainstream source had something to say on the matter" without us interjecting our analysis, that would improve the article (I also will try to find such a source, but time doesn't allow at the moment). But citation overkill is far worse than the Calderone's useful summation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that was the point of including the ref from Yahoo News (since they mention the various figures coming from other outlets). So perhaps we just need to touch up the text surrounding that ref to include the figures themselves? It would still be considerably more concise that way than it is currently. That source doubles as a ref for the fact that the parks service no longer does crowd estimates, officially (in light of the one employee being quoted in numerous articles). Millahnna (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The table is still there, it gives most if not all of the estimates previously mentioned in the section, which was mostly just summing those numbers up anyway? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

The crowd size is summed up in the lead. If all we're going to do is restate the lead sentence in the body of the article, then what's the point of having the section? At that point, we should remove the section and leave the table. Otherwise, it's undue for CBS to be the only named source in the section. Akerans (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead's relevant line "The attendance of the rally is disputed; various media outlets have reported numbers ranging from 87,000 to 500,000 or more" is hardly adequate, as suggested. The lead is supposed to sum up the articles content, but not go into to detail or nuances of the estimates. That is the job of the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The CBS numbers are notable because they're the only ones made by professional crowd estimate experts. The other numbers are indeed given in the section, only more summarized than naming them all individually in one block of text, and still it's not difficult to look over to the table right next to it to see the estimates by the different news sources to see them all more specifically. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

"ost news organizations", "ome media outlets", and "thers went with" is not detailed, despite the suggestion. The quote is nothing more than a longer version of the lead sentence, as it doesn't detail which media outlet said what. Since the table provides detail, the quote is irrelevant. However, I believe the information should be presented in prose format. If people want a table in addition to the prose, then that's fine. But, I fail to see how a long summary in the body is any different from a short summary in the lead. Like you said, it should be detailed, but a long summary is not detailed. Akerans (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

87.208.166.234, all mainstream news sources are considered reliable. We don't judge the content of their articles and decide one source is more reliable than another. That's the point of weight. Weight says we give each source their due weight, and don't give a particular source, in this case CBS, undue weight. Akerans (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akerans, that edit violates WP:UNDUE. Consensus is to keep it the way it is. There are a bunch of sections where you keep pleading to only treat CBS's is credible that it makes me wonder of a conflict of interest. Every time consensus is against you and you keep doing it. BS24 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please - you know very well at no time was a "consensus against" 87.208.166.234, in contrary. And by the way, a "conflict of interest" is something different. For example, hypothetically, if you like Beck and want to support him, but you know from some other source that Beck reports wrong crowd numbers, then you have an conflict of interest between the truth and supporting Beck. But if you hypothetically work for for CBS knowing to report the correct numbers, then then there is no conflict of interest. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to argue, just report me or let it go okay? I don't work for CBS or airphotoslive.com or whatever. I'm just trying to make the section more accurate and shorter. At least two people agree with me on the CBS thing, so I don't know why me doing so is so very suspicious. And again, I'm not saying only CBS is credible, but they're the only ones with a professional estimate, which is certainly notable. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And, it's included in the article that CBS is using a professional estimate. Now, it's up to the reader to look at the details and decide which source is best for the information. However, editors don't get to make that choice. We don't get to remove all the other material and lean the readers in CBS' direction. That's one of the core policies we have to follow when writing articles; we can't pick and choose information, we have to show everything. And I'm not aruging with you. I'm simply trying to help you understand the policy we have to follow (and reminding others at the same time, I hope). Akerans (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you were arguing with me, I was responding to BS24 who keeps semi-accusing me of working for CBS/airphotoslive.com. Once again, I'm not in favor of removing all other material. What I am in favor of is trying to shorten the section, and since we're not doing that, adding the CBS response to the IMO silly "bloggers have questioned" line, because adding conservative blogs criticism and then not adding the CBS explanation as to why this concern is unfounded is not neutral, and not showing all information like you're saying we should. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound as if I was accusing you of accusing me of arguing. Rather, I was trying to make clear my intention of conveying policy, and not trying to start an argument. Sorry for the confusion. As far adding CBS' reply to the bloggers, I don't think that's necessary because I think the bloggers comment should be removed; because we're getting off topic. We're no longer talking about the rally, and instead talking about a dispute between CBS and bloggers. While that's somewhat related to the article, it's not directly related and should be removed. Akerans (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just see your comment now after having added the blogger comment again, sorry for that. I am also happy with removing it again, but since there is so a heated discussion, I think we all are on the safe side to include "everything". Said this, in my optioning, I would cut the section radically, but there seems to be no majority for that. But maybe a good way is to add everything now, and later, in some month, after everything has settled down a little bit, some experienced editor summarizes the section. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the AP estimate because we need to be consistent in avoiding indirect sources as we did with the NBC 500,000 estimate. BS24 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find any indications that AP is a indirect source. Have you a reference for your claim? Until then, the number has to be included. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit as it is right now does not include CBS responding to the bloggers who questioned the estimate, which they did in the new article linked some days ago. The bloggers questions seem unaddressed right now, which is misleading. Can someone please fix this already? Thanks! 87.208.166.234 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See AirPhotoLive.com above before restoring unsupported citation.69.224.150.70 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely ok with removing this blogger statement. But is it intentional that in your change you also removed the "refers to scientific methods based on aerial pictures"? I think it is important to note that they (claim to) use scientific methods, and this information is backed up by the reference http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html, which even claims to be "only scientific estimate made".82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is wasn't intentional. Therefore I added that part again and tried to find a better wording.82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the Crowd Section now.. It is very clear that the CBS estimate is given undue weight. There is a huge paragraph just on CBS, whilst other organisations get less than 1 sentence mentioned in the text. This needs to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To make your point, and be seen as a gainsayer, your obligated to explain how undue weight applies. (BTW. Have a look at this Wiki policy which sensibly reminds us "In the course of a disagreement on Misplaced Pages, participants may post links to policy and other pages in place of reasoned arguments. Such behavior is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of saying "talk to the hand". It is uncivil and inimical to the building of consensus. (This is in bold in hopes other given to this "talk to the hand" tactic catch it.) 69.224.150.70 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He did briefly explain the issue. There is one paragraph devoted to CBS, and one sentence for everyone else. To add to that, the information is no longer about "Restoring Honor crowd size". Rather, the paragraph is written as a "CBS vs whomever dispute". We're straying away from Restoring Honor, and should really stay on topic. I understand people feel the section is bloated. But, the wrong way of handling that is cutting directly related material and adding somewhat related material in its place. Directly related material should have precedence, and the somewhat related material (i.e. the dispute) should be removed to help reduce bloat. Not to mention, there seems to be a few self published sources added to help support the dispute material. So, if the dispute is going to be covered (and I don't think it should), it should not have precedence and we should be relying on much better sourcing. For example, one of the sources was a forum post (it may have been removed), and forum posts should never be used as sources. Akerans (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is "briefly." He gave no reasons why impressionistic speculations should be given equal weight to scientific methods. He wrongly said the paragraph relating to CBS only, as you do as well. (There are two scientific estimates here, the one of Shuler's that CBS used and Doig's). The source disputing AirPhotoLive has been misquoted, misrepresented as multiple, and shown to useless. Self published sources are acceptable per Wiki policy which states Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. As indicated above, I have a major beef with those who argue by shortcuts to policy that apparently they haven't read - add to that citations they haven't looked at either. 69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the material is "CBS only", I said the material is somewhat related. And, I did not say to exclude self published sources, I said they shouldn't have precedence over mainstream news sources and that we should be using better sourcing. The only source I said to exclude were forum posts, because user perhapsuwrupset is not an expert, and appears to have started the thread to discuss the numbers. I seriously hope you were not suggesting using that as a source. I'm disappointed in your selective reading of my comments, and the suggestion that I hadn't looked at the source I was saying to exclude. Akerans (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look closer at what you wrote: "There is one paragraph devoted to CBS" is contradicted more than somewhat by the toned down reinterpretation of the paragraph as "somewhat related." Also missed was that a third party reliable source was used to establish Doig's expertise, but more were just added to make it indisputable. What policy says "mainstream news sources" have precedence over other reliable sources, especially those of conjecture and opinion as opposed to scientific and impartial estimates which were very well reported by "mainstream news sources", e.g. CBS, LA Times, and On The Media? There are many sources for saying Beck partisans disputed the findings, but who among them is a reliable source who can actually critique the scientific findings on scientific grounds? Finally, since this wasn't clear, my quote of Wiki policy on self-published sources was directed at you, but the point about editors not reading citations was a more general complaint, and it was apparently misinterpreted. However, your sloppy and misleading retelling of your own statement obliges me to verify all you say before accepting it. Finally, since the article shows different viewpoints and estimates, what is in dispute? I really have no idea of what I am supposed to be arguing against, if anything.69.224.150.70 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I almost missed this, put aside how ever and why ever the position changed, "somewhat related" acknowledges that the weight argument is moot.69.224.150.70 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

You're putting too much emphasis on certain statements instead of understanding the paragraph as a whole. I've corrected your misinterpretation once, and noted how you drew the incorrect conclusion. Continuing to focus on certain statements is not helping. So, please stop. That said. Verifiability is the policy to which I'm referring. Doig is not an academic in crowd numbers. Doig is a journalist, and as a journalist he lacks oversight and fact checking. Whereas, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, NY Times, etc., have oversight and fact checking. Whether his method is scientific or not is irrelevant, because that's not what governs our policy. Our policy is based on oversight and fact checking, not Doig's scientific method. You need to stop putting emphasis on his method over our policy. Ergo, he's not more reliable than mainstream news sources and should not have precedence. Also, you're misunderstanding weight. Weight basically says that related material is due space, somewhat related is due little (or no) space and unrelated is due no space. Yet, you're saying we should devote more space to people commenting on CBS, rather than groups commenting on the rally? Or that Doig is due the most space because of his method and/or credentials? No, that's wrong. Again, please start focusing on policy, and less on Doig. Akerans (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Partisan link

• Interviews with Participants at Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally – by Chase Whiteside of New Left Media

Is it really necessary to add the partisan site(s), per undue weight? I was reverted with the argument that we should add "both sides". I would be for limiting the links as much as possible so as not to endorse either "side". Its too bad that Misplaced Pages continues to be a platform/battleground with sides. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Any link on or of the rally would in effect be "Beck's side". Thus, yes per WP:NPOV it is acceptable to include a link from a reliable critical source for balance. What you see as a “battleground”, others would contend is merely “balance”. People are not harmed by having access to multiple points of view, in fact that is the great beauty of Misplaced Pages.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

reliable critical source? Chase Whiteside? Again, political muckracking and POV pushing doesn't improve the article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of Whiteside, New Left Media or The Huffington Post - then you are free to go through those channels of having them barred from inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles. Moreover, I don't see any specific "muckracking" in ---> the video, in fact Whiteside doesn't really provide any commentary, he merely asks the questions and then lets the attendees speak. Now of course he uses selective editing (as any filmmaker or even journalist would) but I have yet to locate any sources that would call his credibility into question, do you have some? Do you have any referenced basis to deduce that he is WP:Fringe? Or just generally not like the answers given?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, just as it is perfectly acceptable to have the Facebook fan page and Youtube video channel for the rally in the external links (complete with positive advertising videos and messages), I don't see why it would be out of the question to have 1 notable interview from the event (with half a million views) conducted by someone not affiliated with the event. I noticed that these aforementioned and potentially "partisan" sites don't seem to bother you as much.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the minimum required by law :) which would be the "offical" one(s), and you are right, they bother me, but I guess not as much as the 1 notable interview?? --Threeafterthree (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, hilarious, your Daily Caller link essentially attempts to argue (with a straight face) that the attendees interviewed feel misled, because the film students accurately tell them they attend Wright State - but the answerers in their own mind get the wrong impression that they mean "Right State" (a non-existent entity) - which the answerers claim allows them to then feel comfortable enough to be honest with the interviewers. Notice how they don't accuse Whiteside of misrepresenting or fabricating their answers, or taking them out of context, merely that they regret having been so honest with someone who is not sympathetic to their ultimate conclusions. Comedic gold. What their argument essentially boils down to is "Hey that's unfair, when I told you how I really feel, I made the wrong impression of assuming that you feel the same way. I would only share that stuff with a fellow Right-Stater"! Brilliant, thanks for the chuckle (although I fear you might have meant that as a serious objection).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am still not convienced that a video montage by partisan student film makers warrants inclusion or is that notable. ps, glad I made you chuckle :)--Threeafterthree (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that more people have watched this "montage" (472,000 views) than attended the rally itself, thus at what point does something become "notable" in your view?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are more quality articles than this. 472,000 is relatively little when you consider youtube videos of people's cats gain millions of views. In general do you think this adds anything to the understanding of the rally? If you want "the other side" then get some black leaders or something, some guy no one's heard of on some media at least I have never heard of isn't representative of the majority of the arguments against the rally. Have you heard other news networks releasing articles on the stupidity of the rally goers? The lack of coverage by others makes me think this is not a major point of opposition, but one manufactured by a "journalist" using creative editing, finding the right people, asking questions to illicit certain responses, etc.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in my on here, it really seems that this article is digging deep at points to criticize the rally all in the name of "neutrality." You don't get a neutral article by displaying sources with a pro-rally bias and countering them with anti-rally biased sources. This article needs to report the facts and the general media response, which has largely been neutral with a slight positive leaning towards the overall themes of the really. Now, concerning this particular link, we don't know the process by which these attendees were selected to be interviewed. Given the assumed political intentions of the filmmakers, it is probably inaccurate to say that this is an effective portrayal of rally attendees. Such material like this does not belong on Misplaced Pages. For instance, there is no link to the audio clips from Howard Stern's radio show which shows the ignorance of a few Obama voters in Harlem on the 2008 Presidential Election page. Dflocks80 (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dflocks, the "positive" and "negative" portrayals are supposed to be roughly in proportion to how the event was covered in the media as a whole. You state that the "general media response ... has largely been neutral with a slight positive leaning". Now I'm not sure what media you are reading, but I would contend the opposite, that proportionally the coverage has been slightly negative to neutral. However, our own WP:OR on proportion isn't much use, and what would need to be located per Wp:Verify is what the reliable sources report on the proportion of coverage. As for Howard Stern and Obama, that would be under WP:Otherstuffexists and irrelevant to our discussion here. Lastly, per this link specifically, I'm not sure if this is an effective representation or not, and even if I was, it would be WP:OR for me to make that judgment. What would be helpful is if some reliable sources can be located to either challenge the narrative of the video, or offer up additional interviews that could be contrasted with these. I have yet to really see any other interviews of attendees on either side of the political spectrum. Did Fox News or any conservative websites carry out their own attendee interviews that maybe we could contrast with?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What would be helpful is if some reliable sources can be located to either challenge the narrative of the video...Thats is the entire point, there aren't any because the video makers are non notable, so very few if any RS will comment or take note. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Given Redthoureau addition of image links to denigrate both the attendees (hufpo's "Most rediculous") and Beck ("The Best Anti-Beck Images), I find it hard to believe that he is working to improve the project. It would appear his only goal is to try and make the article as negative as possible. I removed the Anti-Beck images link since it was a huge BLP violaiton, and I don't see how this link is any different. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, maybe you should read WP:AGF and learn all the facts about a situation before openly making accusations on an articles talk page. In addition to the 2 links you list above, I also added the FAQ link, Facebook fan page, Youtube video channel of positive clips, moving Flickr slideshow, NPR slideshow, and WashPost slideshow. I even used the TP here to request a video of Sarah Palin's speech. Thus I added 3 overtly positive links, 3 neutral slideshows, and yes the 2 critical links. Under your rationale, one could just as easily say that I am promoting the event with "Pro-Beck propaganda" by putting in the non-critical fan pages, youtube video commercials etc. I believe that I was establishing balance per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV with all of these additions, which I felt added to the article. Please do not impugn my rationale again when you obviously only have part of the picture.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for questioning your motives, but the addition of a clear BLP violation didn't sit well, especially considering the general tenor by some to turn this article into an attack on Beck. Arzel (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed - As for this particular "link", I have not re-added it and will not. If another user feels it could be valuable to the project then feel free to add it back in, and I will reiterate my above rationale for why it should be kept. In the grand scheme, I don't feel like edit warring over the matter.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards wikitable

Misplaced Pages awards sections are seemingly always in list form. Cf. 83rd Academy Awards, List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates#Laureates, 2010 Pulitzer Prize, AVN_Award#Winners_2010_-....

Anything worth mining...?

...From out of Pulitzer-prize winning indie-historian (of the civil-rights movement and other stuff) Taylor Branch's NYT op-ed?

He offered his audience no further clues to a mysterious transformation, but my...search of his program archives turned up amid diatribes on Dr. King as a dangerous socialist...a novel encounter with Dr. King’s niece, Alveda. ... In their interview, Mr. Beck focused instead on a souvenir from the civil rights movement that Alveda King brought with her. The 10-point “pledge of nonviolence,” a copy of the form signed by demonstrators preparing to face persecution and jail, seemed to strike him with the force of revelation. “These people were serious about nonviolence,” Mr. Beck told his cable audience.

He posted the commandments on his Web site, then analyzed them over several broadcasts on the Fox network last April: “No. 3 is ‘walk and talk in the manner of love.’ This one’s going to be hard.” Sacrifice personal wishes, he recited, that all may be free. Observe with friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation, not victory.

Mr. Beck extolled disciplined sacrifice by marginal, misunderstood people, noting that most newspapers had branded Dr. King a troublemaker stirring up violence. He added his own saucy twist to the final pledge: As you prepare to march, meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus. “If it’s Buddha, it’s Buddha. If it’s Moses, it’s Moses. But meditate,” Mr. Beck exhorted his viewers. “Jesus, he’s my guy. Your guy might be different.”

...Mr. Beck obtained a simpler, tamer version from Alveda King last spring, when she recalled her childhood counsel from “Uncle Martin” that nonviolence boiled down to St. Paul’s three abiding guides in the Bible: faith, hope and charity. Mr. Beck told viewers back then that he walked dazed from the studio, gripped by a new theme. “I love this woman!” he announced on April 21. His crisis was ending. “I see the landing strip after last night,” he declared. He would apply organizing techniques from the civil rights movement. On the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, he would bestow citizenship medals for faith, hope and charity.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a link to the archived broadcasts of Beck's prior "diatribes on Dr. King as a dangerous socialist". Obviously he's changed his view since then, but the fact that he once disliked Dr. King is interesting. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting quote, this time from Martin Luther King III, on the day of the commemorative rally(/-ies), to AlJazeera correspondent Monica Villamizar:

I pushed my way to the riser to ask Martin Luther King's son, Martin Luther King III, his opinion on all these issues. He said, "One can not highjack a message, and actually Glenn Beck paid an incredible tribute my dad…My father was concerned about poverty… Things have improved dramatically in America, we have a African American president but that doesn't mean that racism is gone … We still have work to do around race and economic issues."

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and "undue weigh" tag in crowd section

These tags are not justified.
(1) First, it is quite obvious that user User talk:BS24, who added these tags, is not so much interested into facts, but seems to me more interested into removing or diminishing everything which reports small crowd size, for example by misrepresenting sources as attributing "this estimate of 215,000" to this source, by defaming, by just removing information he/she does not like as "irrelevant" as recently in this change, or various other cases. It is not acceptable to just add a Neutrality or "undue weigh" tag because you don't like the information presented. (Some note: On this rally, Beck noted the importance of God and how important it is to seek for the truth - shouldn't this also the main motivation for contributing to Misplaced Pages? Why is there this strong motivation by Beck followers to remove or mispresent factual information they don't like?)
(2) Secondly, nobody disputes that the section reports only facts - all information is directly backed by the sources. No number is stated as truth, but stated as information from these various sources. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Therefore where is the problem with neutrality?
(3) The "undue weight" claim also makes no sense. Yes, the CBS analysis takes much more room, but not only in this Misplaced Pages entry, but also in the original press reports: All other media just reported some numbers in passing, whereas CBS published a lot of detailed information about their technique. Therefore, if all these just-in-passing numbers would get the same weight as the CBS analysis, THIS would be "undue weight". "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."
Therefore, these tags have no justification and should be removed. If there is really someone who think these tags are justified, then he/she should present arguments here at talk (but not just saying how it "must" be without giving a reason, or referring to "I disagree" without giving a reason - this is not enough). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I think the best approach would be to summarize the section significantly and basically only report scientific numbers (as the CBS number, which as far as I know no other credible source has disputed after they published their method in detail), and just mention in passing that the press has also reported various other numbers. But since there is so much fight for each single number noted in the press (maybe given by divine inspiration, which as we all know trumps science ;) ), so it seems to be the only way to present all this "information"... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't think these tags are justified because your personal opinion dictates that CBS's estimate is the only one to be taken seriously. Not everybody trusts some company who had one analyst look at a "sample" and decide it was 87,000, not 82,314 or 102,689. There is a big paragraph about their estimate and a couple of sentences about everyone else's (which are full of grammatical errors, by the way). Please do not continue to remove tags without discussion; this page is not written based on your opinion. You say I don't like the facts, when all I'm trying to do is report the fact that most media outlets disagreed with CBS. BS24 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First, please stop defaming, I never removed any tags in this article. Secondly, the question is not who trusts which numbers, see my explanations (1), (2) and (3). Next, if you claim that "most media outlets disagree with CBS", please present a reference for that (my impression of all the press reports is that the detailed explanation of CBS basically finished the whole discussion and no reliable source disagreed with it). And last but not least: If you see grammatical errors, I invite you to fix them!82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In hopes of restoring civility, I'll refrain from guessing the motives of the editor, but will keep criticisms restricted arguments and axioms, which in this case are unbelievably shoddy. If BS24 had read the paragraph he would not have said "had one analyst look at a "sample" and decide it was 87,000, not 82,314 or 102,689." In fact three experts looked at it, per the citations and the two estimates made public are in the paragraph, one which is not from CBS. BS24 seems very ignorant on what an estimate is, and thinks an estimate could be "82,314" (which actually was in the range of Schuler's estimate), or "102,689". (Doig joked that he would changed his estimate to 80,100 after someone said he missed 100 people in Porta Potties.) That BS24 has a problem with a "sample" (samples, in fact) being used indicates a larger issue with the validity statistics−something way beyond the scope of this article. Also "most media outlets disagreed with CBS" is verbal trickery. You'll need to cite them objecting, and not saying they manifestly "disagreed" by posting estimate without explaining how they arrived at. The article simply presents scientific estimates as scientific estimates and unscientific estimates and reporting as exactly that. BS24 seems to object to scientific estimates crowd size estimates in general and, apparently they all shouldn't get their due weight. The editor's gross ignorance of statistical procedures and protocols demonstrates how unqualified this editor is to cast aspersions on other editor's motives and the editor has been well advised to discuss adding tags first.] (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

Ok, is there anywone who wants to keep these tags anyway? If you do, then please explain why. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, after calling out an editor for false arguments, going through the tedium of to disposing of their weak unsupported arguments, they recede.69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

82.135.29.209, the tags are valid because editors are adding weight to CBS, to make their claim seem more creditable. CBS was not the only source who's numbers were questioned, yet they are the only source where editors are adding statements to validate their claim. That's a problem. Akerans (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source questioned CBS's estimate, let alone gave a good statistical argument for invalidating them CBS's numbers as being unsound? I haven't found one yet.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

American Thinker. Please don't pretend you didn't know :::::: Not only am I aware of it, I have debunked it on this page. See Airphotolive.com section above. Now could you provide a reliable sources?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The NYT was not a source, but a repeater of a source we already list, there is no purpose in being redundant. Weight isn't added to CBS, it has weight. Also unexplained assertions are simply unsupported opinions and not a basis for decided which sources have weight or not. Please stop removing cited material: the On The Media report is a reliable source for comparing scientific to unscientific materials and removal of them as a source is disruptive.22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs)

CBS' number doesn't have weight, methodology has weight. And, adding source material about methodology is a coatrack method of hiding the fact that CBS' number has no more weight or reliability than any other number. Akerans (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Point of policy: Coatrack applies to articles only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying so doesn't make it so, and your opinions are all we have to go on. Your citations please so we can see if there is anything at all to your arguments besides the apparent crude intuition that Joe Scarborough can come up with just as good a number as crowd sizing experts.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Debate tag

The sentence "Media outlets not revealing their procedures or protocols arrived at more varied estimates" makes this seem like a debate. Other editors have noted this. Do not remove tags without discussion. BS24 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no other editors (and I checked) have "noted" that the line "makes this seem like a debate." And no one has disputed that the other outlets were unscientific. A characteristic difference been perverted into a debate by one editor only. The result of false statements is a loss of credibility, especially if the editor will not admit the error, and others rightly can question everything that editor says as possibly opportunistic and unreliable.69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is silly: This sentence is just a fact.82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than silly, it is a manifest "debate" that exists nowhere but in the editor's assertion (which is not explained at all-presumably simply objecting is good enough) without citation. In other words, it's nothing more than opinion supported by unnamed others.69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, is there anyone else besides BS24 who thinks that this sentence is a debate? If yes, then please explain why. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's debate because sources and statements (such as the statement above) are being cherry picked to argue CBS' number above everyone else. An interview with Doig does not make ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, NY Times, etc., less reliable and his interview is being used to argue just that. Akerans (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an imagined elevation of CBS's scientific estimation being elevated by editors, when in fact, the estimates scientific and unscientific were presented as such without comment and with proper citation. Explicitly trying to present them as equal requires to establish why estimates mysteriously arrived at - the unscientific ones - are on the same level as scientific estimates presented by impartial and disinterested experts. Also a line very much in dispute was removed before discussion was allowed to run its course.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If sources don't explain how they arrive at information, then there's nothing we can do about that. Besides, that's not how we determine the value of a source. And, we shouldn't string sources together to make one source seem better than the next. Akerans (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is something we can do: we can use citations that establish who used what methods, and who reported no use of methods. In other words, there is an excellent source for evaluation CBS clear methods versus Joe Scarborough's inexplicable calculation, if there was any. Nonetheless, it is proper to list guesstimates, as long as they are presented as such by a reliable source. If you had checked the citation, you would know this.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact you've changed the section from "Crowd size" to "Crowd size methodology". But, that doesn't change the fact CBS' number is no more reliable than Joe Scarborough's, and your pile of coats is designed to confuse the reader into thinking so. Akerans (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm does no good. This has been asked many times. Do you have a a reliable source saying equal weight to guesses over transparent (pardon the redundancy) scientific methods? I haven't seen one yet, and I have loooked. Your argument seems to rest on this entirely, and you have yet to produc reliable sources for it. Why not?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reported NBC 300,000 count

It comes from a misquoted and misrepresented tweet of NBC reporter: it is a reported estimate from an "offical." Steve Doig is pretty direct about the NBC number related by the NYT: "They quoted NBC, which is really the chicken way out. NBC is not a source. And usually there is a way to at least produce a number that can be sort of grounded, at least, in reality, and that’s really what the science of statistics is for. Anyone want to argue for it still getting equal weight in its messed up form?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like actually checking a citation before going out on a weak limb. If we would all do this, this talk page could be a lot smaller.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The WP:STEVEDOIG policy you keep relying on doesn't exist. The Doig comment should not be taken seriously. Akerans (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just asking

What is the shame of Beck drawing 87,000?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this add to the article?

"Political satirists such as Comedy Central's Jon Stewart dubbed the rally "Beckapalooza" and "I Have A Scheme", while Stephen Colbert facetiously announced that he was ready to follow Beck in his "silver freedom spaceship that runs on human tears.""

This adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. I understand including satire/comedy in articles about events where they have a long term and lasting effect in relation to the event (such as people erroneously thinking to this day that Sarah Palin said that " could see Russia from her back porch" due to Tina Fey's SNL skit), but these lines were most likely not heard by anyone outside of Colbert's and Stewart's normal fan base. These statements will have no long lasting or residual effects on the American perspective of the rally. I thought there was a Colbert/Stewart discussion thread on here, but it appears to be gone (if I've overlooked it, please direct me to where it is). I know that deleting Colbert/Stewart references invariably brings up conflict, so I thought I'd post here before acting. Can anyone defend the validity of the sentence above? Dflocks80 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Several things. (1) The previous mention is now in the TP archives, use the search box up top. (2) The question "what does this add to the article?" could probably be asked of nearly every line in the article. I don't believe that their specific lines have as much relevance as the fact that they critiqued the event repeatedly. These particular lines were just pulled from entire 10 minute segments on the matter, as more in-depth detail of their critiques would violate WP:Undue. (3) Is it your contention that their criticism itself isn't notable, or these specific lines? Stewart is obviously making a pun with "I have a dream" and Colbert was making an allusion to Beck being similar to the leader of the Heavens Gate death cult. (4) What do you mean by "defend the validity"? I can defend that in fact they did say it as the ref points out. Are you asking for a defense of the "value" to the article? That is obviously debatable, although I would contend that it is notable enough for brief inclusion. However, I am open to arguments against it.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "though" to join NPR and CBS sentences

Hi Mr. Anon. I see your concern for encouraging readability by adding the word "though" and joining the two sentences together regarding NPR and CBS, and I appreciate your good faith editing. However, using "though" and connecting them implies that there is a connection between the two sourced statements, when they actually came from separate sources. Doesn't it seem like original research to imply that connection, as if one is commenting on the other? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Glenn Beck Rally Attracts Estimated 87,000 by CBS News
2. Wildly conflicting reports filed about Beck rally crowd size
3. Message Board ABC News
4. Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally Crowd Estimate Explained
5. NBC Nightly News -- "Love of country, God reigns at Beck's rally
6. Domenico Montanaro Twitter account
7. Chuck Todd Twitter account
8. Glenn Beck Rally Draws Questions About Crowd Size
9. Dueling D.C. rallies mark King speech anniversary by MSNBC
10. Glenn Beck rally sparks debate over crowd size
11. Glenn Beck Appeals to 'Restore' the U.S., Al Sharpton Commemorates Martin Luther King by ABC News
12. At Lincoln Memorial, a Call for Religious Rebirth
13. Turnout Strong as Beck Rallies Americans to Restore 'Honor' to the Nation by Fox News
14. Beck and call by New York Post
15. Gardner, Amy (August 28, 2010). "Live Coverage: Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally". Washington Post.
16. ^ Wong, Scott (August 28, 2010). "Glenn Beck rally drew a crowd. But how big?". POLITICO. Retrieved August 28, 2010.
17. "Glenn Beck rally attendance: calculating how many really showed up". Christian Science Monitor.
18. CSPAN video, remark at 1:15
19. ^ Cite error: The named reference revival was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
20. Glenn Beck’s Rallying Cry To America: “One Man Can Change The World”
21. Photos published by GlennBeck.com
22. Fox News Sunday 8/29, statement at 4:20
23. Sarah Palin: 'We like what we're doing' (Politico)
24. Wildly conflicting reports filed about Beck rally crowd size
25. Message Board ABC News
26. Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally Crowd Estimate Explained
27. "Glenn Beck rally attendance: calculating how many really showed up". Christian Science Monitor.
28. NBC Nightly News -- "Love of country, God reigns at Beck's rally
29. Domenico Montanaro Twitter account
30. Chuck Todd Twitter account
31. Glenn Beck Rally Draws Questions About Crowd Size
32. Dueling D.C. rallies mark King speech anniversary by MSNBC
33. Glenn Beck rally sparks debate over crowd size
34. Glenn Beck Appeals to 'Restore' the U.S., Al Sharpton Commemorates Martin Luther King by ABC News
35. At Lincoln Memorial, a Call for Religious Rebirth
36. Turnout Strong as Beck Rallies Americans to Restore 'Honor' to the Nation by Fox News
37. Beck and call by New York Post
38. Gardner, Amy (August 28, 2010). "Live Coverage: Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally". Washington Post.
39. CSPAN video, remark at 1:15
40. Glenn Beck’s Rallying Cry To America: “One Man Can Change The World”
41. Photos published by GlennBeck.com
42. Fox News Sunday 8/29, statement at 4:20
43. Sarah Palin: 'We like what we're doing' (Politico)
44. Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally Crowd Estimate Explained
45. Message Board ABC News
46. Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally Crowd Estimate Explained
47. Remarkably blatant media bias in Beck crowd counting
48. Message Board ABC News
49. Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" Rally Crowd Estimate Explained
50. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html
51. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html
52. NBC Nightly News -- "Love of country, God reigns at Beck's rally
53. Domenico Montanaro Twitter account
54. Chuck Todd Twitter account
55. Glenn Beck Rally Draws Questions About Crowd Size
56. Dueling D.C. rallies mark King speech anniversary by MSNBC
57. Glenn Beck rally sparks debate over crowd size
58. Glenn Beck Appeals to 'Restore' the U.S., Al Sharpton Commemorates Martin Luther King by ABC News
59. Glenn Beck's Happy Warriors
60. At Lincoln Memorial, a Call for Religious Rebirth
61. Turnout Strong as Beck Rallies Americans to Restore 'Honor' to the Nation by Fox News
62. Beck and call by New York Post
63. Gardner, Amy (August 28, 2010). "Live Coverage: Beck's 'Restoring Honor' Rally". Washington Post.
64. Beck rally calls for conservative values
65. Examiner Editorial: GOP needs to offer a plan for governing
66. CSPAN video, remark at 1:15
67. Fox News Sunday 8/29, statement at 4:20
68. Metro ridership spiked on day of Glenn Beck rally
69. http://ddis.smugmug.com/Clients-zone/TeaPartyExpress/13572196_MGyAB#989700783_yquD3
70. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10146632-76.html
71. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/remarkably_blatant_media_bias.html
72. http://twitter.com/DomenicoNBC/status/22364380399
73. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/09/03/04

• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed District of Columbia articles
• Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics