Talk:2010 Catalan autonomy protest

Number of people
I find it very strange that the number of protesters estimated by different sources differs so much. The number of 62,000 people estimated by Lynce is far smaller than that by the other sources. Can anybody enlighten me with his/her opinion? Ben T/C 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lynce has a certain history of providing surprisingly low figures for demonstrations: take this anti-abortion protest in March, where the organizers claim 600,000 while Lynce says 9,726. My opinion is that Lynce's method simply doesn't work, although other explanations have been offered in the Spanish press: namely, that Lynce took their photos at 20:30 (at the end of the demo), that they only took photos of one of the streets (Passeig de Gràcia) and that the streets have lots of trees which makes photographic counting rather difficult. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion all three sources should provide photographs for different points in time showing all the areas where people were gathering. The route of the demonstration was rather chaotic and it was impossible (I was there) to follow as it was planned, so (again, as I saw it) lots of people were walking by adjacent streets and blocked in between. I can't make an estimation of my own, but I agree that Lynce failed to capture a good estimate, and I have two reasons: the pictures they show on their website are from a really small area, and the timing was plainly a failure. They claim that their measurement policies state that the count is to be done at the end of the event, but at least in this case alone could cause the gross deviation you read. I don't agree with that method in any case. The people that gathered there did so by their believes, and it does not matter if they chose to show at the beginning, at the end or in the middle of the event. They decided to go gather there and that's the actual data that should be considered. From my point of view, the final figure should be the maximum count at any point in time between the actual demonstration, even if it begins earlier or it extends beyond the planned schedule. And even that would fail to count unique protesters as the demonstration site is not a closed system. But perhaps there's something else than method in Lynce's figure. I would also add that a company that specializes in counting people should have a better criteria, and probably should feel the obligation to take plenty of aerial pictures, perhaps even videos, from all the demonstration site, quite a bit of the surroundings, and from different points in time, and prepare all sorts of materials as proof to be held when anyone casts any doubt on the reports they issue. In lack of any other proof, I would tend to believe the local police, which is not a bunch of friends from a lost town up the hills but from a quite prominent European city. I think it's Lynce's responsibility towards the public opinion to hold their claims. Perhaps they are doing enough towards their employers, but they seem to claim publicly their figures and that requires a bit more rigor. For the love of Pi! (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am challenging here the inclusion, or at least the order in which they are listed, of the count done by Lynce, a private company. I understand that the counting made by the newspaper has a clear motive (and probably a reputation to back it) but it seems that Lynce does this as a way to self-promotion and the accuracy and thus the relevancy of their results would probably require a clear statement and a bit of transparency. I'm not claiming they are wrong, but I believe the extra rigor is due here. In special given that their figures are so far from the other sources, and even given the discrepancy between that other sources. In favor of Lynce I must (subjectively) say that Physchim62's opinion "Lynce has a certain history of providing surprisingly low figures for demonstrations", if consistent, might be a sign of the lack of rigor of other sources, and perhaps Lynce excels at people counting, but, again, that requires a bit of elaboration and not the few random pictures and comments I've seen on their website in this case. Then there is the decision to count in the final moments of the planned schedule for the event, which, if a common criteria, should be verified with the results from the other parties. I apologize if this is a common criteria in journalism, but I would be surprised and in no way agree to it as a good practice :) Cheers! For the love of Pi! (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many photos
There are far too many photographs on this small page. I suggest limiting to one or two pictures. Wikipedia is not an image repository, and unless there are good reasons to use all these photographs, some of them should be removed.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)