Talk:End Domestic Terrorism rally/Archive 1

Breaks every rule in the book
Why is this article in Wikipedia? It is advertising an event that has not even happened and although it cites sources for "background" there are no citations for the text. It is also a statement of the authors, and not a summary of previous work on this issue. Although it may be for a worthy cause or otherwise, that does not make it acceptable. Moderators, please take it down! -- Hedley 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)
 * No citations? I've added 32 thus far. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you cite specific policies or guidelines that support why this article should be deleted? It certainly doesn't break "every rule in the book". Also, please sign your comments using four tildes so that your user and talk pages will be linked. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This event is clearly notable, and this comment seems a bit spammy. I propose simply archiving this section. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

1,000 officers
Re: this edit, while I see where you are coming from, will you take a look at several sources for replacing as an inline citation?
 * https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-13/portland-far-right-rally: "None of the city's nearly 1,000 police officers will have the day off"
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/17/portland-protests-police-far-right-antifa-starbucks-closed/2038697001/: "None of the nearly 1,000 police officers were given the day off"
 * https://www.insider.com/portland-protests-arrests-far-right-antifa-face-off-2019-8: "Portland Police said all of the city's 1,000 officers would be on duty"
 * https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-08-17/portland-oregon-awaits-right-wing-rally-counter-protests: "Portland Police said all of the city's 1,000 officers would be on duty"

etc, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that they were all on duty doesn't mean they were all involved with the rally. In fact I'm positive they weren't. Doug Weller  talk 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I'm just wondering if the 1,000-officer claim should be kept in some way since multiple sources mentioned. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article has the same problem as the Hill citation I removed, i.e. that it was published before the event so shouldn't ordinarily be used to support any claims about the event itself. The Insider and U.S. News links above are reproductions of the same AP report, so there'd be no point in citing both. But we could cite either along with the USA Today article to say something like – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Perfect, thanks! Care to update the page accordingly? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh damn, another ping I missed. where does "at the event" come from? Surely in a city as big as Portland (I've been there, by the way, great street food all over) they'd have need for police for non-event related purposes.  Doug Weller  talk 15:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll remove "at the event". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. Doug Weller  talk 15:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The AP article says "Portland Police said all of the city's 1,000 officers would be on duty for the gathering", which I took to mean "at the gathering," but I agree it's ambiguous and certainly unlikely that every single officer was at the event. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Glad we're all in agreement. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Predictions for attendance
The article until recently contained the sentence: "The Oregonian and the Portland Tribune speculated crowd estimates could be as high as 1,000 demonstrators."

This is clearly a misrepresentation of the first source, which in fact says "An organizer said he expects up to 1,000 people show up for the event". The Oregonian did not engage in the "speculation" we're attributing to it. That we shouldn't misrepresent sources in this way is, frankly, very basic and obvious stuff. There is the additional issue that whereas the organiser quoted by Oregonian is talking about the End Domestic Terrorism rally, the Portland Tribune offers the same figure in reference to "clashing demonstrators", i.e. the End Domestic Terrorism people and their opponents. Which are we supposed to be talking about here, the main rally or the combined figure? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , You're right, The Oregonian did not speculate, they reported what the organizer said. My apologies. I misread, was working too quickly, or used the wrong citation. I do think adding mention of the anticipated # of people is helpful for the Planning section, but I'll let you and other editors decide the best language to implement. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, my grouchy comments above weren't aimed at you. (Thanks, by the way, for your care in adding archiveurls to the article's references – always handy for avoiding dead links but also, I find, increasingly for evading sites that insist I turn off AdBlock and for sites that block access to EU-based readers for GDPR reasons.) My first preference would be to remove the sentence altogether, as I don't think predictions made in advance of the event are especially useful or insightful. Readers presumably want to know what happened, rather than what people thought might happen (with the exception of occasions when a prediction is so far off the mark as to be commented on after the fact). My second preference would be to include the two predictions, making their separate sources and claims clear. This would involve saying something like: "An End Domestic Terrorism organizer said on August 15 that he expected a turnout of up to 1,000 people. On the same day Zane Sparling of the Portland Tribune wrote that "[a]s many as 1,000 clashing demonstrators" were expected."


 * I'd welcome others' thoughts. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , Your wording works for me. Without any numbers re: possible attendance, readers may wonder why as many as 1,000 police officers were on call. I think this context helps for the Planning section. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, what the expected turnout was is an important fact to include, especially considering the actual turnout, so I reject A&H's first choice. Their second choice is finie with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for confirming. Do you mind adding this back into the article as proposed? Thank you! --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We might wait another day or two to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. If anyone thinks adding it is a matter of absolute urgency, however, then they should feel free to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Section removed from article
An editor is edit warring to remove this section from the article, making at first the claim "i can't see much value to including these predictions when we can discuss what actually happened, especially as the sources disagree (one says an organiser expected 1,000 to turn up to the actual rally, the other says 1,000 are expected for both rallies combined" and then changing their reason for removal to "at present this is ambiguous (combined crowds or just one side?) and a misrepresentation of the sources (the oregonian itself doesn't make the claim attributed to it) -- if you think some information about predicted attendance is necessary then that's reasonable, but it'll have to be rewritten", and then claiming that it was "misrepresenting sources".

"The Oregonian and the Portland Tribune speculated crowd estimates could be as high as 1,000 demonstrators."

Comments are requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , My goal was to communicate (from a logistics standpoint) the size of crowd officials and law enforcement were planning to handle. If we can include numbers for rally supporters, counter demonstrators, or a combination of the two, then great. The point is folks were planning for as many as 1,000 people, not 5, 50, or 100. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, it's another editor who keeps removing the statement. I think your point is a very valid one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thoughts? I agree the text was problematic before, but do you see value in noting the size of the planned crowd? Can you think of better language? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replied above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: I did not see the above section when I started this one. Now that I have, I have reduced it to a subsection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was about to do the same. :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Facebook event page
I've removed the Facebook event page from the External links section because I can no longer access the URL. Perhaps Facebook removed the event? Not sure if this impacts the fair use image, which had the URL as the source... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"30-minute event"?
Currently the intro describes the rally as a "30-minute event". But, folks starting gathering at 9:00am and sources say the crowds dissipated around 2:30pm. Given the groups' movement around the city, I'm not sure "30 minutes" is an accurate description. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK with me removing "30-minute"? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)