Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 2

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 • talkblp-r 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Citation_overkill and Wikipedia: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). Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia moderator ends this children's theatre. I'm not an Wikipedia 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) — 82.135.29.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.[61] 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.[59] 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) — 87.208.166.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editor. My stock is really very simple: I think Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia... 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 Wikipedia, 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)

Again, if anyone agrees with me that this event is notable enough to be posted on the page of August 28, please post your opinion on the page.Albert109 (talk) 06:39, 19 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".   Red thoreau  -- (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.   Red thoreau  -- (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
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[ed] 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) — 93.244.168.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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)

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 Wikipedia 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&#39;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&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 02:21, 5 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.   Red thoreau  -- (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)

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.   Red thoreau  -- (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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.   Red thoreau  -- (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 Wikipedia 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?   Red thoreau  -- (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.   Red thoreau  -- (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).   Red thoreau  -- (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?   Red thoreau  -- (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 |post 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 Wikipedia. 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?   Red thoreau  -- (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.   Red thoreau  -- (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)

- 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. Red thoreau -- (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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&#39;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&#39;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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[Special:Contributions/69.224.150.70|69.224.150.70]] (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 about this source, since you fought tooth and nail to remove or balance it with opposing sources, until BS24 finally decided to remove it. And, please cite the policy that says we weigh sources based on their "good statistical argument". Akerans (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy now; let's try to presume good faith. There's no need for me to pretend, I debunked that unreliable source on this page. See the Airphotolive.com section above. Now could you provide a reliable sources?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a reliable source.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:09, 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: Coatracking applies to articles only.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:47, 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)
 * Akerans, do you really deny the difference between the CBS numbers (explaining in detail their scientific methods) and all the other numbers (just mentioned in passing without any explanation at all)??? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to summarize it: The only one who defended the tags seemed to be Akerans, saying that the section adds "weight to CBS". However, later Akerans agrees that "methodology has weight" (which is basically what I said in (3)). Since then the article was changed to focus on methods instead of pure number. So I think everything should be fine. Disagreement? If yes, please support your point of view by arguments. And please make a proposal of what should be added so that you are happy with deleting the tags (because just saying "no" is not sufficient). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed anything except the way I'm presenting information. I have been, and am still talking about two different subjects. One subject refers to "reporting numbers"; where there is equal weight among sources. The other subject deals with "how those numbers are determined"; where there is different weight among sources. Both subjects are related to the article. But, "reporting numbers" is directly related, while "how those numbers are determined" is somewhat related. Since both subjects are related to the article, they can be included. However, since reporting numbers is more related, I feel it is due more weight than how those numbers are determined. As far as methodology, that's actually great stuff for another article. Fact, the methodology is extending behind this article, and going into detail about other rallies. Other rallies have no place in this article, so that kind of detail is better present in another article. So, the fact we're talking about other rallies, the fact we're no longer talking about this rally, do you see how the material is undue? Akerans (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should there be equal weight given to unequal sources? For one thing, there's not much to say about the unscientific estamates, and there's not many of them from major media outlets. The New York Post just says 300,000, and they didn't source it at all. (It's probably the bogus NBC 300,000 number being repeated without attribution.) The same goes for the Washington Post and the other vague estimates. I do think too much is made of detailing the scientific methods, and it could be reduced, but the citations do a good job of showing them to be better numbers (and no reliable sources challenging them have yet been produced, though they have been alluded to). Mentioning other rallies establishes context for how contentious crowd estimates, and how much partisan prisms determine who accepts or rejects the better estimates. This is extremely relevant.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to decide which is the most valid source and over state it. We must mention all sources and give them equal weight. Failure to do so does draw into question the neutrality of the section as it is a clear case of giving undue weight to the CBS estimate. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We give equal weight to unequal sources to maintain a neutral point of view. If we favor scientific sources, then we're not being neutral. Akerans (talk) 08:55, 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)
 * Are you debating yourself Mr. Anon? IP82, IP69, and "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" all seem to be the same person.  Arzel (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I usually agree with myself, what are you referring to besides different ID's I have used? BTW, since this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, could you offline it to my talk page at "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous"69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon
 * Because you are editing in a disruptive manner by giving the impression that you are two different people. The use of multiple IP's in order to strengthen your position is not a smart course of action to take.  I suggest you log in as your user name and stop trying to hide edits behind multiple IP's and/or ID's.  Arzel (talk) 17:39, 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)

I also try to summarize here: The only one who argued for the tag also was Akerans, because he says sources and statements are "cherry picked", implying that there are other reliable sources which are not mentioned. Akerans, do you have such other sources? In this case of course it makes sense to add them, and delete the tag. If there are no such other sources, then obviously there was no cherry picking, and the tag should be removed. Any disagreement? If yes, please give your arguments. And please make a proposal of what should be added so that you are happy with deleting the tag (because just saying "no" is not sufficient).82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reported NBC 300,000 count debunked
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)
 * If you had checked the citation, you would know there is no verifiability for the 300,000 number as an estimate of NBC's.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:23, 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",[29] while Stephen Colbert facetiously announced that he was ready to follow Beck in his "silver freedom spaceship that runs on human tears."[30]""

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 "[she] 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.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll try to elaborate a little bit better. First off, thank you for directing me to the archive (I haven't done much Wikipedia editing since 2006/2007, so I am a bit rusty with some things). Anyway, I think that asking "what does this add to the article?" for any line is a good policy, as it keeps Wikipedia concise and informative. I understand that Colbert and Stewart gave the rally more of a mention than their corresponding lines above. Also, I realize the prominence that Colbert and Stewart hold in our political culture today (regardless of whether or not you value them as a credible news/analyst source). I guess what I don't see is the merit in including these actual quotes in the article. I don't see why a line such as "The rally became a popular joke subject for political satirists such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert" (with the corresponding footnotes still following their names), couldn't be used instead. A line such as this one cleans up the article, helps to remove the controversy associated with WP:Undue and allows the reader to visit the sources so they can still read the humor if they wish. Dflocks80 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dflocks, that sounds reasonable.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:29, 9 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)
 * Thanks. If we can't connect the NPR line to the CBS study, the NPR line makes no sense. I think my the sentence does not misrepresent either, or mislead anyone into thinking there is a connection. If I had used "despite", that would imply a connection. I'm gonna add "nonetheless" to the start of the CBS line.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good when read that way. --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Doig's actual name
His ASU web page says "Steve," but his actual name is Stephen K. Doig (click on his Curriculum Vitae). The ASU web page reads like someone else wrote it, but the C.V. was more likely drafted by his own hand, so his real name is probably Stephen. --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the name he commonly uses is better than the excruciatingly formal conventions used by C.V., but the issue is too small to press the matter.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, be civil
It's not nice to be defamed as sock or defamed as vandal. That's not true, and you guys know that! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing crowd size dispute
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.BS24 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected Page Disputes
I seems the protection is only for 1 week to allow diputes to be settled here. I'm importing the dispute to this page since we are supposed to achieve a consensus.

Crowd Size
There is an ongoing dispute about the Restoring Honor rally crowd size section. A handful of editors, such as User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous and an IP user who uses different IP addresses, are trying to undermine the section by filling it with POV. Many attempts have been made to resolve the issue on the talk page but these editors refuse to comply. They are fixed on trying to prove two certain estimates, made by CBS/AirPhotosLive.com and Stephen Doig, are the only "scientific" estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously. Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there. Estimates by many other reliable media outlets such as NBC have been removed or undermined. Several tags have been placed on the section -- POV, Debate, and undue weight. Several editors have warned the users and attempted to resolve the issue on talk but to no avail. Not only are the edits in violation of Wikipedia standards but they contain poor grammar. Examples:
 * Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
 * Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
 * Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

These are just a few examples I can find at the moment with my limited time. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are "scientific" or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this.

I am asking for assistance on this article. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Response
Objections have been made to good faith edits.
 * The editor asserts that"It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are 'scientific' or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this."
 * Early on this might have been the case, and since it was a valid point, later edits of mine never rated estimate as unscientific or not without citation. See:
 * Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
 * It would be helpful if the editor was less oblique. The editor seems be referring to a nonexistent estimate of NBC's of 300,000 which by citations, has been both misreported and debunked. Here is the relevant Talk discussion. Since bad reporting of crowd size estimates is central to the controversy endemic to these estimates, the bogus nature of the NBC number was explained to give context, and my hope is that this is restored to the article. I did unsuccessfully try to find a source for NBC actually releasing an estimate of 300,000, and the editor is welcome to try, but so far, the editor has made no attempt to establish the alleged NBC estimate as valid.


 * Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
 * The editor seems to be again referring again the NBC estimate I left in a edit which I had since changed substantially making it now moot.
 * Regarding the "packed" sentence. This is not an estimate at all, it's hyperbole. Previously the 1st sentence of the paragraph said that the crowd was a large open event. To avoid having the first two sentences being redundant, the first one was removed.
 * How is it "hyperbole"? The Wall Street Journal used that exact wording in a news article, not a blog post or opinion piece. Is the WSJ practicing hyperbole or "puffery"? BS24 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very obviously an hyperbole. Just look at the images. The Wall Street Journal itself is a valid source, however this particular - and very vague - sentence gives no real information about the crowd size - or do you really want to quote every source which says there was a "huge crowd"? You started an edit war wanting to add any source somehow reporting a large crowd and remove any source reporting a small crowd. Instead Wikipedia should report information and facts, giving weight to information which is also given weight in the press (which undisputable is the case for the CBS estimate, referring to scientific methods, but not any "huge crowd" report).82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.


 * This is the first I've heard of the editor condemning On The Media as "a source of questionable notability". Since we have no idea of why the the editor is skeptical, there's no way of responding to this.
 * From what I can gather, "On the Media" is a public radio program. Why is that notable at all? Unless it's a major program with a large number of listeners, it's no more notable than the bloggers questioning CBS. BS24 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a major and well-known program and has a large number of listeners. Again, you cannot exclude reliable sources because you don't like their information.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As for who "removed a criticism", this accusation is troubling and cause for concern. Per an edit summary, BS24 said he/she was "Removing blogger sentence per further consideration." . . The editor has not engaged in any any further attempt to defend the source found to be unusable in this case.


 * The blogger at issue who attempted to find fault with CBS's estimate has been thoroughly proven to be unreliable in this Talk discussion,. After which the editor had quit the discussion, so we have no idea why the editor still feels source deserves inclusion. I would hardly refer to such a poor source by "saying it was not notable", and possibly infer that it was valid but just not that important, I object to an apparent attempt to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my concerns regarding the source. see:


 * The editor says that I have maintained that the CBS and Doig have made "the only 'scientific' estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously." I know of no other scientific estimates made public by anyone with experience in the matter. On The Media unequivocally stated that there was a problem with scientific and unscientific estimates being given "equal weight." And Doig said statistical estimates were the only way to get numbers based in reality, but these citations are not in the current protected edit. This was done by citation of reliable sources. Regarding it is "Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there." I have no idea what is being alluded to and would urge the editor to explain it further or withdraw it since it seems to suggest bad faith.
 * Multiple editors have said this multiple times: Just because an estimate sounds scientific to you, and CBS says it is, doesn't mean there's any real science going on. CBS is a reliable source but in this case they have to back up their own estimate. They have to call it scientific. Any dolt could look at a picture and make an estimate. Heck, I could draw some gridlines and numbers on a picture and guess 10,424 or 900,876 attended. Would that make it scientific? It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are scientific or not. We just need to report everything and let the readers decide for themselves. BS24 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You really seem not to get it: The article never DECIDED what is scientific. It should just REPORT who refers to scientific methods. And it seems that CBS news and Doig are the only ones referring to scientific methods, describing quite detailed, whereas for the other numbers it is not clear at all where they come from. This is important information which MUST be included in the article. Repeating an disproven argument again and again does not make it true.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it either: We can't know whether it was actually scientific or not! Just because it sounds scientific to you doesn't mean it is, and Wikipedia shouldn't report as scientific what might not be scientific! BS24 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of these issues have been dealt with, or should be dealt with on the Talk page, especially the new arrival of whether or not On The Media is a notable source. In general regarding the crowd size estimates, the editor is not able to make good arguments why an unscientific estimates deserve equal weight. Most of the unscientific sources are briefly mentioned because there are so few of them. Because they do not reveal there protocols and procedures of estimation. (They often  do not source the estimates, so where they came from is unknown.) There is simply not much to say about them. There has been a suggestion that the scientific methods are given too much attention, and I agree. This could be reduced and improve the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to mention all the estimates and yes it is not for us to decide that one source is more accurate than the others and then give it undue weight. The current wording in that section is totally unacceptable, we have a whole paragraph on two estimates and then the 3rd paragraph has to mention briefly each of the others. This is a blatant case of undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to completely misunderstand undue weight. It does NOT mean that each aspect must get EQUAL weight. It must get DUE weight. Do you want to argue that the flat earth model should get equal weight to the sphere earth model? If the press mentions some number only in passing without explaining at all where the number comes from, then Wikipedia also cannot and shouldn't report the number more prominently as in passing. However, if a source refers to scientific methods and explains in detail how they calculated the numbers, undue weight demands that it has more weight also in Wikipedia.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "it is not for us to decide that one source is more accurate than the others." How was it decided to implement which edits were accurate? I'm aware of no actual estimates being disparaged as false or as less than by an editor.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher is spot on. We do not decide who is right and who is wrong. BS24 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with mentioning verifiable and actual estimates. So we can proceed, which ones are you thinking of?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody of us decided who is right and who is wrong. However, BS24, you want to keep important context from the reader, namely how the various sources got their numbers.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)