Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 4

What is a scientific estimate?
There's been a lot of scattered arguments, and rather heated ones at that, about wether an estimate is scientific or not. CBS claimed its estimate was scientific, and others such as Doig and On The Media concurred. BTW CBS in relation to the rally, and AirPhotoLive and Doig much more in general, were very forthcoming in detailing there procedures and protocols. And this is all supported by third party sources. But no good sources to challenge CBS's characterization of it's estimate has been provided.

Above BS24 argued that "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? As much as BS24 may believe this to be the truth, without citations, these are moot objections. BTW We have no idea if The Washington Examiner has done what BS24 has suggested. and got a "dolt [who] could look at a picture and make an estimate." Now if I believed this is the case, it wouldn't matter. Without citation I have no way of including this. Rather than argue his opinions only, BS24 really needs to cite criticisms of CBS's methods, not not their motives. This has been asked for multiple times with no good response. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP is not a research paper. We summarize what has been published/reported from relibable sources with due weight so that there is no impression that WP is taking one point of view over another.  That said it is no suprise that Doig and AirPhotoLive came up with similar numbers.  Doig worked with the same information as AirPhotoLive and employed a similar statistical method as AirPhotoLive.  He has also worked with them on other projects.  What is interesting that their differences are as great as they are using the same methodology.  Even though they are not statistically different they are just so, if their calculations were statistically precise you would expect two groups using the same methodology to have much closer results (inter-rater reliability).  You would expect them to be around a p<=0.01 rather than the p<=0.05.  FYI for everyone, the Estimate by CBS of 87K +/- 9k does not mean that there was between 78K and 96K.  It means (assuming a standard 95% CI) they are 95% confident that the true number of people in the pictures was between 78K and 96K.  Arzel (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of vague, unsupported implications have been made.
 * 1. What editor has done original research, and what are the examples of this?
 * 2. Could you detail how citation asserts that Doig used "the same methodology" as Shuler.
 * 3. Without contrary citation we have no use any of the editor's belief that that statictical estimates contradict one another. It's all interesting POV we can't use without citation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You, and IP 82. You seem to be trying to "prove" that the CBS estimate should be given preference within the article both through the talk page and your edits.
 * He stated that they were the same.
 * (5? - Monty Python reference I'm guessing) Not relevant, everything I said after "That said" were my personal statements in order to help educate those that don't fully understand statistical methodology. For the record, I never said that they contridicted each other, only that they are not as close as I would expect, Doig's estimate is 9.2% off of Shuler's, which is pretty high considering that they basically counted them the same way.  Arzel (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You, and IP 82. You seem to be trying to "prove" that the CBS estimate should be given preference within the article both through the talk page and your edits.
 * This is too vague to respond to.
 * 2. He stated that they were the same.
 * More is needed than a he-said-so. The question remains: Where is the citation? It wouldn't be the The LA Times isince they said "a similar method". Only nserting POV equates "similar" to "same." Mr Anon
 * 3. (5? - Monty Python reference I'm guessing) Not relevant, everything I said after "That said" were my personal statements in order to help educate those that don't fully understand statistical methodology. For the record, I never said that they contridicted each other, only that they are not as close as I would expect, Doig's estimate is 9.2% off of Shuler's, which is pretty high considering that they basically counted them the same way.  Arzel (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (typo fixed above "5" changed to "3", and now for something...)We don't know how they counted and "they counted basically the same way" is opinion lacking citation.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "“The company sometimes uses these images for crowd estimates, both generating its own estimates and partnering with Professor Stephen Doig of Arizona State University, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert, to come up with figures."
 * Doig and AirPhotosLive use the same methods, they work together. They both use a grid overlay, split the grids into regions of similar density, determine the area of the grid and then use known spacial distributions of crowds to estimate the number of people in all of the grids.  They obviously used slightly different methods to estimate either the density of average grids, or pulled random grids that were somewhat different and applied them to the known distributions.  There is nothing wrong with what they did, they seem to think that this is the best method to use, and maybe it is.  All I am saying is that I found it strange that they would come up with estimates that differed as much as they do since they use the same method.  Here are both of them discussing the methods that they used.  Some of the other estimates are based on the square footage of the known area and applying known area requirements for each person and multiplying it out.  I know the biggest problem that people have with the Doig estimate is that there are large areas covered by trees close to the reflecting pool and that using there method it might underestimating the total.  I know that they said they accounted for people under the trees, but who is to say if they did accurately.  It was a hot sunny day, chances are the density under the trees was far greater than those in the open, Doig's method would not be able to accurately count those people based off his method, and maybe that is partially responsible for the difference between the two using the same basic methodology.  None of this matters, I am not saying that we can't or shouldn't use their estimates.  We include what has been reliably sourced with due weight accurately representing what is actual done.  No editorializing or extroplation to present information or ideas outside of what was actually done.  Arzel (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To say "Doig and AirPhotosLive use the same methods" and then to say "They obviously used slightly different methods" is a little of a contradiction that I'm assuming is a mistatement. Nonetheless I believe Arzel has defended well the scientific estimates, and I hope other editor's appreciate it and will move on from trying to invalidate the lower estimates.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarrify, Doig appears to have used a different density estimation for people under the trees, but they both used the same methdology for their estimates. The basic formulas are the same, but a couple of the defining variables (alpha's or beta's) are slightly different). Arzel (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think being within the 95% range is a quite good agreement. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't use citations to support or exclude other citations. We use Wikipedia policies and guidelines to determine which citations to include or exclude. Akerans (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What citatons have been exluded? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, which ones have you excluded? Earlier, you deemed anything that was "debunked", classified as non-scientific, or classified as vague, as not meeting your personal standard for inclusion. I'm unclear where you currently stand. But, I'm trying to clarify that your personal standard is not the same standard the rest of us are trying to follow. We're trying to follow verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view, while you seem to be ignoring them. That is, your intent seems to be on proving CBS is the right answer, while the rest of us are not. Akerans (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very unhelpful response. By its very evasiveness it yields the argument. If you "don't know", then why bring it up in the first place. This is de-facto admission to throwing around a baseless accusation. I have never removed an estimate because it was unscientific, and you certainly haven't listed any. Point of fact: My last edit before lockdown contained many unscientific estimates.  None of which were identified as such.  Could someone list any removed citations that should be restored so we can deal with them separately and directly? Finally, citing Wiki Policy shortcuts explicating how the policy applies is recognized as lacking civility. See [] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say you limited your removal to "unscientific." I said anything that was "debunked", classified as non-scientific, or classified as vague, as not meeting your personal standard for inclusion, and that I'm unclear of where you currently stand (i.e. your criteria for inclusion). You have excluded (literally removed) cited commentary/numbers/estimates from ABC News, Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, New York Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner and The Washington Post: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Your edit summary reasons have included, but not limited to, "repetitious citing", "did not say who estimated", "vaguely reported", "NYT citing NBC is not a source", "did not reference source or methods", and "cleanup". As I've said, I don't know your criteria. But, your criteria does not seem to follow policies and guidelines. What is your criteria? What policy and/or guideline convinced you to remove these reliable sources? Akerans (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response
 * The following reference edit diffs regard the removal of the non existent NBC 300,000 estimate, and the New York Times was not source for the number in any case. In fact, there is no source for, only 2 reports saying that NBC somewhere made it. On The Media has shown this to be false, and no one has answered the challenge to show this to not be so. So unless any one can, we should stop talking about such a dead issue. 1, 2, , 3
 * WSJ's "The crowd packed nearly a mile" is no ones idea of an estimate.
 * This is a citation showing that many estimates were unscientific. It is not me saying so, or removing any citations. So I don't know why it was included.
 * The Washington Examiner said the crowd was well into the 100 thousands, but did not source the estimate or methods used, such as what photos, and how the calculation was arrived at. Nonetheless if there is a consensus to return this, I could go with including it if it was grouped among the more estimate of a less certain range.
 * From this I removed Beck's estimate, which he did not source how he arrived at it. It is not that of a reliable source, no more than Sarah Palin's and Michelle Bachmanns's were. It is the opinion of an event oraganizer who is also a media personality.3
 * The edit summary shows the the WSJ was misrepresented as the source of this estimate.In other words, it was not supported by citation.
 * Akerans seems to have missed that I have already said that early on I was wrong in removing citations en masse, so this diff is irrelvant
 * None of that makes sense. You have stated more personal criteria (for lack of a better phrase) that I don't understand. Please help me understand. What policy says we can remove a source (i.e. NBC or NYT) if it is criticized/debunked/proven false by another source (i.e. On The Media)? What policy says we can remove a source if they give credit to another news source? What policy says we can remove a source (e.g. ABC's reporting of "hundreds of thousands") because they did not state a number? What policy says we can remove a source if they didn't disclose their source, or method, said it was an estimate, or doesn't specific it as scientific? Those appear to be the various reasons you've removed sources, and if you can answer those questions in terms of policy and/or guidelines, and explain how the policies and/or guidelines apply, then that would greatly help me understand. Please take the time to help me understand. Akerans (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is creep. If we included the nonexistent NBC estimate, then Wiki policies obliges us to allow citations of On The Media and Doig's claiming it to be a bogus estimate (which is the truth) wrongly referenced by the NYT and Brian Williams. And, as Doig says, the New York Times is not a source in this instance, it is merely citing NBC for the estimate. If we just left that out, we could deal with actual estimates, rather than bloat the section by listing then detailing how unfounded the citation of nonexistent estimate was. It's better to leave out the NBC estimate to keep this section from becoming a media analysis section. And to keep the section no larger than it should be, we should include estimates, but we don't have to include them all. Representative examples would make the point while enabling concision. We should just list the media outlet, and to save space, we should leave out, what was the show, the blog title, what was the date, and what announcer announced the estimate and how many times they said it, i.e, "repeatedly." I have no problem with estimates other than scientific estimates being listed, and, except for the Washington Examiner, all we can do is list them; there is not much else to say. I would also encourage you to add your views to the question of whether or not the controversy over the crowd size should be included. We really need to get a consensus on that issue.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response did not help. You have gone off into, what appears to be, another personal view of the situation instead of citing policy. I'm aware of no creep policies, only essays. Do you actually have a policy to cite? For anything you just said? As best I can tell, and maybe you're not even aware of the fact you're doing this, but, you're taking NBC's estimate via New York Times (A) and combining that with Doig's claim from On The Media (B) and producing a claim that says no such NBC estimate exists (C). That's called synthesis; you're combining sources to make claims (A+B=C). Is that why you keep asking for us to produce sources to back our claims? Because you want us to synthesize as well? Now, either you're aware of that, or not. I don't know. Either way, you need to stop. I've said it before, and I'll saying it again. Stop focusing on what Doig has said, and using that to determine what should, and shouldn't, be included. Start using our policies instead. Akerans (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Akerans. You're obsessed with trying to discredit every other estimate while you try to paint a random public radio program as the ultimate in truth and reliability. It seems all of your edits are baseless and there are no policies to support your biased, not to mention poorly written grammar-wise. BS24 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wrong, this is no synthesis. AKA says that reliable source B shows that reliable source A just copied their data from someone else, so AKA says that it be wrong for Wikipedia to pretend that A is independent data. And of course this makes very much sense. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We did not pretend A is independent data. The NYT did not try and present NBC's number as their own number, and we did not try and present it as such. Doig mocked NYT for using NBC's number and said, "NBC is not a source." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous seems to be taking Doig's "NBC is not a source" comment literally and removing this information from the article. However, our policies say NBC and NYT are reliable sources. Their information doesn't have to be right, it just has to be verifiable. Akerans (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Akerans wishes for exactly what I proposed above in a response to that editor. We could all step back a little and switch to tea, as an admin wisely suggested. At least I have for a couple of days, and on return the arguments are still going in circles without consensus coming be any closer. The editors seem to be more at issue than the edits.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A is NBC, not NYT. NBC obviously is not the original source, NBC just reported a number from someone else. AKA is completely correct. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A is The New York Times, seen here. They specifically said, "NBC News estimated the turnout at 300,000." That's no different than using CBS as a source for, "AirPhotosLive.com estimated the turnout at 87,000." We do not use On The Media as a source of what Doig said to exclude The New York Times. We can, however, use On The Media as a source of what Doig said to criticize The New York Times. Both you and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous are incorrect. You are using a On The Media source as policy, instead of a Wikipedia policy as policy. Akerans (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries also included "grouping unscientific w/ unscientific", as if you know that no method disclosed means it was just a guess made by some moron intern. You also removed a Wall Street Journal-backed sentence on the fact that the crowd filled nearly a mile of the Mall without explanation. BS24 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've very much explained why the WSJ citation was pulled.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you claimed it was hyperbole, even though it was a WSJ news story that appeared in the newspaper, not just a blog post or opinion piece. BS24 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BS24, again, please stick to the truth: Nobody grouped by "scientific" versus "unscientific". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a scientific estimate
Folks, I used an AP photo of the rally, and laid grids over the picture and estimated the density within each square. I arrived at an estimate of 727,508 with a margin of error of +/- 8500. This settles the whole controversy and this is the only one we should take seriously. BS24 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't see the sarcasm: This is to prove the point that just because an estimate sounds scientific to you doesn't mean there's any real science going on. Mr Anon says we know what method AirPhotosLive used for their estimate so theirs is obviously the most important. Well, you know just as much about my estimate so mine should be included as well. BS24 (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a non free image, and it cannot be used outside of project space. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BS24 has admitted to using sarcasm, has resorted to original research, but has yet to provide a good citation as to why CBS's and Doig's figure should not be labled scientific as they and other reliable sources have. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why censoring in Wikipedia??
BS24 and Akerans, why do you want to censor the information that CBS says that it is the only scientific estimation? Nobody wants to state this as FACT (therefore all the pages above about about this topic are mood). We don't have to decide what are facts. It is only about REPORTING that CBS says it is the only scientific estimation - and this information IS a fact. Why censoring it?? CBS spends more than 100 times more article space on explaining their method of calculating the crowd size (while the others don't explain it at all) - why censoring this information?? To point this out again: It is WP:Undue if IGNORING COMPLETELY if one source provides detailed information about their method, and other no information at all. Why censoring the information about how the sources got their number?? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about censorship, rather weight. Weight applies to more than just viewpoints, it also applies to the the level of detail. Such detail includes how CBS arrived at their number, the fact Beck mocked other numbers, and the fact Scarborough said his number repeatedly. All of that is undue, or unnecessary detail. In my revision, I removed all of that. So, I'm not trying to censor CBS' method, I'm trying to eliminate all unnecessary detail to reduce the size of the section. Akerans (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly BECAUSE weight applies to the level of detail. Do you really want to say that the CBS numbers (explaining in detail their methods) and the other numbers (explaining nothing at all) have equal weight? Do you really believe that there is an consensus that this information is "unnecessary detail"? You claim it is "unnecessary detail", while others strongly disagree, so do you think it is correct to hold this information back from the reader?? "Shortening the article" is a bad excuse for that. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be that the section is too large. We can reduce the section by removing views or removing detail, and removing views is a greater violation of neutral point of view than removing detail. Akerans (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing important context information is a strong violation of NPOV, calling it "detail" does not change this. And a consensus that the section is too large is nice but useless: it is not a consensus about how to make a shorter section. Better a larger article with consensus than multiple shorter proposals without consensus. My impression is that some others use the argument "section is too large" as excuse for just removing unwanted information (you can identify such deletions if the argument for the deletion is nothing more than undue weight, but no hard reason, for example why the information is wrong). And as long as there is no unequivocal consensus about removing some particular piece of information, it should be kept. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to call it context, then that's fine. That doesn't change the fact we have to treat all context proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Providing context for only CBS suggests a favorable view of CBS, while ignoring all other context suggests no support for opposing views. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem of adding other context. See also "Proposal for reaching a consensus" below. Furthermore, due weight does not mean equal weight, see WP:GEVAL. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, "it is necessary to ensure that the attribution ... does not give a false impression of parity". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, we already had a version with context here. That's what started the edit war and this debate. Only two people seem to want that, or something similar to that. Everyone else seems to want a smaller section, without a lot of context. Akerans (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for reaching a consensus
Ok, it does not help to fight forward and backward about each change. Therefore I propose the following approach for reaching a consensus:

(1) Change proposals should not remove information, but only add information. ("Instead of deleting text, consider...") Removing information usually will be unacceptable for someone who thinks the information is important, while when adding information the only disadvantage is that it makes the section longer. (2) If someone thinks there is undue weight, then this should be re-balanced not by deleting information of supposed overweight information, but by adding missing information to the supposed underweight information. (3) Yes, this may lead to a longer section. But instead of having multiple proposals of shorter sections without consensus it is better to have a consensus about a longer section.

So I suggest the following. In the following I added the current version from the Wikipedia page. I invite anyone to add information. But please do not delete information. Furthermore, please explain and sign your change in the "Changes explained" after the section. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(For a discussion of the approach see below. I moved Arzel's comment down.)

Crowd size consensus proposal
The crowd packed nearly a mile of the National Mall. But as usual with other large open gatherings in Washington D.C., such as The Million Man March or the Obama Inauguration, estimates of the rally's crowd size varied greatly and were disputed. Due to controversies over crowd size estimates of the National Parks Service, since 1997 Congress has barred the Service from releasing its estimates.

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons. 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 based its estimation on aerial photos taken at noon, which they estimated to be the rally's peak. The company's image analyst "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000." CBS said it was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size. Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000. Doig made density estimates in eight different areas of the crowd including under trees, used Google Earth to estimate the square footage of the various different regions, estimated crowd sizes in the different regions, and then added them together. Doig said conservatives regarded his rally estimate as biased, but also said they were more approving of his estimate of the Obama inauguration which others thought of as too small.

The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures." NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an unidentified "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said there were "500,000" present. The Associated Press and MSNBC both said "tens of thousands"

Changes explained
Removed the tags in the proposal - since I hope we will reach a consensus. :) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the procedure

 * This solves nothing. It still gives clear undue weight to two sources who get a huge paragraph whilst all other estimates are rammed into a smaller paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just complaining does solve nothing ;). Be active! Contribute! And see (2) above! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is too much stuff on CBS and that professor guy. We can not overload the section with more stuff, just so some of that does not get deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See (3) above. And just saying "we can not" is not very helpful. My impression is that some use the "section is too large" argument just as excuse for removing unwanted information. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a reasonable approach, by this logic I could include all kinds of extraneous information from other sources that I think is important.
 * See 1.
 * WP:UNDUE
 * I will grant you are thinking outside the box, so to speak, but this approach simply will not work. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is Wikipedia philosophy: "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia ..., and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." Just saying it "simply will not work" is not very constructive and not FAITH. That you "could include all kinds of extraneous information" sounds a little bit like a threat to torpedo a consensus. Of course you should only add information if you seriously think that it is relevant information. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We have been over all this in more detail, you know why we believe certain parts of the section need trimming down. It is very clear it gives undue weight to CBS, if we were to treat the other sources like we do CBS wed need a small article on the subject. The only option is to reduce the amount of text. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "only option" contradicts "Instead of deleting text, consider ..." What kind of information do you think is missing? Then we can see whether it is really so much that it will result in a "small article". (Btw, also repeating your claim about WP:UNDUE does not make it true, since you should "not give a false impression of parity"). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to reach a consensus on crowd size -- Straw poll
Folks, we haven't gotten very far in these last few days where the page has been locked. Consensus seems to be against giving undue weight to the CBS estimate. However, there hasn't been any consensus in favor of anything. We need to take some sort of vote on an actual write up so we can resolve this. There currently are two writeup proposals. More are welcome. Please vote yea or nay for the following two and/or make suggestions to change it. Or make your own proposal. BS24 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do want to step in and say we don't do votes on article content but a straw poll like this could be helpful in reaching consensus, I don't know if you've included all revisions though. --WGFinley (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I didn't mean this to be binding in any way. BS24 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, BS24, please stick to the truth - there is in no way a consensus "against giving undue weight to the CBS estimate". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If 6-1 is not a consensus, I don't know what is. BS24 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please vote on this proposal by 82.135.29.209
CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons. The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000 AirPhotosLive "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000." Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000, including people under trees. CBS, explaining their method on their website, said that their work was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size.

NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an unidentified "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said there were "500,000" present.

Votes
Nay, still gives undue weight to CBS. Also lacks several credible estimates. BS24 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nay - Undue weight to CBS compared to other news organisations. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nay - Agree on the obvious undue weight to CBS. †TE†  Talk  18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you are messing up "due weight" with "equal weight". If one source explains in detail its method, another source not, then "due weight" requires that Wikipedia does not hold this information back. See WP:GEVAL and "it is necessary to ensure that the attribution ... does not give a false impression of parity". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm not sure who is allowed to give a vote in such a poll, but obviously I would say Yes... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please vote on this proposal by BS24
According to the Wall Street Journal the crowd "packed nearly a mile of the National Mall." But the number of attendees is a "hotly contested" issue, since the National Parks Service no longer gives official estimates after a controversy erupted over their estimate of the 1995 Million Man March which organizers thought was too low.

CBS News estimated 87,000 attended, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000" were there. The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures." NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". The Associated Press and MSNBC both said "tens of thousands" Professor Stephen Doig estimated 80,000. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said there were "500,000" present. The New York Times simply called the crowd "enormous".

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

Votes
Aye/Nay - I support the second paragraph which doesnt give undue weight to CBS, however i think the first sentence or two of the crowd section needs to explain there are different figures and its disputed, including the fact the authorities do not give official estimates. Wall street journal belongs in the second paragraph too, not on its own in the first. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I put WSJ first because it deals with the actual physical size of the crowd, not the number of attendees. I changed the first paragraph so let me know what you think. BS24 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the first couple sentences which explains the controversy and why official estimates aren't offered. Is there any reason why the second paragraph doesn't follow any set order, maybe lowest to highest? I'm still trying to work my way through the 2 weeks of debate. †TE†  Talk  18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong No because it is a typical sample of WP:Undue as explained in detail above (if one source provides plenty of information, the other no information at all, then this information should be summarized in Wikipedia - there is no reason to hold back this information from the reader). See also WP:GEVAL for more information. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by Akerans
No official estimates were given on crowd size, since the National Parks Service no longer gives official estimates after a controversy erupted over their estimate of the 1995 Million Man March, which organizers thought was too low. Crowd size reports varied among media outlets and commentators, and ranged between 80,000 and 650,000.

ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. AirPhotosLive.com estimated 87,000, with a statistical error +/− 9,000, via CBS News. In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday, the day after the rally, Beck said between 300,000 and 650,000 attended. He later settled on 500,000. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough said there were "500,000" present. NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. Professor Stephen Doig estimated 80,000. The New York Times simply called the crowd "enormous". NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". The Associated Press and MSNBC both said "tens of thousands" The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures."

Comments
Mine is a slight revision of BS24's proposal. My goal was to make the lead summarize the section's contents, and arrange the estimators alphabetically, so not to promote one number over the other. Akerans (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Aye, although I think the WSJ part about the crowd stretching a mile should be included. BS24 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I left it out because it wasn't a numerical estimate or numerical commentary, but have no objection if you wish to include it. Akerans (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Such vague statements about "crowd stretching a mile" must be included, but reports about "the only scientific estimation" and information about the methods of calculating the cloud size must be excluded??? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IP user, it should be included because it notes the physical size of the crowd. Numbers differ but this is fact. BS24 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong No because it is a typical sample of WP:Undue as explained in detail above (if one source provides plenty of information, the other no information at all, then this information should be summarized in Wikipedia - there is no reason to hold back this information from the reader). See also WP:GEVAL for more information. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes This is a good approach. Simple list of reported estimates in alphabetical order so that there can be no claims of POV from anyone. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is a good proposal that addresses the undue weight issues that we have been debating for days and keeps a neutral introduction to the section, giving no advantage to any news organisation. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you mix up "equal weight" with "due weight". This is wrong, see WP:GEVAL and "it is necessary to ensure that the attribution ... does not give a false impression of parity". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Im mixing up nothing. It is obvious the CBS figure is given undue weight at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. Morphh  (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - This one seems to be the most neutral edit for both parties. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 01:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Second proposal by BS24
Some discussions going on below still present problems. As such, here is a second write-up. Please comment and vote below.

According to the Wall Street Journal the crowd "packed nearly a mile of the National Mall." But the number of attendees is a "hotly contested" issue, especially since the National Parks Service no longer gives official estimates after a controversy erupted over their estimate of the 1995 Million Man March which organizers thought was too low. A U.S. Park Police spokesman said it is extremely difficult to estimate crowds of such magnitude, given their fluctuations throughout the day and that some are simply passersby.

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to conduct an estimate. AirPhotosLive.com said 87,000 attended, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000" were there. After criticism from conservatives that the estimate was too low (such as Beck himself, who said, "That's a pretty specific number there. Well, are you sure it wasn't 93,412? ), CBS released a second article, saying AirPhotosLive.com "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000." CBS claimed theirs was the "only scientific estimate" of the crowd size. Professor Stephen Doig used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000.

NBC News correspondent Domenico Montanaro reported that an official at the top of the Lincoln Memorial said 300,000-325,000 were present. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands" were there. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said "500,000" during his August 30 Morning Joe show. The Associated Press and MSNBC both said "tens of thousands" The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures." The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000". ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. McClatchy Newspapers said "hundreds of thousands". Some media outlets declined to give any estimate, with the New York Times simply calling the crowd "enormous" and NPR saying "there was no way to get an accurate count" of the "massive turnout".

Beck mocked the media's reporting of the crowd size at the rally, saying, "I have just gotten word from the media that there is over a thousand people here today." Later on during the rally, Beck said he heard the crowd was between 300,000 and 500,000 and said, "if that's coming from the media, God only knows how many." In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday the day after, he said between 300,000 and 650,000 attended.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann said on Laura Ingraham's radio show that she spoke to a National Park Police officer off the record who said he thought the crowd totaled 1.6 million.

YES – Despite a few instances in need of some minor copyediting I think it hits all the bases as far as the contention that's floated around this subsection is concerned. CBS's/Doig's methodology is covered, and all of the other estimates (whether quantified or not) are included. I don't know if I'd include the margin of error for CBS in the second paragraph (I'd just say between 78k-96k were estimated) or Beck's idiotic sarcastic comment in parentheses in the same paragraph. I also don't like including Bachmann's "off the record" number (it's an outlier), but for the sake of moving forward I'll go along with it. > Minnecologies Talk 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bachmann's quote doesn't need to be in there, I just added it because someone said it should be there in the RfC discussion. I'm fine with taking it out. BS24 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I have a few issues with this proposal, but at this stage i simply want this issue resolved and im prepared to compromise. Could all of this be moved to the bottom of the article so it does not get overlooked? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe move this to the RfC, to generate a more thorough consensus? Akerans (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nay This proposal, while including some mention of the controversy, has many problems concerning questionable citing as well editorial omissions and selectivity creating POV. The line 'the National Parks Service no longer gives official estimates after a controversy erupted over their estimate of the 1995 Million Man March which organizers thought was too low" is not supported to by the citation, and, per On The Media, is grossly oversimplified. Doig submitted his estimate to CBS as did Shuler. CBS used Shuler's number. Nothing is said about Beck's anticipating the dispute before the rally, thus initiating the controversy. Stating only Michelle Bachmann's 1.6 million estimate while not mentioning her earlier estimate of 1 million is an editorial omission. Plus, as noted by another editor, her estimate is an outlier. On The Media's criticism of media reporting giving equal weight to invented estimates and scientific estimates is another editorial omission. Beck's sarcasm is attributable to an inherent conflict of interest, as are the estimates well as that of any other organizer of a rally. The other sarcastic criticism of Beck wondering why CBS did release an estimate "93,412" is ignorance in its purest form of what an estimate is, and suggests POV. The NBC estimate is unsourced except to an unnamed official standing on top of the Lincoln Memorial. The opening line about how "packed" the rally is triumphant hyperbole. left out.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I'll find the proper citation for the parks service. Can you find something about Beck's anticipation? I don't see why who Doig submitted his number to matters. We do not critique Beck's comments as comments, we just report them. The NBC estimate is plenty relevant. And I don't see how a fact about the physical dimensions of the crowd is "hyperbole" when anybody can see through the pictures that the crowd packed that huge area. If you want to change the word "packed", go ahead, but I don't see any reason why besides POV. BS24 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Becks comments: conflict of interest was cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why we should not say Beck himself claimed... ******* BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's the organizer so he automatically has a bully pulpit on issues relating to his event. BS24 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Elevating event organizers a bully pulpit satus it very generous. It's generally reserved for figures who in "public office or other position of authority of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter." Hardly a description consensus would assign to Beck as fair. BTW, this is another case why edit arguments by Wiki shortcuts are lame. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if Beck is the organizer. He's quoted in reliable sources, and we're using those sources for this information. Also, Yahoo News said there were no official estimates and that the Parks services stopped doing estimates. Akerans (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yahoo News said no such thing. Look again, then look at On The Media for more complete info. The irrelevancy of an organizers association to an event and that organizers attendance assertions is a novel view. Usually one can assume a conflict of interest, regardless of where their dubious estimates appear. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From Yahoo News: "Without official estimates, any numbers published by reputable news organizations — like the 300,000 estimate — quickly got picked up and repeated enough to almost become fact." and "The media, in years past, would typically cite the National Parks Service estimate, along with the organizer's estimates (which tend to be higher). But the Parks Service stopped providing crowd estimates in 1997 after organizers of the 1995 Million Man March assailed the agency for allegedly undercounting the turnout for that event." Associated Press and CBS also noted the parks services stopped doing estimates, but did not mention a lack of official estimates. And, On The Media said an official number would be the solution to numbers appearing in the media, so people would know which number was the right number. But, they don't claim to have an official number. Regarding Beck's numbers. Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. So, Beck's number might favor the rally, but we can't dismiss that per neutral point of view. Akerans (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you get out of that that Parks Services no longer makes estimates, especially after checking with On The Media?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that Yahoo News said, "the Parks Service stopped providing crowd estimates in 1997," as did Associated Press and CBS. And, On The Media said that the Parks Services doesn't release numbers since the threat of lawsuit. Akerans (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On The Media also said Parks Service makes estimates, something we don't want to misstate, so they can plan for the events. OTM also says Congress barred the release of the estimates not because of the Million Man March alone. Anti-war rallies counts were also at issue. In short, we should say "The Parks Service no longer provides it's crowd estimates due to previous controversies over their numbers." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we don't have to mention specific rallies to say the Parks Services no longer give estimates. CNN also reports there are no official estimates. So, we can say, "No official estimates were given on crowd size, since the National Parks Service no longer gives estimates due to previous controversies over their numbers." Akerans (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; the ban on releasing numbers came 2 years after the MMM, and per On The Media, there were controversies over anti-war rallies that resulted in the the ban. Too many sources also do not flat out say there are no crowd estimates.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think i prefer the current wording now in the article though, rather than this one. Maybe we should just stick with the one now in the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made this second proposal because User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous was complaining. I fulfilled his demands with this proposal and he's still complaining. At this point, I agree with you, since it's obvious he has no interest in being fair or compromising. BS24 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do have an interest in being fair and accurate, so if you could be more specific, I would, of course, consider it.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should more weight in original sources also get more weight in Wikipedia?
CBS News explains quite in detail how it commissioned two scientific crowd size calculations of the event. All other news organizations just report different numbers without any explanation (possibly just wild guesses). Should Wikipedia (1) just report the numbers of all estimations and ignore the difference of weight in the original sources, or (2) explain the scientific CBS estimate more detailed but also mention all the other estimates, or (3) only report the scientific CBS estimate? See also "Proposal for reaching a consensus" above. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to start this RFC, Your wording fails to explain the situation fairly. You have only started this RFC because your position is not shared by many editors on this page. This RFC should not continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue" - That is what a RFC is meant to have. The statement is in no way neutral and it also fails to clearly explain the problem and restricts the solutions to 3 options, when there are in fact more. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to describe the issue in a neutral way, but of course I have no monopoly on this. I invite you to explain the problem in your way and to offer further options! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be best if we removed the RFC and try to agree a wording that both sides consider neutral if we are to go forward with a RFC, i am not a fan of RFCs at the best of times, it simply kicks this into the long grass for a whole month and we will likely get just a few responses. Trying for mediation may be a better alternative, but if we do RFC it does need neutral wording. Part of the problem with the current wording is it does not explain the problems. We need to mention the situation with the article at present.. pointing out some believe it gives undue weight to CBS at the expense of all other sources, whilst others believe it is the most credible source and there for deserves the amount it gets. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If too much weight "at the expense of all other sources" would the problem, then the solution would be simple: Add the missing information of the other sources. And we would already have a consensus. Nobody had a problem with giving more weight to other sources. The real problem is that some insist that the only way is to delete some very specific information. Therefore the question, is it a good idea to delete that particular information? The idea is that the RFC helps solving this. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation sounds like a good idea. Is there a particular procedure for this? (I tried this first, but was told to start a RFC instead...) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 82.135.29.209, there are multiple propositions on the table right now in the straw poll, including yours. If we can keep everything streamlined to a single section, like the straw poll, we might be able to come to a consensus in a more orderly and timely fashion. There seems to be too large a debate on this article right now to jump to a conclusion on CBS' estimate right now. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 11:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we had these straw polls, but I don't see how they helped finding a consensus. I think the best probability to get an consensus is this, but some insist that information about the CBS estimate must be deleted; this is the reason for this RFC. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for something to be done about this misleading RFC... who ensures it is neutral? Because it clearly is not. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actual RFC
(Disclaimer: I have absolutely no personal interest in this article, normally I completely avoid contentious articles but as this disagreement has broader implications as far as Wikipedia's attitude towards sources go so I thought I'd give my two cents worth.)
 * RFC: Should more weight in original sources also get more weight in Wikipedia? - This is a tricky question in general, and especially in this case. I don't think WP:UNDUE completely covers what is questioned here, mainly because this is in reference to something that is actually quantifiable. To me, it makes sense to judge sources used in Wikipedia on whether or not they can satisfy the WP:VERIFY requirement. Speaking in a strictly scientific sense, the given figures that do not even mention their methodology of estimation should not be included at all. But we're not talking about science, we're talking about mainstream American media, which does not have as high of standards. If we were to require that burden of proof here we'd have to require it over all of Wikipedia, which is not feasible (and could introduce a systemic bias). So....
 * I favor option (4), which is an edit to option (2) - explain the scientific CBS estimate with slightly more detail ed but also mention all some of the other estimates
 * I definitely wouldn't include Glenn Beck's (as a sponsor and speaker I'd say he has a vested interest in the amount of people that were perceived to be at the event, a conflict of interest if I've ever seen one), as well as Michele Bachmann's (obviously an outlier). As a person who skims large articles, I spend a lot of my time spent reading gathering information from infoboxes and navigation boxes (they catch the eye), and including those two estimates along with those from the (hopefully) reputable news sources doesn't make any sense (although using a comment on Twitter from an "unidentified official" is hardly a good example of professional journalism, it is a sign o' the times). Also, the * footnote seems contentious in itself.
 * The version as is now gives too many sentences to the CBS estimate. Not that the article shouldn't give due heed to its attempt at scientific verifiability, but there's really no need to be explaining a margin of error in the main body of the article (if it's really considered that necessary, put it as a separate footnote). I'd also put the last sentence of the long paragraph as a footnote ("Doig said conservatives..."), as well as slim his (Doig's) methodology.

As this article is obviously in the midst of an edit war, I'm sure my opinions will do very little in helping to bring consensus, but I hope I did offer some food for thought. Good luck! > Minnecologies Talk 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Minnecologies: science is science but then the main stream media is the main stream media, which is a different animal indeed.... So I'd be fine with mention of CBS's estimate along with brief allusion to Air Photos Live/Doig's methodology/ies and also mention of some of the other media entities' figures that are neither way-out-there/outlier nor involve coi.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Beck's deserves inclusion since he is the organizer. I agree that Bachmann's does not. BS24 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Minnecologies, I like your view of the issue. Just out of curiosity's sake (hopefully you're still following this discussion), would you think something like I proposed |here is on the right track? My idea was to cut down the paragraph as seen in the link, then combine it with the other paragraph that mentions all of the non-CBS sources. The end result is one paragraph about crowd estimates that gives slightly more detail on CBS' estimate. Would that be something you would agree with? Dflocks80 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're on the right track, definitely. I tried to accommodate 82.- concerns with my suggestion below. > Minnecologies Talk 03:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Introducing Option (5): Integrate the controversy over crowd sized estimates into the crowd sized section. The controversy is the essential context of a crowd size section, and had enough predecessors to cause Congress to stop the Parks Service from releasing their internal estimates. Beck instigated the controversy before the rally, much of the presumed dispute during the rally and after the rally continued to promote high numbers. Beck set the context. After the rally many number were batted about, most of which were apparent products of invention. The controversy itself gained much attention (making it a significant aspect of the rally as required per WP:DUE to be included in this section).. The only scientific estimates came from AirPhotoLive, either via CBS or Doig, and drew criticism from right wing commentators. On The Media reported on the controversy and mentioned the problem of the media giving equal weight to scientific estimates and those that were apparent inventions. The scientific estimates have weight by virtue of their methodology and the propagation of the numbers by others giving these numbers a central position in the controversy. They also need to be characterized as scientific, something that other editors have vigorously resisted.(BTW, see above for background see Arzel's explanation and support for the validity of the scientific numbers). In short, there is not way to downplay the controversy without distorting the media reception of crowd size estimates. How to integrate the estimates without bloating the section is a topic for a later suggested RFC option. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources that this is a controversy? I gathered that the crowd size was mentioned by Beck and others because of the media reports on past events, which overall has been a controversial subject regarding under reporting conservative crowd sizes.  So I'm not convinced that there is a controversy here, just a past controversy that was brought up, and then different media organizations following the same pattern.  Do we have reliable sources reporting a controversy of the crowd size itself?  Or are we doing original research suggesting a controversy by some WP:SYN of the different estimates.  I'll also note that while I can agree to some level with Minnecologies conclusion for wording, I do not agree with the reasoning.  Per NPOV, we must give weight based in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint published in reliable sources.  We are not to take our opinion or the CBS opinion about what is the "most scientific" and give it more weight based on some unwritten extension of WP:V.  We can present the fact they hired AirPhotoLive to do a scientific estimate, but this does not give it additional weight.  It would become a slippery slope in Wikipedia for determining weight based on what is the "most scientific" source (POV pushing nightmare). That is not the Wikipedia policy.  Morphh   (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many sources are available, see inline link 17 above for a sampling.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of argument between sources to establish a controversy. I think the closest thing we have to a controversy is Beck criticizing estimates he doesn't agree with, and a number of sources claiming Beck's numbers are bias. Akerans (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be the first time, after much sidestepping, that an editor said there was no controversy, or barely any, when there are voluminous citations to show one exists, and it is the main context for much, if not most, reporting on the crowd size. (Refer to citations withing Option 5.) And none, that I know of, to show none existed; making it impossible for "a lack of argument between sources to establish a controversy". See above for what Xenophrenic had to say.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources and I didn't see one that called it a controversy (except that one source stated that all crowd estimates are controversial). The closest thing I saw was an article that said it "sparked debate".  It's controversial in the sense that many large crowd size estimates are disputed.  Not sure that makes it a controversy and the media doesn't describe it as a controversy.  Doesn't really matter if we think it's one or not. What I was questioning is if the reliable sources we use describe it as a controversy or are we saying it's a controversy.  We don't want to run into WP:OR.  I only bring it up because you used that context throughout your option 5.  Morphh   (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'''Please see my second proposal here. BS24 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)'''

Clearly biased RFC
What exactly are we meant to do about this clearly biased wording for the RFC. Why is it allowed to remain there like that BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look passed it, and present additional options. That's already been done, so I see no reason why more options can't be made available to help balance the RfC. Akerans (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * its not about the amount of options, its about the wording. Id delete the whole misleading RFC if it was allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

 * 1. Chronology fix

This has to do with the chronology of the theological criticism sourced to Brannon Howse in the Restoring Honor rally section. Wikipedia says Howse stated his quote after the 8/28 rally. Although Howse's sentiments were repeated in various reports after the rally, the quote itself dates to before it, on September 22nd, and the pair of references Wikipedia attaches to the quote date from September 27th. So I propose (A) Wikipedia change its wording to say Howse made his oft-repeated statement after "the announcement of the planned" rally, or some such thing. Oh, and also: (B) the url ( http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/27/some-evangelicals-on-defensive-over-partnering-with-glenn-beck-a-mormon/ ) is missing from the template for the quote's Dan Gilgoff-of-CNN reference. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Edokter • Talk  • 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1B. Verbatim chronology fix

Insert the four words, anouncement of the planned, at "Restoring Honor rally," changing: "Brannon Howse, a professional organizer of Christian conferences, was weary after the rally ..."--to:"' After announcement of the planned   rally, Brannon Howse, a professional organizer of Christian conferences, expressed wariness...'" (Note: disregard emphasis; new text also corrects spelling or diction of "weary" to "wary".)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1C. Missing URL

Part II. While you are at it, insert the one missing url, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/27/some-evangelicals-on-defensive-over-partnering-with-glenn-beck-a-mormon/, in the accompanying reference to the above statement, in the template for the news piece by CNN's Dan Gilgoff. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Crowd size edit

Consensus seems to have been reached for the crowd size section, which is the main reason why the page was locked. A straw poll shows a 4-1 majority in support of this write-up by User:Akerans. If someone could make the edit that would be great so we can finally put an end to the issue. BS24 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is intended for edit requests that are "that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus", but anyone looking at the heated and pointed dialogs above would be hard pressed to agree with that being the case. The proposed edit reports the crowd size numbers to be "disputed" while saying virtually nothing about the nature of the controversy. Above I argued why the controversy was a significant aspect of many media discussions about the crowd size at the rally, and deserves explanation along with mention. Neither BS24 or Akerans joined in the discusssion (except for BS24's personal comments unrelated to the matter), but they have acted in a contrary manner indicating that they oppose giving the controversy weight. As for the straw poll: I never took a part because this is not a proper way to proceed. From my view we have two vocal factions - apparently angry with each other - not approaching common ground.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The votes are now 5-1 in favor. I would call that a consensus. BS24 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6-1 if you count Akerans Morphh   (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear what the proposed edit is - to replace the whole text of the "Crowd size" section with Akerans' text, leaving the "Estimates of size of the crowds" box at the right intact? Has this debate produced sufficient consensus to remove the maintenance templates at the top of the section? JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is consensus to change it to that, 6-1 (including the proposer) in the vote at present although sadly i am not sure if that will be enough to resolve this dispute fully, so it may be best to leave one of the tags there as i dont think some will accept the consensus and still push for change. Im not sure on peoples positions on the table, but a paragraph like that makes one less needed, but its probably best to keep it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the write-up no longer contains any analysis or extra details, I would say remove the table since it would just be redundant. The consensus is to delete the entire crowd size section and replace it with Akerans' text. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the insistence that consensus has formed, I vociferously would like to protest the presumption. And though I will restate some of what I have said before, I will try to be brief while including opinions of other editors, who, like myself, took no part in the straw poll. The suggested edit fails to mention the controversy over crowd size estimates, and this leaves a false impression. In fact, the controversy in fact a part of the rally as it occurred, and not a construct of "extra details." WGFinley noted that Beck's rally speech introduced the disputed over estimates by making it was among the first things Beck mentioned, and then repeatedly referred to the the dispute during the rest of his speech. On The Media and many others reported on the different estimates and drew distinctions between scientifically derived estimates, and others of which we know nothing about their formulation. Another editor, user: Minnecologies, proposed that the article "explain the scientific CBS estimate with slightly more detail but also mention some of the other estimates." . Neither of these took part in the straw poll, but have made implicit criticism of the proposed edit. My other issues with the proposed edit is that it lacks organization. The estimates are scattered and poorly presented. For example. Prof. Doig worked with CBS's data provided by AirPhotoLive, but the edit makes no mention of the connection between the two and that AirPhotoLive also considered Doig's lower estimate of 80,000 before deciding. My point and the other editors points about including and detailing the controversy have been disregarded by editors, while they have  proposed a section that is not much more than a table of data in sentence form. It's  hard to form a  consensus where there has been avoidance of discussion on points made by other editors. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have reiterated these points over and over and over and they always get knocked down. Why don't you participate in the straw poll? You are not helping by whining that your arguments aren't represented in the write-up yet you refuse to represent yourself in the straw poll. BS24 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, we've reached a limited consensus on this material, and I think it's time to move forward. There's a RfC on the table, where a wider consensus can form about the section. I would suggest focusing on that, instead of re-hashing the past 7 days. Akerans (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Declaring consensus is a little premature while Minnecologies and Dflocks80 are discussing how to include CBS's estimates in more detail than Akeran's suggested edit has attempted.. As to the "rehashing" of whether the controversy deserves inclusion, neither BS24 or Akerans has directly commented on the issue. I'm very interested to know how it may have been "knocked down." My impression is that the controversy has been ignored by these two editors. My other intention was to provide JohnCD, or any other interested Wiki admin with a concise summary of my view of the lack of consensus and to reference the relevant discussions.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has not been achieved, and will not be achieved by getting as many people as you can to say "me too!" It is also not an exercise in "knocking down" legitimate concerns of other editors "over and over and over" again. Face it, the concerns will have to be reasonably addressed and resolved eventually -- so why not now?

Count me among the many editors that find it disconcerting that there is no mention in the proposed rewrites of the "Crowd size" section about the controversy, both anticipated and alleged, concerning the attendance figures. Before the event, Beck predicted there would be a controversy, and even hinted that he was taking steps to defend against the expected kerfluffle; and several times during the event, he made references to the issue. Yet no mention in the proposed rewrites? One of the proposals, oddly enough, even dares to mention that "a controversy erupted" at a completely unrelated event, while turning a blind eye to the very same fact about this event! I am also concerned that several editors are trying to downplay, or completely bury, the significant fact that professional statisticians were hired to scientifically address and resolve this very issue.

As for Akerans' proposed wording, specifically, there are several other problems with it. For one, the first sentence is not supported by the citation following it: "No official estimates were given on the crowd size..." The source never says that; it only says that the National Park Service didn't give an estimate, and says nothing about "official" estimates. In addition, I notice Michelle Bachmann's estimate of over 1 million over 1.6 million is missing, yet it is certainly just as reliable as Scarborough's and Beck's estimates. In fact, Montanaro and Bachmann both claim to be quoting National Park Service officials, yet only one is included? I applaud the efforts to trim the section and make it more concise, but there are issues to be addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An additional misstatement: Akeran's | citation says nothing about the Parks Service no longer releasing estimates.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "so why not now?"
 * We are doing this now. The RfC started 3 days ago, for this very topic we're discussing. So, I wasn't telling The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous that we were done and that consensus had been achieved. I was telling him that a limited consensus had been achieved, that a small group of editors decided to word the section one way, and that a wider consensus had yet to be achieved, where I'm sure a larger group of editors will word the section another way. In other words, there's no point continuing this as a small group, when the larger group (i.e. the RfC) will reach its own consensus. Akerans (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, and not helpful. "We are doing this now" is misleading: The RFC discussion is not on "this very topic." This is a patently false statement; the RFC says nothing about the controversy, and it's scope (what estimates to list or not list: what weight to give sources, i.e., estimates of artifice vs. scientific estimates) excludes the issue. So how do we get the ball rolling how on how and where to discuss the controversy? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I stated in my original post here (in Actual RFC), I'm not very familiar with this article and the supposed controversy. Would you Artist (or anyone) make an addition to the RFC that outlines which exclusion it is exactly that you're objecting to? I'm gathering from my limited skimming through the other parts of this talkpage that you want Beck's comments on the crowd size controversy included, but I'd like to see it clarified. > Minnecologies Talk 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC wasn't setup to include all the issues, but I don't see why they can't be mentioned. 82.135.29.209 set up three options, and Minnecologies added a forth option. Add yours as well. Akerans (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. BRR

At Restoring Honor rally, where it says, "According to press reports, other members include Dobson,[64]Jerry Falwell Jr.,[70] Richard Lee (pastor of First Redeemer Church of Atlanta, Georgia),[65] Harry Jackson (Hope Christian Church in Maryland), and Jim Garlow (Skyline Wesleyan Church, San Diego, California).[71]," add the seven words, and Catholic social conservative activist Maggie Gallagher :"... and Jim Garlow (Skyline Wesleyan Church, San Diego, California), and Catholic social conservative activist Molly Gallagher. "--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All of the above edit requests should be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bold text I SEE NOT KNOW FIND HERE. FREE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.96.217 (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)