Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Metro Round Trips + 10K = CBS estimates for Honor & Sanity rallies

This is original research, or actually just my opinion, but it is interesting. Regular Saturday ridership for Metro is 350k. The day of the Beck rally there was 510k riders. Now for some math: The diff is 160k. Since that 160k is probably rides (roundtrips), and not riders. That mean 80k riders back and forth from the rally. Add those who made it on their own (thereby avoiding socialized transit for moral reasons, not doubt), the CBS range of 78-96k isn't so hard to believe. For the Sanity rally, ridership was aprox 880k, and after doing the same assumptions, I get 480k above normal, which means 240k riders (round trips). The CBS/AirPhotoLive estimate of 250k is strikingly duplicated by my unscientific method:(round trips plus about 10k). Of course major sporting events and other anomalies are not factored, and I am not suggesting using any of this, but it is spooky that both methods work in these two cases. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be that they put numbers on different water bottles and made their decision from whichever one the Numbers Hamster decided to drink from. We don't know for sure, so shots in the dark aren't going to help us much. Soxwon (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Numbers Hamster? Sox, get with the times, man. Hamsters aren't used anymore. It's all about Paul the Octopus! Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, Paul is dead. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is quite interesting and potentially useful. While of course we cannot draw conclusions from the metro numbers (which would be OR), maybe presenting the raw metro numbers? E.g. saying somethink like "on the day of the event, the number of metro rides was 160,000 more than the usual average, counting round-trips twice.". AKA, where do you have the numbers from? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It can't be used because it is my formulation. (For one, I assumed increased ridership was all round trips (x/2).) It's only offered as background for skeptics of the CBS estimate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fine; just giving the numbers shouldn't be a problem, as long as we don't claim or imply that the numbers "mean" something. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
By stating the numbers we are implying it "means" something, otherwise it is meaningly triva. Arzel (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact of course the numbers mean something, because obviously there is a relationship between attendance numbers of large events and metro riders. We just cannot overstep and claim something which is not for sure (I think this what Stonemason), for example that the number of additional riders equals the crowd size. Even if this is likely, it is not for sure, for example because there was also another event and a football game as far as I know. So as usual, we should stick to the facts. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Attendance

I am lothe to even bring this up because of the mediation, but a few things should be clarrified because they are categorically incorrect as previously stated.

There was A (singular) scientific estimate of 87,000. There were not multiple scientific estimates that claimed 87,000. CBS requested two estimates. One was 80,000 and not reported and a second of 87,000 was reported. To make that statement is not only false it is undue weight. Also, Doig's estimate is reported to be a media report, it is not a media report, in fact it is not even a reported scientific estimate. The lowest clarrified media reported number is 100,000. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest how you would want this info to be worded? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead doesn't require too much in the way of changing. The change I made which says "a scientific estimate" should be used. Doig's estimate should be left out of the lead because it was not a media reported value in the sense that the other numbers were reported by media outlets. It was reported in response to the CBS estimate some time after the primary attendance numbers had been reported by various media outlets. If we are going to state specific numbers in the lead then the lowest reported media number is 100,000. The main section is the primary part of the mediation so I don't want to comment too much on the main article section. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with "a scientific estimate" as a compromise wording, but I would rather see mediation become the forum for these issues. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"CBS requested two estimates." -- Incorrect; CBS commissioned APL to professionally do the estimating, and APL then contacted estimate expert Doig to help with it. Multiple numbers were scientifically derived then presented to CBS and they chose to publish the 87,000 figure, according to reliable sources.
"Doig's estimate is reported to be a media report, it is not a media report..." -- Doig's calculations were indeed reported on by reliable source media. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple scientific estimates were made of the data, with Professor Doig's 80k and the 87k plus/minus 9k estimate; none had statistically significant differences within the margin of error. Nonetheless, it is verifiable that it was estimates (plural), not a single estimate. I suppose we could have the lead say "scientific estimates placed the crowd size between 80,000 and 96,000" (Doig's 80k at the low end, and 87k+9k at the high end), but the existing wording ("around 87,000") sounds the cleanest. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Doig's estimate has a +/- of 10% as well. And if you want to be completely correct in the verbage you would have to say the estimates were 80,000 (72000, 80000) and 87,000 (78000, 96000). Statistically, neither estimate really says that the crowd was between X and Y, it says that they are 95% confident that the true attendance was between X and Y. In any case there was only one estimate of 87,000. This is a fact, so we can either change the verbage in some way or simply use the correct factual statement that I made. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I take it you meant to say "80,000 (72000, 88000)" above then? No worries. In any event, as a number of editors have expressed a preference for "scientific estimates" (plural), what sort of wording would you like to propose? I think saying something like "scientific estimates of the crowd size ranged around 72,000 to 96,000" is probably close enough, but perhaps you can come up with a better wording that is more precise and agreeable to the editors who are interested. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant 80000 (72000, 88000). However, it is not statistically correct to say that the scientific estimates of the crowd size range from 72K to 96K. The (point) estimates are 80K and 87K. The ranges are the 95% CI for the true estimate. It would also not be correct to say that the estimates ranged from 80000 to 87000 because that implies there were additional estimates between the two. I suppose we could say that "Scientific analysis of crowd photos produced estimates of 80K and 87K" or something to that accord. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"Actually, Doig's estimate has a +/- of 10% as well." - Arzel
Could I trouble you for your source for that assertion, Arzel? As for the text in the lede, "scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000" seems both accurate and concise, with reliable sources noting that the difference between the scientific estimates is "statistically insignificant". The breakdown of complete ranges and margins of error can be fully explained in the text body, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting observations from the science community here. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really feel like finding that source, it wasn't specific to this estimate it was a general error range for this type of analysis and other analysis that Doig has done. Also they used the same basic methodology so it is reasonable to assume 10%. I would doubt it is much more or less knowing what I know about statistics. We won't be able to say anything about Doig's confidence interval since I don't think there were any sources that specifically stated that it was 10% for his analysis on this one as well. It is a little interesting to note that Doig could have estimated as little as probably 73000 or as much as 106000 and it would not have been statistically different at a 95% CI because the CI's would overlap. It is also interesting that Doig's estimates are consitantly criticized as being low. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Another consistent feature appears to be that the "critics" are always those who take offense to the implications of his research, depending on which side of the political spectrum they fall and how they interpret the result for or against their side of the aisle. When Doig estimated a much lower estimate for Obama's inauguration crowd, it was "embraced by the right." When he estimated a much lower for Beck's rally, he was "attacked" by them. Perhaps if other experts within the scientific crowd estimation community were to criticize Doig's methodologies as producing low balled results, we could draw some reliable inferences from it. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source where CBS claims that both estimates are scientific? I'd prefer to have CBS, or any another reliable source, explicitly state that claim, rather than Wikipedia using a passing comment and drawing that conclusion. And, yes, interesting observations from the science community. Akerans (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The news article at issue says that CBS News commissioned APL to do an estimate and that it was "the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally." However, the article also says that both Doig and APL's method involves laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell. Doig estimated that there were 80k people while APL estimated that there were 87k which was a statistically insignificant difference inside the margin of error, whereupon CBS News elected to use the higher estimate. Later in the same article, Doig says "The time-honored way to dismiss scientific estimates that don't reflect the pre-event hype is to claim political bias on the part of those doing the estimate. I am amused to see that those who embraced my Obama inauguration estimate as soberly realistic are now attacking the Beck rally estimate, produced using exactly the same methods..." (emphasis added) AzureCitizen (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not in passing comments, CBS/APL and Doig make it very clear that all their work is scientific, there is really no reasonable reason to doubt about this. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The point of CBS' article was to defend, provide clarity, and/or justify CBS' original claim of 87,000. That's the context in which the article was written. That's evident in the opening paragraph when CBS mentions the 87,000 estimate immediately before saying, "It was the only scientific estimate", and doing so while linking to the original article where they make the 87,000 claim. So, why assume other context in the article was written to defend, provide clarity, and/or justify estimates that CBS did not use? Since CBS used APL's estimate, why assume the context of Doig's statement was to defend his estimate and not defend APL's estimate? Seems to me as if he's trying to defend APL's estimate as scientific, not his own, and using his past experience as an example. In other words, no one attacked Doig's 80,000 estimate, but they did attack the 87,000 estimate. So, why would Doig defend his estimate and not APLs? The article doesn't appear to be written for the 80,000 estimate, and the context doesn't appear to be defending that number. The 80,000 estimate appears to have been mentioned simply to say it wasn't used, not to say it too was scientific. As a result, the 80,000 estimate is a passing comment, and given that the 80,000 estimate seems to be a tiny minority viewpoint, the estimate shouldn't be given weight in this article. Akerans (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you; what is it you are objecting to now? Your first comment in this thread questioned if the 80K estimate was scientific, and it has been shown that it was indeed scientific. Now it appears as if you are questioning the significance or relevance of the scientifically calculated 80K estimate as content in this article. I think part of the problem is your single-minded focus on just the CBS article, which is not the only source being used here. Several other reliable sources (already linked above) mention the role of Doig in the crowd estimation process, with some others going so far as to portray Doig as the scientific heavyweight among the involved analysts. From editorials to actual reporting, Doig appears to be more of a "go to man", rather than a tiny minority viewpoint source who is only mentioned in passing. Could you clarify your concerns? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
1) The attribution concern was never addressed, rather ignored. Which is fine, I was going to bring it up at mediation and have the mediator ask for proof. Can't ignore him/her. 2) The issue now, which is an old one, was asking for an explicit citation on the Doig's estimate. All I keep hearing is, "well, if you take a lot of these quotes and put them altogether, and then we combine more quotes from other sources and we put them altogether..." Seriously? If we have to through all that to state a conclusion, then the conclusion is not clearly stated in sourcing. Explicit quote, or it didn't happen. Akerans (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
But that's exactly the point: we don't need to go through all that to state a conclusion. The sources appear to be clear to everyone else, but for you we have been going through all that extra explanation. Seriously. Now we'll try it your way, and have the mediator explain it to you. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Still no source? No worries, I've went ahead and flagged it as a problem since the lead doesn't conform to what we have written in the body. Akerans (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't standard practice to duplicate the source citations in the lede, when they are clearly present with the non-summarized content in the body of the article. I assumed you understood that; my mistake. Another editor has de-summarized some of the lede, and duplicated the reference there, to help alleviate your confusion. No worries, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point about standard practice; we probably don't need to duplicate the same source citations now that any confusion has been alleviated. I will go ahead and redact the duplicate references back out, and hopefully everyone will be satisfied with the result. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just speak the source for itself: "Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant different since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate." So Akerans, do you seriously deny that there are two scientific estimates?? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion is implied, and I don't dispute that. But, other conclusions are also implied. So, we need an explicit source, should avoid the material, or precisely quote the source. We basically did the third option by wording the section in the exact same manner as the sourcing. I thought that was a fair compromise. And, the original wording of the lead took that into consideration. But, since someone decided to change the lead, I'm asking for a source again. Or, we could go back to the compromise. Akerans (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Akerans, while I don't understand your involved logic about assumptions and abouot what you think Doig did and didn't defend, but I just want to point out how simple it is: This later CBS article just explains why, based on two scientific estimates 80,000 (Doig) and 87,000 (APL), the previous CBS article reported an attendance of 87,000 as scientific estimate (by going with the higher one). And among other details, Doig, based on his own 80,000 estimate, supports/defends the APL 87,000 estimate. Is this really that complicated? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

CBS did not say, "based on two scientific estimates". Your putting words in their mouth. And, saying they went with a higher estimate is not the same thing as saying both estimates are scientific. Saying they went with the higher estimate is saying they went with the higher estimate. And, the complicated part about this is that some people don't seem to understand the difference between implicit and explicit. Akerans (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some people don't seem to understand there are several reliable sources that cover the scientific estimates, the methodologies and the experts involved. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Akerans, do you really mean this seriously??? I hope that your "interpretation" is only because you don't like these low scientific estimates, because if you really would believe the logic of your "arguments", this would be troubling... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Yesterday I went to a cabriolet dealer and bought a cabriolet. I had the choice between a red and blue car, and I went for the red one." - Logic aka Akerans: "do we really know that the blue car was a cabriolet? This is not stated explicitly. Some people don't seem to understand the difference between implicit and explicit..." 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not disputing consecutive sentences. I'm disputing the use of nonconsecutive sentences and presenting them as though they had been presented consecutively. Akerans (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, I change my sample to: "Yesterday I went to a cabriolet dealer and bought a cabriolet. [... Various sentences about how cabriolets work and the job of cabriolet dealers ... ] I had the choice between a red and blue car, and I went for the red one." - Logic aka Akerans: "do we really know that the blue car was a cabriolet? This is not stated explicitly. Some people don't seem to understand the difference between implicit and explicit..." 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the change comment: Three experts from APL plus Doig makes four experts. (I hope Akerans does not say that is is only "implicit" that 3 + 1 = 4.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it was two APL experts plus Doig, whereupon when CNN called APL they were told by an official that three experts (total) made estimates using their own methodologies. Take a look and see what you think. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, that was my understanding as well from what I gathered from the different sources. 82.135.29.209, what source are you using to make the 3+1 conclusion. Thanks Morphh (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I will go ahead and respectfully revert it back to three. 82.135.29.209, please do not hesitate to revert and re-insert to "four" if Morphh and I are mistaken. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, this was fine because a) we don't have a source for the 2nd APL estimate, b) we don't list the 2nd APL estimate in the article, and c) we are listing Doig's estimate separately. The beginning sentence should read, "a scientific estimate placed the crowd size around 87,000, an expert estimate at 80,000, media reports ranged from 100,000 to 500,000..." Akerans (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This wouold be misleading, because it sounds like a scientific estimate and an estimate by an expert is something different, and it contradicts directly CNN which calls all three of them experts. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"The company generated its own estimate and asked Doig to separately one on his own." Yes, you are right, it seems that Doig is one of the three experts. (I had wrongly in memory that CBS said that CBS asked Doig for an estimate.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Akerans, note that CBS news commissioned APL for a scientific estimate, and Doig worked for APL on this estimate. Oh, I see, they are not "consecutive sentences", s***, I've lost again. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But nevertheless, I agree with Top1Percent and like the summary version "scientific estimates placed the crowd size between 80,000 and 87,000" for the lead better. Maybe "around 87,000" is better, because of the unknown confidence interval as discussed. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ups, sorry again for the broken edit summary. Computers seem to not like me. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes by Arzel and Akerans

First, the change [1] is not ok for two reasons. First, it is factual not correct: We have not only one, but two scientific estimates: Image analysts of APL say 87000, Doig said 80000, so saying "scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000" is correct. (If someone would like to change it to something like "crowd size around 80,000 to 87,000", this would be also fine to me, but we should wait for the mediation result.) Furthermore and more important, it is not ok to try to create facts and change the crowd sections in a controversial way while the the mediation is active. Any objections to fix this and undo this change?

Next, the revert [2] is also not justified, since none of my changes were in any sections the mediation (or my mediation statement) is about. Does someone has any issues with the content of my changes? If not I put them back.

Thank you! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You added Colbert to the list of issues here. You said, "Colbert's comments should be put in back again". Yet, rather than waiting for mediation and/or discussion, you went ahead in inserted them. So, I object to your circumventing mediation. Akerans (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My statement was only about the crowd size section, not the media section. To avoid further confusion, I removed the part you are referring to form my opening statement, since there is currently no Beck comment in the crowd section anyway. Note that the mediation explicitly is about the "the crowd section", not the media section. My latest changes in the article were in the media section. I hope this addresses your concerns. By the way, I suggested the Colbert change already long before the mediation started, and nobody ever argued against that change as far as I know. The only objection I know about is your "procedural" change, which should be clarified now I hope.
Now, there are three possibilities: You may want to include the media reaction section to the mediation, too, then please officially request this. (You cannot just revert changes without explanation by just referring to the mediation if the mediation is not about the particular section at all.) Or you may bring up your concerns with regard to the content of my changes here on this talk page, and we discuss it here. In both cases please explain why you object all of my various changes in the media section (not only the Colbert part), because if there is no debate about the content of my changes, then there is no justification to mediate or revert them. If you really want to prevent my changes, then you cannot avoid forever providing arguments why you reject the content of my changes. So again I invite you to bring up your concerns. The third possibility is that you don't object to the content of my changes. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The mediation is also the weight afforded to CBS' estimate. So, in a ~7:30 minute satire piece how did you only manage to quote sections where 87,000 is mentioned? Akerans (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, to address your concern, lets put in also other numbers: I put in various other numbers, from Palin, Beck, Bachmann, so it includes various numbers from 87,000 to a million. Regarding the mediation, please again note that it is explicitly about the crowd size section. If you want to include also the media section (and also Becks notes about the crowd size) into the mediation, then officially request it. Currently nobody participating the mediation assumes that it also includes the media response section. Again, you cannot just deny any change to the media response section by pointing to the mediation as long as the mediation does not include that section. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Then, we'll have two sections on crowd size, but one with a different name. Crowd size is not due that much weight, and I have noted that in the mediation. Read the first sentence of my opening statement. We don't need to list estimates multiple times throughout the article. Akerans (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed Colbert's non-notable statement. He does comedy, not media reporting. It is clearly an attempt to make fun of Beck and Palin and serves no other purpose. Arzel (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we are making some progress now and discussing about the changes. That's good. Akerans, while I don't exactly understand your reference to your first sentence of the opening statement, as far as I understand you you want to remove any references somehow related to the crowd size outside the crowd section, correct? This seems to be in line with Arzel's point of view, so let's do at least that change for now. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Done in [3]. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Akerans, it seems to be important for you to include this issue into the mediation, so let's do that.[4] For me, we can resolve it also here at any time in case you change your mind (and of course if nobody else disagrees). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't have a discussion if you're going to ignore what I say, and continue to edit the article in lieu of discussion. That's your 3rd revision by the way. Akerans (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What did I ignore? And what do you mean by "3rd revision"? Yes, I understood that you want to include my change into the mediation, so I didn't insist putting it into the article now, but added it to the topics for mediation - what else do you want? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You ignored the request to stop editing the article. You were bold and made changes. You were reverted twice. Then, edited the same section again. Hence, the comment about making a 3rd revision. If you prefer discussion over edit warring, then why do you keep editing? Akerans (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't revert the Colbert part twice, only once restoring it after your bogus deletion-revert. And no, I didn't keep editing, but let the version I didn't like, and instead followed your request to put it into the mediation. Again, what do you want more? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On the media coverage subsection

Within the "Beck's Comments" Section, in the subsection "On the Media coverage," where Beck made comments on media coverage of the rally, we have a portion culled from a primary source transcript where Beck showed a video clip of Joe Klein calling Beck a paranoid lunatic and making analogies to sentiments involving German-Americans and Japanese-Americans being targeted in World War I and II, then Beck responded about Presidents Wilson and FDR rounding those people up. If this section is about Beck commenting on the media's coverage of his rally, is this paragraph really a salient point to that end? The paragraph before relates directly to media coverage of the rally (The Root worrying about the rally being a "pit of hatred") as does the paragraph after (Beck critiquing the media's crowd size estimates), but the Klein stuff (World War I & II roundups of citizens, Wilson & FDR, etc) seems out of place here, like it was cherry picked out of this primary source transcript to make some other point. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been nearly two weeks and no one has responded or commented, so I'm going to go ahead and trim the seemingly out of place material based on my concerns above. If anyone thinks it should still be included, please feel free to revert the edit and post your rationale here as to how it fits and why it should remain. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Azure, I see your name everywhere on Wikipedia. The writer may have been attempting to show a bias by some media outlets (Klien has been known to be rather one-sided) But, I agree with you, it is out of place. Paragoalie (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation status

We're going on three weeks without a sign, or even an edit, from our mediator, Wgfinley. Would any of the participants in that mediation object to requesting a replacement or interim mediator? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I dropped a note here, but haven't received a response. I am unfamiliar with what is considered "normal" as far as the time frames and scheduling goes in mediation matters; I don't want to come off as impatient, but the total silence concerns me. I'm sure the holiday season will also add to the erratic and sluggish progress of the mediation. Feel free to prod the Mediation Committee. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:RFM/COMMON#Stale I notified User_talk:AGK#Mediation_on_stale. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I was wondering why there was no Restoring Honor rally activity on my Watchlist. After the SPI it got rather quiet. Alpha Quadrant talk 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation started by massive sock puppeter's BS24 (on indefinite block, and at this late date, it can safely be assumed that all appeals have run their course) has gone nowhere. I plan to start editing the crowd section trusting that more reasonable editors remain. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this? The current crowd size text seems like we're more interested in pushing versions by parties with a conflict of interest than in actual facts. Has anything happened on the mediation or elsewhere in DR? —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the mediation isn't going to happen. We may just have to agree to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the debate ended. We all agreed to stand down in favor of the mediation. If the mediation had taken place, then it would be time to accept the result and move on. Since it never did, this will be an open wound going forward. I'm going to request a new mediator. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be an open wound, none of the original parties has edited in two months, except for mine which I probably shouldn't have done. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's presumptuous say there is no "open wound", and it's appropriate to correct the mistake. In disputes related to this talk page involving on the part of NY51, there has been by him sustained lying to other editors, ad hominem attacks and one of the most egregious cases sock puppetry I've seen. This all has a lasting effect, especially since no expression of remorse or apology has been forthcoming. There is no obligation of anyone else to feel the same, but I feel it should be kept in mind by editors and admins. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)'
It's been four months, The Artist. Can't we just move on? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
For the benefit of other editors I've brought up the sordid past so they may know what to expect. Unless I see sustained proof of better behavior, I'll remain apprehensive. Actions have consequences which can't be wished away. BTW, it might be better to continue this discussion on user talk pages. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation expiration

There is no mediator; the one we had disappeared. There is, in effect, no mediation. If we avoid ridiculous, prevaricating challenges to sources such as On The Media, which consumed too much space and time, and try for a brief, but accurate section the reader will be better served. Furthermore, the listing many estimates in text form, but adding not one iota of information not found in the table is wasteful. A paragraph quickly describing the range and character of unscientific (those that reveal no sources or methodologies for their estimates. ) estimates will do. Also, positioning of paragraphs can create POV. The scientific estimates are the most credible since they do not rely on arguments from authority (Such as: Brian Williams is a very watched reporter and thus has to taken more seriously than OTM due to their smaller audience, though the latter is highly respected and award winning and in this case produced actual reporting where Williams did none. He was, instead, talking off the top of his head in a discussion, not issuing fact-checked reporting. This has been fixed to make clear the context, which in this case is incredibly significant.) The paragraph on the CBS estimate was trimmed. There is no need to list estimates of that have statistically insignificant differences. Doig, in fact, accepted all as valid. Relating the most minor differences implies disagreement when their is none. The paragraph on Beck's take on the controversy was moved because it developed what the controversy was, the subject of the first paragraph. Finally, there is no point in saying where Beck said something when what he said is significant and the context adds nothing to the effect of the statement. It is assumed that the source is reliable by inclusion and acceptance of other editors, tacit or not. The citation will take care of the those trivial points such as what show and what network the statement was made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any support for this approach? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Since it treats the unscientific, unsourced and wildly speculative estimates from the organizers, the media or attendees as equal to the scientific estimates (the only one cited which revealed their methods), I would wonder why such an uninformative edit (by one of the many sock puppet accounts of NY51, BS24) would be helpful. It is de facto POV to do so, since the higher estimates are the most dubious and ridiculous. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Then can we work to an agreeable solution without resorting to old grudges? I'm more than willing to. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
A response to the substance of what I said regarding your proposed revert might make that possible. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
My proposal allows for no commentary on each estimate. References are provided so the reader can decide for himself who to believe. That said, I do think the current revision is quite fair and would have no problem with keeping it as is. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither does mine; that would be POV. It only provides proper context. To pretend that there are no reliable sources which give a better qualitative idea of the estimates is a mistake. Everything has reliable sources giving the reader a indication that a scientific estimate differs greatly from the absurd estimate of Michelle Bachmann, the erroneous and non-existent "estimate" of Brian Williams, and the many other unsourced and unverified estimates reported by major news outlets. To let the readers make up their minds, they need good info and context. Both are lacking in your edit, which has the effect of suggesting by omission of context that the higher estimates are just as credible as CBS's. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you okay with the current version? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mostly. My would like to remove the duplicatred listing of the estimates of media in the table and the text. That is, where nothing is added. I'd rather say something like "Other reporters and commentators offered varying estimates offered the high estimate of Joe Blow to the lower estimate of Moe Blow. THis would apply only to where nothing more of substance is said in text and the table. The section is way too long, and we could avoid at he same time leave in all the estimates, while giving the reader a better grasp of the range, rather than a textural barrage of them.
I'd rather keep the table, I think folks like having both. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
What the difference? What does the duplication do? I'm all for the duplication, and reducing the too long section by removing the redundancies. I suggest a pause and let other weigh in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:RS – "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." The success of a rally is often measured based on crowd size. Therefore, organizers and participants are not reliable sources of crowd size. Their estimates can be mentioned along with whatever else they may have said at the event, just as Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear says that "Jon Stewart, speaking from the stage, jokingly said there were over 10 million people there." Those statements should not be used as part of the analysis of the event by reliable secondary sources.

The proposed revert is unacceptable because it offers no context for each source and implies that the primary sources are equal in weight to the secondary sources. The current revision is much better, but it still needs some work. The table should have only the secondary sources. Putting the primary and secondary sources together is misleading. It would be fine for the text to summarize some of the secondary sources in the interest of brevity as The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has proposed. The primary sources should be mentioned separately just for information. Bachmann's estimate is a joke to most people, but she clearly wanted to believe it was true so it wouldn't be fair to characterize it that way. Unless there is a secondary source that has somehow characterized her estimate, we should just say something like "those involved in the event claimed that the crowd was much larger. Specifically, Beck said ..., Bachman said ..., etc." —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not re-fight these battles. I think the current version is a fair compromise. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I's rather you had not suggested, or implied, the threat of a fight, but you did. No one has veto power over edits and consensus is what we strive for, not unanimity. The section is too long, agreed? If so, how to shorten it? Removing redundancies is an excellent way. What others might there be? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
While my ideal proposal is still this, I have written another one in my sandbox.
  • Removed unnecessary mentions of who said it, i.e., "According to the Wall Street Journal the crowd 'packed nearly a mile of the National Mall' but the Christian Science Monitor says the issue of how many attended is hotly contested." I did that for a few others.
  • Removed Joe Scarborough's estimate entirely.
  • Removed Michele Bachmann's estimate from the prose, kept in the table.
  • Removed some unnecessary details.
Nothing major, just some shortening. At the very least it's a potential starting point. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither of you has commented on my rationale for reducing the role of the primary sources by removing them from the table and separating them out in the text. I believe that Wikipedia policy requires this change; it's not a matter of what you would like it to say. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Which Wikipedia policy are you referring to? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." and "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved..."
WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."
WP:NPOV: "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." [empahsis added]
Beck and Bachmann are primary sources and they have a clear conflict of interest with regards to crowd size. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree or not with Douggie. But there are good secondary sources that summarize the controversy, differing media estimates and reports, reports, as well as, in the case of the On The Media report, fabrications. Relying on sources like these would sidestep the primary vs secondary sources quagmire. I primary, or self published, sources, are allowed in certain circumstances such as Doig's blog, since he did report how ideologically driven those who want to puff up crowd count can be and have been. His low count of the Obama inauguration irked the left, as his low count of the Honor Rally ticked off the right. I think the context his observation provides is invaluable and would help the reader enormously to get some bearings on the mess. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"in certain circumstances" is the key. A notable person commenting on crowd size may be applicable if it shows how the rally was perceived or how various people and groups attempted to influence public opinion. However, only reliable secondary sources should appear in the section documenting what the crowd size actually was and they should never be mixed with the primary sources in a misguided attempt to "document the controversy." We are required to cover disagreements among reliable secondary sources, but not between primary and secondary sources. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that there is no longer a dispute, should I remove the mediation edit notice? Alpha Quadrant talk 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. It looks like we'll be able to reach a resolution here. I don't think the notice is buying us anything right now. I suggest that we insert some comments in the new crowd size section to try and prevent the primary sources from getting added back in. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, that may have been premature. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Which "primary sources" do you consider problematic? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Beck and Bachmann are primary sources. They should only be used, if at all, in the way that Stewart's 10 million number is used – not for determining the actual crowd size. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Douggie, the organizer should be included. Besides, Beck's 300,000-650,000 is mostly on par with other estimates. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Douggie, the estimates from the organizers (Beck, Bachmann, et al.) should only be used to illustrate the problem with citing those involved with the event, if at all. Bachmann's 1 million, and Beck's 300K-650K are both equally absurd. Any justification for excluding one must also be applied to the others. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The direction we're moving in

Sorry I've been AWOL for a few days. Right now the article is getting smaller and smaller; estimates are being removed but commentaries are being added: "fairly precise counts came from", "much more vague were", "Many of the media reports that offered numbers did so using ranges", etc. We need to report all estimates. UncleDouggie's "primary source" rationale was in good faith, but the policies he referred to are talking about references; for example, using news reports about an organization vs. using the organization's About page. (I'm happy to open a RfC on that end.) It's not right to remove some estimates and keep others. Let's report them all. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that phrases like "fairly precise counts came from" and "much more vague were" have no place in the article. The section is a bit of a mess at the moment. However, before I clean it up we need to settle some key points, including the Brian Williams issue, the Domenico Montanaro issue and the controversy issue. Let's deal with those in their own threads first please. BTW, I think we have consensus on Brian Williams, but perhaps NYyankees51 still has new references for us. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia runs on references. You seem to be saying that we should just put in what anyone says without regard to Wikipedia policies. I don't think you're going to find much support there in an RfC. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring to crowd size controversary

I'm fine with referring to the crowd controversy as reported in reliable secondary sources as we had it about a week ago. However, this sentence is unacceptable: "An early indication of controversy came from Beck, who before the rally had expected 100,000 to attend, joked during his rally speech that 'I have just gotten word from the media that there is over a thousand people here today.'" Beck is a primary source. He doesn't get to define whether there is a controversy about his own rally. Does anyone wish to defend this sentence before I revert to the previous wording that only referenced the joke? If it's going to be a problem for people, I say we take it out all together. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there us some merit to this argument, and I have adjusted the sentence so the primary source (Beck's statement) is properly used without analysis being applied - as is allowed by WP:PRIMARY. I added the analysis of the Post, in this case and removed what may have been mine. The section is focused on facets of the controversy, and the views of the organizer are central to this. The Washington Post placed the Beck quote in the context of a controversy, and that is how it is used. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Crowd Size

I think good points have been made, but it might be time to get to the nitty gritty. If Douggie, or anyone else, list which estimates should be kept, summarized or removed, while giving relevant reasons for each, that might move the discussion from the theoretical to the practical and eliminate a lot of vagueness. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Also, see my sandbox for a cleanup proposal. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've taken a first pass through NYyankees51's sandbox version. The table is final. I've only done light cleanups on the text, it still needs major work. A summary of the table needs to be put at the top and all primary sources need to move to the bottom. I'm going to be busy for a few days, go ahead and take a crack at it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I like NYyankees51's proposal and took the liberty making the sentence about AiraphotoLive's estimate two sentences. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The only big objection I had was to inclusion of the politician Michele Bachman's non-RS esitimate based on an unnamed 'park official,' which I don't see in the draft version. (I noticed it was still in the lead so I've boldly removed it.) As far as readability, I think the section seems like much ado overall and could use some shortening/tightening. Do we really need the table? -PrBeacon (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the text still needs more updates, as I've noted above. Keeping the table is probably a good idea because it will allow us to condense the text and avoid any neutrality issues over what to leave out. Unless there are big objections, I'd like to update the article with the draft at this point and just keep working on the text in the article as normal. We can always use WP:BRD to resolve any heartburn over text changes back here. Thanks for editing the lead. I had been planning to update it once we got the section straightened out, but your change is certainly welcome. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Both of the "unnamed official" estimates should be tossed, or both kept -- as they are both conveyed to us through ostensibly reliable sources (the Star Tribune news, and NBC news). Both should be scrapped, but if people are going to argue to keep one or the other, then both should be kept. In addition, both Beck and Bachmann are organizers (Bachmann's rally was piggy-backed onto Beck's, at the same location) -- and they both give estimates that are typical of those usually given by organizers: highly inflated. However, chosing to include mention of one rediculous organizer's estimate but not another rediculous organizer's estimate seems a little odd.
My personal preference is to see a much more condensed, encyclopedic version ... along the lines of how Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear#Crowd_size was handled. I don't have any strong opinions about whether to keep or drop the table. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, both should be dropped. One isn't from NBC News. It's a tweet from a low-level reporter who happens to work for NBC News. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the sandbox into the article. We can still do some more text cleanups. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there is disagreement that both should be dropped. I've reverted an edit that replaced one of the organizer's estimates into the lead, and also into the main body, while it also removed mention of the scientific estimate from the lead. My preference is to leave silliness from organizers including Bachmann and Beck in the trash heap where they belong. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I also changed estmates from plural to singular, as the source says that there was only one "scientific estimate" taken.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The source says that CBS "chose the higher of the two" estimates, between the 80K and the 87K numbers provided by APL (and Doig, to whom APL sub-contracted). But technically, CBS "reported" just one of those scientific estimates, so a case could be made for either wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Heres the source Thats used in the article, which says:
AirPhotosLive.com calculated that there were approximately 87,000 people there, plus or minus 9,000 people. It was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally.
Sounds singular to me. If there is another source saying that there were two, I haven't seen it.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounded like more than one estimate to me. As I said, a case can be made for either wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I removed the additional quote you made per WP:REDACT. Its not what I typed and shouldn't have been added to my comment with my signature at the end. Second, there is no mention that the second estimate was done scientifically, only that the they made an estimate.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you for clarifying the tenor you wish to have for this discussion. Sure, I can indulge. First, per the guideline page section that you have linked, I have done the same. Please use a little more care in presenting the content conveyed in the links you provide. Second, speaking of said links, the source we are discussing actually says:
The company generated its own estimate and asked Doig to separately do one on his own. Though Doig and AirPhotosLive.com employ slightly different methodologies...
Doig estimated that there were 80,000 people at the "Restoring Honor" rally, while AirPhotosLive.com estimated that there were 87,000 people, a statistically insignificant difference since the margin of error was 9,000. CBS News elected to use the higher estimate.
Many of these photos were used in generating the two estimates. (The underscoring is mine. -X)
Yes, there was more than one estimate. Yes, they were both scientific, and even used similar methodologies, and the same aerial photos. "The time-honored way to dismiss scientific estimates that don't reflect the pre-event hype is to claim political bias on the part of those doing the estimate. I am amused to see that those who embraced my Obama inauguration estimate as soberly realistic are now attacking the Beck rally estimate, produced using exactly the same methods, as deliberately biased." We can cite other sources that note the multiple, expert, scientific estimates generated through APL: "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes." I'll be fixing the edit to the article accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with Xenophrenic, this is getting far too carried away. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm re-adding Beck's 300,000-650,000 estimate. As the organizer, his estimate matters, and it is mostly on par with the other estimates. Also, I think it would be a whole lot easier to just say "The attendance of the rally is disputed; estimates from various sources ranged from 80,000 to 650,000." NYyankees51 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary: (Remove "media" and "scientific" labels, replace with simpler and more agreeable version.)
Wikipedia generally strives to appeal not just to simple readers, but to all readers. And while you may find enflated estimates by organizers such as Beck and Bachmann more agreeable as lead material than scientific estimates, I don't think Wikipedia editing policy agrees. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Beck's estimate shouldn't be in the lead since it is a primary source. This isn't a 2 on 1 thing, it is based on policies as previously discussed. It doesn't matter how close it is. The wording prior to this change was fine. I'll hold off on a revert for a short while in case NYyankees51 wants to have further discussion. There's no need for an edit war, we have time. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone reporting Beck's estimate does not make Beck's estimate a primary source. The source reporting on Beck is a secondary source. As the event organizer it is perfectly fine to use reliable secondary sources to report his estimate. Arzel (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's say I stand in Times Square, loudly announce that the earth is flat, and that fact gets reported in the New York Times. Would you put in Wikipedia that the earth is flat or that I said the earth is flat? Putting Beck's crowd size figure into the lead as a fact makes the earth flat. It should stay right where it is at the end of the crowd size section as just something he said. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest a RFC be placed on the question of what is a primary source or not in regards to Beck's estimates and whatever other estimates are up for discussion. That would allow all to cool down or not get heated. Discussions on this section last year went completely off the rails and became acrimonious. It would be sad to see a return to that state of affairs. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
We're don't need an RFC yet. We've been making incredible progress and a few flare-ups along the way over some minor points aren't an issue. I know frustration and it's spelled PC. I'm at about 3% of that level. In fact, I'm waiting intently for how NYyankees51 and Arzel will respond to my Times Square analogy. You only go to RFC when you're sick of the discussion. I would ask everyone to please stick to WP:BRD and not engage in an edit war that could get this page protected. We have the time to work it out. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I get the point you are making with your Times Square analogy, Douggie, but (and please don't take offense) in your example, your statement that the earth is flat doesn't deserve to be in the lead OR at the end of the article. Beck's statement and Bachmann's statement are equally inappropriate for the article (and neither is more suitable than the other for inclusion). They are both organizers, both rely on hearsay (yes, even Beck look closely), and both are ridiculous. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There's always the question of notability. However, I'm trying to explain what is permissible to include if we find it sufficiently notable. It would be permissible to include that I said the earth was flat. Don't get wrapped in why that may be applicable or not to the article right now. It wouldn't be permissible to state that the earth is flat and source it to the New York Times. Are you saying that there is some reason that Beck's numbers can't appear in the article, or do you feel that it puts undo weight on the statement in relation to the other rally content as reported by secondary sources? Because Beck did make a reference to crowd size during the rally, it seems like a valid topic to me so long as we don't present it as being true. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you recall this statement (with which I agree 100%):
Beck and Bachmann are primary sources. They should only be used, if at all, in the way that Stewart's 10 million number is used – not for determining the actual crowd size. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Both the Beck and Bachmann guesstimates are equally laughably high, and not grounded in reality. Yet it appears you are now trying to justify the inclusion of one absurdity, while scrubbing the other absurdity. They are both organizers, and are both participants, and as such it is universally agreed that their estimates will be grossly inflated. Both are notable, public individuals. Both are primary sources, but (as Arzel points out) both have had their statements widely covered by reliable secondary news sources. Should we include their crowd size comments because they are both, as you say, "notable"? Perhaps only as illustrative examples of how overblown the estimates of organizers can be, but that sounds like a subject better handled in the Crowd counting article. You ask if I'm "saying that there is some reason that Beck's numbers can't appear in the article?" If you'll review my previous statements, you'll note that I do not mention Beck's numbers without also mentioning Bachmann's numbers, so the question doesn't make sense. Are you saying that since Bachmann and Beck made references to the crowd size during the rally that it is a valid topic, so long as we don't present their comments as being true? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding. I still fully agree with my previous statement. However, I didn't intend to link the two together. Perhaps I should have said "If either is used, it should only be in the way that Stewart's 10 million number is used – not for determining the actual crowd size." I don't agree that Bachmann has to be there if we leave Beck in as a joke. We're not required to relate two jokes. One joke told by the primary headliner of the event seems sufficient to me. I'm not saying that Beck's number has to be in the article. Merely that if it is in the article, it can't be used as a factual basis for the actual crowd size and it doesn't create any obligation to include other primary sources. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that Bachmann has to be there if we leave Beck in as a joke. We're not required to relate two jokes.
Yes, we do seem to have a misunderstanding. I never said Bachmann has to be there if we leave Beck in as a joke. In fact, I never mentioned Beck's "over a thousand people" joke". Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been involved the past few days. Now that more editors are involved, I would just like to ask one more time: Is there any support for this approach, where no commentary on each estimate is given, but references are so readers can decide for themselves? You may object to giving all the estimates equal weight to CBS, but obviously most of the media disagreed with them. Since there is such a big range, I think this is the most fair approach. Thoughts? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (Obviously the actual table layout can be changed to fit better, I'm just asking about the idea. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Obviously most of the media disagreed with CBS/APL? Really? Could you provide a link to a reliable source stating so? (Note: Most guesstimates were made long before scientific numbers were publicized, and before most reporting agencies were even aware they existed.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the sources that said "tens of thousands" don't disagree with CBS News. I don't support the approach proposed by NYyankees51. We have a job to do here. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a bunch of reference links. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, every other media outlet gave a different estimate than CBS. I wasn't saying we should say "Most of the media disagreed with CBS" in the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No, every other media outlet did not give a different estimate than CBS. In fact, a search of reliable news sources mentioning the CBS/APL estimate, also note that other numbers are mostly guesstimates, not estimates. I also do not see a single source saying they disagree with the CBS/APL estimate. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, if you claim you did not see a single source "saying they disagree with the CBS/APL estimate", then you haven't looked at any other source. Every media source I looked at had a vastly different number. The notion that only 87,000 people were at the Beck Rally whereas a supposed 215,000 were at the Stewart Rally is so laughable it doesn't even pass the smell test.

Domenico Montanaro Tweet

I removed the tweet by Domenico Montanaro from the text with this edit summary: "rm Domenico Montanaro tweet – a tweet by an off-air reporter doesn't represent the position of NBC News and isn't a secondary source". It was reinserted in the text and added to the table for the first time by NYyankees51 with the edit summary of "restore NBC; see talk". However, I see no discussion, let alone consensus, for this addition. I intend to remove it again, but I'll wait a day just in case NYyankees51 forgot to start a discussion thread on this. I don't consider this related to the Brian William issue. They both work for NBC News, but there are different issues involved in each case. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It represents the opinion of the park service official. The source, NBC, is noted to show that it wasn't made up. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The source isn't NBC News, it's Domenico Montanaro. If NBC News felt that the number was so accurate, why didn't they report it on their actual broadcast? Either they felt that the estimate wasn't reliable or they had contradictory information. We can only source what is actually reported, not internal discussions as reported in the tweet. The reason that we use reliable sources is that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Using tweets completely bypasses this critical step and makes the source unreliable. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, Domenico Montanaro didn't claim the count to be the official estimate of the Park Service; it was just a lone report. For all we know, other Park Service employees had estimates ranging from 50,000 to 500,000. Perhaps such reports even drove NBC News to use the wide range they broadcast. We just don't know and we can't make guesses. We have to use what NBC News broadcast. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
His estimate was widely reported in various sources. I believe you take issue with it coming across as an NBC estimate. That he is an NBC reporter is used to identify him. Even if NBC didn't broadcast his estimate, other outlets did, and it should be included. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I followed that link; it shows only one source. Widely reported? Perhaps you provided an incorrect link? The "other outlets" mentioning his estimate only do so to illustrate the inaccuracy of the "unnamed park officials" estimates.
  • quickly got picked up and repeated enough to almost become fact.- AP/Yahoo
  • And what did The New York Times do? ... 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.- OnTheMedia
  • Some “estimates” of Mall crowds may be just stone cold guesses. A number of media organizations, for instance, cited unnamed National Park Service officials who estimated the crowd at more than 200,000. That’s interesting – but the National Park Service does not do official estimates anymore, due to the controversy that always follows. We have no idea how this unnamed official came up with the 200,000 number. Were they flying overhead in a helicopter? Standing next to the podium, looking at the audience and guesstimating?- Christian Science Monitor
Do we even know if Montanaro was acting in the capacity of a reporter when he tweeted his comments? Are you suggesting that we should include in the article what other outlets say about his comments, as well as about mysterious "unnamed park official" estimates in general? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm agnostic on whether to include the tweet or not, but if we do have to have it, we might have to add RS's that clarify or challenge the tweet. On another note, the tweet actually quoted an "official at top of memorial." What agency, let alone who, is not revealed. It would be safe to assume it was a park official, but not for the purposes of WP. The reports that morphed it into a park official did it citing no other source than the tweet. For those reasons I quoted the tweet as reported by secondary sources in the article to avoid the hassle of explaining or untangling it.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

NBC News vs. Brian Williams

The only report broadcast by NBC News was on the NBC Nightly News over the weekend that said the crowd was "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands." Brian Williams doesn't host the weekend edition on which the report was broadcast and he didn't have any coverage of the rally on his Monday evening show. However, Brian Williams stated in a discussion on Meet the Press that NBC News had estimated 300,000. This seems like quite a disconnect from the same news department. Regardless of what numbers where thrown around internally at NBC News, the only estimate they felt was reliable enough to broadcast was "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands." That is their sourced position. I recommend that we remove the Brian Williams estimate from the section. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed Williams' comment pending additional sourcing. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a disconnect within the department, which is why all estimates they reported should be included. Williams has not retracted his statement. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
While Williams has not retracted his statement, he has also not reaffirmed it. In addition, other reliable sources reporting in depth on the actual issue have discredited Williams' offhand comment -- the On the Media reports, come to mind. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Williams was speaking on his own behalf in a discussion and not engaged in journalism. Consensus (three editors in agreement) seems to want the misstatement stay omitted, even at the time the revert had been made. It's unfortunate that the discussion moved to edit summaries. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Brian Williams' statement is his own personal account. It is not a sourced position of NBC News. Many of the news sources we use go through internal conflicts in getting the facts correct. We should be using only what they finally decided to report, not anecdotal reports of their internal discussions. To do otherwise diminishes their credibility as a reliable source. Brian Williams isn't in charge of fact checking for all of NBC News. If he was, they would have reported 300,000 on the actual news. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
NBC reported three different estimates. We can't decide which was correct. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is very apparent and should be respected regarding Williams. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What are the 3 reports you're referring to that qualify as a reliable source? I'm only aware of the "tens of thousands" report on NBC Nightly News. If there are indeed others, let's discuss them. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Remind me again where OTM refutes Brian Williams? I don't see it in the transcript. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides having the OTM ref to look at, Xeno spelled it out as clear as day above. Consensus does not accept the Williams number as a NBC number. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
OTM doesn't say Brian Williams' was wrong. In any case, the NYT backs up the NBC estimate. Please stop removing it from the sidebar. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
BRIAN WILLIAMS: At Glenn Beck’s rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial yesterday, he was able to attract a crowd – I've seen estimates 500,000. NBC News estimated the crowd at 300,000.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And what did The New York Times do?
STEVE DOIG: 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.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
All that proves is that Gladstone and Doig disagree with the NBC estimate. I'm not seeing the significance. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
They can't disagree with an estimate that doesn't exist - which is their point. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing your logic. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it amazing how "concensus" always seems to come down on getting rid of any source that disputes the ridiculous 87,000 claim and accepting any source that seems to bolster it, regardless of how dubious the source? Just one more example, out of "tens of thousands" of examples of the bias that makes Wikipedia's claims to be encyclopedic absolutely laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Conveying what the sources say

There appears to be an effort afoot to incorrectly portray the scientific estimates produced by APL for CBS. Editors have attempted to "qualify" the description of those estimates as coming only from CBS (false) and as being held only by CBS (also false). CBS is not the only source saying the APL numbers are scientific. CBS is also not the only source saying the APL numbers are the only ones generated scientifically. Some editors have tried to insert "according to CBS" or "what CBS describes as" wording that falsely implies the statement is sourced to the opinion of CBS. We don't say "according to CBS, Beck held a rally" or "the rally was held in what CBS describes as Washington, D.C.", unless we trying to portray such statements of fact as mere opinion of the source. Looking at the other sources, including CNN, Christian Science Monitor, Columbia Journalism Review, The Raw Story ,Cornell Daily Sun, The Denver Post and others, it is apparent that the facts are not "opinion according to CBS". Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary: (CBS is the only source provided calling it scientific) --NYyankees51
Interesting. CNN disagrees with you: "CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd estimate by the company AirPhotosLive.com. The network reported that AirPhotosLive estimated the crowd at 87,000 people." I have reverted your error. Again. I could add the CNN citation, and a dozen more cites to sources that describe it as scientific, but I am not going to. Why? Because the present cited source does not state "CBS is the only source provided calling it scientific", so additional sources are unnecessary. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The source you describe does not say that CBS was the "only scientific measure". They said CBS took a scientific approach, which leaves lots of room for interpretation and other potential approaches. Even those scientists say it's not an exact science with much room for interpretation. If I recall, others looked at the same photos and came up with similar estimates. So was that the ONLY measure? It's a statement of opinion. You can't state it in Wikipedia voice, which is a direct statement of fact, that CBS was the ONLY scientific measure. This must be qualified per NPOV policy. We can qualify the statement to whatever degree you feel is needed, but we can't state it directly as you have suggested. I've edited it to make it more broad, saying "for what was described". This leaves it open for many sources to describe it as such, but still qualifying it to the sources. Morphh (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The source I linked was a direct refutation of the edit summary, which stated "CBS is the only source provided calling it scientific." Obviously, CNN also calls it scientific, as do many other reliable sources. Some sources, other than CBS, also specify that it was the "only" scientific estimate. If you could recall in more detail, perhaps with a supporting link, another reliable source that conducted a scientific estimate, that would go a long way in supporting the personal opinion you are advancing. Alternatively, it would help if you could point out just one reliable source that says CBS' assertion that "the APL estimate is the only scientific estimate" is merely an opinion of CBS, and not a reported fact. As it stands now, of the numerous reported facts in the cited CBS source, you have chosen one and decided to label it "opinion". Xenophrenic (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with stating as fact that CBS's estimate was scientific, if you prefer to remove the word "only". Morphh (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt you would, as evidenced by your last few edits to the article. However, we can't remove the reliably sourced word "only" based on your unsupported personal belief that the word is "a statement of opinion". Please show us a) other reliably sourced scientific estimates, or b) a reliably sourced statement clearly stating that CBS's assertion is mere opinion of CBS. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you could put the word only in quotes to indicate that it was reported and not being listed as a factual statement worded such that WP is taking a point of view. On a different point, your calling me a "canvassed-man" is uncalled for. This page has been on my watch list pretty much from day 1, and I have been part of the discussion for most of the time. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arzel. I've never said anything about your watchlist, or about you not being part of the discussion; I referred to you as canvassed-man. Why would you put the word "only" in quotes, but not the word "estimate" or the word "scientific"? Regards, -weasel 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Xeno, a statement of fact is one where there is no serious dispute. By evidence of the section, there is dispute over the crowd size and over the scientific methodology used. It's not my opinion that their methodology, scientific measures, was not accurate science. Again, the statement needs to be qualified in some way. It's not like saying the earth is round or that the event didn't exist. It's a highly controversial estimate using methodologies in which the creator himself, Herbert Jacobs, recognized inherent limitations. Morphh (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Morphh, there is no serious dispute that the APL estimates were generated scientifically. Unless you can point out specific reliable sources that say "that their methodology, scientific measures, was not accurate science", then yes, it is your personal opinion. The controversy is not with the scientific estimate; what is controversial is the desparity between the scientific estimate and the range of guesstimates. As for the "inherent limitations" in Jacob's methodology, that's why it produces an "estimate", usually accompanied by a margin of error. It has no bearing on whether or not it is a scientific methodology. So I will ask you once again to please provide reliable sources to support your personal opinion that this particular statement of fact "needs to be qualified in some way". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Morphh's edit is a fair compromise. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless I misread the sources, none but CBS said it was the only scientific count. Unless there is another source saying exactly that, we should be able to agree to something like "CBS released a scientific estimate of..."17:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
CBS has stated it was the only scientific count. No one has produced another reliably sourced scientific count, so I have no reason to doubt it. The Raw Story, comparing Beck's rally and the Sanity rally, notes CBS/APL "also happened to offer the only scientific analysis of crowds at either rally." An editorial in the Cornell Daily Sun notes, "Even with nearly 100,000 attendees (the only scientific estimates put the number around 87,000), there were few signs, no arrests and little trash." While not using the identical "only scientific estimate" wording, the Columbia Journalism Review did single out CBS, noting "It was CBS who stepped out from the pack and made efforts to measure the crowd with a little more precision than a several-hundred-thousand-person range," and quoted APL's description of the methodology as “scientific as you can get in a field full of variables.” Discovery's Science Channel similarly singled out CBS/APL, noting, "None of these three commentators, or most other crowd estimators, described their methods for arriving at these numbers. One news outlet did explain their methodology. CBS News hired an independent Falls Church, Va.-based firm, Digital Design & Imaging Service..." As previously shown, CNN notes the wide range of conflicting numbers, none of which it calls scientific, then flat out states, "CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd estimate by the company AirPhotosLive.com."
So yes, you have apparently misread the sources. The question is not whether the CBS/APL estimate is the only scientific one. We have reliable sources stating it is. The real question is: does one single reliable source exist that shows the CBS/APL estimate is not the only scientific estimate? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
If we could all step back a little. I am OK with the additional RS's that establish the CBS estimate as the only scientific one (if only they were referred to in as much detail earlier in the discussion). Now, I'd suggest adding one or two to of the refs to the relevant sentence, and then footnote with quotes. Maybe this way we won't need to go over this again and again and again. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Xeno, we've been working amicably. Don't destroy it. Arzel has been involved since the beginning. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
NYyank, we've been getting along smashingly. Don't ruin what we have. I've been involved since before the beginning. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I know that. I'm saying don't degrade Arzel by calling him canvassed-man. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
How does referring to him as a canvassed-man degrade him? I get "canvassed" to join in editing articles all the time. Oh wait, are you saying there was something untoward about your asking Arzel to join you here? You both sure are making it sound like something to be ashamed of. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It just came across as a way to discredit his contributions. Sorry if it wasn't intended that way. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally/Archive_7&oldid=873933796"