Talk:Flash mob/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sidekick ID

There is a television ad for the recently released Sidekick ID that features a flash mob. It begins with teens texting each other a building location. After they arrive someone texts "now" and a silly string fight breaks out. I think this information should be added since it's probably one of the most mainstream appearances of a flash mob yet. Hackaday 06:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Italy section

I corrected some of the grammar and spelling mistakes in the Italy flash mob section, though I can't help but feel that the piece as a whole makes very little sense. I think the whole section needs to be rewritten.

Edit: having re-read the italy section (after some correction), I think it's safe to conclude that it's a disaster area. Let's demolish it. Preferably to make room for a hyperspace bypass. No more of that dangerous mucking about with bistromathics, then.

Is it possible to flash-mob a wikipedia talk page? Presumably that's where they'd be expecting a flash-mob.

Hence, it's the last place they'd look. Maybe we should do it. That was a haiku.

It wasn't, but I made you count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.237.252 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Origins

I question the origins listed on this page. I draw your attention to an article, "Voice of the Cabal" by Marc Fisher, in the Dec. 4, 2006 issue of the New Yorker. The primary subject of the article is the career of WBAI radio announcer Bob Fass. Discussing one of the influences on Fass, Fisher writes:

Back in the fifties, Fass's radio hero, Jean Shepherd, suffering a moment of overwhelming doubt, had asked his listeners to gather in an even he called the Milling. Hundreds of people convened on a dark street corner in lower Manhattan and just stood around. The police arrived and asked questions, and, as Shepherd had instructed them, the listeners declined, politely, to respond. Then, without further communication, they went home.

Is this not a flash mob by any other name? MarkPritchard 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

--Mark, can you track down the primary source (the original recording, transcript, or at least date)? Did the people gather and/or disperse suddenly? If the element of suddenness is absent, a strict interpretation of the definition of "flash mob" would not apply to that event. It's similar enough though that I think it definitely warrants mention at bottom of the Origins section, just as the similar Niven concept does. Cheesebikini 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Clay Shirky mentions Flash Mobs in his book "Here Comes Everybody" - and in related talks and interviews which can be found on video across the internet. He discusses their political implications at length, including the "smiling" flash mob where in some eastern country, flash mobs were adopted as a form of protest. To this, the authorities reacted harshly, but once they were banned, a new flash mob was concieved - with instructions to just "smile" in the red square I think - and the soldiers/guards couldn't arrest anyone because they didn't know if the smiling people were just happy or taking part.

He also references some kind of origins: as a prank played on "hipsters" - with the idea that if you emailed instructions or posted them on blogs, hipsters would do it, as long as it made them look cool. Probably another one to verify, but I'm sure there's some truth in there, and he'll have referenced it. Sorry about the sketchy info. ale 09:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shomon (talk • contribs)

Flash crowds are not flash mobs

People keep adding content to the flash mob entry stating that the concept of "flash crowds" created by Larry Niven (in his short story of the same name in 1973) is equivalent to the concept of "flash mobs."

These concepts are very different: news events draw people to flash crowds, messages passed around for the sole sake of starting flash mobs draw people to flash mobs. Flash crowds are enabled and encouraged by (instantaneous transportation), this is obviously not the case with flash mobs. Flash crowds are spontaneous and aren't sparked by an organizer; flash mobs (or at least, their initiation) are planned ahead. The "flash" in flash mobs indicates quick gathering, short duration, quick dispersal; the "flash" in flash crowds indicates instantaneous speed of travel to a place. Flash crowds in the story lasted a long time, flash mobs by definition are very short, usually less than 20 minutes long.

Yes, both terms contain the word "flash" and both involve groups of people, but they're very different concepts and claims that they're equivalent are factual errors. I've corrected at least 5 versions of this error. Please do not repeat it and keep an eye out for it from others.

72.153.69.230 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Literature

Larry Niven wrote about "The Permanent Floating Riot Club" about 30 years ago. I depended on (1) fast communication, and (2) fast transport.

Consider it, for what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.12.159 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2003 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein wrote The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress about a computer-mediated revolution. Same kind of stuff. He and Niven both should be mentioned here - and the anti-globalization movement and Second Superpower more prominently, for that matter. It appears that this is how they will do things in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EntmootsOfTrolls (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 August 2003 (UTC)

-- Neither fast communication nor fast transport are defining elements of flash mobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesebikini (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical Mass article

How about making Critical Mass a related article? A-giau 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I think the Usage and Effects section needs to be fleshed out enormously. This article is endlessly pedantic on silly questions like the origin of the term, which frankly nobody cares about, and contains *not a word* about the potential political uses and misuses of flash mobs, which is everything. This imbalance is ludicrous -- Will any future popular political revolution be conceivable without something very closely resembling a flash mob? Politics are arguably the single most important aspect of flash mobs, and they get hardly a mention in this article. EB

Thanks for bringing this up on the talk page rather than publishing it in the main entry. But -- this is the wrong place to look for what you seek. You're looking for an outlet for opinion about flash mobs and for prognostications about the future of flash mobs. That's not what Wikipedia is. It's an encylopedia, and in particular: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Feel free to add your opinions and predictions to MetaWiki or to your own blog. Cheesebikini 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken but honestly, there's a middle ground here between opinion/prognostication and dictionary pedantry that's not being staked out. A chemical formula for gunpowder is accurate as far as it goes, but it would hardly make a satisfactory Wikipedia article. Brief mention of the wealth of speculation on the impact of flash mobs is entirely germane to an article on it. Cf. Wikipedia articles on the Internet, the Segway or the Human Genome Project. Very early going on each but Wikipedia scribes have felt a much freer hand in discussing their potential impact. How is a flash mob different? EB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.34.11 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My "Flash Mobbing" article

I worked content from one of my own articles into the [Flash mob] article. As the author of the article, I hereby authorise the use of it in the Wikipedias and under the GFDL. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 02:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• FlashMosh® is a small, but growing British phenomenon, whereby a group of persons assemble in a rock music venue in much the same way that any normal Flash Mob will, but with a second agenda - to network ever growing numbers of rock-music lovers around the UK, and ultimately, the world.... [1]

--Removed this from the article, as it seems like an advertisement for something that isn't really that popular, according to Google: one website and a bunch of MySpace links. Sum0 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Sounds good. The wording was a bit creepy. So very "PR". Ckamaeleon 09:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Right. In any case, it's fully legal to refer to and quote -any- article from -any- news source in Wikipedia; permission from the author isn't required and is irrelevant. Hundreds of print media articles and probably thousands of blog entries like the one cited above have been written about flash mobs and we should reference only the most relevant and valuable ones.

At the point I posted permission here, the majority of this article had content from my article. It's great to see how well the Flash mob article has developed! –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Content

What on earth is this:

An anonymous person named "Bill" was the creator of the flash mob phenomenon. Flash mobs get a lot of people to do something that was a little punk, and a little oppositional, just because it was a clever idea and they wanted to see what would happen when so many people got together. "Bill" also saw it as a way to make virtual space into real, physical space, which means that it brought a group of people together who previously were only connected by email addresses. When "Bill" started the flash mobs, he saw it as a gag with an artistic dimension. He tried to make the mobs absurd and apolitical, in part because he wanted them to be fun, also because he didn't want anyone to see them as disrespectful of protests, or as a parody.

...and what is it doing on Wikipedia? It is incorrectly presented as fact, it is anecdotal, it is poorly written, it is POV. The rest of the article is almost as bad. This article does not distinguish between external links and referenced sources. I could go on, but what's the point? I'm starting an edit as soon as I post this. Tenebrous 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It was introduced as part of a set of edits by Liz2287 (talk · contribs) on 09:05, 7 December 2005 UTC, the only edits that user ever made. The first part, about the Larry Niven story is probably verifiable (or not), so I will leave that, but I will remove the paragraph that you cite for lack of verification. More than seven hours have passed since you wrote you were starting an edit. Hu 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Harper's Article

Bill Wasik's article in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine can probably now be considered the defining source on the origins. I am not a hardcore Wiki-er, but anyone who's interested should read the article immediately and edit accordingly. The current reference to the article is uninformative.

Here's a Slate.com bit about that. It links ot the Harper's story: http://www.slate.com/id/2137039/fr/rss/ ; http://www.harpers.org/MyCrowd_01.html Ckamaeleon 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The dating on the Harper's Article is dubious at best. I encountered a flash mob for the first time in downtown San Francisco in early 2003 on the way to work, and told co-workers about it when I arrived. My boss knew what it was and explained it to me, and since she quit in March 2003, the origin of the phenomenon could not have been two months after that.

The Harper's article is available in three parts at archive.org. http://web.archive.org/web/20070206104813/http://www.harpers.org/MyCrowd_01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.235 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographical bias

Recently, college students across the country have been using Facebook.com as a breeding ground for such flash mobs

Which country is this paragraph talking about? rbonvall 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A bit U.S.-centric on the contributor's part, huh? Probably the U.S. Here's text fro mthe Facebook article:

By October 2005, Facebook had nearly completed its expansion to smaller universities and junior colleges throughout the United States and Canada. In addition, Facebook expanded to 21 universities in the United Kingdom, and added the entire Instituto Tecnologico system in Mexico, the entire University of Puerto Rico system in Puerto Rico and the entire University of the Virgin Islands system in the U.S. Virgin Islands. On December 11, 2005, Facebook expanded further, adding universities in Australia and New Zealand. As of December 2005, the network had expanded to include 2,000+ college and 25,000+ high school institutions across the United States, Canada, Mexico, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, including more than 11 million users worldwide. [7]

If we check the edit's date and find that it was before Facebook expanded to other places, we can probably narrow it down to the U.S. or Canada. Ckamaeleon 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the phrase "across the country" due to the lack of context. It's not really necessary, anyway. -- Beland 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd section removed

This shows how flash mobs can be, and ultimately were, co-opted by corporations for the purpose of advertisement for certain products. However, flash mobs were intended to be thought of as novel artistic performances with a heavily subversive element within them.

The first sentence doesn't really add any information, and is vaguely anti-corporate POV. The second sentence seems POV as well, is unsourced, and it's unclear who is doing the intending. -- Beland 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An Obsolete Term?

The term "flash mob" may be inappropriately applied to all unusual, massive events that are promoted primarily through the internet. For example, the Pillow fight flash mob is hardly different from an ordinary pillow fight, it just happens to be much larger and take place in public. I would have renamed this article to "massive pillow fights" instead. The distinction is that most flashmobs do not have a point.

A good example of a "flash mob" is something like this: "Show up at 42nd & Broadway at 3:05 and for 2 minutes, wave your arms in circles. Disperse."

This is different from a pillow fight flash mob because the pillow fight actually has a purpose, and can last for several hours. It is simply a massive public event. I feel that the term "flash mob" pidgeonholes events into a category of irrelevance.

Please be careful when labeling something a "flash mob" as opposed to simply a "massive public event".

Oh, god, yes, please. Recury 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo!

First was in 2003, eh? Excellent! That means that when I came up with the idea in 1995, it WAS original and not just something I'd heard about. I'm brilliant, I really am. --Bonalaw 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bonalaw, but my pet hedgehog came up with the idea back in 1827, just after I invented the Internets. Cheesebikini 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the same year that I patented cold fusion, discovered a separate free form of renewable energy, made contact with intelligent extra-terrestrial life, prevented all forms of vandalism from wikipedia, cloned an army of humans identical to myself, proved the existence of God and the non-existence of God, found concrete evidence which proves the big bang's occurrence, calculated the fate of the universe and the proved existence of dark matter, ensured that world-wide peace would preside forever, found a new crop which solves world hunger, prevented several armageddons and apocalypses, determined what actually happened at Roswell, JFK's assassination and whether the US landed on the moon, worked out what women really want and prevented all vandalism of Wikipedia forever.

I didn't tell anyone until now, though. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.67.208 (talk • contribs) 11:01, June 23, 2006.

The date of the first successful flash mob

Does the 3 of June is a correct date for the first successful flashmob? Because according to the text in http://www.harpers.org/MyCrowd_01.html the first successful one is dated on the 17 of June of 2003. On the other hand, the 3 of June is the date of the first flashmob, which was failed. 150.214.129.2 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When you type in 'flash mob' on YouTube, the first video that comes up is of a group of Japanese people chasing innocent passersby down the road (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bj0Ma2CsHME). This reminded me of an episode of Trigger Happy TV, where basically the same exact thing was done (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tCrDgm_H678). Many of the sketches, in fact, could be considered to be flash mobs. For instance, I recall a sketch where a man was eating a sandwitch on a park bench, and about 50 came up to him and started worshipping him. User:RocketRocketRocketShip 20:43, 12 February 2007 (GMT)

I just thought of Trigger Happy TV also. RocketRocketRocketShip didn't mention that Trigger Happy ran from 2000 to 2002 so any such sketch predates the 2003 instances. In the Origins section of the article it states "The origins of the flash mobs were unknown [prior to the May 2003 instance]." Clearly one such origin was Trigger Happy TV. But I see how perhaps since it's for a TV show it's a different flavor of flashmob. But I think it would be worth putting Trigger Happy TV in the article somewhere. One thing to consider is that many articles have something like a "Flashmobs in pop culture" section, and Trigger Happy could be mentioned in there. The article could use one of these sections anyway, since flashmobs have lately been used in advertisements a bunch. Any thoughts? Loniousmonk (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd put the Trigger Happy mention in the "precursors" section, noting it as a very similar concept predating the coinage of the term "flash mob".--Father Goose (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would James Downey's "paint the moon" exercise count as an early flash mob? --Tedd (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FLASHMOB should be called the phenomena, that is created upon this Term. The actual human behavior to interrupt social life planed by any media, couldn't be something invented in 2003... again, if this continues to exist furthermore, our group "Rattenknecht" would claim this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.64.157 (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Detail

How much detail do you think should be gone into about the actual flash mobs themselves? Should the main/first flash mobs be described in detail and then the rest summarised, the main/first described in detail and the rest listed in bullet points (possibly in the format: Date, Time, Country, City, Nature of event) or should only a few select flash mobs be included? I'm gonna work on this article to convert it to a Wikipedia style (especially the meandering text and frequent POV), but there are hundreds of flash mobs in the UK alone.

Any feedback appreciated!

Benedictwest 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Any specific notable flashmobs should have their own pages. They should not be gone into in detail here as this article is about the flashmob phenomenon rather than a list and description of all or some of the flashmobs, the ones given here should be examples.

Incidentally, did anyone see flashmob the opera on BBC 3. That was ace! Benjaminstewart05 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be proper (I think it would be useful) therefore to create an article listing the flash mobs, with links to notable ones, with a link to it here to save listing any flash mobs here at all, save for the first few and a couple of examples?

Benedictwest 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be "proper" methinks to create an article listing notable flashmobs, but they would have to be notable. If they were just get togethers of 9 people in a pub, they can obviously not go on, but if they are large spontaneous crowds of people which have made an impact on the field and perhaps on the area they can go on a list. As to creating seperate pages to flashmobs, I think that the flashmob would have to be extremely notable to have its own page, extremely notable. Benjaminstewart05 07:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you could create a list and then merge what you would say about notable flashmobs with the place pages, for example Avenida Paulista and london eye. Creating seperate areas on those articles about notable flashmobs may be more useful. Benjaminstewart05 07:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be more useful, if I was researching flashmobs, to have a comprehensive list of all the flashmobs and a description of notable ones with some brief text about the less notable ones. It should be done by country with them listed chronologically? The locations would obviously be linked to the appropraite page, as you said (i.e.London Eye) and then the appropriate info. would be placed on those location articles. A link to thatpage would obviously be put on this page. Really notable flashmobs (e.g. Flashmob - The Opera) should have their own articles, methinks - I'm actually in the process of writing a page dedicated to The Opera. The article 'Flashmob' or 'Flash mob' should then only refer to the concept/event 'Flashmob' with perhaps references to the first couple and the most famous ones. Do you agree? I think this is most useful and Wikipedian.

Benedictwest 12:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nathan Barley

I watched the programme on-and-off when it was on, but can't seem to remember any references to Flash mobs (neither are there any on the Wikipedia article). Although it seems to fit in with the whole internet-organised-random event thing, is it really a related article?

Benedictwest 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

KOLLECTION MOBART #1, BERLIN (new flashmb)

Ort: Berlin, Auguststr. 69 Datum: Samstag, 9. Dezember 2006 Zeitpunkt: 15:30 Dauer: 10 Minuten

Aufruf: Schicke diese Einladung an möglichst viele Deiner Berliner Freunde �" je mehr wir sind, um so besser!

1. Für die Durchführung des MOBART bringe Buntstifte oder andere Zeichenmaterialien sowie DIN-A-4 Papier mit.

2. Finde Dich zwischen 15:30 bis 15:55 vor dem KUNSTWERKE Gebäude ein �" auf der gegenüberliegenden Straßenseite. Du wirst dort einen jungen Mann bemerken, der zeichnet.

3. Verhalte dich möglichst unauffällig, so dass niemand eine Ansammlung von Menschen bemerkt...gehe immer weiter auf und ab... (auch wenn du mit Freunden kommst �" verhaltet euch unauffällig!)

4. Nähere dich dem zeichnenden jungen Mann und sage ihm die Parole: “Zeichne mir ein Portrait“ (nicht vergessen!). Er wird dir ein Blatt geben, auf dem du detaillierte Anweisungen für die MOB-Aktion findest, die in wenigen Minuten an einem Ort in unmittelbarer Nähe stattfinden wird.

5. Lese die Informationen aufmerksam und stecke sie in die Tasche. Sie dürfen im Augenblick der Aktion nicht gesehen werden.

6. Am Ende der MOB-Aktion (genauer Zeitpunkt!) musst Du unbedingt den Schauplatz verlassen, so wie es in den Anweisungen beschrieben wird.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Signsaaaa (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?

From the article:

Presented by Patrick O'Connell, Flashmob -- The Opera featured well-known music from popular operas including Madam Butterfly, Don Giovanni and La Traviata, set to a new story by Stephen Powell, with new lyrics by Tony Bicât. The BBC Concert Orchestra was conducted by Robert Ziegler, who also arranged the music.

The opera is a contemporary take on the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. An engaged couple, Mike (sung by tenor Nicholas Ransley) and Sally (soprano Rachel Nicholls), come unstuck over Mike’s obsession with football. The station formed the backdrop to the action as Sally decides whether or not to run away with a handsome stranger (baritone Rodney Clarke) or stay with Mike. The three soloists are rising opera stars who between them have sung at Glyndebourne, the Royal Opera House, the Paris Châtelet, Sadler’s Wells and the BBC Proms.

From the BBC's official web site: "There will be something like 200 people on site, including a 62-piece orchestra, a choir of singing policemen and a chorus of football fans … and all while it’s 'business as usual' at the station. It’s not the first place you’d think of doing a live opera!"

Although the last sentence says "from the BBC's official web site" and presents a quote, the whole of the three paragraphs is taken directly from a BBC site [[2]]. I am not well versed in Copyright Law, but that does seem like it would be copyright infrindgement, and certainly worth looking into by someone with more knowledge than myself. Mip | Talk 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Davis Entry

The Davis flashmob happened moments ago, about 3 hours and 30 minutes from this timestamp. Why is it being removed, when there is legitimate evidence in the form of video supporting such? If other UC campuses are justified, why are we scrutinized?

Comment mainly aimed at the editor, Chriscf. What justification do you have of removing our event?

Philip Chan, UCD Freshman --CJChun 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in your use of the words "moments ago" and "our event". This article is not a dumping ground for everyone to list their own flashmobs. Chris cheese whine 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You still did not give a valid reason. There is media coverage on the SF event, and thus in progress Davis will have an entry justified by textual reporting (Newspaper). If anything, the only thing you could correctly/appropriately do was change tense than delete the whole entry. Or am I not correct in assuming this is free-source software than will allow information so long as it is in justifiable means? --CJChun 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

were not just placing any flashmob either. this is the largest one done in the united states. gueniss book of world records predicted around 800 people if not more. They have an aerial shot and will need to count to get a better estimate.

May I suggest tagging this article as needing confirmation, rather than deleting it, and allowing time for a textual report, as you pointed out we should have, to be released? dmcmurry

The above would be my sentiments exactly. --CJChun 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. The addition fails so many policies it just isn't funny. Chris cheese whine 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So then once this hit newspapers, showing confirmation of GWR, will that be sufficient to repost, or will it continue to be removed... and then specifically, for the article you have several times removed, what sources will suffice? dmcmurry

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Two things to bear in mind - such that this doesn't become a laundry list, it is only appropriate to include it if it was a particularly large or important flashmob (in the grand scale of things - it will not add anything to the article if not), and you should not add it under any circumstances if you were involved in any way. This article is not a list of every flashmob that has ever been, it includes a short-ish list of notable flashmobs to illustrate what a flashmob is. Chris cheese whine 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a page that constitutes a list of flash mobs is in order. Otherwise, who gets to decide what mobs are mentionable, and what aren't?

What happened to the other UC articles? As clever as the BestBuy Flashmob is, it only constituted eighty people. You'd think some of the more sizable ones (which were up less than twelve hours ago) should remain. Bobquest3

Link

Will this suffice for evidence needed to keep the Davis entry up? CJChun 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation. It's going to be in the Book of World Records so I think it should be included in the article. Weezcake 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris -- besides having a link to the school newspaper AND having the record for the biggest flashmob (it will be in the 2008 Guiness book), why did you remove the UCD part again? I'd think that the world record would be appropriate in the article.. Weezcake 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's setting a record in 2008 Guiness, it should at LEAST be mentioned. Isn't Wikipedia a compilation of knowledge? I think the UC flashmobs should be left up, because, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is trying to categorize the world, why not add the little things?--128.120.166.138 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia a compilation of knowledge? No, it is an encyclopedia. Chris cheese whine 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why are there lists of other notable flashmobs? Like the "first one in India"? Weezcake 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are your "multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable" sources? If you feel that the other events are not notable, feel free to take those out too. Chris cheese whine 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Page for flash mobs

I propose this page be trimmed down and a new page is started taht consists of a list of flash mobs. The way this page reads now, it sounds like Canada hosts more flash mobs than the US. That doesn't sound right to me. I say either that, or the UC flash mobs be restored.

I second that sentiment. dmcmurry

I personally see a lot of entries that should be removed for the same reason as the UCD one. Chris, how come you haven't cleaned those up yet? Weezcake 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}? Chris cheese whine 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There have been hundreds of flash mobs, it's a ridiculous, pointless exercise to list individual flash mobs just because they occurred. Only significant flash mobs (the first ever, biggest ever, etc.) should be mentioned. Cheesebikini 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Around the World" section - boiling it down

The time has come to remove all the noise from the entry -- particularly from the "Around the World" section where plenty of unencyclopedic content (editorializations, non-widely recognized claims lacking citations, mentions of activities that weren't flash mobs) had been growing like weeds. First I removed all the unencyclopedic content -except- "first flash mob in country X" citations. Then I removed "first flash mob in country X" content as well. Some will argue that the latter is notable enough to be listed, I would disagree, but if we list some countries in this way we should list them all. All that remains now is the first flash mob, the biggest flash mob, and content involving flash mobs accompanied by notable political or criminal activity. Cheesebikini 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims made in the China and India sections lack citations. Please add them if you have access to them. Cheesebikini 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the whole list could just be deleted and some major ones put into the article. Weezcake 06:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to differ with you on this. I do believe this can be valuable since flash mobs or often small per defenition. Maybe the way the stats are presented are not perfect (perhaps a nice table, a graph with reference per country, per subject, in stead of just stating the different flash mobs text style ... just a thought) But I do believe if these events are referencable in the media they should be added. Teardrop onthefire 10:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the term "Around the World" to describe flashes mobs in countries other than the USA strikes me as too American-centric (is that a word?) --62.49.193.162 10:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add that term, but when it was added it included U.S. entries. So, it's not used to describe events in countries outside the U.S. (We removed the U.S. entries because they were nonencyclopedic, or repeated the "first flash mob" info already described above.) BUT - I think "other notable flash mobs" is a more accurate and descriptive label, I will change it to that. Cheesebikini 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Term's First Use

The following paragraph was removed on 8 March 2007, for the reason "rm [remove] promo link:"

The term "flash mobs" was created by Sean Savage to describe the phenomena on the Web site cheesebikini, and this posting was where flash mobs were first mentioned on the Web.

I propose that this content be replaced in the article, because it is significant and relevant information. The purpose of the content is to provide significant, encyclopedic information about the history (specifically the first use) of the idea and meme (not just the word) "flash mob." The invention of the term "flash mob" and the first mention of it on the Web is significant enough to warrant inclusion in a "flash mob" encyclopedia entry. This content is more relevant and encyclopedic than most of the links in the "External Links" section, for instance.

Full disclosure: I -am- the author of the entry this link leads to, and the owner of the site and domain where it's hosted. Because of that and to avoid appearance of conflict of interest, I won't add the content back again.

But I ask that neutral and independent Wikipedia editors (you!) consider whether this content and the contents of the page it links to are important and relevant here, and if you think they are, please add this information back to the entry. Cheesebikini 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on talk instead of simply putting it back in. On further reading, I suppose a brief note could go somewhere that the term "flash mob" has been used to describe this phenomenon at least on the Web since 2003[ref]. I don't see why you or your site needs to go into the article text, but if it can be established that there is no older, using it as a reference shouldn't pose that much of a problem, though we may need corroboration later. Chris cheese whine 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suggest that -where- a term and meme first appeared is as relevant as when it appeared. This provides further core information for researchers to follow in tracing flash mob history. As for corroboration, here's more: (1) A citation in the original paragraph leads to substantiation of this claim by Bill Wasik (who is established elsewhere in article as leader of the first flash mob). (2) At the following link, the author(s) of Word Spy, a site that traces the etymology of neologisms, corroborate the first-use claim: http://www.wordspy.com/words/flashmob.asp.Cheesebikini 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the wordspy link in addition to your actual use can be used together as references for the origination, but I still don't feel there's a need to include more in the main text than that it first surfaced in 2003 on the Web. Chris cheese whine 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Was the April 25, 1999 protest of 10k practitioners of Falun Gong in Beijing a flash mob? Why or why not? Personally, I tend to think yes which would make it both largest and earliest. TMLutas 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because the protestors didn't gather suddenly and didn't disperse suddenly. (And I think, that gathering wasn't brief in duration, which would be another disqualifier... I may be wrong on the last point.) Remember, people have been gathering in large groups for centuries. That in itself is not a flash mob. (But thanks for bringing this up in discussion first, rather than just adding it to the article.) Cheesebikini 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this would be a protest, not a flashmob. And as Cheesebikini said already, it does not fit the definition of a flash mob. Weezcake 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Substantial recent edits (drawing comparisons with smart mob)

Reading over the article, I recently got bitten by the question of what exactly is and isn't a flash mob. Ultimately I drew the conclusion (backed up by many now-included references) that "flash mob" is commonly used to refer to just about anything that falls under the broader "smart mob" term. I've changed the article extensively to note the confusion, and the distinction. Any objections to the changes? I'm not claiming I did a perfect job, but I think I got the work well under way.--Father Goose 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Media use of "flash mob" to cover many other things -- good questions, I've struggled w/ this too, whether to mention that the media has often done this. My approach has been to use the definition put forth by the originator and early organizers of flash mobs, and to highlight what makes a flash mob distinct from other concepts. When a reporter or a Wikipedia contributor tags a concert, or, say, a political candidate's rally, or a concert a flash mob, I consider that a mistake and a misuse of the term. If we let the definition of flash mob grow to also include traditional concerts, what's the point of the new term? But -- is it appropriate/encyclopedic to point this (media misuse of the term) out in the definition? I'm on the fence and will go w/ your decision but am interested to read what others think. Cheesebikini 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: culture jamming - I'm removing the claim that flash mobs are a form of culture jamming because (at least according to wikipedia's "culture jamming" definition), not all flash mobs are instances of culture jamming. In fact, to date most have not been instances of culture jamming. Not all flash mobs involve mass media transformation and not all are driven by the political, anticorporate/commercial motivations that define culture jamming. Cheesebikini 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: smart mobs claim - This statement was already made lower in the article; removed new "smart mobs" claim from the top. Cheesebikini 18:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people kept adding things that weren't flash mobs to the article, and I realized even I wasn't really sure what was a flash mob and what wasn't. So I did some research and found that the confusion was common -- just about every kind of smart mob was being called a "flash mob" and even several not-"smart" mobs as well.

I think the reason for this is twofold. "Flash mob" is pretty unspecific, so it's easy to apply it to a variety of different things, not just whimsical activities. Secondly, "flash mob", as a term, has gotten much more exposure in the press than "smart mob", so it's become a de facto synonym for all smart mobs.

Making note of the (very common) confusion will help to keep "flash mob" a distinct term from "smart mob", which is a good term in its own right, though less well-known.--Father Goose 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Usage?

How was the Victoria Station silent rave not a flash mob? And more importantly, where is the citation that it was not such? The linked article refers to it as a flash mob, and saying it is incorrect is merely one editor's opinion; Wikipedia requires reliable sources to back that up. --SuperNova |T|C| 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, "flash mob" is being used quite often to refer to nearly any kind of smart mob, and some editors of this article are trying to hold back that tide (this may end up being a losing battle). However, the Victoria Station mob matches the Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English definition in every respect. The only point of contention I can see is whether 2 hours is a "brief period of time" (as written in the lead -- but that definition is not sourced anyway). I support putting it back in.--Father Goose 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Supernova: The Victoria Station event, as described in the linked article to which you referred, was not a flash mob. See the first sentence in the entry, which defines a flash mob as "a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, do something unusual for a brief period of time, then quickly disperse."

The Victoria Station event, as described, involved a large group of people doing something unusual. But that's not enough to be considered a flash mob. If it were, the 2005 French riots would be flash mobs. The Boston Marathon would be a flash mob. And so on. A flash mob also assembles suddenly, has a brief life, and disperses suddenly.

As for the Web site that called the Victoria Station event a flash mob, see the second sentence in the entry: "News media and commentators have often misused the term 'flash mob' to refer to nearly any form of public gathering." This is an example of this common misuse.

RE: Outside citations – you misunderstood Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. An article should be backed by reliable, published outside sources. But removal of an erroneous claim does not require a reliable outside source to officially point out the error. For example: if I write "Volkswagens are dinosaurs" in the "Dinosaur" entry, you don't need to wait for someone to publish an article saying "Volkswagens are not dinosaurs" – you can and should correct the error.

(Personally I've heard quite a bit about the Victoria Station dance, including several attempts to add it to this entry. For whatever it's worth, I wish I'd been part of the event and I applaud you if you were involved. Nothing against the event or its organizers. It's just that, as with any term, casually stretching the definition of "flash mob" will destroy its meaning and value.) Cheesebikini 02:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to realize which criterion it didn't meet: no dispersal plan.--Father Goose 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I moved the extra information about why it could not have been a flash mob to the silent disco article. Unless we plan to expand all the other points like why exactly a political protest or a promotional appearance can't be a flash mob, I think it would be strange to try and explain one. Having the interwiki to silent disco in there so people can look up and compare the differences between the two should be enough. Mkdw^talk 10:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on a formatting level but that entry is different from the others in that it's very nearly a flash mob. I think I'll re-add the explanation as a footnote.--17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I expect this article will never achieve a high class rating primarily due to the fact that its impossible to satisfy certain requirements. A Flash Mob is a trend in popular culture that relies on secrecy and anonymous participation. As such, third party sources reporting on Flash Mobs will never be able to make an accurate account of the events. More over, the concept relies on avoiding prestigious and notable third parties in its organzation and execution, making it even more difficult to report on. Its evident that numbers greatly vary from source to source in reports about these mobs and its questionable if they even true Flash Mobs. In many cases, unusual political demonstrations are incorrectly labelled by popular media as Flash Mobs. With out proper citations or a true knowledge surrounding flash mobs, a very limited number of them can be written about, and even fewer with enough information. Mkdw^talk 03:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You built this argument on an erroneous foundation; flash mobs do not rely on secrecy or anonymity. Cheesebikini (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly strongly worded comment, and ultimately incorrect one, from someone who claims to know much about flash mobs. If you have read any of the publications of Bill Wasik, the original concept creator, and his comments regarding flash mobs you would know otherwise. Of course flash mobs have been done successfully with out having done so and can be done, but the accuracy of much of the information regarding flash mobs tend to be grossly inaccurate. Take a look at the most recent coordinated flash mobs that took place, the world wide pillow fight flash mob that took place in over 21 cities world wide and could clearly be the largest and most organized flash mob yet. However, notable sources such as the National Post, BBC, CBC, CNN, and other news outlets had greatly varying information. Some sources said they were political protests, other said it was arranged on facebook and others said it was arranged by universities. The numbers of the participating cities varied and others did not mention the word flash mob. So even if you cite from notable sources the accuracy of the article will be under question. That is not due to bad reporting or intentionally being misled. It's because there is no single or official representative, spokesperson, or organizing body for each event. No press conferences with the media to give the official details about the number of people attending, how many people have come, who's registered, what are the rumours and what are the facts, and the motivation and entire process regarding from start to finish of the event. Usually media sources grab someone who's participating who cannot answer all these questions. I'm not criticizing flash mobs in any way, just pointing out a known fact about reporting and citing when it comes to this particular article. Mkdw^talk 06:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As for my "strongly worded" comment – in being concise (perhaps blunt?) I didn't intend to hurt your feelings. My aim was efficiency in stating the facts. These events did not rely upon secrecy and anonymity. (Of course I read Wasik's magazine piece, and during and after the first flash mob craze I had e-mail discussions with Wasik and I met with him face to face to discuss flash mobs.) You're right that this is a difficult phenomenon to report on and to meaningfully record for posterity. And yes, anonymous participation and avoidance of "mainstream" media people have accompanied many of these events, and that's a core component of the challenge. But these events didn't rely upon secrecy, they weren't completely opaque and it's possible to report on them meaningfully. (Events much more enshrouded in secrecy have been covered effectively. Cf North Korea or Tibet or Scientology. If it's possible to report on events and situations wherein witnesses are threatened with death if they bring the facts to light, it's definitely possible to report on flash mobs.) There's a big difference here between impossible and challenging. It's a challenging subject, but I think this particular challenge is more suited to Wikipedia and similar projects than it is to most traditional industrial-era media organizations. Cheesebikini (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect References/Statistics

This article says the biggest flash mob was 3,500 people but another article states 4,000 people. The thread in qustion is the Silent Disco thread. Venemous-Fatal1ty 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the Victoria Station silent disco was that there was no "quick dispersal" (it lasted for hours), which makes it not a flash mob by the definition we're using here. A seemingly minor distinction, but it makes it more of a gathering than a prank.--Father Goose 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples

This article could use some more examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.201.93 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure could. Got any?--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Precursers section

"Flash mobs may bear certain superficial similarities to political demonstrations, although flash mobs were originally intended to be specifically apolitical, and generally remain so, concentrating more on activities expressed as a form of performance art."

^ This sentence seems to be cumbersome grammatically, in my opinion. Thoughts? Red dwarf (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the sentence lacks a smooth flow and does not seem clear in a first read. Perhaps breaking the sentence up into two statements. One stating that flash mobs share a lot of similarities to creatively planned political protests and the other to detail the fact that flash mobs are more a form of performance art than politically motivated?Mkdw^talk 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Flash mobs began as a form of performance art. While they began as an apolitical act, they may share superficial similarities to political demonstrations. " I changed it to this. Are these sentences better? (The two examples of alliteration were unintentinal.) Red dwarf (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel like tossing the whole "precursors" section as speculation. I'm not sure what it says is especially correct or useful.--Father Goose (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Upon reflection, it looks like filler, in addition to what Father Goose outlined. Other thoughts? Red dwarf (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Geocaching Flash Mod reference

Document for geocaching flash mob event III lists a geocaching flash mod for the world wide flash mod III May 10th, 2008 1700 GMT, 1300 EDT

bookmark list of Geocaching flash mod events--JBadger169 (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)--JBadger169 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Silent Discos

Cheesebikini insists that the silent discos/silent raves are not flash mobs, but I am not convinced that they are not. We have discussed this in the past, inconclusively. What does everyone else think?--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Silent Discos are not flash mobs? Every silent disco I've been to was planned via text messaging, we all showed up at the specific time, danced and listened to our music for 4 or 5 songs and then dispersed. So, how is that not a flash mob? The only difference I see is that we had ear phones and music. Mkdw^talk 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Every definition of the word "flash" involves suddenness, extremely short duration. The "flash mob" test: if the group (1) assembles very quickly, (2) does its unusual thing very quickly, and (3) disperses very quickly, then it's a flash mob. If it doesn't, "flash mob" doesn't describe it. (Think: a flash of lightning or a flash flood.) The reasons I've always given for the silent discos not being considered flash mobs are that (2) and (3) don't apply. Flash mobs included explicit instructions for participants to disperse quickly at an agreed-upon moment, hence the "flash." Pillow fights, silent discos, etc. did not. I know from participating in many pillow fights and a silent disco that they were wonderful things, but they weren't quick or sudden and weren't flash mobs. Cheesebikini (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

However, by excluding anything that does not match the "original" definition of flash mob, our usage is out of sync with how the rest of the world uses the term (i.e., as a synonym for any smart mob).

The best possible article on the subject would note the distinction between the original definition and the broader one which has effectively replaced it, and give prominent examples of each. Wikipedia's articles have to conform to how the world regards a subject; you can't use this article to try to make the world conform to your definition, even if it was the "originally correct" one.--Father Goose (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Listing the original definition as well as later definitions makes sense to me. But what is the later definition? And what governs when and whether we add later definitions? Mainstream media sources' one-off usages of the term "flash mob," taken together, have covered such broad ground as to render the term indistinguishable from dozens of other terms. I doubt that anyone's arguing that we should add a new definition to a Wikipedia article every time Fox News or a blogger misuses (or rather: unknowingly creates a new definition for) a concept. Clarification: I agree that definitions evolve; my intention is not to use this article to force anyone to conform to the original definition that I intended when I coined the term. My intention is to retain some logical meaning for the term that distinguishes it from countless other terms. By all means, let's add new definitions as they are adopted, but only when they make sense. In this case, if you remove "flash," you just have "mob" and there's no need for a new term. Cheesebikini (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheesebikini did not move the notable flash mob section to the appropriate article (if any) and instead wiped the information. I have restored the information to the article in the mood of encyclopedic building than deleting interesting and correct information. I would like to see that section remain until consensus is reached. The major flaw in Cheesebikini's argument is that 'brief' cannot be defined by a set time. Brief can be a very relative term. Unless the definition states less than 15minutes, than most pillow fights or silent discos qualify. I've seen the word brief to describe a 2 year war. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "hot" also cannot be defined by a set measurement; nonetheless it is a useful term. Children don't have to memorize a specific temperature when they learn the meaning of the phrase "hot water;" and when they learn about stars they don't need a specific algorithm to know that the temperature of a hot star or even a cool star is something much higher than that of the water that emerges when they turn their bathroom faucets to "hot." People know that "brief" and "flash" take on very different meanings when you're talking about a war vs. a mob, and no sane person fluent in English would call a 2-year street gathering "brief" just because they'd heard of a "brief" 2-year war. These conceptions arise from the known universe of previous examples of "war," "star," "mob," etc. and they're fuzzy approximations. Perhaps we *should* set a precise definition (like "15 minutes duration or less") on this but that seems problematic for these reasons. Frankly this is not a simple thing to define. Proposal: Set the brevity requirement such that, to be considered a flash mob, a street mob gathering has to be brief enough that most people would consider it to have gathered and dispersed "in a flash?" Would that lead to a neverending back-and-forth debate about what does and doesn't fit most people's conception of "in a flash," or could most of us agree, most of the time, on what examples do and don't fit that definition? I'm not sure but I think we could work with that fuzzier definition. Why don't we try it, and if it leads to excessive further debate we can then institute a precise time definition? Cheesebikini (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In his new book "And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture," Bill Wasik, who invented and orchestrated the very first flash mobs (as documented in this article), writes: "In terms of time, flash mobs were by definition transitory: ten minutes or fewer." Cheesebikini (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Does the Harry Potter launch night raid qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.169.162 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if it didn't receive any press coverage, and maybe not even then; I don't know the details.--22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Pillow fight flash mob

The Pillow fight flash mob article is unreferenced and reads like a personal view. I can't see that the concept of the pillow fight flash mob is notable enough to warrant its own article, all the content can be made encyclopedic and merged here. Fences and windows (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They were originally one big article that included information about silent discos, pillow fight flash mobs, flash mob bang, etc. etc. The only problem was that by the time all those side articles were compiled the article was far too big so these smaller articles were made. Whether this was a wise choice isn't clear, but because this article is constantly plagued by people advertising their local flash mobs, the flash mob article has remained fairly clean of all and any material slightly off its direct topic. Mkdw^talk 09:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I contend that the pillow fight events were not flash mobs because most people would not say that these events were street gatherings that took place and ended very quickly, "in a flash." I've been to three of the most highly publicized pillow fight mobs and they each lasted much longer than an hour. I don't know anyone who would say 1+ hours could be called "in a flash" when you're talking about a street mob gatherings. See "Silent Discos" discussion above. Cheesebikini (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Bill Wasik who invented flash mobs (as documented in this article) clearly defines flash mobs as being transitory and lasting ten minutes or less (see Silent Discos discussion topic above). Cheesebikini (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson 'flashmobs'

The Michael Jackson "flashmobs" on June 25/26 2009 are not flashmobs in the proper meaning of the word. The definition of a flashmob implies that it takes place briefly and is well-coordinated and unusual. Crowds gathered to listen and do some dancing to Michael Jackson songs for hours in several locations following his passing on June 25, 2009. While a nice tribute to the artist, none of these events actually qualify as flashmobs.

And what about the various Thriller flashmobs? I believe those apply as they form fairly rapidly, perform one song/dance and then dissolve again. Ruud (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia has its articles that will want to be solidly references, verified, and written in a distinct encyclopedic manner. Those articles move on to become good articles and featured articles. Other articles are in heavy conflict with its editors and become referenced to death by notable sources that contradict each other. There are also articles whose subject matter is very complicated and require references and footnotes of from the academic community to substantiate its claims.

This article will never be any of those things. No perfect scientific article will be written about it with all the facts. This article will never become a good or featured article. While there has been disagreement about the true definition of a flashmob, this article includes both examples of the original flashmobs Bill Wasik created, and today's evolved flashmobs that are highly organized and included thousands of people. The little information we have about flashmobs come from Bill Wasik, and people who have been involved in these trends over the last 6 years around the world. We've done our best to keep this article clean and consistent, allow room for certain examples of newer flash mobs, and put references where we could. This does not mean that every sentences will gain a reference, and portions of this are original research or direct "primary source" contributions. After all, the whole point of flashmobs are not to talk about them too much. There are plenty of closed websites were flashmobs are created where most of this information comes from. A flashmob manifesto has been passed along that I've seen on numerous sites of which origin no one knows.

This article will try to remain WP:ADVERT free, and trim the trivial and plentiful additions of less important flashmobs, but keep in mind by adding all these 'citation needed' you have a snowball chance in hell of improving this article, or trying to make it something its WP:NOT.

It should be noted that Wikipedia is referenced frequently for the flashmob definition, especially by its own community, which means we got something right, and most likely why we've generated so many edits to this orphaned article. Mkdw^talk 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a list of various references. I leave it to User:Mdwh to verify it now that the sources have been provided. Mkdw^talk 06:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the citations were added and the statements properly sourced, however I have to disagree with your statement above. Adding 'citation needed' tags are only done to improve an article. The reason why is that without proper citation, anyone can write anything about a topic and there's no way to discern what are someone's personal beliefs on a subject and what is actual information. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core component of Wiki. You should read WP:NOT, which you sourced, yourself because you obviously don't understand what that policy is saying. Finally, using the fact that lots of people look at this Wiki page as proof you've done something right and you don't need sources is completely wrong. For one, you're doing a disservice for people looking for legitimate information. Many people don't understand the reason for citation and believe everything they read on Wiki. Wiki unfortunately does include a lot of wrong information, and adding citation helps people who do come to this article know that they are reading legitimate information and not just someone's opinion and original research. Anyway, once again, good job adding the citations in.24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is a man. Does that require a citation or perhaps there is no controversy to the statement that Jimbo Wales was born a male. The media often incorrectly references various media events as flash mobs like the Oprah 'flashmob'. Personally I am a huge supporter of citations, when they are needed. Sentences where they are not needed do not require a template saying they are. Mkdw^talk 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for examples

Hundreds of flashmobs are created and reported upon by the news every year. In terms of WP:N that may pass, but please keep in mind this is not Wikinews, and most of the additions in the example section would not pass an AfD. We also cannot turn this article into an archive of every flashmob that has ever been. Several editors that have been watching this article have been attempting to only include examples that are in themselves notable among other flashmobs, either by being a record holder, the first that massively was publicized internationally, and the very first ones. Any example should contribute important information in an encyclopedic manner that helps progress the article. For those that want to include every flash mob, perhaps List of flashmobs may be an option; you will likely undergo an AfD process and concisely go through the points of WP:N, WP:ADVERT, and WP:NOT. On a side note, if someone would be willing to collaborate on a more details and written form of criteria it might help avoid these advertising campaigns and other incorrectly labelled flashmobs by the media into this article. Mkdw^talk 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also important to point out the differences between a performance, and a flashmob. For example, in a performance (like ones done for publicity) a producer hires a director or choreographer to cast, usually paid professionals, to rehearse and perform as part of an advertising campaign for a product or person. Street entertaining is another example, how you could use weasel words to call it a flash mob. Generally not everyone would know about it in advance, it could consist of more than one person for a short time and pack up quickly, and most definitely do something bizarre. It is important for these distinctions, and maybe their similarities, be made if one hopes to create an encyclopedia that does have an article about publicity stunt, and a completely separate one for busker, and for any similar yet different topic. Otherwise we should merge all these articles together. Mkdw^talk 05:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the Oprah flashmob, this is an ideal example of an incorrectly labeled flashmob by public media. You will notice that many of the other newspapers like the New York Times that has reported on flashmobs almost since their inception, correctly omitted the word flashmob. The producers of Oprah, 20,000 dancers, and the Black Eyed Peas created, rehearsed, and presented Oprah with a special performance (a surprise performance) for her 24th season kick off party. They rehearsed on site repeatedly and the event was closed to the general public. On the official website, Oprah does name it a flashmob, and provides a general definition in the 'making of' video. Also, Oprah (who was the only one not pervy to all that was going on) was aware that she was attending a performance, but was unaware of who exactly was performing. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines a flashmob as "a group of people summoned (as by e-mail or text message) to a designated location at a specified time to perform an indicated action before dispersing". Perhaps it could be called a flash mob, but then so could any event, performance, or show where at least 1 person is unaware of all aspects going on otherwise known as every show on the face of the earth. Mkdw^talk 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Protests

There is a fundamental difference between a protest or public demonstration and a flash mob. Organising a protest by usage of sms and other ICT does not make it a flash mob. I think we all agree that a flash mob is about a performance of people who have no ties, and does not attempt at spreading a message or even attack somebody (verbally, physically or whatever). There have been protests of all forms in history, including silent or artful ones. That does not make them flash mobs, though. In this sense the political protests in China and Romania do clearly not qualify for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.34.5.86 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this posting as the media is not covering the difference just look at Germany and the UK where laws are being passed to to limit or stop flashmobs as a form of protestJsgoodrich (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I strongly recommend users review WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT, WP:Notability and WP:WEB before they add more content about current, upcoming, or past flash mobs. 99% of flash mobs instantly fail Wikipedia's notability guideline and their addition to the article is not encyclopedic. The first flash mob and other flash mobs that have gained international attention such as the ones that have occurred in police states are good examples. Ones from cities or universities are often only covered by local media and number in the thousands. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory to your flash mob websites or a record of your club events. If you are interested in listing your flash mob events you may attempt to make an article such as Largest flash mob events but even then it may be WP:SPEEDY for notability. Mkdw^talk 10:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

However you are overlooking that campus events can be covered on national news, but wiki:notability does not require it to be covered by national or international news. Just that it is secondary and verifiable, not that ever news outlet or a majority have to cover them. I think you are trying to close off a lot of material that have been labeled flash mobs and their effects and how they are reported. Your claim that a campus event is not notable does not hold. I posted a link in a latter posting were video from an ivy league school was showing in the middle of the country to talk about the dangers. Even though the event was not listed on the flashmob page here, the story was picked up to highlight the "dangers" of flashmobs. I think this topic is being to restricted and not sharing the whole picture. And with the large number of hits this pages is getting we owe it to the readers not bias this topic, with our own personal felling on what we think it should be to what people are calling them. After all the people at britannica are not trying set the rules of the game. People our a culture do that, they just document it it. Like how many points a touchdown in American Football is worth.Jsgoodrich (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the OP. In fact I would take it further. This amounts to a slang word. And specifically regarding notibility of specific incidents, why would you put what amounts to a party on wiki? Wookiees are from Kashyyyk, it makes no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbakahut (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable instances of flash mobs

This section is rather scant - it's one sentence long. Any way of expanding it, whether it be a brief overview of the article on the flash mobs in Bejing, or it is a discussion of other notable flash mobs, or something? Red dwarf (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are citation and/or definition issues. There are tons of notable events being called "flash mobs" by the press which are more accurately smart mobs. At some point, we're going to have to accept that flash mob has become synonymous with smart mob, and probably merge the two articles.

As for notable "true" flash mobs... there aren't that many. Tipping the press off to a flash mob event tends to screw it up, so they don't get a lot of coverage. The silent disco ones got in the news, but at least one editor of this page feels they weren't true flash mobs.--Father Goose (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As there is some difficulty with defining what "true" flash mobs are, would it be best to delete this section altogether? We could integrate the "Notable Instances" into the introduction, or somewhere else fitting. Furthermore, we can note the difficulty of defining flash mobs, especially in relation to smart mobs. Just a couple suggestions... Red dwarf (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really has to do with the wording. We should simply implement a notability guideline that we can all agree upon. Wikipedia has many similar policies such as WP:BIO and WP:BAND. We should make our own for this article. Perhaps write it up at Flash mob/Guidelines. We may be able to come to a common consensus in regards to a number of issues such as what qualifies as a flash mob. Mkdw^talk 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:N - the policies you list are specific versions of WP:N, which clearly states: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Whilst editors on some "List" articles do choose to implement some criteria for inclusion, this is to reduce spam, or trim down a list that would otherwise be huge. In this instance, simply requiring a reliable source (i.e., meeting WP:V) would get rid of any potential spam of people trying to advertise a flash mob. And at only two currently listed, there is hardly a problem of needing to trim down the list. Mdwh (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Those policies do not distinguish notable events from other notable events. There are many live publicity stunts that might be notable, but not examples of a flashmob. I was more talking about a guideline that would separate flashmobs from live events and performances, and other things like summer time water fights or costume marathons that charities often run etc. A throw back to the flash mob manifesto first used by the following organizers to Bill Wasik. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable flash mobs

What is the criterion for inclusion on this list?

• As I stated, WP:N and WP:ADVERT do not apply here.
• "this article is not a list of all events" - no one is claiming this is. In fact, there are only two events listed here, hardly "all" events!

The article has reliable notable 3rd party sources. I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, without this, the "mobs" list is in fact only a single entry. If the consensus is that people are opposed to including any other examples, then I suggest it would be better to do away with the section altogether, possibly integrating the pillow fight into the rest of the article.

I note that Mkdw has an objection to things that are "nothing more than" news stories. But it's hard to see how any individual flash mobs would ever be more than news stories? In fact, even the pillow fight is nothing more than a news story, so this should be removed also.

So let's either agree on the requirements for inclusion on this list - or scrap the section if the consensus is against "news stories". Mdwh (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, the additions you wish to keep are not even remotely related to the subject of this article making them exempt from the notability of the article topic and thus its own entity with in this article. For that reason alone it should be removed on site -- and it has. You will be in violation of WP:3RR for re-adding non-notable and off-topic content after it has been removed more than 3 times prior if you persist. The event by TMobile, was produced, paid for, and executed as a public outdoor event. TMobile paid for a permit and a rental fee for the public space much like one would do for an outdoor concert. The actors were under contract by British Equity well in advance, rehearsed with a choreographer, showed up at their 'show call time' and performed the event for an audience. TMobile simply chose not to advertise their event to the public. I strongly suggest you even read what this article is about. If you wish to create an article about small media events or outdoor events produced by corporations that do not fit the mold of standard advertising, you are free to try, though I highly expect it will be deleted on site.

As for the World Wide Pillow Fight, why don't you just read the article and Wikipedia policy and figure out why it fits? I really don't think I can explain it any better than how it's described in that short paragraph. It's the world's largest flash mob. It's a world record holder. Over 250 news medias covered the event and reported on flash mobs as a result, thus suggestion that the world wide pillow fight largely brought flash mobs in to the mainstream awareness. It's an annual event and ongoing event. It contributes to the encyclopedic article as a prime example of a flash mob and has been used to as an example by other sources than Wikipedia. etc. etc. The article is not about an event, rather its using a notable event to illustrate and explain more clearly the subject of flash mobs. You will find that news events are used greatly to support subjects in every encyclopedia since the first one. Take a peak at the World Encyclopedia at any random page. The volume 'W'(ar) will have some prime examples. Mkdw^talk 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the TMobile example as written, as it patently reads like a TMobile press release. I lament that the "notable mobs" section has been whittled down to nothing, though; a much-abbreviated mention of the TMobile mob could be reasonably included in a balanced sampling of mobs. The current sampling (a single event) is hopelessly imbalanced, and adding a promotional blurb to it is even more imbalanced.--Father Goose (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the removal of the TMobile event. One would obviously note its an advertising stunt and not a flash mob. Youre darn right the notable section will become nothing if you remove it... have some common sense. Simply add good examples of flash mobs. Done. 99.241.42.118 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Either the article's most active maintainers must agree on a common standard of what are "good examples", or the examples will get deleted again by said maintainers. In its most recent state, it had been maintained down to only a single event deemed as notable, making the section worthless.

On the other hand, my "scorched earth" act seems to have stirred a new editor (you) into improving the situation... for now. So thank you for your efforts regardless of how it turns out.--Father Goose (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe 99.241.42.118 is on the right track. I will work with fellow editors on expanding the section of notable flash mobs as long as they remain consistent with Wikipedia's policies of notability (as I foresee we'd have many problems of spam and the inclusion of non-notable local events). While notability deals with article topics, I think it would be wise to adopt them as a convention for this article when it comes to content, and alternatively use examples that only further the explanation of flash mobs. Examples that clearly show the workings of a flash mob and would separate those mobs from other mainstream events such as media events, concerts, political protests, and demonstrations. Mkdw^talk 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If we go by WP:N, any event which received coverage in more than one press outlet would qualify, regardless of its size or other attributes. That might be a workable standard. But one problem we will have to face sooner or later is the tendency of the press to call any smart mob a flash mob. We address that in the "Use of the term" section, but it will cause continuing difficulties in our "notable mobs" section, because who are we to tell the press that a flash mob is not in fact a flash mob?

Despite that, I think I do favor a separation between our flash mob and smart mob articles. But I'd like better coordination between the two; if people add a smart mob examples to this article (like, say, the geocaching stuff), I'd like to see it transferred to smart mob instead of deleted outright. And I'd like to see more navigational links to that article, making it clear that we keep the "whimsical" flashmob content here and the "smartmob" flashmob content there.--Father Goose (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the additions may meet WP:N but consistently fail WP:NOTNEWS. Several hundred flash mobs occur each year that are covered by multiple media sources. We'd literally have hundreds of entries into this article. If you look at the article protests it doesn't list every single protest that has been covered by multiple media sources, but in line with WP:RECENTISM and WP:EVENTS (that WP:N isn't the only policy that an event must stand up to in order to survive) they should be recorded at WikiNews or WP:CURRENT. Alternatively, if we look at the article protest it doesn't list a single protest, but rather types and we could go that way. Personally I've always liked reference to at least the largest flash mob, but it may be inappropriate in itself. -- I remember FatherGoose suggesting the creation of List of notable flash mobs though the idea as to whether it meets the above is still questionable but also an option. Mkdw^talk 20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Government response

This has sprung up due to a WP:AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy. Quite simply it was a snowball fight where a cop got angry and then he was reprimanded. This government response or perhaps a reception section could be interesting, but at the moment it seems as to be a way to include non-notable flash mobs where something like campus security became involved. Mkdw^talk 23:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Point in fact this has not sprung up due to the AfD, this is a growing reaction to flash mobs. Your edit summery states "campus security have nothing to do with the government, and I'm not entirely sure if the way police respond to large gatherings has anything to do with official government policy in regards to flash mobs specifically)" When you say Campus security have nothing to do with government" your are incorrect when you are talking about a state school. These schools have "peace officer" of the state that have the same authority as any other "peace officer" in the state, their jurisdiction is just limited to campus, as would be city police officer is limited by the city. Second all the information that I had were linked to social networking started flash mobs. To try and rule out what you do not like as not part of flash mob article is nothing more than you censoring the article, because you think they are not notable, even thought they revived coverage national and world wide. More and more cites are talking about banning flashmobs using events that you claim are not "flash mobs" to ban them. This is a local news event from the NBC KNDO station where one wiki article on flash mob was cited, second it used footage of a university campus "sword fight flash mob" to talk about how the city attorney and city police working together stopped a flash mob from forming at a mall.

When news sites are using this article to talk about flash mobs, we should not be trying to censor our topics because one person does not like them or think they are not notable if they meet notability the should be listed.Jsgoodrich (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the real question should be that the fact police sprayed pepper spray a flash mob make the event encyclopedic worthy? Like we saw in the DC snowball fight, many thought it was not notable that a policeman pulled a gun on a bunch of students. Is pepper spray any more notable as even less media attention was garnered. As I said before, I am actually quite interested in a response section as flashmobs have gone from something very few knew about to a well known term. Many articles have reception, and the section about Germany is especially important to the article. However, I expressed concerns that people would use this as a opportunity to post every single flashmob their college had. I've been to at least a dozen flashmobs where mall or campus police showed up, from simply watching, to being asked to leave, and even threatening to arrest us. This is one of the reasons in the flash mob manifesto it says to bring your ID. I've been following this article for a very long time and been working hard with others to ensure that all the examples are encyclopedic worthy and have seen literally hundreds of people post things like, UBC had a flashmob where students had a snowball fight, and that's it. I noticed on your talk page that you and User:Father Goose were quite unhappy about what happened at 2009 snowball fight gun controversy it was deleted. You even suggest that I own this article and "have very specific ideas about how things should be done, and chase away anyone and anything that doesn't match those ideas". I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can assure you that I am not the only editor here that has been editing this article. Perhaps I am one of the more vocal on this talk page, and mainly because I wish to discuss these issues and ask questions about sections etc. before action is taken like removing the area that I disagree with. I am disappointed in your comments as I don't feel that way at all, or any different about any articles that established editors have worked for many years on. You will find on this article talk page that it was decided that this article would follow the original concept ideas set by Bill Wasik and by the first organizers of the flashmobs afterward that often used a manifesto that was passed along by email. To stick to those guidelines that established what a flash mob was versus a live show or a bunch of college students getting together to have a snowball fight. After all, even the definition says unusual. I don't see how having a snowball fight is that unusual outside? That's where you're supposed to have them. Undoubtedly the point can be asked, is a pillow fight usual? Yes, because you expect to have pillow fights in a house, or at camp, but not on the street in downtown. I am not anti-media, or anti-corporate event, the irony is that I actually work professionally in the organization and production aspects of live events, theatre, and film, as well as in the media when my work has cross over. I took on this article because I feel strongly that its on the media and producers to market correctly their information and events, and also on the organizers of flash mobs to do the same. We can't simply call everything a flash mob because the media says it. Think about all the over exaggerated titles out there, the next Great Depression, World War III in response to Iraq etc. Otherwise, call Expo a flash mob, call the Olympics a flash mob, call the street busker group at Piccadilly Circus a flash mob. Or let's try, and I mean really try, to have an accurate article because now so many media article quotes this Wikipedia article for their information, and that is something we can all be proud of. If I am completely off base and other established editors on this article feel the same as you and Father Goose, I am willing to volunteer to step away from this article, because I certainly don't own this article and I trust the other editors here in assuming good faith will do their best to make the article the most complete as possible. So Js, like you pushed so hard to keep the snowball article, I pushed back in saying it was a snowball fight, and over 20 other editors also expressed their concerns and the article was deleted. If this is a personal conflict between us and our equally matched strong wills, then let it end at that in another resolution, but if this is about having the best article possible, then lets talk it out here. Mkdw^talk 20:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with your argument above can be summed up with one problem "and even threatening to arrest us" I think you just "Shoot yourself in the foot" WIKI is not the place for you or anyone to form a platform of any kind. Please make a website, not a wiki article. If you are directly related to the movement you should stop reporting on it. The question about response is I think your view. I would point that Wiki is not original thought Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not it seems you have an interest in flash mobs. Under Wikipedia:Your first article things to avoid we should avoid topics we have interest in. It seems to me that you are trying to shape public opinion of flash mobs by this article. These non-notable mobs according to you in themselves are not notable, but newspaper, and news shows are lumping them all together. The mind set of people is not yet formed by wiki, but by the media. The media has lumped them together. You are removing topics your thing should not be their. The DC Snowball fight is just one event which sparked national and international of police interaction between flash mobs. But it has been reported on TV as "growing danger". To police these events can turn violent and become uncontrollable so they worry. Law makers see this as a problem that should be addressed. We should be open to all views. I am not a police officer, law maker, or a flash mober, I am a person that sees technology growing and the reaction to it becoming public debate, thus note worthy on flash mobs. Jsgoodrich (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever formed a platform in saying that an article should be deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The fact that I had a similar experience does not change my views that these policies should be met, and they were as the article was deleted about the snowball fight. Wikipedia:Your first article is not a policy and in quite simply a how-to guide on avoiding problems for newcomers. It does not in any way say to stay away from articles that you are interested in. I cannot even imagine an editor that would come to Wikipedia that wouldn't edit an article they were uninterested in. If you are referring to WP:COI, then by your argument, anyone who as seen the move Titanic could not edit the article. I have never included a flashmob that I partook in, or compromised the article for my own benefit, financial gain, or promotion. In fact I haven't been to a flashmob in years and the ones I did attend were hardly notable. I have been open to the changes you proposed like a government response section, though I did disagree that mention of a campus police incident which doesn't seem that notable as it fails WP:NOTNEWS as only a local paper picked it up (by in its own rights failed WP:V). I cannot help to think that since you have dedicated so much time and resources to this that you must have your own political opinions that shape and contrast your edits to this Wikipedia as well. Your distaste for authority as publicly expressed has been also apparent in your edits and the content you add to Wikipedia. I have done some looking into your various accounts which it is apparent you have had many, and it does not surprise me that you opt to create and delete your old accounts as you seem have a history on this Wiki. As you say above in your last sentence, you have your own ideas about technology and flash mobs. Mkdw^talk 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to laugh at your arguments they make no sense. I have only one wiki account and it has been that way forever. As for my edits I try not to show a bias, but agree we all have a bias. The reason that I have to laugh is because, if my bias is slanted I have done to good a job covering it up. I want to be on the side of government as I hope that I can get into place where I shape laws. That is why I am working on applying and starting law school in the new year. I think technology is great, and love to think of the new uses of it. I think WIKI is one great example, along with flash mobs. The use of social network are a great and have a lot of benefit. My best friend found his real father through a my space/facebook accounts. I think technology has a way to connect people like never before. I worry about how it is used and controlled. I do think a government response no matter the level (Local, state, national, or international) should be looked at. I think flashmobs have many uses from preformace to protest to just fun events. I don't think the reaction not just of the government but people that do not understand the use of technology are starting to show more now than ever. As the news report from MN that I linked on your talk page highlighted about a university flash mob about the dangers. When police (an agent of the state or local government) take action to control the citizens it is a form of using (their Police power). Which is a form of government policy, it is not just one department or one cop, it becomes a policy. I think there has to be a balance of control between a person right to protest and what is safe for bystanders. There should be a debate on what is what, my argument is these event have historical value, even more so when the make national, or international news to be part of the debate, which people turn to wiki and other source for the information.

As for your argument that I have devoted a lot of time and energy, I have lately because I have been in a state of long term unemployment as I spent 10 years working in colleges and university in information Technology. The month of December is not a best months to look for work not a lot of interviews or people posting jobs. So I have increased the amount of time on wiki, trying to do something to help out a worthy project. Something that I have not had the time to do going to school and working full time in the last few years. I do have my opinions on technology and their uses, it comes from 10 years of being a professional in a field that I love. In the DC Snowball case, I think the copy was not total wrong in dealing with a large crowd, nor the officer who came with weapons drawn to the report of a man with a gun. I do try and not let that effect me, as I want to make wiki more useful. If you have any comments on my edit history of jsgoodrich (my only account) I would love for you leave them on my talk page. I mostly try to foucus on history and event of the past, history of building, events, dead people, old tv shows, and stuff like that. The flash mob story just is growing to be such a part of the law, techonology, culutre, and life that I think listing major events and the response to them should be done.

In responding to your comment about notablity, I am going to use a response that placed on the AfD of Cass District Library as I think the editor that wrote it makes a lot of sense to this issue as while. The University Police which you is not enough coverage and does not meet notability, I think is wrong. It was picked up my several regional news services and was reoported after the fact latter. I think you are trying to apply notability to strict. Here is the comment """WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I'm saying that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. You can scoff and say, "well, those are mostly county papers", but local newspapers are not excluded in the guideline. You can scoff and say "well, the other papers are from the next county over", but the guideline does not exclude newspapers from the next county over. You can scoff and say, "well, the circulation of one of the papers is very low." but the guideline says nothing about excluding newspapers with low circulations. You can scoff and say, "well, some of those sources aren't truly independent of the subject," but the guideline does not say that every source must be independent of the subject for the subject to be notable. In short, what you've done here is ask me if I am ignoring WP:NOTABILITY, when the guideline says nothing like what you think it says. Not only am I saying we shouldn't ignore WP:NOTABILITY, I'm saying that there is a danger in requiring more "notability" than what is actually in the guideline: things like requesting sources, and then when those are provided, requesting secondary sources, and then when sources are provided, changing the request to "sources with wider readerships". At some point, these requests become nothing more than bullying: "your article will be deleted if you don't provide a 2-page article from the New York Times"-type things. When these sorts of requests are made by someone who does little more than tag and template articles (and these actions do not significantly improve the encyclopedia), it has the effect of driving away good article writers ("this guy's just playing zap-an-article... why do I still bother writing here?"). It takes great effort to dig up and research articles on many subjects. It takes no effort at all to push a "template this" button. Someone who only adds automated templates to articles just may not understand this. "" from Firsfron of Ronchester. I think he sums up this argument better than I could ever.Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer some clarifications on my thoughts. I don't particularly lament the loss of the snowball fight article; it didn't seem to end up being an event of lasting, independent importance, thus it didn't warrant its own article. The event does have some plausible significance to snowball fight and flash mob, however, and my attitude about Wikipedia in general is that we should offer the broadest coverage possible of all subjects, as long as we can keep things organized.

Over a couple of years of being involved with this article, I have watched you (and, to be fair, certain other editors as well) remove almost all information relating to any specific flash mobs. I support removing anything that isn't backed up by reliable sources ("Hey, check out my flash mob"), but I've seen many other events that did receive quite a bit of coverage get removed on the basis that they were "non-notable". I see no harm befalling the article if we do include a "list of flash mobs that made the news" -- by now, we could have spun such a list off into its own article. Such a list would undoubtedly be of interest to some readers, so I'm unhappy that it was never given a chance to grow here and be split off at some point. I could try to create such a list out of whole cloth right now, but to be honest, I don't want to spend the hours necessary to track down a representative sampling of events -- and without that, it might get deleted as being "just a couple of non-notable flash mobs that received some press". Perhaps even you personally would press for its deletion on that basis.

This my frustration. I do appreciate your work in keeping all sorts of self-promotional crap out of the article. But I feel you've been cutting the nail far too close to the quick. I haven't made a lot of noise about this in the past, but I guess now's a good time to discuss it. Would you support the creation of a List of notable flash mobs article, into which we can transfer any sourced entries that get added to this list?--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for a list of notable flash mobs that garner some notability. A list might be the solution to be able to keep a track record with out requiring each to have their own article. As a body of work an article like that would have more weight against a lone topical event. Mkdw^talk 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)