Talk:January 27, 2007, anti-war protest

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

January 27, 2007 Iraq War protest → January 27, 2007 anti-war protest — This requested move will bring this article's name in line with other similar articles about anti-war protests. We already have February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, March 20, 2003 anti-war protest, and September 24, 2005 anti-war protest. This brings this article in line to what seems to be the consensus on how we title articles regarding anti-war protests. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Certainly, yes. I think you can move this right now. —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2. No problem with moving the article. Though, I hope it gets expanded and improved significantly. Otherwise, maybe it's worth merging it into Protests against the Iraq War. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Total agreement here. Spinnick597 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Move would make sense. I saw people there protesting war in Palestine, too, and no war in Iran, etc. Candle-ends 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures

I noticed that most of the pictures in this article have been removed, and was wondering if a panorama of the event, which I feel encompasses the scope of the protest, would be appropriate for the article. Any thoughts? Spinnick597 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the photos because we don't have enough text to support that many photos yet. It still has to grow some more first before we can add more photos to the text itself. All the photos were moved to Wikimedia Commons and the J27 gallery is linked from there. I would strongly recommend that, if the panorama is available under a free license, that you upload it to Commons and place it under the J27 category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cigarette butts

What are the sources for the report of cigarette butts and spitting at soldiers? There has been no mention of anything like this anywhere but here. Is this supported by reliable sources, or is it just vandalism? 64.75.114.95 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, since your comment was not about the requested move, I moved it to its own section. That said, it appears to be simple vandalism and POV-pushing, considering the phrasing. Good work in zapping it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti anti protest

Does anyone have a source for this? It's not that I want it removed (unlike the cigarette butt tale!), I just haven't heard it anywhere else. It could also be re-phrased so who's protesting what is clearer, but if it gets sourced, I can do that part. Candle-ends 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite the passage in the text that you're referring to? It appears that you're referring to the Freepers' counter-protest in the article, but I'm not for certain. Some clarity would be appreciated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. "In what was called the anti anti protest, Iraq veterans in the hundreds stood in front of the opposing protesters holding signs supporting the war." It's plunked in towards the bottom. Sounds like it's trying to say the counter-protest was protested? Maybe? Candle-ends 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No 400,000

The media reported tens of thousands, which implies less than 100,000 in my mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.17 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I was there, too, but I was with the black bloc, and so I can't speak for much about the mainstream march as far as numbers go. The black bloc did really well as far as attendance went, though, by its own standards. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was also with the bloc, I heard estimates at 100,000. There were more than 30 in the bloc when they went to the Armed Forces RC, but I don't have any photographic evidence to prove it. There were at least 50 though. --Nielad 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can kind of get a headcount with the photo you submitted (nice photo, by the way!), and it's definitely not one or two people in that bloc. I'd bailed out by then due to fatigue and camera issues, and got photos of the window still busted two weeks later. The problem with estimating the size of the black bloc is that the size fluctuated greatly over the course of the day. The bloc was largest when it was near the Capitol and at the steps, was around 50-100 or so leaving Dupont, and appeared based on that photo to be somewhat smaller at the recruitment center. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I was there and at the end of the protest, it was announced onstage that the number was 500,000 (acording to aerial photography). Although this does seem a little high, it was definitely more than tens of thousands. This seems like a conservative number and although it was the number that was eaten up by the media, it could just be a visual estimate or a police estimate. Either way, based on my experience from other large protests, I think that there were more than 100,000 people there. , Keith 22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/a-532450~NOTEBOOK__People_Speak_Out_in_Capital.html

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on January 27, 2007 anti-war protest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137550/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607034529/http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137584/index.php to http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137584/index.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612232238/http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137573/index.php%3C/a to http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137573/index.php%3C/a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)