Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Merit Honorees

Resolved

Should we add a section on the recipients of the merit "badges" for Faith, Hope, and Charity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekrecon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that the most in-depth part of the article constitutes a discussion of the opposition, and almost nothing is said about the actual content of the rally... that would seem appropriate.--216.188.230.134 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 3 awards and their recipients should be added to the article with a reference.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

Maybe we should add an aerial photograph of the crowd after the event is over as there has been a great deal of speculation as to how many people showed up. 174.99.91.186 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire article needs photographs. Hopefully some users who attended will start to upload some.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Allahpundit

Is Allahpundit a reliable source? I think we could find a better one. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blogger is anonymous, I would say no.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how this is also a blogger, and even bigger no.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Resolved

Putting "Restoring honor" in quotations is clearly an attempt to discredit it, and/or input skepticism into the title. We don't refer to the Reclaim the Dream commemorative march as the "Reclaim the Dream" commemorative march. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotation marks were utilized in the first ABC News reference, and thus were included in the title. I believe that rather than an attempt to discredit the title, by placing "Restoring Honor" in qts, we are showing that this is the way Beck himself officially referred to it (admittedly, quotation marks can be problematic though because of the common disingenuous use of air quotes to imply sarcasm). I am open to other options or arguments though. For instance, per WP:Undue, do the majority of ref’s utilize the " marks?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems they do, so with that in mind perhaps we should keep it. Nonetheless I too am open to any suggestions to make the quotation marks appear less like they are trying to make it appear disingenuous, and more like that is simply the title.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Wikiposter, the quotations look like scare quotes even if that was not the intention. I propose moving it to Restoring Honor rally to be in line with a similar event, Taxpayer March on Washington, which was organized by FreedomWorks but does not include them in their title. If we are going to have an organizer in the title, it would be more accurate to put Glenn Beck and SOWF's..." BS24 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I have no problem with a move to something like that, provided no rally with a similar name clashes. But this article should certainly be moved to something as the current title does not look quite right. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I dropped the quote marks to see if that makes a difference. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I like. :) Thank you.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly Worth it's own page

Resolved

This should be merged into the Glenn Beck page and broken out if it gets too big. Soxwon (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I strongly disagree, it is already too big for the Glenn Beck page, and will only swell into being much larger in the next day or two.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for more media coverage, but honestly, what's in the lead is probably all that's needed on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Many other important rallies have proven to be notable as this one will be notable as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - We only have preliminary coverage right now and it's already big. It will only get bigger. Considering the sheer size of the crowd, it is plenty notable for its own page. BS24 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Becks article is already overloaded, this is without doubt notable enough for an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - we have articles on the Million Man March, Millions More Movement, and this rally is comparable in crowd size to those two (although, it has a very different political agenda). Stonemason89 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Just wondering what folks think about the tag "values-and-patriotism rally" at the start--wouldn't simply 'rally' suffice to be neutral, which description to follow? Ntomlin (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that, should say rally and then describe it in more detail in the next sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not descriptive enough. Rally was about values and patriotism. I don't see any reason to rmv that descriptor.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit:If you find better descriptors then go ahead and show them, but I think just rally isn't enough to describe the event.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is controversy as to whether or not politics were in fact involved in the rally, to stay neutral I was thinking of perhaps crediting Beck himself with the tag, modifying the first sentence from this:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a values-and-patriotism rally promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck and held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010.

to something like this:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck as a values-and-patriotism rally and was held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010. Ntomlin (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck"

Repetitive?

How about:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a 2010 Washington D.C. rally promoted as a values-and-patriotism event to restore honor in America and to raise funds for the non-profit Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I like that for the most part. I think it should be either 'values-and-patriotism event' or 'to restore honor in America' not both, and should use a quote from Beck rather than summary...did he say 'values-and-patriotism' or 'to restore honor in America'? If so we can cite him to maintain neutrality.

Also, how about:

The Restoring Honor rally was held in Washington D.C. in 2010 and was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck as a values-and-patriotism event to raise funds for the non-profit Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

Support either of those proposed changes they are better than the present wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is a "values-and-patriotism rally"? This should simply be described as a rally. If you are going to use the term "values-and-patriotism rally", then it should say: Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a self described "values-and-patriotism rally"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.240.154 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

please see new change and let me know what you think--add citations if needed--there is a citation in the 2nd paragraph which I think suffices. Ntomlin (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck and was held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010. The rally was co-sponsored by the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, promoted by FreedomWorks and heavily supported by the Tea Party movement.[1]"

I think it could be better...
First off
""Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck"
This is like a "no duh" statement, it's needlessly repetitive.
"The rally was co-sponsored by the Special Operations Warrior Foundation,"
It should say that the rally was used to raise funds for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.
The current wording now makes it seem like it is a political rally as it doesn't say it's a fund raising rally or supposed to restore honor, instead it just says Tea Party supports it.
I've gone ahead and added British Watcher's suggestion which I liked more, but I think we can still come up with something better.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the new intro is good in that it implies the 'values and patriotism' label is subjective. Also, the redundancy of the Beck tag in my example was forced since the old title used his name. Ntomlin (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

However, according to most of the sources, it was for all intents and purposes a political/religious rally and not branded as primarily being a fundraiser. For instance, the rally was initially planned as a book rollout event, and only took the SOWF fundraising alternative relatively late in the planning process. Moreover, the utilized source supports the previous wording and most sources mention the connection to the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"For instance, the rally was initially planned as a book rollout event, and only took the SOWF fundraising alternative relatively late in the planning process."

Where did you hear this? I read in one of the articles(I'm having trouble finding it) on this that it was quickly changed into a fundraiser shortly after it was announced instead of being Glenn Beck's revealing of his 100 year plan.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Change title?

Resolved

Should be changed to: Restoring Honor rally. No other rally titles mention people's names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C. I need help changing title; don't know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The title "Restoring Honor rally" is already taken, so I had to go for "Restoring Honor rally (Washington, D. C.)". Stonemason89 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Restoring Honor rally (Glenn Beck) makes more sense.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes for article name ?

Resolved

This article has had its name changed several times. Please choose which one you prefer?
(a) Restoring Honor Rally
(b) Restoring Honor rally
(c) Restoring Honor Rally (Glenn Beck)
(d) Restoring Honor rally (Glenn Beck)
(e) Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally
(f) Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally

• I'd prefer either either F, D or B in that order.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• B is my preference or D. Ntomlin (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• B is my preference followed by D. I have to ask to those who want to add (Glenn Beck), is there another "Restoring Honor rally" that people could be confusing with this one? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was initially going to change it to B, but B was already taken. I still prefer B; if there were some way to get an admin to remove the redirect that currently exists at B, then I could move this article to B. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just copy and paste the article's text from here to B, and then make this article a redirect to B?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source

Here is another source on the racial composition of Beck's and Sharpton's rallies: [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

Does the "Glenn Beck is Not Martin Luther King Jr. - opposition site by Glenn Greenwald" link really serve a relevant purpose to this article? It seems to me that this site is just a petition created by a left-leaning blogger with a relatively small signing base. I propose it be removed, as it appears to be here just to make a political point. Dflocks80 (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, the petition has over 36,000 signatures (around half of the number estimated by CBS news to have attended the rally i.e. 87,000) so I don't know if I would call it "small".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't matter if a million people signed up. We don't link to self-promoation websites like that. There isn't even anything that would state that the website is notable. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Donations, cost of rally etc ?

The lead stated:

Donations by Beck's supporters funded the event, and an additional $5.5 million (to date) was donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, once the costs of the event had been covered.

This raises a few questions:
(1) A reference needs to be located.
(2) From reading the sources, I was under the impression that the total amount raised was 5.5 million, but that the cost of the rally would need to be paid out of that amount. Not that the 5.5 million was the total take after the expenses were paid for.
(3) What did the rally cost to put on? and has it already been paid for?
(4) A source would also need to be found from the SOWF foundation detailing the total amount that they are given.
Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Per this Time magazine blog article, all proceeds raised through Beck's promotion of the event were slated to go to SOWF, after the estimated $1 million costs for the rally itself were covered. So it looks like around 5.5 million $ were raised, and the event was slated to cost 1 million dollars. Hopefully, in the next day or so the finalized numbers will be released and can be included fully.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

next day or so? Dam, I wish my account worked that fast :). Seriously, I hate these "current events" articles because it seems like folks are so eager to be the first to "update" articles. How will this article look a year, 5, or 10 years from now? Why the rush? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

We can get free images here, if we want them. I'm too lazy to upload them to commons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Hopefully down the road, pictures can be worked into the article and then removed from the EL section. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page is Racist

 Fixed
LOL, Why is it written as "black civil rights leaders"? Isn't "civil rights leaders" enough? What does "black" add to the title? Nothing. I'm sure that's as mild and the writer could tone down his/her real thought.

But maybe I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.23.207 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. See my comment above about current news articles. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)ps, the article isn't "protected", which I am glad to see, so feel free to make changes and then be ready to comment here :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's black civil rights leaders, because it's civil rights leaders of the black community for the black community, not to indicate that the leaders themselves are black. "Civil rights leaders" alone makes it seem like civil rights leaders from other causes like women's rights and gay rights are included, which for large part they aren't.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like its too off. Could folks think of better wording? It can be confused to think the folks are being called "black". Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just "He has received criticism from... civil rights leaders of the black community... concerning the date and time of the event..."

Is "civil rights leaders of the black community" okay?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have gone ahead and changed it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Move opposition section down

The "Opposition" section should be moved down. No, not for POV reasons. Rather, the rally is described, then the opposition is described, then the rally is described some more. That is bad organization. The rally should be described first, then the opposition should be described. For example, the opposition such as from Al Sharpton who did not attend the rally appears before the section about Alveda King who spoke "I have a dream ..." at the rally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, the vast majority of it is "pre-event" opposition (since renamed). Those comments that occured post-event should be moved however down below into chronological order.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, although then the opposition section gets broken up, thereby switching the problem from the rally to the opposition. Perhaps it would be best to have an opposition section containing subsections for pre-event opposition and post-event opposition.

There is also the possibility that the pre/post dichotomy is spurious/irrelevant in the first place and only appears relevant now because not enough time has past. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All opposition would be pre-event, as anything post event would simply be a reaction or criticism to the event that took place. Moreover, the section is not really broken up as 95 % of the previous section was pre-event. The article has yet to include much post-event reactions, as those are still coming in. As for relevance down the line, that's possible, although only time can help determine that.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It just looks wrong/POV if Al Sharpton gets higher billing than Alveda King, no matter what the reason. Etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Alveda King's name appears several times in the article before Sharptons (she also has her own expandable subsection). As for "higher up being better", there isn't a wiki policy governing that. The article is simply chronological. Sharpton was criticizing the event before Alveda signed up to be a part of it and addressed the criticism.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Beck rejects some of King's views

I'm aware that MMFA is not the best source to use; however, this Fox News Sunday clip is quite interesting; during an interview with Chris Wallace, Beck says he doesn't agree with all of what King and the civil rights movement stood for, only some aspects of it. He dismissed certain aspects of the civil rights movement as "racial politics". Would this be worth mentioning (perhaps once someone finds a better source)?Stonemason89 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No. That may be something to put on Beck's page (and even with that, it will probably make the article more biased), but that has nothing to do with the rally. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Beck says he doesn't agree with all of what King and the civil rights movement stood for"

Does that sound notable to you?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but once again, not relevant enough to put on the Restoring Honor rally page, but maybe Glenn's bio (even if we did put it on there, it may unbalance the neutrality that it has). Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in intro?

Wondering what others think of this tag in the intro: "The religious and patriotic themed rally"

I believe it is an obvious subjective judgment and is called into question in countless sources...in other words, politics were claimed by Beck and others as outside of the event but still others point to examples of how politics were involved. Further, the label is not cited. Who, exactly, thinks this is religious and patriotic? Depends on the viewer. Not neutral. It is also not needed as this better, neutral and cited label is given shortly thereafter:

The rally was billed as a "celebration of America's heroes and heritage".[4]

Ntomlin (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't even address the religious aspect, almost every report on the rally called it religious themed. As for patriotic, this was clearly patriotic. We are talking about the theme of the rally, and no one would argue that politics was a theme of the rally. If you can find a source saying that then bring it up, otherwise I don't see the point in discussing this. Many pointed to this patriotic and religious themed rally as having political implications and motivations, but no one has argued the rally itself was political in its talks and speeches, even calling it "ostensibly non-political".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. However, as you mention in the differentiation between 'theme' and 'implications and motivations,' this is a highly nuanced issue and deserves more than a cursory uncited mention, especially in the intro where you give a cited label in the very next sentence. If so crucial, why not cite it, as in the 2nd example? Further, where does Beck's overwelming focus on 'reclaiming Civil rights' fall in this thematic schema? Religious or patriotic? Seems political. Also, looking at our previous discussion, I thought we comprimised on attributing the 'theme' to Beck, the creator of the event? I suppose this doesn't seem worth arguing, but seeing that we want to maintain neutrality and this label appears in the first line of an event that might have been described as patriotic and religious yet has both political implications and arguably covert political messages. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703618504575459612802925600.html

take this line: Woodstock Music & Art Fair (informally, Woodstock or The Woodstock Festival) was a music festival, billed as "An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music".

'Billed' is very important here. This attributes the label.

imagine, instead, if it said this:

Woodstock Music & Art Fair (informally, Woodstock or The Woodstock Festival) was a peace themed music festival. Ntomlin (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Woodstock most definitely was peace themed and I would have no problem with saying that.

"However, as you mention in the differentiation between 'theme' and 'implications and motivations,' this is a highly nuanced issue and deserves more than a cursory uncited mention, "

There is no nuance. Although people say the rally had political implications, no one has argued that the speeches made and the rally itself was political except those who argue it was covertly political. It is clearly religious and patriotic. Do the American flags and constant peppering of speeches with religious phrases not convey that to you? The theme of the rally was religion and patriotism, you can argue it was still a political rally, but the theme is generally agreed upon.

"and this label appears in the first line of an event"

Actually the second line which bothers me. I would've wanted some sort of descriptor in the first line.

"Further, where does Beck's overwelming focus on 'reclaiming Civil rights' fall in this thematic schema? Religious or patriotic? Seems political."

Overwhelming focus? You are aware he made one line saying that but definitely did not make that his focus at all. Furthermore the Civil rights movement is definitely seen by Beck as being about religion and honor. Tell me, if you think the Civil Rights movement was about politics, then does that mean you think it was a Democratic movement?

"Also, looking at our previous discussion, I thought we comprimised on attributing the 'theme' to Beck, the creator of the event?"

I thought so to, somebody else changed it. I'd rather though he just re-write as it was as opposed to negating the obvious, that this rally was a religious and patriotic themed event.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your change improved it greatly thanks :) Ntomlin (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problemWikiposter0123 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

whoa now we've got 4 labels in sentence 2 and 1 in sentence 5...all priority? Ntomlin (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence 5? Are we now talking about sentences outside of the lead? As for the "celebration of Americn heroes" I think it's necessary to say in order to then mention that many troops were honored. Am I missing something?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

oops meant sentence 3. looking great at this point...although I see a bit of redundancy: values then honor, patriotism then heritage. Brevity rules. Ntomlin (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Rally section expansion

The rally was over three hours long and included more than signs, Palin, King, and Beck. We need to expand the section to include more parts of it. I added a template. BS24 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Beck sounding like an "evangelical preacher"?

In the section about Glenn Beck in the rally section, it says that Beck sounded like "an evangelical preacher" at times. Is this really needed? Besides sounding biased, it's just not needed. It doesn't matter if it comes from a source like NPR, in my opinion that is:

A)Opinion B)Biased C)Unneeded info

That being the case, I'm removing that little part for now, unless someone can give me good reason to do otherwise.

Anyone agree with me? Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could mention that various commentators have opined that he sounded like an evangelical preacher. That would let readers make up their own minds, and wouldn't violate NPOV. I watched some of Media Matters' videos of him from the rally, and to my ear, he did sound a lot like a preacher. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We should say that only if a number of reliable sources said the same thing. It may be warranted, though.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't have to be reliable sources, just prominent. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. The reliability issue is whether, if a source reports that Mr. X said Y, we can be confident that Mr. X did indeed say Y. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know how it works. It doesn't seem to be in the article anymore anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because I removed it. There was only one source that stated this opinion (NPR). Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Content issues

Hi everyone,

As you may have noticed from the page history, one editor (Itreeye) has been consistently adding the same POV material (calling people leftists, referring to Beck-criticism as slander, etc. -- it's all in the histories; I'd post diffs if I knew how) to the page. I have reverted Itreeye twice, but can't do anything more without running up against WP:3RR. (I know the rule doesn't apply to vandalism, but I'm not certain whether this ought to be considered vandalism or a content dispute.) In any case, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to continue to revert Itreeye, so if others can keep their eyes out and revert inappropriate edits (like Itreeye's last two), that would be great. Thank you. dcd139 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He/she got blocked indefinitely; but we should probably keep an eye out for similar edits. I was particularly concerned with the items referring to criticism of Mr. Beck as slander; last time I checked that's an actual legal term and probably shouldn't just be thrown around willy nilly. Now if a source referred to the criticisms as such, we could mention that. Millahnna (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of this article needs to be re-written due to these content issues. For example, terms like "Far Left", "Leftist", "Keith Olbermann Mockingly Claimed", etc... need to be flat out removed. If people can't add content in a responsible manner, perhaps a more deletionist approach needs to be taken in regard to keeping this article in adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. — Mike :  tlk  14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of that was from the editor Dcd139 noted and his IP sockpuppet. It's been a bit tricky cleaning it up; dude edits fast and we missed some in the reverts. But it was not really part of the article until he got started. Millahnna (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My revert

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in those articles to support the info. I could be wrong. Here's the revert.[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar issues

It seems like the sidebar has way too much information, and it doesn't even have all the information. A lot of this is too much for a sidebar and belongs in the rally description. I propose deleting the "Promoters" as not important enough for the sidebar, and "Other program" and "Presenters" as being incomplete and too big if it was complete. BS24 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sidebar has become long. I would recommend a second additional sidebar for the "Rally" section itself and divide the current sections. Top sidebar = Sponsors, Promoters, Main Speakers, Date, Website. Lower sidebar = Other Program, Presenters, Badges of Merit, To Armed Service Veterans.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris Matthews

Why is his quote being given prominence in the article? Who says that his rant is this notable? If anyone's comments should be given special attention it would be Beck since it is he who put the event togeter, not some critic that obviously dislikes Beck. Not the least of which his rant doesn't make a whole lot of sense, King would have a nightmare that people with different ideologies would come together on the aniversary of his speach where he gave it? It would seem that would be his Dream fulfilled. Remove his strange quote, and just add him to the gang of others bashing Beck. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to within the text. As for it "making sense", that would be WP:OR and not for us to decide.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Palin's Title

She is no longer a candidate of any kind, to the best of my knowledge. You can call her a "former candidate" or "2008 candidate", but not just "Republican Vice Presidential Candidate". It might make sense to refer to her as "Former Governor" since it describes a position in government she held (as opposed to one she was trying to hold), or "Conservative Activist" or "Conservative Commentator" since they describe what she is currently. — Mike :  tlk  04:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How does the source refer to her? That is how she should be referred as.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And what if many sources can be found, and they differ in how they refer to her? Perhaps it's best to give her no title, and leave it to the user to click on her name if they want more information about who she is? — Mike :  tlk  20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You all realize people are going to now who she is right?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since not all users of the English Wikipedia are from America I wouldn't assume that they would. Millahnna (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to state "2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate" or something like that. We do need to explain why she is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Media reaction and response

Jokes from Comedy Central are not credible media sources for Wiki. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert references should be removed. Editor99 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a wikipedia policy or guideline for this. Despite the fact that the channel on which his show airs is called "Comedy Central", what's the rationale for including one political commentator's views over another? Again, cite wikipedia policies please. — Mike :  tlk  20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:WEIGHT.Political commentators? Colbert and Stewart aren't pundits, they're jokesters. Obviously the political jokes they make are not actual political commentary and shouldn't be weighted alongside actual political commentary, have you not seen their programs? They're good indications of pop-culture icons mentioning it though, so they can be included that way.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that both shows have been nominated for and won awards for journalistic content (in spite of being billed as news satire and comedy), I don't see why their opinion wouldn't be notable. It gives one of of the spectrum of opinion about the event. Millahnna (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Colbert Report has won four Emmys each in 2006, 2007 and 2008, two Television Critics Association Awards, and two Satellite Awards, but nothing for journalistic content. The Daily Show has also received many awards for entertainment and comedy, but I have seen nothing that declares it has journalistic merit, so I would dispute those claims in their entirety.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)(PS:I have indented the comments of those below me, I hope you all don't mind)

Both shows have won Peabody awards for News and Information categories and have been nominated for the same several times. That's irrelevant in this case due to the issue Editor99 brings up below. But they have been recognized for having journalistic merit via official accolades. Millahnna (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Where have you heard that they won the award in the journalism and not the entertainment category? The same year Colbert won his Peabody award Bravo's Project Runway, AMC's Mad Men, and Showtime's Dexter won similar awards. Similarly The Onion has received a Peabody and I doubt due to their journalistic merit.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We have their awards noted and sourced on this very site. Daily Show won for their coverage of the 2000 and 2004 elections (under News and Information). Colbert Report won in 2008, although not for anything specific, if I recall correctly: just a general win under the "News and Information" category. Millahnna (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Seriously" there is no mention at all that their coverage won under News and Information and not Entertainment, and even if it did being recognized for a single story is not the same as being recognized for overall journalistic merit. Under that definition the National Enquirer which could've won a Pulitzer for breaking the John Edwards affair almost half a year before everyone else would then be recognized as a serious journalistic source. As for Colbert, you recollections would be better verified and more trusted with some sort of source.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant your point about overall journalistic merit versus specific coverage; that will, of course, be a completely subjective issue. But their awards are listed right on the Peabody awards 2000s list, as well as on the award's official site. In both 2000 and 2004, the Daily Show won for their Election coverage and the Colbert Report won in 2007 for coverage related to the impending 2008 elections. Millahnna (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the precise reason why they should not be included...there's no way to tell whether or not their statements were their "political opinion" or simply a "joke" designed to get laughs. Those are two separate things and giving weight to "jokes" is a very slippery slope for Wiki.Editor99 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Perhaps, as Wikiposter said, it is something that might be added back in if a pop-culture section develops down the line or if either clarifies the degree of joke in their statement (unlikely with Colbert, at least) via interview through a more conventional source. In light of the "opinion vs. joke" issue, for the moment I think I agree. Millahnna (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, such content should be removed or a new section for popular culture (or along those lines) created, but the best option for the time being would be to remove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Stewart and Colbert would classify as part of the "media", despite the fact that they sometimes utilize humor or sarcasm to get their point across. As for a potential "popular culture" section, that would probably be a bad idea at this point and would become a nightmare in regards to notability.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...they also cover the news and offer serious commentary" True, but that is not what is listed in the article. What is listed is their "jokes" on the subject, not their serious commentary. There is no question whether or not they use satire, the question is whether Wiki should use it. I say no.Editor99 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Media" is an incredibly vague term which could mean nearly anything communicating something. I thought this section was supposed to be restricted to News Media.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was "news" media, it would probably have the word "news" with it, wouldn't it? But even beyond that, Stewart and Colbert would in most eyes qualify as part of the "news media". Although both shows utilize tongue-in-cheek humor and sometimes parody to get their point across (ironically so does Beck), they also cover the news and offer serious commentary. Would you disagree with counting either of them as part of the "news media"? ps. I also added the word "comedians" to the section's lead.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Identify them as comedians and I would be fine.

"they also cover the news and offer serious commentary."

What I have seen from what I have watched is constant mischaracterization of both sides to make them appear stupid, and then make a joke about the illusion they created about their stupidity.

I would disagree, yes, that they are a part of the news media. Their own staff has itself argued against people using them as a news source.

As for whether Media refers to news Media, well what exactly are you referring to when you say media? When most people say the main/lamestream media they are only referring to the news.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter, obviously the degree to which they "mischaracterize" versus "satirize" or selectively "criticize" would be a matter of opinion, but I would hope that you recognize that such tactics to varying degrees are employed by nearly all pundits on all sides of the political spectrum (including those such as Olbermann, Beck, Matthews, O'Reilly etc). As for the "lamestream" (I see you are utilizing Sarah Palin's favorite moniker) "media", I would classify them broadly as all of the various outlets that disseminate information - such as news & commentary shows (both serious and comedic as the two are not mutually exclusive), newspapers, magazines, social media, websites, etc.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that the lead of the Media section has included a more diverse list of types of media commentators, I don't see a problem with re-adding Stewart and Colbert back in. I do feel that we should make a point of applying the label satire to them, however. Something like host of the news satire program, the Daily Show, blah blah blah. Millahnna (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because of the difficult humor aspect, we should only include them based on other RSs mentioning their coverage of the rally, which probably isn't hard to find. If it is, then don't include them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Black-Robed Regiment

Would it be worth mentioning the Black-Robed Regiment in this article, or do you think it would be better mentioned in Beck's bio (or should we create a separate article about the Regiment?)

I think the Black-Robed Regiment is worth mentioning for several reasons:

• Its formation was announced at the Restoring Honor rally
• It was partly the brainchild of David Barton, with whom Beck has worked before
• Several high-profile pastors, including James Dobson, have joined
• There was some controversy about whether evangelical leaders should associate themselves with a Mormon.

Here's an article that explains a bit about them: [4]. While Media Matters itself is not the best source to use, I'm sure other and better sources could be easily found. Here's another one from a different source: [5]

Note that as the term "Black-Robed Regiment" comes from colonial American history, it's possible that not every group with this or a similar name is necessarily linked to Beck. Chuck Baldwin has a group like this which has been around for several years. Also, this site may or may not be Beck's Black-Robed Regiment; while it has posted links to articles promoting Beck's rally, it doesn't definitively state that his group is behind it. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a brief section of the group be mentioned here, with a link to a larger separate article (on the group itself) with more details.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any feelings on deleting the Black Robe from the intro? Not a key point of the event; It is given unfair weight. Ntomlin (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll move it farther down. Although, it is an important event due to the fact that it will have lasting significance (as the formation of what appears to be a new organization). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started an article [Edited: article section]: "Black-Robed Regiment Restoring Honor rally#Black-Robed Regiment"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendance in the sidebar

It is unwise to use the CBS estimate as the correct one in the sidebar, since their estimate differs from many other media outlets. Also, CBS doesn't specify at what time the photo was taken on which they based the estimate, which is important because it could have been taken early or as the crowd was winding down. I am changing the sidebar to "Disputed -- See Crowd size". BS24 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was taken at noon. However, their estimate only includes people in the mall and not the hundreds of thousands who couldn't fit into the mall and were just outside of it. Only citing the people in the mall is clearly misleading.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know people "just outside" of the mall were excluded from the CBS estimate? Just trying to catch up on the controversy that occurs after any of these events.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Final Time mag quote. Rather than merely quoting urban legends about a million plus blah blah, we include the CBS-commissioned, aerial crowd-estimate, which is great. That said, the article at present ends with a Time magazine quote about the landmark of exceeding reported crowd numbers at the Great March on Washington. Time's remarks are ill-informed because crowd estimates at the iconic march were not scientific and historical/current pix show the crowd's at Beck's and King's gatherings to be comparable. Maybe if a really big deal gets made about these conflicting folk-estimations, then, along with the various and competing sides' assertions, perhaps what ever are the (varying?) professional opinions about the matter could be included, too.

But Time's comparison of what is to be reported about Beck's rally and what was reported about King's is pointless anyway...the two events being nearly half a century apart, with the journalistic measure of the '63 seminal event's attendance less scientific than what we are going to get w Glenn's (the Great March, 250k; Glenn's < 100K). However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; therefore we should either include quotes from the reliable sources (and I've read it more than once in news reports) that say from comparing photographs of Glenn's and the other events, the attendance at the Glenn's 8-28-2010 rally was in the ballpark of the others or we should stay away from the whole business all together. What do you all think?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

1. [...C]ompany official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Here is an aerial photograph of the '63 Great March. Why do we say there was 250k ppl there? Because 250k is a nice round number, that's why. No one knows. There is no scientific data available on the MLK-'63 Washington DC March.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
3. According to Charlie Martin

   Using Google Earth, I constructed a polygon that covers the apparent area of the crowd, and another that takes in just the reflecting pool (since there are not a lot of people standing in the water).

   With the aid of an excellent online tool, we find the enclosing area is about 223,000 square meters and the reflecting pool about 26,000 square meters. By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters. The Park Service considers a “dense crowd” to be around 10 square feet per person, or about 0.93 square meters per person — call it 1.1 people per square meter. If the whole area were packed that densely, we’d have about 215,000 people.

   Of course, it’s clear from these pictures that the whole area isn’t that tightly packed; on the other hand, we don’t know when the photos were taken. So let’s make a range of estimates.

   Maximum 215,000 people
   90 percent 200,000
   75 percent 163,000
   50 percent 108,000
   CBS News Estimate 87,000
   40 percent 86,000

   These are relatively small estimates compared to some, so let’s just note that I’m taking a very conservative approach:
   -I’m only using photographs of the reflecting pool area itself.
   -I’m not attempting to add in the people around the Lincoln Memorial, since I don’t have a good photo of that.
   -I didn’t attempt to include people between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool.
   So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say, twice the 75 percent estimate, or about 330,000 people.

My own opinion about Charlie Martin's armchair stuff? Well...I think the CBS's estimate is praps as good as any. The aerial photos in Martin's piece of Beck's 8-28 rally is impressive, though.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless we can get more sources talking about the angle you mention (the lack of scientific counting of the Great March crowd) I think it might be best to ditch the mention at all, pretty much for the reasons you note. Now if sources start talking about that particular element and noting that there's no way to actually compare (or something like that anyway), then it would be an interesting footnote to the Crowd analysis section. Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it directly and clear: Wikipedia is no place for original research. Wikipedia reports about existing information. And if this existing information is inconsistent, then it is inconsistent, and Wikipedia reports the different aspects. Just claiming that a report is wrong without source (therefore being "original research") is not very helpful. (Especially if such claims are obviously nonsense if you look that picture of the original article the estimation is based on contains the whole crowd.) And in this particular case, many may not like this or that estimation. But at the end, the CBS estimation seems still to be the most scientific ones, addressing a whole article to the way they did it, compared to others which just mention a number in their article without giving more information about how they calculated it. Btw, if there is a direct source (NBC) and a indirect source (Politico referring to NBC), then obviously Wikipedia should go with the direct source. (In this case the indirect source seems to be out of date.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to step back for a sec to figure out your point. You're labeling as o/r my talkpage analysis of which reports are more reliable. Editors analyze reliability which isn't o/r. Your own analysis comes to the self-same conclusion as mine--which isn't o/r, either, but simply your expression on the talkpage of your good-faith analysis of which reports are more reliable.

As I said, I recall reading (a?) news report(s) that say photos of the Beck rally look similar to other large crowds on the Mall; maybe I'll be able to google it/them up?

As for a "range of estimates," here's a recent example from CNN.com:

Park Service officials have stopped giving crowd counts after previous controversies. But an estimate commissioned by CBS News, using aerial photography, put attendance at between 78,000 and 96,000. ABC News reported more than 100,000, while Fox -- and Beck -- estimated it at above half a million.

--which is more concise than we do it (for now, this being a wiki).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much more concise summary. I just doubt that as long as not every single estimation from any source is included in the article, there will be people from each "side" which are unhappy. So adding all sources is the best way to end an edit war. Maybe this does not lead to good summaries, but this seems to be a standard pragmatic way in Wikipedia... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, by OR I meant that someone rejected the CBS estimation in the main article (not on talk) by own arguments without source. While his rejection argument itself was flawed in my opinion, this does not matter: the main point is that the articles of Wikipedia are no place for providing new arguments. If there is a source A saying that source B is flawed - this is a different situation. But no OR please.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikiposter said above, CBS's may sound scientific to you because, wow, they have a whole article on it and they have a margin of error. Doesn't mean any real science is going on. We need to report the range of estimates because they're coming from reliable mainstream media outlets. You can't pick and choose the estimates you like. Report them all. BS24 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue might be the difference between an "estimate" based on the inexact science that goes into crowd estimations, and a reporter/pundit/politician/organizer simply looking out at the crowd and saying "Yeah it looks like 300,000 people are here". It seems that CBS (wrong as it may or not be) is the only "estimate" right now, and the others are closer to eyeball "guess-timates".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should continue to include the range as no one will know for sure which figure is the closest to being accurate. Including lowest/highest in the intro and explaining the different figures in the rest of the article seems like the most neutral way of handling this. The range should also be in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

One scientific effort to another, estimates have differed a multiple of 2, as with the Million Man March. From the CSMonitor:

In October 1995, the National Park Service estimated that about 400,000 people attended the “Million Man March” organized by the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. Organizers were so angry they sent lawyers to meet with the Park Service.

Shortly thereafter, the Boston University Center for Remote Sensing estimated that the crowd had been 837,000, plus or minus 20 percent. What was the difference? The Park Service counted via pictures taken from videotape. The Center for Remote Sensing used original photo negatives.

Photos of the Beck event clearly show a big crowd.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course also scientific calculations can differ significantly. But this does not change the fact that there is a huge difference between
a) scientific approaches (even if they differ), and
b) numbers which are not backed by anything up at all, but very likely may be just a wild guess by a short look at a photo, or even just taken from someone else.
Wikipedia should primarily rely on as solid sources as possible, but of course on the other hand also report the controversy about the numbers in the press. See also my notes in the above crowd section.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Folks, btw, CBS now has a new article out quoting the crowd-counting company.

  "The frothing underscores the problem with hyped predictions of crowd size. Organizers and supporters are forced to insist loudly that the actual crowd met or exceeded their expectations, for fear that the realistic estimate will be painted as a disappointment. The time-honored way to dismiss scientific estimates that don't reflect the pre-event hype is to claim political bias on the part of those doing the estimate. I am amused to see that those who embraced my Obama inauguration estimate as soberly realistic are now attacking the Beck rally estimate, produced using exactly the same methods, as deliberately biased."

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. But it still doesn't say whether the overflow crowds were counted. BS24 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

Should Michele Bachmann's crowd estimate of over 1,000,000 be mentioned in the article? I don't see any reason why not, since she's a nationally known political figure whose support base overlaps that of Beck. However, another user disagrees with me and so removed the Bachmann quote from the article. Any thoughts? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up to the Crowd size section here for my initial thoughts. I see your point about the shared support based but I'm still not sure how her statement is notable in this context since it was so hyperbolic. Millahnna (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see above section where it has been/is being discussed, thanks. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that before. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's a busy place here :)--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember anymore; Bachman's comment came from her own event after the Beck rally right? I'm wondering if, in that regard, it is something we now might consider readding but in the Aftermath section as opposed to crowd size? Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an Event not an "Even"

First paragraph after the intro. If you're going to lock the page, at least check for careless errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.75.107 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Well spotted lol BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This page is way too biased. The money "raised" would only go to paying for the rally and the leftovers (if,any) would go to the charity the planned to give it to. Looks like the idiots woke up today and decided to give this page a face-lift, because last time I checked this page, it only had about 8 paragraphs and no lede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.111.10 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about areas where you see bias problems? I know a lot of people have been working really hard to keep POV issues (from both Beck lovers and haters) in check. So if we've missed something it would help to know what specifically we aren't seeing. Since coverage is still ongoing, the page will probably fluctuate a lot until it settles. It was, however, well beyond eight paragraphs and no lead early yesterday (US west coast time) so you've obviously missed a lot. But that means you have fresher eyes on the article than many of us do and may spot problems we aren't seeing. Millahnna (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 72, language like "idiots" is not helpful or welcome here. Furthermore, (presently) the article is not a whitewash, and includes both praise and criticism in relation to its coverage in the media per WP:Undue. There is room in the article for both perspectives to be heard and by assuming bad faith and using personal attacks, you are not helping in that regard. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Blaze

I've created a new article for The Blaze, a website and blog that was founded three days after the Restoring Honor rally; I also added a brief mention of The Blaze to this article as well. Feel free to contribute to the new article. The website itself is here, and, predictably, most of the articles on the website promote Beck and/or his rally. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Where is it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the bot has actually made one yet.Millahnna (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot is on a 5 day timer, and the article was created only 3 days ago. So no, there hasn't been enough time to archive anything. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Links - photos, video

If external links are truely notable and NPOV, hopefully they can be worked into the article rather than the start of a linkfarm. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to "work in" photo slideshows or videos into the article. Thus they are valuable as external links.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, but the general partisan non NPOV don't comply to ELs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have trimed these again. Hopefully these can remain non partisan. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your stated objection per WP:EL. The goal posts seem to be moving. The Palin video diary, interviews, and anti-rally images add to the article and per their content, can't be included within the text.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Potentially beneficial additions (e/g EL of Palin's speech w transcript)

I believe the article could greatly benefit from the following:

• A link to the full transcript of remarks from the rally, and a link to a transcript of Beck's speech specifically.
• A link to both a high quality video of the rally, and a video link of Beck's speech itself.
• Images from the rally featuring Beck and Palin.
• A section dealing with post-event aftermath and reaction from both Beck and his supporters and detractors.
• A summary of Beck's remarks in their totality, with a reliable reference.

If any of these can be located, please add them to the article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Free images can be found here. I'm too lazy to upload them, but a bunch of them should be added to commons because of the historic nature of the event (hint, hint). If you don't know how to do commons, just ask. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This external link: ""A Video Diary of Sarah Palin: Video and Transcript of Restoring Honor Speech" – Sarah Palin Blog"--has been removed twice by Tom/3after3, citing EL. However, it contains a speech transcript and video from the event and is from the official website of a participant, satisfying, even exemplifying the considerations at wp:EL (and requested by Redthoreau, above). Let's leave it in and not edit war over it, moving to remove it again only should the talkpage consensus change to start to run against its inclusion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be kept, as should the other EL's being removed with vague citations of WP:EL, that look more like WP:Idontlikeit.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.75.32.222, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Online watchers of the rally note that it had over 117,000 computers streaming live by 11:30 A.M. ET. (I personally watched the entire thing and made a big deal about it to my family.)

99.75.32.222 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

8-28 vs. 8/28

It's not a big thing, but I'm picky -- the event has always been written 8/28, not 8-28. We should change all the hyphens to slashes to be consistent with the organizers and how people refer to it. BS24 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done BS24 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd Demographics

The section on Crowd Demographics has been challenged by two anons, one of whom just left a message on my talk page about it. I was the one who initially added that section and who has reverted both removals of it; however, I'd like to see what other editors think of that section. I still think we ought to point out the contrast between the Beck and Sharpton rallies (the former being almost 100% white, the latter one mostly black), as well as the fact that the LaRouchies tried to hijack the event for their own purposes, but the source currently used for these statements is one both of the anons have objected to, with one of them calling it biased. Any thoughts, better sources, or suggestions for how we could improve the section?

I don't see how this warrants it's own section. A single line saying Beck's rally was mostly white and Sharpton's mostly black integrated into the article would be fine without adding unnecessary weight by giving it it's own section.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That section caught me earlier as well; if I am not mistaken there is not a citation for the Sharpton demographic, or if there is, it isn't explicit enough. Does that make sense? I will look again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only implied in the source given, but since there are over 3,000 articles relating to this topic currently available online which could be used as potential sources, it would be quite easy to find another source that says so more explicitly. Start here. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK. In my view, though, the Star piece leans on the editorialized side, however informative it is. That's going to upset folks. Any objective demographic information out there or perhaps some will surface? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just caught the BBC article. Better, much more objective. My thought is to delete the Star and use the BBC.Ntomlin (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't label a section "crowd demographics" when it only points out a few individuals saying or doing things that weren't in line with the rest of the crowd. I agree with editors above that a sentence is sufficient. BS24 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the whole section was unnecessary and WP:Undue the way it was written, and took the WP:bold step of removing it. I anticipate however that I will probably be reverted.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the section was a bit out of place as well, but didn't want to start an edit war over it. Count me as supporting the removal.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also leave it out for now. Can always revist it in a few days/weeks. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with either removing it/revisiting or just a sentence. A whole section is unnecessary. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size

Please, try to work professionally:
(1) Don't remove numbers which are sourced by established media sources. The numbers may contradict, but so what? It makes no sense if pro-Beck people delete all low numbers, and anti-Beck-people delete all high numbers.
(2) Make clear the background of each estimation: Is the number from the organizer or from a neutral news organization? Does the source say just in passing a rough estimate, or does the source refer to a scientific analysis, including for example also a margin of error?
(3) Always link to the source of the number.
(4) The most scientific analysis from a neutral source should be reported in the box, of course linked to the source.
93.244.200.166 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's been removing numbers.

What exactly are www.airphotoslive.com's qualifications for estimating crowd size?

Even if there is a "whole article"(a whole six sentences long blog post) if that post doesn't provide analysis and reasoning behind it's estimation, there is no reason to assume it's any different from the estimations of others.

The "most scientific analysis"? Are you kidding me? What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on. Saying "with a margin of error of 9,000" might sound scientific to you, but it really doesn't indicate that a whole lot of science is going on any further.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one can assume airphotoslive.com has no credentials whatesover, we'll see what reliable sources some to say about it other than CBS.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a big difference between noting a number just in passing without explaining in any way where this number comes from (maybe its just from the organizer's website? Journalists are lazy.), or when at least laying out which independent source (in this case www.airphotoslive.com) determined the numbers, including an error of margin. Currently all of these estimates are far away from being bullet-proven; but this is no reason to ignore obvious differences of what we know or don't know about the source of the number82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? Or at least try to figure out the credentials of this company to see if we should? They do have quite some notable clients mentioned on their site (CNN, National Geographic, etc.). 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on." From CNN: "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes." This seems scientific to me. Any second opinions? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the citations that say tens of thousands or less than 100,000, are all from the 28th, while the 300,000 plus citations are from the following day or later? Its obvious that the numbers from the following day are more accurate. A MSNBC citation is used in this article to say "Tens of thousands", yet on the "Today Show", (also NBC), Brian Williams said that the crowd was perhaps north of 300,000. Why would he say that just this morning? Because the early numbers were obviously wrong. The whole section needs to be revamped with correct and updated information and we need to stop using the old and outdated citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh we can probably keep the early estimates, but you're right that we need to revamp a little. We'll just have to change the text to refer to them as early estimates and then note the updated stats from various outlets after that. Millahnna (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

82.135.29.209 removed many inconvenient estimates with this edit, especially the part about the misleading CBS estimate. I am restoring it to the way it was. BS24 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also removed Michelle Bachmann's(sp) commentary, not sure we need her fringe stuff/commentary, maybe add to her bio if it gets alot of coverage, but doubtful. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed this again, as undue weight. We have various MS media outlets reporting and then 1 fringe type comment from whom exactly, a US rep? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We need an edit war over something as trivial as crowd estimates. The final tally may nevr really be known, but its obvious now that the early estimates were WAY OFF. I say we make sure that when wee refer to the citations on the 28th, we say that those were early estimates and that the final count was much higher.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could see adding that back in is if several sources start exaggerating similarly and then more sources report on that. Otherwise, I agree that it currently has no place in this article since Bachman is in no way notable to this event itself (not a speaker, not a crowd counting expert, etc.). It probably has merit in any entry about her own event on her page. Millahnna (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "remove inconvenient estimates". I removed a source (Politico) which only quoted NBC, when the NBC numbers are already quoted in the article.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? " I didn't see crowd size estimation listed as one of their services, so it doesn't seem they do this regularly. As for scientific, does this sound scientific? "By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters." "These are relatively small estimates compared to some, so let’s just note that I’m taking a very conservative approach: -I’m only using photographs of the reflecting pool area itself. -I’m not attempting to add in the people around the Lincoln Memorial, since I don’t have a good photo of that. -I didn’t attempt to include people between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool. So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say,... about 330,000 people." I don't think we need to add weight to the number 86,000 when the person behind the numbers said it could easily be about 330,000.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That person isn't the same person as who made the CBS estimate, right? Here (http://stevedoig.com/archives/250) is a blog from one of the couple of people who made the estimate for airphotoslive.com/CBS. It maybe gives some insight. He notes he has some experience in this. I'm still not sure on what I think should be done with the CBS estimate, I suppose we'll have to wait for the train/bus numbers to get a better idea. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to summarize the siutation: Obviously the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number is on much more solid ground: They obviously explicitly invested resources into calculating the crowd size, and they openly describe how they worked. CNN explicitly says that CBS/AirPhotosLive.com "took a scientific approach". See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/. All other numbers are not explained at all: Very likely may be just subjective guesses from one short look at a photo, or maybe even just rumors and taken from someone else, who got the number from someone else etc. In other words, these numbers are great to make politics with it, but they are not reliable at all. Therefore I suggest:
(1) Make clear in the article that the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number was calculated scientifically.
(2) Add a link to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/ and http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ABCPolitics&tid=373590 to the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number.
(3) I think it is fine to report all the other numbers (both higher and lower numbers than the CBS/AirPhotosLive.com number). But it should be clear that all of them have no backing.
I know that proposal (3) will draw a lot of resistance by Back-Fans. But the job of Wikipedia is not to make a particular group of people happy, but to provide knowledge and facts based on solid sources.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) — 82.135.29.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I added two proposal in the following, a long and a short version. I tried to keep the changes as minimal as possible. But I also deleted the Politico source, see my explanation belong on this talk page. In my opinion, the shorter version is the best, because I think this would be the most legitimate approach for Wikipedia: Stick to facts, but also report unfounded claims, but put not too much weight on them.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this "Beck said 100,000 people streamed the live video of the rally on Facebook.[84]" should be removed, viewer numbers are not crowd size. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC) — 87.208.166.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, but it's still notable. BS24 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size - proposal - long version

(See my reasoning in the previous section.)

A view of the crowd looking towards the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd size estimate with aerial pictures by the company AirPhotosLive.com taken at noon. They calculated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".

Various other press organizations and reporters mentioned very different numbers, ranging from few ten thousands to half a million. NBC Nightly News host Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". NBC reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that a Parks Service official at the top of the Memorial unofficially estimated 300,000-325,000. MSNBC estimated "tens of thousands who stretched from the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the grass of the Washington Monument," and MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said "500,000" during his August 30th Morning Joe show. ABC News estimated "hundreds of thousands of people from around the country". The New York Times called it "enormous", and Fox News wrote about "huge crowds" and "thousands in attendance returned home carrying a message of making America better". The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". According to The Washington Post, "The crowd stretch[ed] densely back to the World War II Memorial, spilling onto the hill at the Washington Monument and onto the fields north and south of the reflecting pool." A preliminary Associated Press article put the total at "tens of thousands".

In the press, the number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue.

Beck mocked the media's reporting of attendance at the rally, saying, "I have just gotten word from the media that there are over a thousand people here today." He continued, "The reflecting pool holds about 200,000 people. This field back here holds about 250–300,000 people. They are not only full here, they're full in that field, they're full behind me, and they are now across the street approaching the Washington Monument!" He later said he "heard the crowd was between 300,000 and 500,000...if that's coming from the media, God only knows how many." When a helicopter flew over the rally while he was speaking, Beck remarked, "It must be a big crowd, because they violated the airspace to get a shot of it." Beck's website later posted two aerial photographs of the event, showing the crowd extending well towards the World War II Memorial and substantial crowds on the sides. In an interview recorded after the rally by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace — aired the day after on Fox News Sunday — Beck said, "I can tell you that it was in the hundreds of thousands...Let's be on the low end, 300,000, and maybe as high as 650,000." Palin lamented about an AP story that put the crowd at only "tens of thousands" and when asked by a Politico reporter about whether she thinks there were more than 100,000, she replied, "Oh yeah."

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(Added missing reference 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Crowd size - proposal - short version

(See my reasoning in the previous section.)

A view of the crowd looking towards the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd size estimate with aerial pictures by the company AirPhotosLive.com taken at noon. They calculated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".

In the press, the number of people in attendance is a "hotly contested" issue. Various press organizations and reporters mentioned very different numbers, ranging from few ten thousands to half a million.

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(Proposlal by 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) (Added new link to CBS article explaining the Crowd Estimate.)82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Added all references from the "long" version 82.135.29.209 (talk))

Again, you can't pick and choose which you think is scientific. Consensus has been to keep it the way it is. BS24 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't just deny which is scientific because you don't like it either. CNN says it's scientific, CBS explains the method, mentions Airphotoslive.com does this more often, and they hired a professor, Pulitzer prize winning journalist and crowd estimate expert to come to this number. Which makes me feel not enough weight is given to it in this article. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) — 87.208.166.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yeah, and ABC, NBC, NY Post, Wall Street Journal, and others all disagree, plus a Parks Service official whose job it is to do this. Plus, the CNN article you refer to is on a CNN blog, not an official news story, and may not necessarily meet WP:RELIABLE. BS24 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this again is not correct: The others don't disagree explicitly, they just said other numbers before. And without explaining the numbers at all! It is not even clear whether these other sources stand by their numbers after the CBS article. Again, I'm repeating the obvious: The CBS estimate is the only one explaining in detail how they calculated the number and having a track record of calculating crowd sizes, while all other numbers have no explanation at all, and it's very likely that the are just wild guesses, rumors or copied from someone else before there was the CBS article. Do you really want to claim that you don't see the difference there?? Come on!82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that really the park service guy's job? My understanding from the articles mentioning him is that his number was just an estimate based on his knowledge of the max capacity of the areas in question and that he was standing at ground level, therefore not witness to the crowd density issue identified in the attempts at scientific counting. Put another way, I didn't get the idea that counting those people was his job so much as he had max capacity knowledge and was guessing based on that. Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So I went looking for sources talking about the discrepancy to see if I could find some noting the scientific nature of the NBC CBS 87,000 count. I don't know if yahoo's news blog, The Upshot, is a source we can actually use but this article of theirs notes the debate (and lists many of the the facts we currently have in the article), as well as the fact that so far, NBC is the only news source to commission an official estimate. They also point out that the Park Service stopped providing crowd size estimates after 1997 due to complaints about their estimates of the 1995 Million Man March. So no, it was not the Park Service's job. But I'm hoping if we can find some more articles like this, we can go ahead and note the scientific nature of the NBC CBScount without having to worry about OR issues. Millahnna (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe CBS, but not NBC was intended by Milhanna.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct and fixed. Thanks for the catch. Millahnna (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)