Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Crowd size weight

WP:WEIGHT (depth of detail, quantity of text) is presentation of a viewpoint. NPOV "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views". Essentially by having a large CBS section, we're saying that it is the majority view. How scientific it is doesn't matter unless it's more prominent in reliable sources as most scientific things usually are. By giving CBS the weight we have, we've said that all the other views are minority views and CBS is a majority view, but the truth is that there is no majority view. That's what the weight should show and weight is equivalent to content size. Just because we have more detail on CBS's method, does not mean that it gets more prominence in the encyclopedia.

Ok, this is getting carried away but we've been going on over this for quite some time so I thought maybe a table might help. I've compiled a list as the weight stands now to hopefully bring some light to it and hopefully get some agreement that the CBS paragraph be trimmed slightly.

Paragraphs size
WSJ, CSM, NYDN, NPS	19%
NBC, MSNBC, AP, SN, WE, NYP	19%
ABC, Rep. Bachmann, MN, NYT, NPR, FOX	19%
CBS	24%
Beck	19%

Weight given based on sentences
WSJ	1/2 sentence	2%
CSM	1/2 sentence	2%
NYDN	1 sentence	4%
NPS	1 sentence	4%
NBC	2 1/2 sentences (3 estimates)	9%
MSNBC	1 sentence	4%
AP	1 sentence	4%
SN	1 sentence	4%
WE	1 sentence	4%
NYP	1 sentence	4%
ABC	1 sentence	4%
Rep. Bachmann	1 sentence	4%
MN	1 sentence	4%
NYT	1/2 sentence	2%
NPR	1/2 sentence	2%
FOX	1 sentence	4%
CBS	6 sentences	22%
Beck	5 sentences	18%

I think there is been a certain amount of agreement that we could stretch CBS to about 20% of that section (still more than what is present in RS, but a compromise). Make the CBS paragraph equal in size to the other 4 paragraphs. However we want to do that with regard to what details we feel need to be left in or out, just summarize something and knock off a sentence. Does this sound reasonable? Morphh ^(talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've trimmed it down again but hopefully not removing anything of detail. I only removed what I thought was redundant or duplicate information. For example, we know the estimate is for crowd size, so we need not repeat it throughout the paragraph. We also state all the AirPhotoLive estimates were done by experts, so we do not need to say again that Doig is an expert, but did leave the specific that he specializes in quantitative research methods. I maintained all the detail on the science. I added sources where they needed to be. It's still larger than I'd like (maybe someone else can tweak the prose to be more succinct without losing detail), but hopefully it's getting to a place that is acceptable because it's getting to be more effort than it's worth. Morphh ^(talk) 11:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced CBS to four sentences with this edit by removing unnecessary/redundant info and condensing the information. The current version has 189 words for the second and third paragraphs with all the outlets and 91 words for CBS. Probably still undue weight but I think it's fair. BS24 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is suppose to be one of the principles that is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors, so I don't understand why we're letting strong arm tactics (e.g. edit warring and refusal to get the point) prevail over policy. Akerans (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree 100% with the sentiment just expressed by Akerans in the above sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I think you may be one of the editors he's talking about, since you keep expanding the section after multiple editors have tried to trim it based on those policy concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I see you're trimming it now. Like I said, whatever details we need, I just wanted to make sure it didn't get excessive. Morphh ^(talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

At least I hope so, I now realize you just reverted it to your version from yesterday.[1] It has the same redundant wording that I removed last night and this morning. Perhaps you could step through the changes and comments and provide some feedback on the talk. Morphh ^(talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I did both; I've (re-)included the details we need, and I also trimmed redundant wording. Note that some wording you have characterized as redundant ... isn't. Like verbiage that conveys that CBS selected their published estimate from multiple numbers, or that Doig is not merely an "expert", like image analysts, etc., but an actual "crowd estimate expert". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to revert your edits, Xeno, but I have rewritten it again. The current version includes the methodology and Doig's independent estimate. Information such as how CNN contacted them and 2-D and 3-D grids just isn't necessary. And I see that you had removed the edits you made previously, thanks for doing that...Consensus has been to keep any analysis of the actual numbers out of it. BS24 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, BS24. Addressing your commented edits individually:

1) Yes, your new rewrite does include one version of the methodology - the one from LA Times. You have removed the methodology explained in the CBS source (they commissioned AirPhotosLive, remember). I do not see the rationale for that swapping, so I have put the more informative methodology back, minus the unnecessary "2-D and 3-D" details (those weren't my additions, anyway) from the CNN source.

2) While you may not feel "how CNN contacted them" is important, and you are welcome to your opinion on that, the functional reason that sentence is in the article is because it explains APL "had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd." It also informs the reader that other reliable news sources investigated the CBS/APL process, and they didn't secretly concoct this estimate in a dark closet somewhere.

3) As for "consensus has been to keep any analysis out"; could I trouble you to please provide a link to the conclusion of that "consensus" discussion? It is very possible that is yet another "consensus" some editors are trying to claim exists when in reality it does not, and I would like to review it. As for edits that you did not comment on, I will address those also:

4) After your re-write, I see that none of the professional estimators are "experts" at anything now. I guess we wouldn't want the reader to get the idea that they knew a little something about what they were doing.

5) After your re-write, I see that the CBS no longer requested an "independent" study, and therefore probably just pulled the estimate out of their arse like the other sources we list in that section. We should probably not stop there; let's mesh that CBS paragraph with the paragraph containing all the other media sources to complete the illusion.

6) After your re-write, the reader won't be confused with the the fact that CBS received not just a single outlier estimate, but multiple estimates from experts that mysteriously fall into the same margin of error range, implying the blasphemous idea that perhaps the estimate isn't an "outlier" after all. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just made this edit which I hope is a compromise.

1) I have combined both explanations.

• No, you did not. Your edit conveys the factual error that Doig used only a "sample" of grid cells. The source does not say that. In addition, the source (CBS - you remember, the guys that actually worked with APL?) says that both Doig and APL people "use a method that involves laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell. - a fact you did not "combine", but totally omitted. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

2) The CNN source says "three experts", but only two are named in this article or anywhere else, Shuler and Doig. It doesn't make sense to say three experts and then only talk about two of them.

• Correction: CNN reports they used 3 experts. The Christian Science Monitor reports they used 3 experts. The previous, accurate version only mentioned Doig by name. You say it doesn't make sense to only talk about two of the experts, yet your edit goes and does just that by also inserting Shuler. I'll fix it again. (By the way, it is very likely Curt Westergard is the third expert involved, as he is asked in the CBS source to discuss his methods.)

3) I don't have enough time to search for a specific link. But go through the archives and you will draw that conclusion. It doesn't look like you've been a part of this whole process, while others have, so please familiarize yourself with the debate before changing everything.

• I've been involved since the day of the rally. Glad I could clear that up for you. As for this mysterious consensus that doesn't exist (yeah, I checked), we won't be referring to it again in these discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

4) That they are experts is not backed up by any references. AirPhotosLive.com says they are experts but they are a primary source and aren't credible because obviously they are going to say they are experts. LA Times doesn't say experts and On the Media is an opinion program.

• CBS reports that Doig is a crowd estimate expert. CNN reports that all three working on the estimates are experts. The local Falls Church newspaper is quite proud of their local homeboy AirPhotosLive expert. And you already mentioned On The Media, which is not "an opinion program". Reading Is Fundamental There are more, too... Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

5) Added "independent".

• Correction: I already added it. However, the thought is appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

6) Hopefully the edit addresses this concern.

• There appears to be some confusion here. My edit had already addressed all of the concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BS24 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any remaining concerns you would like to address? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) "Ryan Shuler...created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000." (LA Times) You are correct that Doig used a different method. If we are going to include Doig's method, we should include Shuler's as well.

2) As it stands now, the section names 1 1/2 people (Doig and just Shuler's last name, without ever being introduced in the article). It doesn't make since to talk about three experts and only name two of them. And regardless of whether or not they are experts, no one gives a rat's hoot that "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive about the estimate they did for CBS". No one cares who contacted them.

3) Really? Because according to the archives, your first edit to the talk page was made on September 10. I was here on August 28.

Please do not continue to make disruptive edits. You reverted everything I did without incorporating any of it. BS24 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the methods altogether. There are plenty of references if people want to find out more. Please do not continue to give undue weight and violate consensus. BS24 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Restoring Honor rally#Crowd size section overhaul below. BS24 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to 3 of the 6 above items. 1) Thank you for acknowledging that I was correct. My edit has already incorporated the methodologies used by both Doig and APL analysts, according to CBS. If you wish to also add LA Times "sample" method, which contradicts the CBS source, please do not remove other sourced content to do so. 2) Only Doig is mentioned in the present version. As for only discussing by name only 1 of the 3 experts, I do not share your opinion that it makes no sense. As for "no one gives a rat's hoot that "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive about the estimate they did for CBS". No one cares who contacted them", I never said anyone did. Are you setting up a strawman here to be knocked down? I explained the significance of that sentence (only part of which you chose to reprint here); did you have a suggestion as to how it can be rewritten while still conveying the significant information? 3) The archives you are looking at only show edits that have been made, not "when I got here". Not that it makes a difference; the number of edits you've made has no bearing on the value of your edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

[2]

I don't care when you got here, the point is that your disruptive edits make it obvious that you have not read the discussions you were not present for. BS24 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which discussion was I not present for? I've followed every discussion on this article, so your answer will be most interesting. Be specific, please. While you are at it, please provide diffs to the "disruptive edits" you claim I have made. I predict that after we review them more closely, we will discover that they are in no way "disruptive", as you have mistakenly claimed, but merely edits with which you do not agree. Or, instead of backing up your personal attacks, will you again use your "I don't have enough time to search for a specific link." escape? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this, instead, BS24: Quit with the personal attacks on editors; quit claiming your edits are superior to those of other editors just because you've made more of them or made them earlier; quit dismissing editor's concerns with the "go look it up yourself" attitude; quit trying to have articles blocked instead of simply working collaboratively to resolve the outstanding editing issues. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size section overhaul

I made a bold overhaul of the section. I kept the first paragraph about the controversy and compiled everything into a single table. The references are all there so people can find out more if they want to. I don't know much about tables on Wikipedia so if somebody can improve the quality/appearance of it, that would be great. Thoughts on the overhaul? BS24 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing relevant information and material on the Air Photos Live estimate while claiming you have consensus to do so. After reading the commentary above between yourself and Xenophrenic, and seeing that you have now completely eviscerated the section to reduce it to just a table with numbers, it appears you seek to minimize the information the reader might have on the scientific processes and credibility of the CBS estimate. Why?

I'm reverting it to the version Xenophrenic repaired, and will support that version unless the questions he asked you above are properly addressed and refuted with something more substantive than claims of "weight" I've seen. All of the other media commentators and estimators supplied little to no information on how they arrived at their guesstimates, hence they are not being short changed or ignored by giving the pertinent and relevant details of how Air Photos Live conducted their survey. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read through all the archives and familiarize yourself with the whole debate before reverting anything. Consensus and Wikipedia policy mandate that it is not Wikipedia's job to decide which estimates are credible or not, or whether they are "scientific" or just "guesstimates". References are provided so readers can make decisions for themselves. BS24 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been here since September 7th, and I do not see any "consensus" that you claim. Please post diffs and links to that consensus here, or stop claiming it.

Per WP:BRD, you have eviscerated the entire crowd controversy section, I am reverting it back. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not believe its our job to try and pick and choose.. we must display figures by all sources. And not give one or two far more weight than others. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Azure, you posted on the 8th and 21st with nothing in between. I have been here every single day. I don't have to do the research for you. Read through the archives at the top of the page. If you're going to revert edits, at least know what you're talking about. BS24 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BS24, please stop claiming a "consensus" where obviously is none! If you at least would have some arguments for your change - but not! You just make changes and claim without any factual case that this was "consensus". 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there will be much discussion on that page. We should probably proceed here. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why removing Colbert reaction?

Arzel just removed the reaction of Colbert without explanation why. Colbert is definitely far more well-known and relevant than people like Clarence B. Jones, Bill Press, Reagan coalition and such kind of things.

So I suggest to add the following section again by some who has write access. I suggest to put it either in the crowd section or in the media recation section.

Section to insert again

The crowd size discussion prompted a reaction by the political satirist Steven Colbert.

The only scientific estimate for the crowd at 87,000. But again, this is a scientific estimate. And I don't think many people at that rally where interested in science. Besides there are more accurate gut based numbers available.

Colbert continued by presenting various much larger numbers reported by the media, concluding that "only a miracle could make 87,000 people into a million people. The secret is God."

82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shorter proposal integrated in the existing Beck section

The Washington Post reported that prior to the rally Beck had expected 100,000 to attend. At the the rally he joked that "I have just gotten word from the media that there is over a thousand people here today." Later on during the rally, Beck said he heard the crowd was between 300,000 and 500,000 and said, "if that's coming from the media, God only knows how many." In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday the day after, he said the crowd size was "on the low end, 300,000, and it may be as high as 650,000. But there were hundreds of thousands." Political satirist Steven Colbert responded in his show that "the only scientific estimate for the crowd at 87,000. But again, this is a scientific estimate. And I don't think many people at that rally where interested in science. Besides there are more accurate gut based numbers available.". Colbert continued by presenting various much larger numbers reported by the media, concluding that "only a miracle could make 87,000 people into a million people. The secret is God."

82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alveda King

I found a CC image of this great women speaking at Restoring Honor. I will get it uploaded by Wednesday at the latest. Since Alveda delivered the best speech at this event, she must have her image in this article. Recovering Obamunist (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It'd be cool if this user user wd be able to return (after figuring out how to re-"reg," since hi/r name had been objected to as overtly partisan) to contribute this pic.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out and waited the 4 days like a good boy. The Incredible Edible Gregg (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Wlink

{{editprotected}} Please Wikilink "One Nation Working Together March for Jobs, Peace and Justice" at the words One Nation Working Together in article's 3rd-to-last paragraph.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Restoring Honor rally BS24 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass. This was instigated by an editor deservedly blocked for edit warring, and has been told to not use edit summaries as a way to abuse editors and edits. BS24 has abused the RfC protocol and has a habit of abandoning discussion after his arguments have lost, but will declare consensus where there has vigorous disagreement. This is in my mind another attempt to avoid dialog and to game the system in an attempt to win. I try very much to maintain civility while challenging and questioning edits and arguments, but BS24 has accused me "complaining", "whining" and seeming to have a "personal vendetta." None of which has bothered me accept that when asked what specifically prompted the grievances, all there has been is crickets. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The request for mediation is our only way to reach a consensus. It will be moderated by a neutral third party. A month's worth of discussion has failed. Please stop attacking me based on your refusal to compromise. I am trying to work with you in a way that is fair to all parties. BS24 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Playing the victim card and unsubstantial. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for attacking you as well. Please participate or this will continue forever. BS24 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"participate or this will continue forever." What; the personal attacks - which still continue with the the accusation of my being uncompromising, abandoning dialogs after your points have been proven false, declaring consensus when there is none, adopting a "find it yourself" attitude, mass deletions and repeated reverts - resulting in a 24 hour block which BS24 has insisted was based on "alleged" edit warring though 5 reverts within 24hrs were well documented, abusing RfC protocols, deletion of reliable sources e.g. OTM without checking to see how well respected they are while ignorantly calling them obscure, groundlessly requesting that other users be blocked? I still hold that the mediation is not needed if reasonableness and civility are maintained. The apology, though appreciated and accepted, seems to have been viewed as a bargaining chip and comes with an apparent threat to resume past behaviors unless I join a mediation - and no unconditional promise to act with civility. Given BS24's longstanding history of not accepting responsibility for egregious transgressions, apprehension is warranted and only a prolonged change in approach, such as limiting to only single reverts in all cases, could lessen it, especially if no accusations or demands towards other editors accompanied such a promise. The "no you" tone has done no good. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

All those things were a result of my frustration with five weeks of fighting endlessly with no end in sight. I apologize for forgetting to assume good faith and should have been more civil. The mediation is the only way to guarantee that won't happen again. BS24 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, mediation is not "the only way", this is a continuation of an "“all or nothing” approach has caused this section being a prime candidate from the most lame Wiki edit wars list. There are other ways to go, such as not engaging it edit wars that have twice been the cause of 2 edit blocks. The apology is a step in the right direction, but actions will take time to show if what the apology now affects actually sticks. Promising to revert only once, while otherwise following WP:3R would go a long way towards that goal. BTW, this is not a demand, just a suggestion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version does appear to be a compromise. Is there any objections for leaving it the way it is? We could ask a administrator, or someone with the account creator flag to create a article edit notice for this article. That would keep the issue from being brought up again. Thoughts? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think editors still object to the current version because of undue weight. I think this or something similar is the closest we got to a compromise (the first paragraph was there but not in the diff). The current version has a bigger CBS paragraph. Mr. Anonymous, you're right that it's not the only way, but this has gone on far too long. Again, you can voice your concerns about editor conduct in the mediation case. BS24 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Or I can do so here, as I will continue to do, and as, so far, have other editors. As for weight, are we talking about what sources to include, or how much attention to give the controversy, or something else? Also the version you present as closest to consensus is not at all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We're all tired of beating a dead horse. I am just asking your cooperation. If not, we may have no choice but to move to the arbitration committee, where your cooperation is not needed. BS24 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Little bit of a regression there: ignoring direct questions and resorting to a do it or else tact. You could engage in dialog. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dialog is a two-way street. You seem to be stuck on a one-way street. Current attempts at a compromise do not seem to be moving forward. There are specific issues to which you simply will not budge. There are issues to which others will simply not budge in the opposite direction. Mediation is a way to bridge that gap, you probably won't like it 100%, but no one else will either. Either you can work towards that end or a possible arbitration solution. The option is up to you to participate or not, but arguing now about concensus for the process of gaining a concensus does not move the situation forward in any positive manner. Arzel (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic to hear one of the most obstinate conservative activists on wikipedia's political articles, here lecturing others on dialog and compromise. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More of "no you." For one central fundamental issues other editors have avoided, have a look at this [3] for a good inidication of how seeking consensus and dialog has been evaded by some editors, particularly those wishing to project a larger crowd size. BS24 essentially told me to shut up. BTW what current attempts at compromise are you referring to? Do any of them cite On The Media as a reliable source? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have filed for mediation; these talk page discussions have necessarily degenerated into personal attacks from both sides. BS24 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And after mediation that will stop? It needs to be settled here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, I too believe mediation will help solve this dispute. This dispute needs a more experienced mediator. Would you please agree to mediation? Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest that mediation is the way to go rather than WP:Content forking to Restoring Honor Rally Crowd Size Controversy. noq (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Tho I hvn't read vast majority of pertinent threads, I agree with ("to"?) arbitration. I'd pitched in 2 cents early, somewhere, to the effect, I think, that I tho't a quick summary that there had been a dispute about numbers wd be kosher. But, in truth, if there's a real interest in keeping a much more involved section in the article on the topic, or even a stand-alone article on the subject, I'm not terribly opposed.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Input for the mediation: Proposed changes explained

I read about mediation, but I'm still not absolutely sure how it will work in practice, and whether we should bring our arguments or wait until we are asked (especially since I'm not mentioned as "Involved user"). Well, I decided to lay down the reasons why the current version of the article should be changed in which way. If this is wrong then just ignore the following points. I tried give good arguments for my suggestions, but this must be judged by others. I'm strongly convinced that there exists one or more "right" versions of the article which is WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, and I'm convinced that this can be found not by polls or majority votes, but by judging and weighting arguments.

Ok, I think we should do the following changes:

1. Fix WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.
   Currently all the sources which just mention a number in passing without further explanation get too much weight, whereas the detailed explanations of calculating the crowd size are underweight. NPOV requires to present "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material". And as also explained in WP:NPOV, we should "not rely [...] on passing comments" and therefore we should remove all numbers just mentioned in passing. See this link for a detailed discussion about what WP:DUE and WP:NPOV mean in this case. I think we should go beyond the fight "I want more" - "I want less" - "I want more" ... and instead rely on solid arguments based on factual information, like source lists and source statistics backed up by references.
2. Add Doig's discussion of the challenges of crowd size estimations.
   We should add for example Doig's explanations as in [4] and difficulties like "looking at it from the edge". As explained in WP:NPOV, "when reputable sources contradict one another [...], describe both approaches". This helps the user to get a picture about where the different numbers come from. And I think nobody doubts that Doig is an expert in crowd size calculation, possibly the only real expert participating the whole debate in person.
3. Add the missing Fox News estimate again.
   It should be added again to the text and to the table, for example as in [5] I think nobody denies that FOX is a reliable source, and the FOX number is as precise/vague as many other numbers we already include. I don't know any reason why this was deleted in the first place.
4. Balance Beck's comments.
   To balance (WP:BALANCE) the quite long Becks comments about the crowd size, I think Colbert's comments should be added again, maybe this Shorter proposal integrated in the existing Beck section. I think nobody will deny that Colbert is similar prominent as Beck (but for different people), and Wikipedia should report opposing point of views.
5. Add the asterisk about the sources to the table again.
   The asterisk in table explaining the method should be added again, for example as in [6] This is valuable information for the reader. WP:NPOV says that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches". Also here, I don't understand why this was deleted in the first place.

82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Supposed NPR Opinion in On The Media Coverage

The "pit of hatred" wording should probably be fixed a tad. At first I thought it odd that NPR would saying something that overtly opinionated. Turns out it's a tad more complicated. Googling I turned up this article, which is presumably the primary source of the material. First of all, Glenn Beck's assertions about NPR's stance shouldn't be stated as fact. Second, the article is "partner content" of The Root. It isn't an NPR journalist. One wouldn't ascribe to the Washington Post an opinion given in an AP article. Third, the text of the article reports on a supposed fear, without necessarily expressing it itself--"Stoking even more suspicions is how secretive Beck is being. Little is known about the event except that there will be speeches by Beck and Sarah Palin, and attendees are prohibited from bringing signs. The fear, of course, is that it will turn into a pit of hatred a la the health-care town halls." Basically, I see no basis to say that NPR as a critic feared that the rally would turn into a pit of hatred. I'm not sure it's proper to call NPR a critic at all; but certainly it doesn't make sense to say that NPR feared anything about the rally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.110.118 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually Beck's comments that are being referred to here, so whether or not Beck was charaterizing it fairly is just a matter of individual perspective. However, since it was culled from a primary source transcript of his show rather than a secondary source, I inserted what The Root actually said immediately following Beck's comment for context and balance. Thank you for pointing this out. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the new language, The Root isn't part of NPR. It's owned by The Washington Post. See The Root (magazine). Thus my concern that the wording is affirming Beck's bald assertion that NPR was concerned about the rally, when in fact the evidence suggests that NPR doesn't seem to have said any such thing, AFAICT. Rather, it's more likely that Beck's writers and researchers were just being sloppy. IMO, the language should be rephrased a tad--notwithstanding that the sub-sub-section is in the Beck's Comments section--to make it clear that Beck is only claiming NPR said this. Adding The Root quote is only half-way there. Of course, it's easy to criticize; I'm not quite sure myself what the language should actually be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.110.118 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I suppose the transcript of Glenn Beck's statements is a source. There's no direct evidence to the contrary that NPR didn't say what is claimed. So maybe merely citing to the The Root article is more than what's necessarily warranted, and the only edit needed is the factual error about NPR owning The Root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.110.118 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken another shot at trying to "fix" it, how does it look now? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be relevant to the current crowd size debate

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021284-503544.html

Basically it talks about CBS estimates of the Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity. The same methodology was used to estimate Beck's rally. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also here are the relative sizes of the rallies ...

http://i.imgur.com/AoxXh.jpg

However this photo comes from a secondary source, so it should not be used in any way because of both copyright issues and the fact that I haven't been able to verify it yet. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think it will help the debate though. The debate is not over what is accurate. I agree with size estimates of CBS. What the debate is over is weight based on reliable sources. Should we give it more weight because we think it's more accurate, when reliable sources don't. Morphh ^(talk) 18:11, 01 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we are to base soley on weight in reliable sources, then CBS' APL estimate definitely should be afforded the most weight. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Being afforded the most weight is not the issue. It's when we give it 4 to 5 times more weight when things become a problem. We're to present it in relation to its prominence, and no one has showed that it is 4 to 5 times more prominent in reliable sources. But we'll leave that for the pending mediation. Morphh ^(talk) 20:24, 01 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the reliable sources that discuss CBS' APL estimate, that estimate is easily more prominent - even 4 or 5 times moreso - than any of the other discussed estimates. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, you wouldn't say "no one has showed" if you had read my opening statement in the mediation. But we should not discuss here but keep it to the mediation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain where the 1.6 million figure comes from? My understanding is that Michelle Bachmann presented that estimate on Fox News, but that Fox News own estimate was 300,000. TFD (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It came from Michelle Bachman's estimate. That's the only reason it's included. Soxwon (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is from various media outlets that quote Bachmann's radio interview, and Bachmann herself is quoting a Parks Service official as the original source. Unofficially, of course.

Bachmann's estimate is exactly as accurate and supported as the numbers from Beck or other equally anon "park service officials speaking unofficially". That's the only reason it's included. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying "various media outlets have reported numbers ranging from 80,000 to 1.6 million" is wrong, because no media outlets provided an estimate of 1.6 million. TFD (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement doesn't say the media outlet provided the estimate. It says that various media outlets have reported numbers ranging from..., which is true. They did report on Bachmann's 1.6m statement that a park service official supposedly told her. Morphh ^(talk) 19:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing is misleading. It implies that a news source reported that 1.6 million people attended. TFD (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The only news source that reported on the number of people that attended is CBS. All the other news sources only reported guesstimates and estimates from third parties (organizers; unnamed officials; other unnamed officials; other news organizations). Some sources, realizing their limitations and inability to do factual reporting on attendance, simply said "tens of thousands" or "a large crowd" and played it safe. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni, where did you get this image from? Any chance to get this image, a similar one or raw ones which can be used? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So there are now two places on this talkpage where the fringe estimate of 1.6mill is being discussed (concurrently) --perhaps this thread should be merged with the earlier one. And folks are changing the article's numbers during a mediation discussion -- isnt that still ongoing? -PrBeacon (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the section where the fringe estimate of 650K and the fringe estimates of 300K and 500K are also being discussed. Perhaps they should all be merged, unless they are being discussed at the mediation. In that case, it is just a matter of patience. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Attendance

Is this representation of attendance at the Glenn Beck rally fair? "The attendance of the rally is disputed; as various media outlets have reported numbers ranging from 80,000 to 1.6 million." The figure of 1.6 million comes from Representative Michelle Bachmann, who was quoted on Fox News and no news media have presented this figure as their estimate. TFD (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I have not previously had any involvement with this page. I've read the talk page, and I would advocate for the suggestion made earlier, using the format of something like "the size of the attendance is disputed, with the most reliable sources placing it at X, and other sources placing it from Y to Z." I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most news organisations don't have an "X", they spectacularly indecisive, for the most part, and all over the map. That's the problem. If you really want some fun,join the mediation.[7] 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This RfC is not a good idea, since the crowd size discussion including the intro is currently under mediation. Everyone who want to contribute to it should join the mediation and its discussion. Thank you! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size weight analysis

I analysed the weight of the crowd size numbers both in the original sources and in the current article. To keep this analysis simple, I excluded all estimations which don't provide a real number (like "large" or so).

The basis of my analysis is WP:DUE. Note that it does not say that each source should get the same weight. Instead WP:DUE says:

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. [...]
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Ok, now the results of my analysis:

Source	Weight in original sources		Weight in Wikipedia article		Current overweight (+) / underweight (-) of Wikipedia article
NBC	4 sentences	6.9%	2 1/2 sentences	17.2%	+10.3%	+ 1 1/2 sentences	++++++++++
MSNBC	2 sentences	3.4%	1 sentence	6.9%	+3.5%	+ 1/2 sentence	++++
SN	1 sentence	1.7%	1 sentence	6.9%	+5.2%	+ 3/4 sentence	+++++
NYP	1/2 sentence	0.9%	1 sentence	6.9%	+6.0%	+ nearly one sentence	++++++
ABC	1/2 sentence	0.9%	1 sentence	6.9%	+6.0%	+ nearly one sentence	++++++
Rep. Bachmann	7 sentences	12.1%	1 sentence	6.9%	-5.2%	- 3/4 sentence	- - - - -
MN	2 sentences	3.4%	1 sentence	6.9%	+3.5%	+ 1/2 sentence	++++
CBS / Doig	41 sentences	70.7%	6 sentences	41.4%	-29.3%	- 4 sentences	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total	58 sentences	100%	14 1/2 sentences	100%

Of course, I don't want to say that we should exactly match the "correct" proportions according WP:DUE, because obviously WP:DUE is just a guideline. But I think it shows which sources are currently overweight (+) and should get less weight, and which sources are currently underweight (-) and should get more weight.

I did my best in this analysis, but of course if you find any error, then just tell us. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Which sources did you use for this analysis? The sources currently in the article are going to weigh toward CBS, since we gave it more weight. Also, DUE is not a guideline, it's policy and part of a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 03 October 2010 (UTC)

About which sources I used: I looked up each source and counted the number of sentences they spent on the subject. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is continuing? I thought this was nearly resolved. This is the same problem as archive 4. There appeared to be consensus and a successful compromise. This article is going in circles. The crowd size is disputed by a editor. There is a discussion for three days on it and a agreement is reached. The very next day a different editor starts the dispute up again, on the same issue. The crowd size has been beaten to death. This dispute has been going on for two months now. The current article appears to be a compromise. Can it be left the way it is? Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, I believe 82.135.29.209 is using a single source for each, the original source for each piece of information, and not taking into account which is the majority view.

82.135.29.209, the other thing you need to take into account is how many times the same information appears in different reliable sources. The number of times a piece of information appears in different sources is what determines weight. The more times something appears in different reliable sources is considered the majority view and is due weight. The fewer times something appears is do little (or no) space. So, the question to determine proper weight is does CBS' information appear in reliable sourcing more than others? No, the information does not, and thus we do not give the information more weight than anyone else.

Alpha Quadrant, I don't think the issue is resolved. The CBS paragraph and the entire section is undue. Morphh and BS24 have tried to trim the section, and I agree with the changes they've made. I disagree with maintaining an undue section, but I think the compromise, as implied, is to ignore Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so that we may consider the matter resolved. Akerans (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Akerans, of course I'm open to take into account other information you think is important. I doubt that the result will be siginificantly different, buf definitely feel free to make a suitable statistics. As more factual information we have as better. But the important thing is: Don't just say vaguely what kind of statistics "should" be done - instead just do it! Then we can discuss the results. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, while the weight issue regarding the CBS content has been mostly resolved, the recent dispute appears now to center around what that specific content should convey. The size and placement of the content isn't what is being warred over now; it's which facts are to be presented to the reader or hidden from the reader.

Akerans, you made the incorrect statement, "The number of times a piece of information appears in different sources is what determines weight. The more times something appears in different reliable sources is considered the majority view and is due weight." That is not true, and you won't find that assertion in the Wikipedia policy. The reason you'll see, for example, Bachmann's blurb about 1.6 million repeated in so many sources is not because it "is considered the majority view", but because it is a "man bites dog" story that gets echoed through the media for its sensationalism; the majority certainly doesn't believe it as factual. You will also find certain numbers repeated often as a matter of convenience (such as an organizer's estimate) in articles that are about the event instead of specifically about the attendance. Sources that specifically investigate and report on the crowd size issue carry more weight than sources that only repeat numbers in passing as part of the broader subject they are covering. Wikipedia policy cautions us to not mislead the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My assertion is based from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (weight); Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. As such, we determine the prevalence of Bachmann's viewpoint in reliable sources, not based on the prevalence of Wikipedia editors (e.g. the non-policy criteria you have outlined for editors to follow, or the original source method as noted by 82.135.29.209). Akerans (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my point: We must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, rather than consider the number of times a viewpoint shows up in sources, as you proposed we do. I'm sure you can find brief mention of Bachmann's comment in plenty of sources, but discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. BTW - Would you mind quoting back to me the "the non-policy criteria I have outlined for editors to follow"? Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Prevalence means widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance. Thus, prevalence in reliable sources would have some measure of who's covering the information, how often the information is covered and the length of time the information is covered. But, if I'm still incorrect, then what does prevalence mean?

"Would you mind quoting back to me the "the non-policy criteria I have outlined for editors to follow"?" No, I don't mind. You said, "Sources that specifically investigate and report on the crowd size issue carry more weight than sources that only repeat numbers in passing as part of the broader subject they are covering." That is not true. Per verify, a news organization is no more (or less) reliable than another other news organization. There is no policy that states we treat a more detailed news report more prominent than a less detailed news report (except for article creation, and we're not talking about article creation, we're talking about article content). However, we can give a detailed news report more weight if the information is more prevalent in reliable sources; however, in this case, CBS is no more prevalent than anyone else. Akerans (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Akerans has missed the main point that many sources can wrongly be given weight "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This contradicts Akerans' non-official policy. i.e., There is no policy that states we treat a more detailed news report more prominent than a less detailed news report. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not something I missed, as that is something I've tried a number of times to explain. The article topic is "Restoring Honor rally" not "Crowd size", so going into great detail about "Crowd size" is "disproportionate to [the] overall significance to the article topic." Akerans (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How odd to suggest in a Talk section which only discusses what the crowd size section should include should radically change course and become primarily focused on the issue of whether how much weight should go to the crowd size section. This is more like changing playing field than moving goal posts. Xeno cogently pointed out above that this was not the issue of this talk section, and, I'll bet, that with no reply from Akerans, Xeno probably assumed that this had been resolved and disposed of. No such luck. The article has an excellent citation establishing that the controversy over crowd size has become almost as notable as the event. Regardless, this is another issue altogether, and as Xeno noted, beyond the scope of this thread. (I suggest Akerans follow his interest and start a new Talk section, though I have brought it up before). I'm almost entirely certain of Akerans has remained virtually mute on the matter. [8] and has not discussed it in any way worth mentioning except as an apparrent means to prevaricate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Less commentary on editors and more on policy/content. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. So howzabout getting back on track and address what this thread is actually about? Hopefully Zeno set everyone straight on that. But if you need help, just ask. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're finally beginning to see some light at the end of this tunnel. If I am understanding you correctly, you are guaging the "prevalence" of a particular piece of information by the amount of sources in which it appears. I, on the other hand, guage the "prevalence" of that same piece of information by the amount of coverage it gets in the sources in which it appears. From the NPOV Policy: It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

Going back to our "Bachmann 1.6 million" estimate, you are correct to assert that it was mentioned in many sources, which meets your definition of "prevalence in reliable sources". I would like to point out, however, that in almost all of those sources, the mention of Bachmann is extremely brief and accompanied by a rolling-of-the-eyes tone and a guffaw, which meets my definition of very minimal "prevalence within the source material". My complaint is that Bachmann's 1.6 million is given parity of weight with Associated Press' "tens of thousands" or Montanaro's 300,000 despite lack of prevalence. NPOV policy directs us :Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. The way we've written the Crowd Size section of the article thus far conveys parity between more than a dozen competing views when the sources do not convey that parity. Next issue...

You said, Per verify, a news organization is no more (or less) reliable than another other news organization.

No, it doesn't say that at all. But we'll save that strawman discussion for another time, because I never said one news organization is more reliable than another. I was comparing some of the sources we are using to other sources we are using, irrespective of the news organizations from which they came.

You said, There is no policy that states we treat a more detailed news report more prominent than a less detailed news report (... we're talking about article content).

Actually, policy does indeed direct us to: not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). I prefer more detailed extensive discussion over passing comments, and so does Wikipedia policy; don't you? Or as I said in my comment that you apparently take issue with: Sources that specifically investigate and report on the crowd size issue carry more weight than sources that only repeat numbers in passing...". Example: The sentence in our article stating as fact that Scarborough estimated 500K is taken totally out of context from a source that only mentioned Scarborough as an example showing that newspeople were repeating organizer's estimates enough to make them appear factual. So much for reflecting the conclusions of the author. As for your statement that, "however, in this case, CBS is no more prevalent than anyone else", I strongly disagree -- but I think that stems from our different methods of determining prevalence, as explained above. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"I, on the other hand, guage the "prevalence" of that same piece of information by the amount of coverage it gets in the sources in which it appears."
Same difference. Using that method, if the same piece of information has an amount of coverage in different sources, when other information does not, then the same piece of information is the prevalent piece of information.

"The way we've written the Crowd Size section of the article thus far conveys parity between more than a dozen competing views when the sources do not convey that parity."
Some estimates are more prevalent than others, I agree. I think if we took the time to go through the sources we would find that about six of the estimates are the most prevalent.

"No, it doesn't say that at all. But we'll save that strawman discussion for another time, because I never said one news organization is more reliable than another. I was comparing some of the sources we are using to other sources we are using, irrespective of the news organizations from which they came."
My mistake. That was poorly worded. What I meant is that when comparing one news source to another, all news organizations have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As such, we don't give more weight to news sources that explains the investigative process to those news sources that don't. In other words, news sources still have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy even when they don't make that information transparent in every article. When they fail to make their process transparent we should not treat them any different than we normally do.

"Actually, policy does indeed direct us to: not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)."
No, that does not say we treat a more detailed news report more prominent than a less detailed news report. That section is for how to handle specific types of information found in sources, which applies to both more detailed and less detailed news reports. If there is unclear, inconsistent or passing comments (although, I find the phrase "passing comments" unclear as to its meaning), then flag the information as {{FV}} and we can address those issues. Akerans (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You say: "I think if we took the time to go through the sources we would find that about six of the estimates are the most prevalent." This exactly was the intention of my above statistics. But of course, feel free to do a different statistics, and then we can discuss your result. And you say: "All news organizations have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But since the numbers are so much contradictorily, most news organizations obviously failed badly with their "fact-checking and accuracy" as you call it. So I think we should not withhold the explanations of the numbers by the various sources. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So, in summary, I have not "outlined non-policy criteria for editors to follow" when I suggest, as policy says, that we present the views in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material; which means sources that cover a piece of information in detail lend more weight to that information than sources that mention it only in passing. I agree with your assertion that all reliable sources (whether they report in detail on an issue, or report only briefly on that issue) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is, after all, Wikipedia's very definition of reliable sources. However, Wikipedia does not agree with your follow-up assertion that, "As such, we don't give more weight to news sources that explains the investigative process to those news sources that don't ... When they fail to make their process transparent we should not treat them any different than we normally do." Of course we do and should. In fact, when we have reliable sources wildly conflicting with each other, as we obviously do here (87K to 1.6 million?), we are commanded to draw on secondary reliable sources that describe the disagreement in detail.

Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. - WP:NPOV

You appear to want to include items of content (estimates), in parity with each other and without any other defining information, based soley on the fact that they have appeared in many sources. Despite the fact that many of those sources only mention that item of content just long enough to point out it was actually some other source that reported it. And despite the fact that many of those sources only mention that item of content just long enough to ridicule it as inaccurate or improbable. But hey, it still gets mentioned in those sources, right? That's all we need, right? I would prefer, instead, that we follow Wikipedia policy and present that information fairly and in a balanced manner. And that means we follow WP:NPOV, a core policy, when it says we turn to secondary and tertiary sources that examine the contradictions and conflict. I know some editors have complained in the past about "adding too much detail" saying "the reader can follow the links" if they want to actually learn about which information we have given them is likely to be accurate versus likely to be bogus. Policy tells us not to decide for the reader, but it does not tell us to hide information from the reader -- especially when our article content conflicts with itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I briefly skimmed this section so not sure if I'm on topic with this, but I would support removing both Bachmann and Scarborough. Bachmann's is, as noted by Xeno, generally treated with contempt in sources. And there is some ambiguity with Scarborough's estimate; some articles make it sound like he was simply repeating the number given by the organizers while others make it sound like he repeatedly said 500,000 as his own estimate. The section should probably stick to media estimates only, save for Beck since he was the organizer and Doig since his was part of a media estimate. BS24 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your observations about those 2 examples are correct, but your solution goes counter to Akerans' position. Why remove them when they are mentioned in many sources? You could be equally critical about all of the estimates given ("a tweeted estimate from an unnamed mystery source", etc). What I'm curious about is how Akerans has determined his "prevalence in sources" measures for the estimates; a Google News search? And if so, with what parameters? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you. So, in summary, I have not "outlined non-policy criteria for editors to follow" when I suggest, as policy says, that we present the views in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material; which means sources that cover a piece of information in detail lend more weight to that information than sources that mention it only in passing." No, because a small piece of information can still be the majority view, and the majority view is due the most weight. Neutral point of view tells us not to give too much detail to minority views, and a detailed source can still be a minority view.

• Strawman. Per policy, when reliable (but not in-depth) sources conflict, we must defer to reliable sources that examine and explain the conflict to provide a balanced view -- which is the policy-compliant criteria I suggested we follow.

"Of course we do and should. In fact, when we have reliable sources wildly conflicting with each other, as we obviously do here (87K to 1.6 million?), we are commanded to draw on secondary reliable sources that describe the disagreement in detail." That does not say we treat the less detailed source any different. That says we introduce new sources to describe the disagreement in detail.

• That's what I said. The less detailed source doesn't get treated any different than other less-detailed sources. The policy says we need to use sources that describe the disagreement in detail.

"You appear to want to include items of content (estimates), in parity with each other and without any other defining information, based soley on the fact that they have appeared in many sources." No. I would prefer we figure proper weight by looking at different sourcing to determine which estimate is the majority view, and weight the section accordingly to viewpoints. Arranging the section in parity was a compromise due to the fact we can't agree upon proper weight.

• Good. So we agree the present format of parity across the board is not adequate. I agree with you, also, that we must look at different sourcing to determine the majority view, since the jumble of views we have now conflict with each other. That sourcing would be the secondary or tertiary reliable sources that examine the conflict neutrally and in depth; per policy.

"I would prefer, instead, that we follow Wikipedia policy and present that information fairly and in a balanced manner. And that means we follow WP:NPOV, a core policy, when it says we turn to secondary and tertiary sources that examine the contradictions and conflict." Which, again, is not that different than what I've been saying. You appear to disagree with me when I suggest looking at multiple sources, then quote a policy that says we look at other sources?

• No disagreement in using multiple sources. Our disagreement stems from your desire to use sources that merely mention information in passing (with your justification that all sources are equally reliable regardless of their depth of coverage) versus my desire to use sources that actually investigate the conflicting information in more depth.

"What I'm curious about is how Akerans has determined his "prevalence in sources" measures for the estimates; a Google News search? And if so, with what parameters?" By looking at the sources we've used in the article and seeing what estimates are prevalent in sources. Beck's estimate appears the most prevalent, while Scarborough's estimate appears to be the least prevalent. A quick glance at some of the tertiary sources in the article suggest Beck, CBS, ABC and NBC (in that order) are the more prevalent viewpoints in reliable sources. Akerans (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the same information, and coming up with different results. We're going to have to nail down the "prevalence" thing, it seems. Perhaps that can be hammered out in mediation.

Why are we considering Beck a reliable source for crowd counts when he is a known fabricator of sources of crowd size estimates? See [9] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not considering Beck a reliable source. I'm saying his viewpoint is more prevalent in reliable sources. Akerans (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

About that. Let's use the NYT botched up job of saying NBC estimated 300,000. Leave out how they blew it, is that a secondary or a tertiary source? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Brian Williams (arguably a primary source), NY Times, Yahoo News, Politico, and now Ed Schultz of MSNBC all confirm the NBC estimate of 300,000.

Since you brought it up, I couldn't tell how interested I am to know how Brian William' reporting of a non existent NBC estimate of 300,000 could be called a primary source. It seems in this case to be the most possibly shabby secondary source, or as Doig noted, not a source at all. It would be helpful to remind everyone that Doig is also a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, and an excellent citable source other editors have done as much as possible to exclude from this section as a secondary source.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. You should read those sources again. Not one of those 3 reliable sources (and the 4th source: OutLoudOpinion?) "confirm the NBC estimate" of 300K. They only confirm that NBC gave a 300K estimate, and the Yahoo News source further explains that Montanaro's tweet is the primary source (who argues that Williams is?!?), and noted that newspeople picked it up and repeated it until it almost became fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is NBC got the number from Montanaro and used it as its own, correct? BS24 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to On The Media, yes. And to counter ignorant earlier appraisals of them, the have one of the highist reputations of any of the sources used. (If anyone wants to relaunch the ridiculous argument that OTM is a primary source in this matter, please read the preceding threads that exhaustively done away with that red herring. We've had enough of the talk to the hand attitudes around here.) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You just said NBC took Montanaro's estimate and used it as its own. Then what's the problem with saying NBC estimated 300,000? BS24 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You've misrepresented, or poorly read, my post. OTM and Doig, never mind me, said it, and that's what's important. And then NBC never said it, Brian Williams said it during a discussion forum on his network, making it his opinion, and not NBC's.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize I am late to the discussion, but I agree with those who are pointing out that NBC never gave an official estimate, and so the article should not imply that it did. Every source cited for the "NBC News estimated the crowd at 300,000" claim is a second-hand reference, which should tell us something. No problem with saying the off-duty reporter tweeted a second-hand anonymous guess, if you want to go that far...but definitely, the description of it as an NBC News estimate should come out. Good luck. --EECEE (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow people have had a lot to say about the crowd size! Well for my 2 cents I'm not going remove any content, but I am going to move things so that the only actual scientific analysis comes first rather than towards the end. I figure this might get undone, but I feel its the right thing to do. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

80K to 1.6M in the lead

I have to say, this is quite silly. Why in the world, when every source save one, gives numbers less than 700k, do we have the absurdly high 1.6 million figure in the lead? This figure, coming from a single comment by unnamed park employee to a congressional representative, should not be the ceiling. The numbers don't add up (unless they decided that the Metro wasn't worth taking). Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 1.6 million is not from a reputable source. It's fine to include it in the section on crowd estimates, but putting it into the lead when it disagrees with reputable upper-bounds by at least a factor of 2 is inappropriate. WP:UNDUE Glaucus (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. It's a fringe estimate at best and doesn't belong in the lead, perhaps not even in the body text. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but I propose we clarify the statement if we change it. Something like adding "generally ranging" or saying "most media". Morphh ^(talk) 12:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. 1.6 million is from just as reputable a source as the 325,000 number: both from park officials (that no longer give "official" estimates ... heh). Neither should be used in the lead. The 500K and 650K numbers are also absurd, and the people from which they came (the organizers) are described by the news as always inflating their estimates anyway, so those numbers shouldn't appear in the lead either. We can put these laughable numbers in the crowd size section to illustrate how ridiculous the controversy gets, but the lead should only convey estimates that are accompanied with a reasonable explanation of their derivation. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The 1.6m removal can be argued for undue weight in reliable sources. The other figures you mentioned are covered sufficiently in reliable sources. Morphh ^(talk) 18:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the sources. The ridiculous numbers mentioned above are all covered pretty much equally in the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that we could do is identify the scientific estimate as such in the lead, as to give it more weight. "The attendance of the rally is disputed; scientific estimates placed the size at around 87,000, while other various media outlets reported numbers ranging from 80,000 to 500,000." Morphh ^(talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. More accurately would be: "The attendance of the rally is disputed; scientific estimates placed the crowd size at around 87,000, while media outlets reported estimates from various sources ranging from 100,000 to 1.6 million. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Morphh ^(talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well; so far to date, the scientific estimates have been repressed and/or reverted whenever added to the lead. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Is there a consensus that the 1.6 million figure should be removed from the lead for WP:UNDUE? If so, it seems we should replace it by the next highest estimate that comes from a reputable third-party. We can then move to discussing whether the 1.6m figure is given undue weight in the rest of the article, or whether the new lead upper-bound is also inappropriate. But it seems that there is agreement that the 1.6m figure is outright inappropriate. Glaucus (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The 1.6mil estimate is no more "undue" than the 650K estimates or the 300K estimate that came from the same source (unnamed park officials). This isn't a "forest for the trees" situation; it is a single tree surrounded by a patch of weeds, and you are suggesting that we pull up just one of those weeds. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, more accurately, I'm suggesting we pull up the biggest, most obvious weed first. The 1.6m is second-hand from an unreliable source reporting an unreliable, anonymous source's personal opinion. The 300k is in line with other high-ball media estimates, and the 500k and 650k figures appear to be from the event organizers. Glaucus (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The 500K & 650K estimates pulled out of the backsides of the organizers with no substantiation are bigger weeds (less credible) than the 1.6 million estimate with the backing of (at least) a park service official. If it is just the size of the number that is tweaking you, anything above ~100K should cause equal amounts of incredulity and guffaws. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there, the 1.6mill is from a politician who claims to have heard it from a park official. Big difference. As far as I can tell, it hasnt been substantiated by anyone else. And sorry, Xeno but I can't quite tell if you're arguing for or against the 1.6mill figure. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are telling me that you'd give more weight to Beck, estimating the size of his own rally with no substantiation, than you would to Bachmann, who at least cites a park official? I wish I could see your face when you say that. I am not arguing for or against any single, specific W.A.G figure. I'm arguing against having any of them being presented with wording that implies credibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention Beck's number so perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "Big difference" -- I meant between your phrase "backing of (at least) a park service official" and what the one source actually says: policitican Bachman claims she got that number from an anonymous park official. As an aside, the personal comment is borderline inappropriate -- please save your sarcasm for people who know you. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm, PrBeacon. It was a colloquial way of saying, "I find it difficult to believe you were serious when you made that statement." Rest assured, no offense was meant, and I do apologize if you took offense. That said, your remark still leaves me incredulous, and a little confused as to how you could give equal or more credence to Beck's unsubstantiated number, over Bachmann's number which is at least "claimed" to be sourced to a park official -- reported by more than "one" source, mind you. The wording, "claimed", is used uniformly to describe Beck's claims or Bachmann's claims, so there really wasn't a "big difference" at all as far as the meat of my argument was concerned: Beck's numbers are inferior to numbers where there is a "claim" they are backed up by park officials. The genesis of the discussion was when an editor wanted to excise the Bachmann number while leaving in the Beck number, and I thought you were adding your support to that. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're still assuming (incorrectly) that I was comparing Bachman's number to Beck's number. I was only comparing the two ways of looking at Bachman's number -- and thus dismissing it as fringe because it's so far off the others and, more importantly, the source is anonymous (by way of Bachman). But now I will mention Beck, only to lump them both together: neither number seems credible in light of so many other lower estimates. Neither is substantiated by another source. (Another news outlet reporting Bachman's number doesn't count). -PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying I am misunderstanding you; then you keep making the same comparison between Bachmann's number and others (Beck's): "looking at Bachman's number -- and thus dismissing it as fringe because it's so far off the others" -- that is a comparison, no matter how many times you say you aren't making it. We could go yet another useless round in this silly discussion about which totally inaccurate, non-credible number is more fringe. Or, we can see if we agree that once we move out of the realm of substantiated estimates (in this case, read: scientific), we immediately move into non-credible guesstimates, and the issue of scale of their lack of credibility is irrelevant. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're free to stop replying and perpetuating the obfuscation. I can't tell if it's deliberate or not. Earlier you said that I'd "give more weight to Beck" and "give equal or more credence to Beck's unsubstantiated number" -- but I never said or implied that. The line you quote directly above came afterwards, to clarify 'fringe'. Just because I think one figure is wrong (ie, absurd for several reasons), doesn't mean I think any other is right by comparison. You're reading between the lines and/or applying some skewed logic. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the magnitude of the number is the most pressing item. Primarily because it is being used as an upper bound in the article lead. The appropriate replacement seems to be a 300k number, since it seems to actually be in line with the high-end of media estimates. The issue of what the actual number was should be left to the crowd size section. The lead sentence should be concerned with an accurate summary of actual media estimates. Glaucus (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is to summarize the article. It is not up to us to determine what is "accurate" and present our POV. If we're concerned about credibility, then we should attribute the figures so the reader can decide. Such as.. scientific estimates were xxx, media estimates ranged from xxx to xxx, event organizers stated xxx to xxx. Provide the point of views published in reliable sources and attribute it. While reworded last year for brevity, the NPOV policy stated that none of the views should be asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. I don't have a problem with attribution to assign credibility, but exclusion of estimates that have been published (not produced) by reliable sources based on what we deem is "accurate" is improper and a violation of policy. The dispute and absurdity of certain figures is part of the story as well, not just the accuracy. Morphh ^(talk) 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstood what I mean by "accurate". I'm not talking about the "accuracy" of the estimates. I'm talking about accuracy with respect to what the media actually reported. If an actual media estimate was 10 billion, then it would be accurate to put it into the lead as a media estimate. My issue is that the 1.6m figure wasn't a media estimate. Thus it is inaccurate to describe it as such. Glaucus (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I did misunderstand. But to clarify, the lead doesn't say that 1.6m was a media estimate. It says what various media outlets have reported, which they did report that figure via Michele Bachmann. Morphh ^(talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Only one source used the phrase scientific estimate. We're giving that phrase more weight when other sources do not share that view? Akerans (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the Sanity Rally, two months after the Restoring Honor Rally, there are some other sources are making reference to the "scientific estimates" involved in both rallys. Here's one entitled "Scientific estimate: ‘Sanity’ rally more than twice the size of Beck’s August tea party" (1), another has this quote, "CBS News, who commissioned the only official scientific crowd estimate at both rallies..." (2), another has this quote, "...the only outlet to publish an even vaguely-scientific headcount was CBS News." (3), another has this quote "...the already-controversial rally has sparked a secondary controversy over a report by CBS News that the organization it hired to make a scientific count from aerial photos had come up with a figure of..." (4). (emphasis added)

On an unrelated note, I also found this article interesting from AOL News, of few excerpts of which include: "Besides being an important illustration of the scope of Beck's popularity, the number of attendees also poses a test for mainstream news operations. Will they be able to stand by their figures, or be forced to retract them?", "...it's hard for the estimate of crowd size to not become heavily politicized. Those with a stake in the answer often accuse the other side of misrepresenting the number to achieve a certain goal...", "Just how could the estimates in this, or any case, range so widely? After all, there are plenty of aerial photographs of the event circulating.", and "'Estimating the size of a crowd may be the last area of fantasy in the newspaper business,' observed Herbert A. Jacobs, 63, a longtime Wisconsin newspaperman who now lectures at the University of California. Jacobs set out to make a more scientific calculation...", among other observations. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the recent publications from The Raw Story. Although, I don't think those few extra sources give the "scientific estimate" greater weight, especially given how prevelant Beck's estimate is in sourcing (his estimate is even present in a couple of The Raw Story articles). And, so I'm clear, by greater weight I mean that the "scientific estimate" should not be classified as the majority view, and everthing else be classified as a tiny minority and excluded (as that seems to be what everyone is pushing for). I believe what Morphh proposed above is acceptable, where we classify each range of estimates from where they came. Akerans (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We must be looking at different sources, because Beck's estimate is given considerably less weight in sources than the CBS/APL scientific estimate. Or did you mean to say Becks numbers appeared in "more" sources, even though it was given less prominence in those sources? That isn't the definition of "prevalence" that we use as defined by WP:NPOV. I believe this is one of those sticking points we discussed above, and left unresolved pending the mediation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the phrase "scientific estimate", not the estimate itself. Beck's estimate has been classified as Beck's estimate, regardless of the sourcing. Whereas, CBS' estimate has not been classified as scientific by every source that has devoted space to CBS' estimate. Given the level of inconsistency as to the classification of CBS' claim, we should not give the "scientific estimate" claim more weight simply because the estimate itself has weight. Which is to say, we should not exclude other estimates or will give a false impression that the "scientific estimate" claim is a majority view, when it is most certainly not. Akerans (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Your explanation makes it easy for me to respond: The CBS/APL estimate has been classified as "scientific", usually by quoting CBS' definition of it, by the majority of sources that report on the estimate. I haven't seen a single source that reports on the CBS estimate refute that it is scientific. Of the reliable sources that report on the CBS estimate, the majority call it scientific, and zero refute that it is scientific. That seems clear-cut to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to refute the statement. They need to make the same conclusion in their article, and the conclusion is not present. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Akerans (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Other sources also refer to the CBS/APL estimate as the only scientific one, and to the trio of analysts as experts. Quality sources like CNN and Columbia Journalism Review, didn't just take CBS' word for it; they went straight to AirPhotosLive afterward and investigated the methods and data themselves, before declaring it was only CBS who "stepped out from the pack and made efforts to measure the crowd with a little more precision than a several-hundred-thousand-person range." Xenophrenic (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Strawman argument for the most part. Investigating a report and referring to people as experts is not calling an estimate scientific. And to clarify, is that first link an opinion and editorial piece from a college sophomore writer, from a paper run entirely by students? Akerans (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mince words much? Regarding the first link, I haven't checked into the background of who wrote that piece; that would fall under the "if you can't refute the facts, try to disparage the source of the facts". You made the statement, "Only one source used the phrase scientific estimate. We're giving that phrase more weight when other sources do not share that view?" CNN, CJR, CBS, Washington Monthly, Rawstory, and even journalism majors at Cornell University seems to be a tad more than "Only one source". And to clarify, could you please cite where other sources who do not share that view have specifically stated so? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert the highly suspect number to the even more highly suspect number Xeno when no one has yet disagreed? Soxwon (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of sourced information. Are we speaking of the same edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You restored the 1.6million figure in the lead [10] (as did Azure [11]) yet earlier above you say it's not credible and should not be in the lead, but then you include it in your revised suggestion because it's qualified(?). Here you say it's sourced, but we know that's not the only criteria for inclusion. It is poorly sourced and contradicted by every other report, including the event organizers. Thus "1.6 million" should not be in the lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Using your criteria as you just outlined it, we can conclude that every estimate is contradicted by every other different estimate. We can also conclude that every estimate is poorly sourced, with the exception of the scientific estimate, which is accompanied by significant substantiation from multiple sources. Therefore, none of the figures should be in the lead except the substantiated one. Correct? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources are reliable for presenting the opinion. Is there anyone that doubts the accuracy that the 1.6m figure was reported by Bachmann (not the accuracy of the estimate - but the accuracy that she stated it)? Even the 1.6m figure has several reliable sources reporting on it if you search. What you're describing as "reliable" is the credibility of an accurate figure - the rational for the opinion. While this can be used for weight, it's not a method for exclusion of other opinions presented in reliable sources. We need to attribute the opinions so the reader see the debate. It's POV to remove the debate on a controversy based on what we think is the "truth". Morphh ^(talk) 12:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole crowd size section of the article is ridiculous. Although edited, no doubt, in good faith, it seems like we are trying to be a stickler for the rules, including all possible reported numbers, which results in a very poorly-written article. Let's use some common sense and editorial authority. I mean, do we really need a chart?? Jrobinjapan (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible rephrasing

Seeking a solution, Morphh commented previously he thought a reasonable way to rephrase the sentence in the lead would be something along the lines of "scientific estimates were xxx, media estimates ranged from xxx to xxx, event organizers stated xxx to xxx." This breaks things out so that the reader can get an idea of where the ranges are coming from. Much of the opposition so far as been to the fact that Michelle Bachmann's estimate of 1.6 million seems so fringe (she said 1.0M at first, but later upped it to 1.6M and said the number came from a park service official, unofficially). In the interest of seeing if people want to compromise, how does the following sound as a proposed rephrasing for the sentence in the lead? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The attendance of the rally is disputed; scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000, media reports ranged from 100,000 to 500,000, event organizers estimated from 300,000 to 650,000, and some supporters said more than a million.

Support / Oppose

• Support - Morphh ^(talk) 12:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. However, also the lead is part of the mediation. I added this proposal as 10 to my opening statement. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - But, yes, this really should be brought over to mediation. Nonetheless, this suggested sentence would almost be enough to complete the section, if we just pointed to the table (though if others would like to lose it, I won't object). The Artist (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By "section" you mean the whole crowd section? Yes, complete agreement. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I would characterize the argument with this analogy: "The state of Glenn Beck's pregnancy is disputed; scientific analysis claims he's not pregnant, and has just gained a little weight; media reports variously say he is 1 month, 2 months or 4 months pregnant; Beck estimates that he is 5 months pregnant; a supporter from Minnesota says Beck is 10 months pregnant, citing an unnamed veterinarian's claim that Beck looks 4 weeks overdue." I can't believe we have some editors looking at that statement and saying, "10 months is obviously absurd, so let's throw that one out and keep the rest." The text in the lead should convey a summarization of what the main-body section says, and that is presently under mediation. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy assumes that CBS is correct. We shouldn't conclude anyone is right or wrong, we should present points of views and facts based on prevalence in reliable sources. Even if your personal opinion is that Beck, Bachmann, and everyone else is wrong, we can still attribute their points of view. Further more, CBS' claim that "it is the only scientific estimate" is their point of view. That claim is their opinion. We should not be stating "scientific estimate" as fact, and properly attribute that as CBS' opinion. Akerans (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My analogy assumes nothing; it is a reflection of what reliable sources convey. My personal opinion is not expressed. You are still pushing your personal opinion that the fact CBS/APL crowd estimate is scientific is only CBS's "point of view"? It is also the "opinion" of CNN, and also the "opinion" of Columbia Journalism Review, and also the "opinion" of the Washington Monthly, and the list goes on -- but sure, if you'd like, we can create a very long sentence attributing this "opinion" to scores of reliable sources. And to be fair, we should also include reliably sourced substantiation that the scientific estimate is not scientific -- you can provide those sources, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is including the word "only." Is there a RS for that. Hopefully we agree that the CBS study was scientific, and no RS has challenged that. If we could just say "a scientific study", we could move on. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Immediately following the rally, CBS rightly reported that it had produced the 'only' scientific estimate at that time, but that is obviously a contemporaneous statement that is subject to change. Since APL made public a lot of their raw data photography and images, many other individuals have analyzed them and come to the same conclusions, but don't expect those findings to make it into reliable sources. I'm not aware of any reporting on scientific estimates other than the one done by CBS/APL. (By the way, it appears that Akerans does not agree that the CBS/APL study was scientific.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If CBS said "only" then that is a RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs)

The estimate/methodology has been called art, expert, low-tech, high-tech, more precise, professional, scientific, and whatever else I can't remember off the top of my head. A number of sources don't agree on the estimate/methodology classification. What sets scientific apart? Are we using scientific because that claim is fact? If the claim is a fact, then certainly you can substantiate the claim with reference material. Right? If not, then we should attribute. Akerans (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What RS directly challenged it a scientific study? Which RS's, which in this case precludes organizers or supports, disputed the methods and protocols? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said reliable sources challenged and/or disputed the methods and/or protocols.Akerans (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In effect, you've said no reliable source challenged it as scientific, no? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, there is no mediation on excluding the other viewpoints. The mediation is over giving significantly more weight to CBS than other stated opinions published in reliable sources. It's not even a matter of accuracy, as we attribute the opinions. If your goal is to exclude the other estimates from the controversy, then you should just skip the mediation, because it's not going to be agreed to by the parties involved. The mediation is to facilitate discussion and until this point, I didn't know the lead was part of that discussion. It appears we have some agreement around this sentence, at least it is preferred over the current sentence, so I suggest you let it stand. If you have issue with it, then bring it up in the mediation, but for now, it appears to be the preferred statement by those involved. You also removed the statement on the other rallies mentioned in the article stating "linked articles don't indicate that the statement is factual", but both articles state they were a response to the Restoring Honor rally in their leads. Morphh ^(talk) 01:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the mediation, it is to help us resolve how we handle the crowd estimate controversy in the article; that includes lede statements, main body statements, which sources we use and don't use, and which "viewpoints" warrant inclusion and exclusion. If your goal is to have this article convey a different reality than that conveyed by reliable sources, you will find the mediation to be a frustrating experience. And yes, I also removed the statements (again) that you cited to an opinion piece, and to a source that does not state what you claim it does. And no, the lead sections of the articles for those other rallies do not support this content either. As an additional note, if you want to put that text in the WP:LEDE, it should already exist in expanded form in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The first source states "According to WashingtonDCHotels.com, the demand is so high it's outpacing Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, which he held last month, on the same day as Rev. Al Sharpton's "Reclaim the Dream" march. Stewart and Colbert's rallies are a spoof of the two." This was certainly clear as they came up with the rally while mocking Beck's rally. I'm fine with reporting what is in reliable sources, but my reality seems different than yours. The sources are reliable for reporting the opinions presented. We're to present and attribute those opinions, even if inaccurate. Inaccuracy and the wide range of crowd size estimates is the main part of the controversy. Morphh ^(talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart says that his Rally to Restore Sanity — and Stephen Colbert's sister event, March to Keep Fear Alive — are not meant to counter Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor event of last August. "The march is like everything that we do, just a construct ... to translate the type of material that Stephen and I do" on The Daily Show and Colbert Report, Stewart said at a Q&A last night at New York's 92nd Street Y. Instead, the rallies are meant to satirize the political process, and the news coverage spawned from it. "I'm less upset about politicians than the media," Stewart, who was quoted by The Hollywood Reporter, said, adding that he "very much" wanted to avoid claims that his rally was a response to Beck's.[12]

They came up with the rally, The Rally to Restore Truthiness, while mocking Beck's rally, that is certainly clear -- but we're not talking about that rally.[13] We certainly shouldn't have a stand-alone statement of supposed fact in the lede when that statement is clearly contested by reliable sources. I do agree with you on one point: Your reality seems different than mine. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reword it similar to the other articles, attributing the opinion... "News reports cast the rally as a satirical response to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally". Morphh ^(talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to read up on that; can you provide a citation to reliable sources that have determined that news reports have cast the rally in such a way? Or is that your own synthesized conclusion after having seen some initial news reports make that incorrect assertion? I've seen many reliable sources indicating Stewart & Colbert's rally was not a response to Beck's rally. Any such re-word will, of course, need to convey that as well. And since that connection and comparison is being made, it is obligatory that we should add to that reworded sentence the most prominent comparative result from those same sources: the Sanity rally had more than double the attendance of Beck's. In which section of the article are you proposing to add this content (the lede is the wrong place to hash out the conflicting content)? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to look myself. I was just copying a sentence from the lead of Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Morphh ^(talk) 19:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we have time. You seem to have misplaced the part of the sentence about Sharpton's rally. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward, which is to say I'm ignoring the fallacy of your analogy (the implication that reliable sources don't understand what is and is not possible in male human anatomy). According to CNN, "CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd estimate by the company AirPhotosLive.com." That's actually a poorly worded sentence. The sentence states that paying someone is scientific rather than the estimate was scientific (I'm not sure how paying someone is scientific, unless they're referring to the science involved in an electronic transaction). Ergo, CNN doesn't support CBS' conclusion. CSJ says that CBS "made efforts to measure the crowd with a little more precision." "Little more precision" is not the same thing as saying "scientific estimate". Therefore, their opinion differs from CBS. Washington Monthly says, "vaguely scientific" which is in no way the same thing as "scientific." And, yes, this list of people that don't support CBS' claim of "scientific estimate" goes on. Regarding the claim itself, I don't have to provide sources that say the method is not scientific because I'm not making that claim, or asking that particular claim be included in the article. If, on the other hand, you wish to conclude that the method is scientific, then you need to provide sourcing to that fact. Otherwise, all we have right now is a statement by CBS, and nothing to substantiate the statement as fact. What we have here is a case of Attributing and specifying biased statements. Again, I'm not saying we should remove the statement. I'm simply saying that, unless you can provide sourcing that the methodology is indeed scientific, we should properly attribute the claim to CBS. I think a notation would suffice in the lead, so as not to make the lead too detailed or give CBS undue weight. Akerans (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that the Glenn Beck pregnancy analogy isn't a fair characterization, but I come to different conclusions regarding your source interpretations. It doesn't make sense to conclude that the CNN sentence "CBS News took a scientific approach, commissioning a crowd estimate by the company AirPhotosLive.com" means they were saying that paying someone is scientific rather the approach (using aerial photos and crowd counting methodologies) was scientific. Respectfully, I think that's twisting the words to get a nonsensical interpretation; clearly CNN was stating the latter, not the former. Sure, CSJ said that CBS "made efforts to measure the crowd with a little more precision," but it is clear to me from the full context of the article that it was nuanced language making a more than subtle point; CSJ considered the difference between the media guesstimates and the Air Photos Live study to be significant, saying that the crowd estimate was "impressive if not historic" and quoting Westergard's statement that the methodology was "as scientific as you can get in a field full of variables." Similar context is present in the Washington Monthly article, where the author used the statement "As far as I can tell, the only outlet to publish an even vaguely-scientific headcount was CBS News" to imply the rest of the estimates were "exaggerated expectations." That article came out two days before CBS published the article stating that it was the only scientific estimate made of the crowd size, so we know that the author wasn't just parroting CBS' claim when he used the word scientific. And the TRS articles referenced earlier referred to APL's studies outright as scientific estimates in the title (October 31st) and as a "scientific count" (September 1st) respectively. Hence, I really don't think that we can conclude that the only source referring to the CBS estimate as scientific was the CBS claim saying so. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CNN. Sourcing should be clear, and we shouldn't draw conclusions not evident in the reference material. As a result, I'm not interpreting "scientific approach" to mean anything beyond what is explicitly stated in the sentence. So, no, I'm not twisting words, I'm reading the text explicitly (quite literally, in fact) rather than implicitly. Regarding CSJ. If the context of their article is to say that they see a significant difference in CBS' estimate when compared to other estimates, then we would present the information in the the exact same manner (but neutrally of course). That's not to say we should draw different conclusions to match what CBS is saying. Same with WM. We should use the same wording (as neutrally as possible, of course), not draw different conclusions to match CBS. Regarding Westergard. He also said, "Crowd counting is an art.” Now, I'm not the most scientific person in the world, but interjecting art into science seems counterintuitive of the scientific process. And, the fact he would admit as much leaves doubt as to how much of the estimate is art, and how much is really science. If the president of AirPhotosLive.com, the people who made the estimate, contradicts CBS, then clearly we have different points of view. We should attribute accordingly, instead of trying to pass any one of them off as fact. Akerans (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple: The statement that CBS made the only scientific number is directly backed up by a reliable source, namely CBS. I don't know any reliable source challenging this statement. So we can and should present it as fact. Of course, if there are other source acknowledging the CBS statement, as better, but it is not necessary. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the argument given above, any factual information from a reliable source is merely the opinion of that reliable source, and should be attributed as such. I'd like to see the policy that supports that warped interpretation. It certainly isn't at the link provided above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean that for example the beginning of Obama should be changed to: "Barack Hussein Obama II (from whom Fox News claims he is born August 4, 1961) has a job, about which CNN says it is called the "President of the United States". CBS said it made a statistics of all American presidents and came to the conclusion that he is the first African American to hold the office...". Fortunately Wikipedia works different and clearly states in Wikipedia:NPOV (highlighting by me): "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice.] Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." So it is vice versa, reporting as facts is the default, except if the RS reports it already as opinion and not as fact, or if it is claimed to be a fact but disputed by other RSs. Is there really any doubt? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The material is contested. Different sources have made different claims (art, expert, low-tech, high-tech, more precise, professional, scientific, etc.). All of which in reference to CBS' estimate. Since we're quoting CBS as a source for their claim, then I don't see a problem with giving them proper attribution. But, going into detail about the dispute amongst the classification of CBS' estimate would give them undue weight. Akerans (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no RS has disputed that the CBS is scientific, and the minute we mention that supporters and organizers disputed it, we are obliged to go into detail, in essence, defend the study against partisans and political hacks. Let's keep it short, call it scientific, and forget about detailing methodology and protocols. My suggested sentence below works towards this solution. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Material" is a vague word. Fact is, the numbers from the different sources are contradictory, you are right on this. But also you don't and cannot challenge the fact that the report/statement that CBS made the only scientific calculation is sourced by a reliable source, and is not disputed by a RS. Obviously you don't like it, but you didn't produce any reason to not present it as fact. By the way, many scientists, like mathematician, say that their work is also art, driven by beauty. This is no contradiction to being science. Besides that such a claim would be OR. And also "low-tech" would be no contradiction for being scientific. Science needn't be high-tech in order to be science and to be correct. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute has more than one meaning. I'm not referring to dispute as in reliable sources have argued, challenged or debated CBS' claim. I'm referring to dispute as in there's a difference of opinion among reliable sources. I've gone so far as to even list the different opinions among sources. I partially agree with The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, in so that we shouldn't go into detail about the different opinions. To do so would be undue, as the article should focus on the rally and not the classification of the methodology. And, the claim does appear more prevalent in sourcing (thanks to AzureCitizen's recent sourcing), while the other claims appear to be a tiny minority. However, is the claim a fact? I can't prove a negative. But, people can prove a positive. So, if the claim is fact, then certainly the claim can be substantiated with reliable sourcing. If not, then we need to attribute. Akerans (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In case I'm missing something, is it then agreeable that the CBS estimate can be termed "scientific" without detailing their methods and protocols? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an agreement that the CBS calculations can be termed "scientific". However, not detailing their method is ok only if the prominence of the other numbers relative to the CBS number does not violate WP:DUE, see my first point of my opening statement and the weight analysis. For example, if each of the other ridiculous numbers get one sentence, then it is definitely not ok if also the CBS number gets only one sentence. But if the whole crowd section is basically similar to the intro proposal of AzureCitizen's above (the scientific estimates by CBS get basically the same space as the summary of all the other media estimates), then this should be ok I think. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: We could use the same text as AzureCitizen's lead proposal also for the crowd section, just adding all the references. No table. Short, precise, and due weight. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional sentence to complete the crowd section

I'd also suggest a short sentence on the controversy, again with minimal details. And it may be all the section needs after citations are added. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support / Oppose additional suggested sentence below

The controversy over how many attended drew nearly as much attention as the rally, with Beck using the start of his speech at the rally to mock what he regarded as media undercounts. Many rally supporters also took issue with low estimates, while progressives tended to view them as accurate.

• Oppose I think not only "progressives" go with the scientific number. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks like a lot of WP:OR. Do we have many sources that say the crowd controversy drew nearly as much attention as the rally? Do we have evidence that it was this controversy and not the prior 9/11 controversy over crowd size that caused Beck to mock crowd counts? Do we have reliable sources that state rally supporters took issue with low estimates, while progressives viewed them as more accurate? Some of these statements have some common sense to them, but I wouldn't put it in the lead unless we had some good sourcing to back up the claims. Morphh ^(talk) 19:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Change proposal Since I like the idea of mentioning the conrtroversy: Keeping the first sentence, which I think is fine (if sourced). But removing the second one, which carries not much information anyway I think. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)