Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Taxpayer March on Washington. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

personal reminder(s)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Against Obama?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know the general notion of these protests is that these are protests against Obama, but these are not protests just against the Democratic Party. These are protests against big government/big spending in general on both sides of the aisle. It just has been more rampant during the Obama administration than any other administration in history (Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Most of the sources focus on the Obama aspect, but you're correct in regards to some of the participants protested against bigger government in general. A few of the sources currently used in the article mention that being the case for some protesters. I've changed the wording for (hopeful) clarity. APK is a GLEEk 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Tea Party protests

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

This is well-written and well-sourced but I recommend merging it into Tea Party protests as its own section (and keeping this page as a redirect). You obviously know about that other article so I wonder about your reasons for not putting this right there. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I started a separate article because it's a notable event. In addition to the U.S. and international media coverage, it was the largest protest against Obama since he took office (according to the NYT). There's more than a few WP articles dealing with protests in Washington, D.C. APK is a GLEEk 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this an important enough topic to have an article of its own. This has been very big news on Fox and CNN (although many other news sources haven't covered it. I'm talking to you MSNBC.) This is probably the biggest of all the tea party protests, therefore it deserves its own page. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think this is a big deal too, but it belongs in the Tea party article, not here. Its just recent-ism to have its own article. 173.7.66.75 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What, other than its size and location, makes this tea party protest different from the other protests of its type? It may have received media recognition, but isn't this really just a big version of the small tea parties? It seems to me that the only notable details are its size, location and date. Someone please correct me if this is not a very very similar topic to 2009 Tea Party Protests. WP:N tells us what is allowed, but it doesn't mandate that any event covered by the media to a certain extent have its own article. Jzxpertguitarist - I know that you think this is important enough to have an article unto its self. However, consider that the main article may be visited much more often, so a level 2 heading there would be a more prominent placement of the info. — Mike : tlk 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've already stated, the NYT said it was the largest demonstration against the Obama administration. The international coverage (sources below) also shows why it's considered a notable event. APK is a GLEEk 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you're agreeing with me? This is a big tea party in Washington, DC on 9/12. Nothing more. Right? Is there anything notable about this, other than its size, and location?. I left out date, because there's nothing notable about 9/12 that is any different from 9/13 or 9/14, in the context of this protest. — Mike : tlk 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The date of 9/12 is actually an important factor to these rallies as many of the rallies were the responsibility of the followers of the 9/12 Project, started by Glenn Beck. So the date 9/12 is actually an important factor. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't agreed to anything. I never said it was just a "big tea party in Washington, DC on 9/12" I never suggested the date and location makes the event notable. I said it was notable because major news outlets have stated it was the largest demonstration against Obama since he took office, and that news outlets in the UK, Ireland, Russia, Iran, India, Canada, France, etc. have reported the event. That is indeed notable. APK is a GLEEk 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I'm getting at -- How much notable information is there to put in this article that isn't already in one of the several articles relating to tea parties? My guess is about two paragraphs, and that's a good indicator that while it is permissible to create a new article for the topic (judging purely by news coverage) it is not necessarily a stylistically good choice since it will likely never graduate from "stub" status. The information here is far more relevant in the context of the 2009 Tea Party Protests article. Making this a separate article, just because WP:N permits us to is not necessarily good judgment. A recent example of this is Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). I would wager that for every source that reports on this protest, there are 100 that reported on the "you lie" comment. WP:N would suggest that this clearly satisfies the notability requirement for inclusion, but there's really so little to say about the topic that it would be silly to put it in a separate article. — Mike : tlk 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree for reasons already mentioned. But I'll expand the article to resolve the stub issue. APK is a GLEEk 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. seems like more news about the protest is coming out anyway. This should provide more material distinct from the existing stuff. — Mike : tlk 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

912 Project

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I also think there needs to be a mention of Glenn Beck and the 912 Project and how that inspired many of the protests across the nation and in D.C. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in Glenn Beck, but keep in mind that the "9 12 Project" has not received much media attention. — Mike : tlk 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Other Protests

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I also think there needs to be some mention of other protests across the nation (i.e. there was one in Fort Worth that supposedly drew over 10,000 people). Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Tea Party protests has a great many events other than the Washington one. If I had a lot more energy I would propose a rewrite of this article to show more of the character of the protests. The TP protests are not just a few big days - April 15, July 4, September 12. The TPs have occurred almost weekly in hundreds of places across the country. The focus shifted over time. First the stimulus and debt, then cap-and-trade, then health care reform. Most events were rallies in typical venues, but in August most events were in front of Congressmen's offices. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are we calling any political demonstration that is largely comprised of conservatives a 'tea party'? — Mike : tlk 17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Crowd Size

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments15 people in discussion

Resolved

– The issue has been resolved. This talk page is not a forum.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a widely-circulating story that there were millions, not thousands of people at the rally in DC. For example, the Daily Mail mentions there were a million people there: [1]. Personally, I don't see any WP:RS supporting this number; I don't feel the Daily Mail is a WP:RS because they have lost some high-profile libel cases where they flat out admitted their newspaper published patent nonsense: Dailymail#Libel_lawsuits. Thoughts? Samboy (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement from ABC News explains what happened. APK is a GLEEk 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This link looks like a WP:RS discussing the people exaggerating the crowd size. Should we mention the exaggerated attendance numbers in this article? Samboy (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added a section about the crowd size estimates. Samboy (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless mainstream news organizations write a story about the attendance kerfluffle, then I'm not sure it's necessary to even mention it on WP (most readers unfamiliar with the topic would probably think "big deal"). APK is a GLEEk 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

75,000? Numbers were hugely higher than that. Just because one source uses that number doesn't establish the low estimate. We can do better. This is almost deceivingly low. TeaParty1 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One source? All of the reliable sources use "tens of thousands" or between 60-75,000 when describing the estimated attendance. The debunked 1-1.5 million estimate that was erroneously attributed to ABC News by FreedomWorks' president is causing panic attacks on numerous blogs. This too shall pass. If a mainstream news publication reports a higher number (explaining where they got the estimate, like the WSJ did), then hooray. Until then, it's not our job to speculate. APK is a GLEEk 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya, but all of the other sources are biased to the left. They're gonna make it seem like there were less people than there were to make Obama and Dems look better, expecially NBC. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the Washington, D.C. Fire Department - the original source of the 60,000-75,000 crowd size - is "biased to the left"? The paranoia is so far out there, that I really fear for this nation sometimes.70.130.177.218 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there were more than 75,000 people. Just looking at pictures it's easy to tell. It is ridiculous to post an obvious inaccuracy just because news sources posted this. I say no number be posted until we find something more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.158.139 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1) I haven't mentioned NBC. 2) Everything isn't a big conspiracy. 3) You've already decided "all of the other sources are biased to the left" even though a source which includes a higher estimate has yet to be found. 4) If you think the current source being used (The Wall Street Journal) is biased to the left, then I guess that makes Fox News, The Washington Times, and The Washington Examiner hardcore leftist news outlets. 5) As previously mentioned on this page, the 1-1.5 million estimate that FreedomWorks' president claimed was from ABC News has been debunked by ABC News. Yet, some bloggers who obviously have a desire to boost attendance estimates for political reasons, are still claiming there were 1-2 million people at the march. The bias is clear, but not the type you claim. Until you can find a revised estimate from a reliable source, this discussion is pointless. Marking as resolved. (P.S. To the IP, welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest you read the site's policies before editing an article.) APK is a GLEEk 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were referencing that there should be other sources than the Wall Street Journal and that they are just as credible. I meant that if we add other sources, they might not be as accurate as WSJ or Fox. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting blog article. It references a USAToday article about how the Park Service estimates crowd size. If people were tightly packed the mall could hold about 1.2 million people if the crowd extended to the Washington monument. But from the pictures I have seen, people were not that tightly packed (average packed, not tightly packed), which would lower the capacity to 600,000. So I could believe a crowd of 300,000 but not a crowd of 2 million. Not a RS but interesting anyway. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the estimates of 70,000 are way to low, to anyone who has seen the time lapse video. Further the low estimates are based on the Fire Department, which has not really ever given estimates before. Both the Washington DC Police Department, and parks and recreation estimate over a million people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman279 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that still claims 1 million people attended the march, feel free to provide a link here. Without a reliable source explaining how they came up with 1 million, then the current estimate stays. It's sourced to the Wall Street Journal, who obtained an estimate from the DC Fire Department. APK is a GLEEk 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The ABC news piece about some people estimating there being 1,000,000 people comes from a reliable source, as per WP:RS, so I have revised the attendance figure to point to the source, while only mentioning there being 70,000 to 80,000 at the rally in the article text. While I don't think we'll find a reliable source backing up there being a million people at this rally, I think we will get, over the next few days, a number of reliable sources talking about how some people have claimed there were a million people here, at which point it will be appropriate to mention it in the article text. Samboy (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html NYyankees51 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Bnynms (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But you'll have no problem with The Huffington Post links, right? R32GTR (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, that DC Fire Department estimate is bogus! It was what they were expecting, not what was counted. I was THERE. The folks were packed like sardines from the Capitol Steps all the way back along the Mall to the Washington Monument. ABC estimated 1.5 million - ABC!, for pity's sake. Clarify the Fire Department estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocFarmer (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1.5 Million would not stop at the Washington Monument, and I say this having grown up in DC and attended more than one largely attended event on the mall. this is what 1-1.5 million people looks like and this is what the march on Saturday looked like. Were it anywhere near 1 million all of the streets in downtown DC would have been shut down (not just the ones adjacent and 2 blocks away from The Mall) the Metro and the Metro Bus systems would have been running on a special schedule, The Smithsonian station would have been shut down completely, etc... etc... — Mike : tlk 14:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Wikipedia is not a forum. Any argument there were a million people at the rally does not hold water, no matter how convincing, until it's back up by a reliable source. Samboy (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail got their source from, the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Stated in their article, and it is not reliable? R32GTR (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bollucks. The Daily Mail article does not state where they got their 1,000,000 number from, and is not a reliable source, as I have already pointed out. Samboy (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

60,000 to 75,000+ is the range from reliable sources that I have seen. Beck himself is saying "One million" but nothing leads me to believe that is true. A million people is more than an order of magnitude larger, and they would have been spilling into downtown (which they were not). Neither of the two references at "80,000" mention this number, so I'm changing to reflect what the DCFD actually said ("over 75,000"). There is one source with an estimate more than an order of magnitude higher than just about everyone else. It would be WP:UNDUE to use the outlier, regardless of what various editors feel that photos show. — Mike : tlk 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked for a source, but I was just watching the news and they stated approx. quarter of a million (250,000). Morphh ^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And Glenn Beck is saying "One Million" on his radio show this morning, but unfortunately we have no idea where these numbers came from, nor can we use television as a WP:RS. Michelle Malkin still has "2 Million" on her website, although once it was shown that her source was bogus she added a question mark. I wouldn't trust TV news as far as I could throw it, with all these bad numbers flying around. — Mike : tlk 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Article that tries to estimate crowd size: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21884 Of course, not a Reliable Source. What is Wikipedia policy on a situation where the reliable sources are obviously wrong? MikeR613 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V. Wikipedia is about verifiability, regardless of what you may believe the truth to be. — Mike : tlk 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're saying THIS is "60,000-70,000"???!?!?!?!! Claims that there were "tens of thousands" is just a LIE. That's all it is. The liberal media would NEVER report even hundreds of thousands. Let me show you.

The mainstream media was set up on 4th St. SW, which cuts straight across the middle of the Mall. The steps of the Capitol is where the rally was taking place. Several thousand people were resting on the Washington Monument side of 4th St. The media counted THOSE people and not the ones at the Capitol. Plus, they did their count late in the afternoon when a lot of people had left. "Tens of thousands" is garbage; I was there, I should know, not as a protester wanting to float numbers, but as a person with common sense. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:RS. Please understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Samboy (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we all understand the rules. But it's frustrating. Who needs an encyclopedia with false information? MikeR613 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a notable event, but is it worth an article - the only content here is also in the Tea Party article except for something about people singing, chanting slogans and carrying signs - all of which happens at all protest marches. 173.7.66.75 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Read my reply the first time this was proposed. APK is a GLEEk 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

60,000-70,000 or 75,000+

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

Resolved

– Topic has been resolved in the section below.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have found two reliable sources quoting the DC fire department on the crowd size. In this article we get 'A spokesman for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services estimated the crowd at "in excess of 75,000" people.', but in this article we get 'approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department.' Which numbers should we use in the article? Samboy (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Odds are that these are not official estimates, they are just guesses from (somewhat) experienced employees of the DCFD. We don't know at what time these estimates were made, or any of the other important details necessary to choose one over the other. I suggest "The Washington, DC Fire Department estimated the attendance of the event to be at least 60,000 to 75,000"[cite1][cite2]. In any case, if we're going to be using the DCFD estimate, which I have no problem with, let's not mix it with the estimates of news sources. I would also argue that since the owner of The Wall Street Journal is also the boss of the face of the march, it is very much in their best interest to be as generous with their estimate as possible. — Mike : tlk 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "Washington, DC Fire Department estimations range from 60,000 to 75,000 or more"? Samboy (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"or more" makes it sound like the sky's the limit. Let's go with "... from 60,000 to more than 75,000". — Mike : tlk 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article; this sounds reasonable. Samboy (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Michelle Malkin who hosts a time elapsed video on her website of the march, 2 MILLION people were in attendance. I was there. I have footage. NO WAY were there only 75,000 people. The American people are entitled to a REAL estimate of the crowd. WHY DO THE PARK POLICE NO LONGER PROVIDE CROWD ESTIMATES? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/celebrating-the-912-rallies/ If we had called it the 2 MILLION AMERICAN MARCH I guess the Left would have had to try to debunk the claim with science instead of obfuscation and minimizing reality? Maybe?ObserverNY (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Looking at the tax party crowd (image of just one of the roads, not the center grounds) and compare it to the Obama Inauguration (which was estimated 1.8 million) and other events like the Promise Keepers rally (700,000 - 800,000), I don't see such a significant difference. There is no way it was only 75,000. Perhaps their talking about those in a certain area (by the Washington monument). Morphh ^(talk) 16:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:RS. Please understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Samboy (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know... I did add a link to the Examiner. Just saying we need to find a valid source, because the current estimate seems fairly inaccurate. Morphh ^(talk) 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem inaccurate? — Mike : tlk 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum but I thought I would answer the question. Mike, not sure about you but I've been in large crowds. I've been in some that were conservatively estimated at 5,000, 10,000, 75,000 and in some up to 200,000. I can say that I've never been in a crowd the size of the Washington tea party. Consider that a football stadium can hold about 75,000 people. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big college football fan, and I was in the biggest stadium in the USA over the weekend (and on many other weekends), so I have been in my share of crowds as well. I have been to nine Independence Day fireworks shows on the National Mall, and it seems like a million people. I have been on the National Mall with over a million people as well, and the size of the crowd simply defies description (keep in mind that this is roughly double the population of Washington, DC). My point in saying this is, people look at the video footage and see a whole ton of people flooding Penn Avenue (even though Beck is calling it Constitution Ave.), and they can't believe that it is only a football stadium full so they dispute validity of those who know what they're talking about (DCFD). — Mike : tlk 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, The Examiner looks like a group blog; it's a page where random people on the 'net submit articles and The Examiner publishes them. In other words, it's not a reliable source. Samboy (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Obama Inauguration crowd extended far outside the National Mall by many blocks, and unfortunately, your photo is a low-res shot from one angle. This whole concept of judging crowd side by photos on this talk page smacks of WP:OR, your image is not comparable to a satellite photo, and a blog written by a protest attendee is not a WP:RS. I am trying to represent the crowd size accurately, but there is a lot of misinformation going around on BOTH sides (some liberal blogs are undershooting at 30,000 -- Beck and Michelle Malkin are claiming at this crowd was comparable or exceeding the Obama Inauguration (based on tweets from protest attendees, believe it or not) There are those who allege that the "liberal mass media" is reporting small crowd sizes (apparently too small by nearly an order of magnitude) so we are going with the DC Fire Department estimation, and citing with Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. How much more objective can we get? — Mike : tlk 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I was not suggesting we determine the size ourselves or engage in OR. I was only pointing out what seems to be the obvious, so that we don't treat this like truth. It would be nice if we had a primary source from the FD to back up that they actually estimated the final crowd size at the figures presented. Morphh ^(talk) 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that estimates of 75,000 are wholly inaccurate, especially to the degree that is being suggested by some (i.e., those who think actual attendance exceeded 1 million). What may seem obvious to you is not obvious to me. All I have to go on are reliable sources, any my own personal experience of having lived in DC for two decades, and having been in a crowd of over 1 million on the National Mall. The larger estimates seem to be coming from those who stand to gain from the event having had a massive turnout (conservative talk show hosts, sponsors of the event, bloggers who frequently are guests on the shows of the organizers of the event, attendees of the event, etc...). I don't trust their estimates any more than I trust HuffPo's estimate of 30,000. — Mike : tlk 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a very fine line between "what seems to be the obvious" and original research. As for primary sources, WP:NOR points out that secondary sources are actually better. As a Wikipedia editor, I have no opinion on how many people were at the rally. All I care about is the number of people reliable sources say were there; right now, I haven't seen anything quote a million or more people that looks like a reliable source. Samboy (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Samboy - Michelle Malkin is currently the #1 author on the NYT's Best Seller List (non-fiction). http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/ You don't consider her time-elapse video a "reliable source"? ObserverNY (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

She does not have expertise in estimating crowd sizes. Also, since she is a conservative writer, she may have an axe to grind that clouds her judgment, just as the liberals qouting there being 30,000 people have an axe to grind. The picture is a primary source, and any interpretation of that picture trying to estimate the crowd size crosses the WP:NOR line. Samboy (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no way that Michelle Malkin's blog is a WP:RS, especially for a quantitative numerical fact. Even wikipedia we were to allow the use of her site for quantitative factual information (and let's be clear, she has the largest of the large estimates), taking her time lapse video and somehow getting a quantitative attendance estimate would most certainly be WP:OR. If you believe the DC Fire Department has grossly misjudged the size of the crowd, is it due to incompetence at making these kinds of estimates or do you to believe it to be the deliberate spread of misinformation? — Mike : tlk 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike & Samboy - I'm willing to accept that Michelle Malkin's blog does not necessarily represent an accurate attendance count. I would however, since I believe this will be a developing controversy, like to see some sort of statement in the article that the DC Fire Department's estimate pales in comparison to actual video footage of the event and estimates by Conservative commentators. It seems to me, in this day and age, there have to be satellite photos of the crowd and that a mathematical grid assessment of the crowd could be easily calculated by SOME official source. IF an official source like the Park Police or NASA refuses to release an estimate, then yes, I do believe the mainstream media are deliberately attempting to minimize the turnout. ObserverNY (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's not a matter of you or me accepting Malkin's blog or not accepting it. WP:RS is clear, regardless of any of our opinion, as Malkin's blog fits into the category of "self published sources" and "extremist or fringe sources". I'm curious as to what reliable source has reported that this is a controversy? Once again, the video footage is not a population estimate, and presenting it as such is undoubtedly WP:OR. It is your opinion (and that of other editors) that DC Fire Department's seems to be in disagreement with Malkin's video, but it would be quite a WP:NPOV violation for us to declare the DC Fire Department's count to be questionable, or to suggest that they are part of a deliberate attempt to minimize turnout with a complete lack of reliable sources reporting it.

Also, since when did the Wall Street Journal become part of what conservatives refer to as the "mainstream media"? The paper is, as I'm sure you know, owned and operated by News Corp (just like Fox News) and they generally report on issues from a conservative standpoint (i.e., Karl Rove often writes content for them). We deliberately cited a non-partisan organization (DC Fire Department) that is being reported on by a conservative news source (WSJ) to avoid the cries of bias from both liberals and conservatives. — Mike : tlk 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting this issue to rest: more sources than you can shake a stick at

The Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan PolitiFact has an article about how many of these pictures we're seeing are not actually of the event on Saturday. In some of them, cranes near the National Museum of Natural History are visible, which were last up in 1990 to install the IMAX theater equipment.

The admittedly partisan FiveThirtyEight makes a good point when he says that a turnout of a million or Michelle Malkin's TWO million would have been self-evident. [2]

The Atlantic's Max Fisher points out that two thirds of the mall writes
"two-thirds of the National Mall was filled by an entirely separate event on Saturday that had nothing to do with protesting the president. September 12 just happened to be the 24th-annual Black Family Reunion, which ran from 7th Street all the way to the Washington Monument. I spent several hours on the Mall on Saturday, and there's no question that protesters numbered at least in the tens of thousands, but they were isolated to only a fraction of the area they're credited with having filled."

NPR's Allison Keyes, who was at the event to report on it, is reporting "tens of thousands".

Fox News - "tens of thousands"

here is a comparison of photos of the crowd (march vs inauguration). You can see that the National Mall is far from Packed, even including the Black Family Reunion who is also on The Mall.

— Mike : tlk 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, we simply put the issue to rest because Mike says so after citing some ridiculous article that compares the FreedomWork President's crowd "exaggeration" to a 53" penis.

I don't think so.

Let's take a look at what the Daily Mail.uk has to say about the event: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html

Up to a Million. Now, I still hold that there MUST be satellite photos of the crowd at 1:00 PM ET. SOMEONE - some scientific, government agency MUST be able to provide a technologically accurate estimate of the crowd at that point. That HAS to fall under public information and FOIA. I want the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The crowds were in different places in the two events. The 9/12 protest was mainly on the side roads, not down the center fairgrounds, which can be seen in the other photos. So the photo that shows the center fairgrounds is only a very small amount of the people there. Of all the reports I've read, I had not seen the inauguration photo used, so I see that as likely a limited occurrence. Morphh ^(talk) 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting poll and calculation being conducted: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvjcjRi9xm5JdGtxR0JQSEF3YV9KbVhpOXV5dF9kSVE&hl=en If you look at the poll graph, you will see that nearly half of the participants who have logged in so far went straight to the rally and missed the march, people like me whose bus arrived an hour late. Many people were walking from Union station as the crowd was marching up Pennsylvania Avenue and then the two groups converged at the foot of the Capitol. The crowd stretched from the Capitol steps as far as the eye could see back towards the Washington Monument. I came in on N. 1st and down 1/2 a block and it stretched WAY BEYOND 3rd. It should be noted there is a lot of chatter on the internet questioning why none of the news agencies took aerial footage. I'm guessing they weren't given flyover permits. When I was there, only one helicopter flew overhead, and the crowd all turned towards it and held their signs up. According to this article, if it is accurate, it was the President: [3] The Examiner also states THERE WERE NO ARRESTS! DC Police presence was minimal. For God's sake, it was probably 60% senior citizens!!

The article as it currently stands reads as a totally anti-Obama only article. Listen to the videos. Read the signs. It wasn't just about Obama. NO MORE CZARS! UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION! NO MORE LIES! CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? Vote Congress out - BOTH PARTIES! STOP THE CORRUPTION! STOP BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY! I would say there were an equal number of disparaging signs with Nancy Pelosi's face on them, as there were of Obama's. And I can tell you that everyone I met couldn't have been nicer, more polite and enthused. United. Young and old, black and white. So whether it was 350,000, 1 Million or 2 Million, it was definitely more than the 60,000 the nutball conspiracy theorist Libs want you to believe. ObserverNY (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here is an article that actually goes into some analysis on the size of the crowd and puts the figure at more than 850,000. It considers all the sources, photos, parks and recreation data, crowd size, etc. Morphh ^(talk) 0:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article, Morphh! When I was there, the estimate going by word of mouth through the crowd was 1.5-1.7 million as supposedly estimated by the DC Police. ObserverNY (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

APK is undoing edits on this topic without discussion. I just undid his/her last undo. Sources and phrasing seemed fair, balanced and sourced. ObserverNY (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Don't be dishonest and say I haven't discussed this issue on the talk page. I've made numerous comments explaining why the content is against WP policies. APK is a GLEEk 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verifiability, not truth

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Even if the truth is more than a million, we have to use what is verifiable from reliable sources and we can't give undue weight to any one source. The number 75,000 is verifiable from multiple reliable sources so that's the number we should use even if turns out not to be accurate. If we later get different numbers from RS we report them.

Second point: the Daily Mail IS a reliable source - Here's what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says:

“

My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source.

”

The Daily Mail number should be allowed but with language that indicates it is an outlier. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer your second point. It appears you may be quote-mining. Lets look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source. For example, "The Daily Mail gets sued quite regularly. It often ends up having to issue an apology or retraction and pay damages. That's not what one would hope for from a first-class encyclopedic source", which is very critical of The Daily Mail's reliability, was not quoted by people trying to get the idea there was 1,000,000 or more people at this rally. And, more importantly, "All contentious claims should have a second cite" was quoted in the second discussion.

Bottom line: The best source people have come up with for there being over 1,000,000 people is the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail, is, at best, a semi-reliable source. There have been no reliable sources giving out a number higher than 75,000. Yes, there are realible sources (Christian Science Monitor, etc.) talking about the 1,000,000 claims, but not a single reliable source supporting these claims. Samboy (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail may be using the fake image that is being passed around by anti-reform activists. It appears that Michelle Malkin is getting her info from twitter feeds of protest organizers, so one would wonder if the Daily News is doing something similarly dubious. — Mike : tlk 21:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And that clearly is speculation on your part. It's equally possible that the Daily Mall reporter had seen other protests and made a comparative judgment about size, or looked at how much area was occupied by the crowd and estimated the way the Park Service used to do estimates. The New York Times reported that “thousands” of protesters “filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall." The Park Service says (per USAToday article) that the west lawn holds about 240,000 so the NYT report could justify a 300,000 number. I think we should stick with the 75,000 number for now but other numbers from RS should be mentioned with less prominence, per WP:UNDUE. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another policy that applies is WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority." We are not yet at a stage when we know what views comprise a tiny minority. We can say that the Daily Mail estimate is a minority view but it is a RS and should be included but with less prominence than other views. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail obviously parroted figures coming from unreliable sources. They did not, as some claim, get their numbers from the National Park Service or what not. The Daily Mail article doesn't say where they got their numbers; since WSJ and ABC get similar numbers from a source qualified to count crowds (the fire department), their numbers are more reliable. That said, I do think the whole thing about fringe elements claiming millions of attendees is notable enough to include when more reliable sources talk about it (and indeed, at one point I added that, using the Daily Mail article as an example of the fringe numbers being parroted) Samboy (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Abortion was mentioned in a number of placards I saw in photostreams of the protesters. ARe there sources for this being a significant protest topic? - 142.167.91.233 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good job for you. Go find a reliable source, bring it to us, and we'll see if we can include it if it fits Wikipedia's criteria. --Triadian (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Largest conservative protest

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Million Man March easily topped a few hundred thousand. Much bigger than this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That was technically a religious rally. The source is referring to political conservatism. APK is a GLEEk 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's a "technical" categorization of various protests and rallies, where might I find information on how they are categorized? What is the "second largest" protest? Do we have to use one of the high estimates of crowd size in order to call this one the largest? — Mike : tlk 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Format

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When adding new references, please use the citation format currently found throughout the article. Also, please check that you're not adding a duplicate reference. Thanks. APK is a GLEEk 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm trying to. Will correct as I find problems. — Mike : tlk 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Swastika Sign

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Out of 500,000 people and you have to find ONE protester who brought a sign with a swastika to represent the signage? I object. I'm removing the pic. The homemade signs were the best part of the event, they were clever, creative, and sent a message, yet THIS is what Wikipedia wants to represent the event? Shameful. ObserverNY (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Remove picture due to WP:FRINGE violation. We have no reason to believe that the picture is representative of the majority of the protest. You should absolutely replace the text you removed though (begins with "CSPAN"). — Mike : tlk 20:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I took care of restoring the text for you — Mike : tlk 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with ObserverNY. I have looked at hundreds of photos of this event. That sign is grossly unrepresentative. If anyone wants to restore it he must first cite a reliable source that reports such signs as being common at the March. If there were only 10,000 signs at the March then for Wikipedia to show something as emotionally charged as a swastika sign as one of four photos would imply that there were something within, say, an order of magnitude of 2,500 such signs. That would require that there were at least 250 swastika signs. If you really wanted to be accurate you would work to find the most common subjects addressed in the signs and choose vivid examples of that subject being addressed. But you cannot do this research yourself, remember. So find a reliable source for that. The sad truth about this article, and many others on Wikipedia, is that, in my opinion, all the traditional reliable sources one can use as references are becoming less and less reliable. For example, there are surely enough photos and videos of the event for an expert photoanalyst to use in getting a good estimate of crowd size, but I don't expect to find a 'reliable source' to hire one to do so, suggesting such sources are satisfied with the accuracy of the 'unofficial' estimates they reported, despite the evidence of their, and our own eyes. I hope this will change. Meanwhile let us strive to represent political events with as much neutrality as we can muster.—Blanchette (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the text, Mike. I removed it accidentally. ObserverNY (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think we can consider this issue to be resolved. ObserverNY took care of removing it, and everyone seems to agree that showing an image crosses the line of documenting a major POV into the land of 'pushing' that POV. That being said, the text describing the signs should stay. — Mike : tlk 22:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Intellectual Ammunition" prep lectures for protesters

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dave Wiegel of the Washington Independent wrote an article describing a "lecture" in which representatives of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute gave a presentation to an auditorium full of protesters. This was billed as “Intellectual Ammunition Pre-Tea Party Strategy Workshop”. The protesters were given samplers with excerpts from Rand's philosophy texts and novels. One source doesn't make this notable enough to include, but we may as well have a place to keep track in case more are found. — Mike : tlk 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a CNN article discussing the workshops. APK say that you love me 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Who decides what constitutes a "trivial" fact?

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

So Mike - why did you just go an remove the sentence about there being no arrests? You can bet your bottom dollar if ONE tea party protester had been arrested WAPO and the NYT would have had it on the front page. The fact that there were NO arrests at a crowd that size IS significant. It's not a POV statement. It is validation of a totally peaceful demonstration. With the media attempting to describe tea party goers as "angry mobs", would it kill you to include the FACT that there were no arrests? Same goes for the repeated removal of the NYT statement about Obama's flyover of the crowd. It was SIGNIFICANT to the people who were there, everyone noticed the helicopter and raised their signs towards it. I am not attempting to include that sort of personal hearsay. I provided a cite from the NYT. If you want me to start going through the article and picking on some of the statements in there that are "trivial" from my POV, I'll be happy to do so.ObserverNY (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Is there significant coverage in reliable sources about no one being arrested at the rally? If not, it violates WP:UNDUE to mention it. Your speculation about what kind of coverage there would be if someone was arrestedis original research and violates Wiki policy. Really, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOR. The purpose of this discussion is to go over what reliable sources say and decide how this article can best reflect what whose sources say about this topic. Linking to blog posts does not help with that. Speculation about what would have happened if only does not help with that. We should limit this discussion about what NYT and other reliable sources had to say, and decide if placing the mention in the article reflects what reliable sources said. Samboy (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY-- In the interest of helping you turn over a new leaf, I will do my very best to explain in detail what the various problem(s) are. Please note that at no time have I claimed that these two details are factually incorrect, or that the sources in which you found them are unreliable. Please understand that I am not accusing you of anything, but simply describing why I believe this information to be inappropriate for inclusion.

Arrests - WP:NPOV via WP:WEIGHT Lack of sources covering this detail. Here I brought to your attention that only one source reports on a "number of arrests". Your reply was that Hannity, Glenn Beck and Greta van Sustren had mentioned the story on their talk shows, but they are not reliable sources and they also stand to gain considerably from portraying the march as being as successful as possible. I believe you want to say that the protest was non-violent (please correct me if this is wrong), which many of our reliable sources document, and I would have no problem with you adding. However if we were to start including every little fact in our article that journalists deem noteworthy, newsworthy, stylistically nice, interesting, funny or illuminating, the article would be a bloated confusing mess.

Arrests - WP:RECENT, but this is fixable. - I would wager a large sum of money that nobody will care about the number of arrests two weeks from now. You may disagree, but I think that the key piece of information is that the protest was non-violent in general, not necessarily the "arrest count". This is yet another good reason to just change the first sentence of the article from "Tea Party protest march" to "non-violent[politico cite] Tea Party protest march".

Helicopter - WP:RECENT. Ask yourself if whether anyone who wasn't at the protest will care if Obama's helicopter flew over the protest, two weeks from now, or whether? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a historical perspective, and our aim is a concise but complete article that documents this historic event, not to record a list of random pieces of information.

Helicopter -- WP:NPOV concern having to do with wording. Depending on how this is worded (and I didn't find your most recent wording objectionable) it may come off as "We came to have our voices heard by Congress and the President, and he flew away in a helicopter".

Helicopter/Arrests -- WP:TRIVIA. A concern I have with both of these pieces of information is that they encourage the addition of other miscellaneous facts. This will make the article a gigantic mess.

Some additional thoughts about your comment above:

Making decisions on what to include in the article, based on the feelings and opinions of a certain group, especially a group that shares the same well-defined ideology (i.e., the people at the protest) is a clear cut WP:NPOV violation. When you say
"It was SIGNIFICANT to the people who were there, everyone noticed the helicopter and raised their signs toward it"
and then argue for information to be included based on its significance, you seem to be doing just that.

Your comment
"With the media attempting to describe tea party goers as "angry mobs", would it kill you to include the FACT that there were no arrests?"
seems to be a request to use this article as a means of fighting what you believe to be a liberal bias in the news media. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

And finally, to answer the question you posted in the heading of this section:

A trivial fact is something that adds little or no insight to the reader's understanding of the topic. Once you add in the word "non-violent" per the points I have made above, saying that there were no arrests adds little or no new information.

I look forward to your reply. — Mike : tlk 03:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the helicopter information is trivial. Disagree that the "no arrests" fact is trivial. I'm also following the guidelines you have selected, but do not interpret the facts as you are interpreting them. No offense, but ObserverNY, in my opinion did not do a good job of defending the point in a Wiki-manner. The fact that there were no arrests is important because it compares/contrasts this event from other events. In an extreme way, it shows that this was a non-violent protest and not a riot. It shows that the general attitude of the protest was civil and not violent, which was one of the principles of the organizers of this event. It shows that the principles of civility were in fact followed as planned... in other words the event went as planned. These are ways that the arrests fact helps the reader understand the topic. There are many types of protests. Suggesting that the arrests number implies a point of view is YOUR OPINION. I do not see that at all looking at it in an unbiased way. You may think that saying this protest is non-violent promotes the cause, and maybe it does, but the fact's not there for that purpose. Sidenote: Who's to say who will care and not care about a subject? Also, suggesting that news sources (I understand commentators) are promoting the event TO HELP THEMSELVES is again your biased opinion. --Triadian (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Triadian. I am aware that my comment contained my own views, and if you'll notice, I began by saying "why I believe this information to be inappropriate for inclusion". However, the part about Wikipedia not being a tool to correct a "bias in the media" is a fact. The part about giving weight to a particular thing because a certain group believes it to be important (as opposed to basing weight on WP:N and WP:WEIGHT) being against policy is fact.

Just to be clear, I didn't say that they were promoting the event to help themselves, I said that they stand to gain from the event having been a success. Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources charges us with making the call in cases like these, where a source's coverage has the potential be "unduly self-serving". I suspect that ObserverNY would agree, since he has kept sources like The Huffington Post out of other articles. Glenn Beck's own commentary on Glenn Beck's protests can probably be assumed as both "unduly self-serving" and a primary source. I also assume that Bill Gates will probably tell us that Windows 7 will be the best operating system EVER, and that BMW can't understand why any informed customer would ever buy a Benz or an Audi.

I stand by my opinion that if one source reports "there were no arrests" while many sources report "the protest was non-violent", we should go with what the majority of our reliable sources say. I believe that saying "there were no arrests" is an attempt to express the non-violent nature of the protest in a sensational way. That being said, I will certainly not dispute whatever consensus on this page or RfC ends up deciding.

— Mike : tlk 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I could say the opposite is true. By NOT including the fact, you're giving weight to the opposition side. Besides, which "group" are you talking about that is promoting this stuff. There are more ways than one to check for arrest records. The source that we're arguing about is not Beck... he's a commentator, as we both know... it's a news article from Alex Isenstadt of The Politico news organization. Are you saying Politico stands to benefit from having no arrests as a fringe source? The quotes "there were no arrests" and "the protest was non-violent" does not necessarily mean the same thing either if you really look at it; I actually believe the former quote "there were no arrests" has less bias because it is quantitative and there is a legal component. I don't see the "attempt to express the non-violent nature of the protest in a senstational way". It's as simple of a fact as you can get, just as is the statement "There are four apples in the basket.". "Non-violent" is more open to interpretation. Either way is fine with me. I just think one of the two facts should be included. --Triadian (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never said that the politico source is an extremist source. In fact, it is, to the best of my knowledge, the ONLY reliable source that mentions the number of arrests. If this is an important detail, then surely it is documented by more reliable sources than just the politico article. — Mike : tlk 14:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tag on attendance

Latest comment: 15 years ago42 comments9 people in discussion

Resolved

– Consensus based on Wikipedia's policies has resolved this issue. Further questions on this matter should be raised at one of the appropriate forums: WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added the dubious tag on the grounds of WP:DISPUTED's "information which is particularly difficult to verify". New sources which have emerged since the original estimates have put the attendance number in jeopardy with a margin of error greater than 500,000. Until more official estimates can be determined, I feel the current numbers to be at present in dispute. This is not necessarily an attempt to bring truth to the article, but it is unclear which of these new sources should be used on this Wikipedia article per WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:RS, and numerous others. As for my opinion, I say let the debate rest for a week until we have something concrete. Then we can expand this article and perhaps compare its attendance to other protest marches on DC. --Triadian (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the new sources? APK is a GLEEk 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What are these new sources you talk about, and why are they reliable? Please let us know. Samboy (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

HOLD YOUR horses. There is so much passion with this article its like a circus.--Triadian (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Please don't edit the article to question the numbers provided by the DC Fire department until you have reliable sources (you know, WP:RS) which dispute these numbers. Samboy (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, many have been given already. I'm compiling now and double checking them against all your cited guidelines to make sure they pass. I did NOT edit the number, I simply added a tag showing that a DISCUSSION is ensuing on the talk page with a debate against sources. That is what the tag is for. --Triadian (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources, with the possible exception of Daily Mail, are at all reliable. Blogs are not reliable sources. People without experience counting crowds who look at the pictures of the rally and they "there must have been a million people there" are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is you know not a forum and not a place to put stuff in articles because your counting method counts a million people at the rally. The figures from the fire department are the only really reliable numbers people have come up with, and they give us 60,000-75,000+ people. This figure has not been disputed by any source that is reliable.

I do feel that, yes, the large number of people who question the numbers and the fact that a lot of people in the blogosphere and what not believe there were millions of people at this rally is notable, and, for the record, I think we should be neutral about describing them (yes, some at one point thought a 1997 picture of about a million people was Saturday's rally, but I will assume good faith and feel this was an unintentional error). I think things like the time lapse photo which people used to say "look, a million people were there" are notable, but, as far as I know, reliable sources haven't reported this yet.

Yes, there are a lot of people who believe, for example, the earth is 6,000 years old, but this doesn't mean Age of the Earth takes young-earth creationist theories seriously. It doesn't matter how many people believe something; it matters what reliable sources say. That's Wikipedia policy. Samboy (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, reason with me here. Many sources prove that the estimates cannot easily be verified. The DC firefighter estimate is UNOFFICIAL according to this article and contradicts other estimates: [4]. We all know the picture is a fake, it's from another protest altogether. Another source: [5] interviews Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who states that the organization does not do crowd estimates and his PERSONAL estimate is not official. Therefore, like everyone else, the estimate has just as much reliability as the Daily Mail or Fox News. Yes, I am discounting the one source that you are citing is more valid than the others, which I have proven is not. --Triadian (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amendment: The actual quote is this "That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up." The media ran with this fact and reported it as official, even though it was not. That is the new development that puts the only concrete estimate you have on the front page in jeopardy. Therefore, there needs to be a mention of this uncertainty. --Triadian (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So despite dozens of reliable sources reporting (approximately) the same estimate, you think the 60-75,000 estimate is still in "jeopardy"? You added that the estimate was not official, which is correct. Mentioning the source of the estimate (a DCFD employee) is required (which you did). But mentioning (in the lead) there are conflicting estimates violates WP:UNDUE. (for the record, I think your edits and talk page comments have been made in good faith) The far-majority of people objecting to dozens of RS are those who have a political motivation (as evidenced by comments on this talk page and the various websites/radio shows promoting the "conspiracy"), and are using multiple estimates (Claims include hundred of thousands, 1 million, 1.5 million, and 2 million. There were even ludicrous claims being made such as the "largest march in Washington, D.C.'s history" and "more people than Obama's inauguration".) via tweets, personal accounts, debunked estimates (i.e. ABC News), photos, "gut feelings", etc. The quotes below are intended for several people commenting on this page. Please read them carefully.

From WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."

From WP:NOR - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material." "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced." "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material."

APK is a GLEEk 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

After noticing the conspiracy theory has made it into the LA Times and WaPo, in addition to the already cited Politifact and Christian Science Monitor, I've added details. More content is on the way. APK is a GLEEk 12:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

APK - This is an important article: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/freedomworks-cuts-estimate-for-crowd-at-its-912-rally-by-one-half.php

FreedomWorks, the main organizers of the Tea Party event in Washington this past weekend, has dramatically lowered its estimate for the size of the crowd at the event from 1.5 million, a number the group now concedes was a mistake, to between 600,000 and 800,000 people.
The politically charged issue of crowd size is complicated by the fact that there is no official estimate -- not from the Park Service, not from the D.C. Police, nor the Fire Department, etc. In fact, a Fire Department spokesman that I talked to told me that whoever had given a figure of 60,000-70,000 to ABC News had not been authorized to do so. So there's no independent source to verify FreedomWorks' latest number.

ObserverNY (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, you are pretty clearly across the line into WP:OR. We will not base crowd sizes on photos, videos, your phone calls (if I read the above correctly) or the like. Our job is simply to report from a WP:NPOV standpoint, by documenting sources that are already out there. I have done my best to assume good faith here, but the way in which you're making your argument seems to suggest that you want to disregard wikipedia policies (specifically WP:NPOV by giving weight to a fringe POV, and WP:RS by suggesting the use of Freedomworks' and conservative bloggers' crowd size estimates, and WP:OR by suggesting the use of crowd models and photos to cast doubt on expert opinions).

The Fire Department Spokesman was not authorized to give an estimate, but he is the director of public affairs (in charge of large gatherings that the DCFD provides support for), and his expert opinion was given and deserves weight. Whether or not it was proper for him to do so is neither here nor there, unless we see a retraction or something. — Mike : tlk 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we all know what happened. It's not many reliable sources reporting an independently verified estimate. They're all just reprinting the same estimate from a single source, Pete Piringer. Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, who said that the local government no longer provides official crowd estimates because they can become politicized. That said, on the morning of Sept. 12, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up. "It was in no way an official estimate," he said.[6] So you have one guy giving an unofficial opinion in the morning (when the crowd didn't get full until the afternoon). We're attributing this to the DCFD like it was their collective government estimate based on the entire day and something they do often, when it was one person giving an "in no way an official estimate". This needs to be rewritten to present the attributed facts, and include that their are other estimates, which are verifiable in the same sources. We should not take the opinion of the sources, regarding what they consider official estimates and present it as truth. If the reliable sources show that others have suggested higher estimates, than it is sufficient to include that their are other estimates based on the coverage and weight in the media. Morphh ^(talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is saying a University did an estimate and it came out to 1.7 million. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/glenn-beck-tea-party-march-had-17-million-people.php Morphh ^(talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. What university? Where is the study? Is it based on crowd modeling or a satellite photo? We may never know! I have a university study that says 2000 people were there, as long as you don't make me produce it or ask me any follow up questions. — Mike : tlk 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's with the hundreds of thousands and millions attendance figures now that have no verifiable, external source? This is like a circus of numbers now. What gives? (24.148.73.133 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

When bloggers disagree with the news media, and the news media reports on the disagreement, it can be put in a Wikipedia article. This needs a rewrite, but after everyone is done tacking on the pieces of information they believe to be relevant. I would wager that the article will shrink substantially before we're done. — Mike : tlk 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike - You did not read correctly, the two quotes were from the article I linked. Please don't accuse me of trying to pass off my personal phone calls as a WP:Verify source. Seriously. I'm insulted. ObserverNY (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's why I said "(if I read the above correctly)". You didn't put quotes around the statement that contains the phrase "my call", so I read it as your own telephone call. I didn't accuse you of anything as nothing has been added to the article, but you seem(ed) to be lobbying for permission to aim for truth instead of verifiability, because the reliable sources don't agree with what you believe to be true. I don't believe I'm out of line here, as you have several times used photos and video footage as "evidence" that reliable sources are incorrect, and this is clear cut WP:OR. Have some faith that if the facts are as wrong as you believe them to be, someone will write about it in a source that we can consider reliable, and then (and only then) we can cast doubt onto the sources we do have. — Mike : tlk 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109844 Just how many marched on D.C.?], WorldNetDaily source that discussed many of the estimates. Morphh ^(talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to include WND and Wizbang, we must also include sources like Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I'm not sure that this will improve the quality of the article. You'll notice that many of the higher estimates are from people who stand to gain substantially from the protest having had been a success (National Taxpayer's Union, ResistNet, FreedomWorks, "Tea Party Express", etc...). — Mike : tlk 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of their reliability. I don't read WND or any of the others. Just happen to find it in a search. Morphh ^(talk) 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike - so after all of that, do you not consider the source I linked verifiable? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/about.php ObserverNY (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It depends entirely on what statement you wish to use this as a reference for. We have already incorporated the "unofficial" nature of the DC Fire Department's Public Information Officer into the article, and this morning I added the information pertaining to FreedomWorks' estimate (and change of estimate). What are you trying to get into the article that isn't already there? — Mike : tlk 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to an earlier argument, I believe at this point with numerous sources discussing the actual debate of attendance figures that the statement on the front page "While there are conflicting appraisals among activists,..." does not violate WP:UNDUE because it does not give weight to minute minorities. Until we have some sort of official estimate put out by an independent reliable source, I believe the Intro to be fine. Removing the attendance figure altogether from the Intro and just saying that it is disputed is also agreeable to me. We can then cite all our reliable sources in the subsection for Attendance. I believe FreedomWorks is one of the sources that needs to be cited since they did some actual research. So what if it's partisan? Just balance it for a NPOV. What I will not approve of is the assertion that one spokesman's opinion is more valid than any other "spokesman", especially since the person in question cannot give that estimate as a belief of the organization. Yes, the media INITIALLY reported the DC Fire estimate as official, but now we know it is not. Bias is prevalent on both ends of the spectrum on this talk page. I believe in finding the truth, but Wikipedia believes in finding RS. I also believe, however, that the truth will emerge in future RS, uniting us all under one happy umbrella. --Triadian (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing the unoffical estimate. this should be removed immediately. it is UNOFFICIAL and picked up by news organizations as official, the moment it was found to be unofficial it should have been removed. And actually if you review other march article from after the park service stopped estimating attendance, the attendance estimates are from organizers sometimes with notes abotu the bias they might or might not have. Please consider using the freedomwork estimate. see million moms march and million more men march.Solarguy17 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. What matters is what reliable sources say about the attendance. And they say 60,000-75,000+ (more or less) or "tens of thousands". Seriously, let it go; the mainstream press was very consistent about their numbers and the only sources claiming over 100,000 are fringe sources. Samboy (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote: It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. (wow this is the worst statement I have read here) fox isnt saying 75000....not all mainstream media is. just liberal. read this article, this is very interesting in regards to the idea of how high the population there was. it wont count for RS but it makes more since then anythign else I read. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/ Solarguy17 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The number attendees in the lead comes from The Wall Street Journal. Do you feel the WSJ is a biased, unreliable source? Samboy (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

i think they are reporting the commmonly report number which has now been proven to be unofficially said to a reporter by a PR for the WDCFD. There is a reason the government agencies dont estimate crowd size now and this is one. Most of the media is reporting this number becuase it was orginally thought to be an official estimate. I think the WSJ is just following the lead of other, but it is clear to many people that there are way more people in DC then the 75000. Im not putting in forward a RS but read the article I posted above and the writer does a very good througough job going through the estimates. I think the number needs removed from the lead since it isnt from an RS (unoffical report from the FD is not RS) if everyone quotes that PR Guy, that doesnt make the number true simply becuase it is from a supposed RS. I recommend using the organizing groups offical number (similar to other articles) or remove the attendance fromt he lead completely (other article have no attendance figures in the lead) and lead the attendence controvery section below.Solarguy17 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source and to claim something they reported is inaccurate without other reliable sources to back your claim up is original research. Samboy (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Solarguy17's comment, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly said "tens of thousands" and "about 75,000", respectively. This has been debated ad nauseum. The issue has been resolved. APK say that you love me 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree per my argument above. I'll sum it up in a nutshell: I have proved that the Wall Street Journal article is NOT a reliable source. The article that you all are citing is dated SEPTEMBER 12. Many sources now published after SEPTEMBER 12 (including the two I have given) have shown that the article was published with unofficial information from the OPINION OF ONE MAN. Therefore, the figure given in the Wall Street Journal is not reliable since it a SINGLE MAN'S OPINION which is even rejected by the organization for which the man works. ABC News made a journalistic error TWICE, which is proven by sources and not my original research. Now, the debate is whether the line "While there are conflicting appraisals among activists,[3] the Public Information Officer of the D.C. Fire Department unofficially estimated the attendance of the event over 75,000 people.[1][4][3][5]" should even exist because it is just the OPINION of one man. There is such a thing as primary sources and secondary sources. When the secondary sources cite false primary sources that are proven false by other sources, it is by definition not reliable. --Triadian (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but no one is going to take someone seriously who claims the WSJ is not a reliable source. FreedomWorks itself cannot be cited as a source for their own event; we call that a conflict of interest, and they are doubly disqualified since they were caught lying about ABC reporting 1.5 million. There's really not much else to discuss on the subject; reliable sources report numbers in the 75,000 range, while unreliable and highly partisan sources from Pajamas Media to Freedomworks to RandomGuyWithABlog.com report eleventy kabillion. The Wikipedia will be going with the former. End of story. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to call criticism to my argument as ignorant, but here is the fact that many here are blatantly ignoring. I did not say THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is not a valid source. I said the article is not reliable. Look at what the Wall Street Journal's words are " A spokesman for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services estimated the crowd at 'in excess of 75,000' people. Local and federal law enforcement authorities don't provide crowd estimates. ". This is semi-false because it was an unofficial estimate made by a man who happened to be the spokesman. Point backed by [7] which cited Politfact: "Politifact, a nonpartisan journalistic fact-checking organization, checked in on Monday with Pete Piringer, public affairs officer for the DC Fire and Emergency Department. Piringer 'unofficially' estimated that between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up." Notice the internal quotation.

Quote further echoed by NPR [8] adding "It was in no way an official estimate".
Continuing with the Washington Times, [9] "But it turns out that no official organization, including the Park Police, Capitol Police or the fire department, put out an estimate of the crowd size" with no mention what-so-ever of Piringer's personal opinion.
Moving on to the LA Times [10], "Pete Piringer, a spokesman for the District of Columbia Fire Department, said he made an unofficial estimate of 60,000 to 70,000 at the beginning of the event."

With so much emphasis placed on the unofficial and opinionated part of the quote, THE ARGUMENT THAT NOBODY IS CHALLENGING is whether we should lead with this figure. It was the point brought up by Solarguy earlier in this section that was not properly challenged before this argument was deemed resolved: "the moment it was found to be unofficial it should have been removed". The 60-70 thousand number is from one man and has just as much authority as mine (if I were published), especially since all the reliable sources cited say this is so. Do we run into WP:POV "editorially neutral" problems with this? To give some quotes from the guide for discussion:

"...This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"
"However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included."
"..." 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"

And from WP:FRINGE:

"If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."
"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact"
"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources"

Answer Solar's question and we can close this properly. I'm doing this in good faith and I believe the insistence to close this debate is premature. Personally, I think it be more neutral if we just summarized the Attendance section with a range of figures from sources to put in the Intro instead of just starting with one guy's opinion. As a sidenote, the Heritage Foundation has come out with a scientific estimate range. I don't have the source yet. Also, if you choose to debate here, I ask that you please stay on topic, actually read what is being said, and don't jump to conclusions. The next time somebody says I'm advocating for the 1 million + estimates, I'm going to lose it. --Triadian (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, you just keep repeating yourself. As I said before: It doesn't matter whether the estimate was official or unofficial. What matters is what reliable sources say about the attendance. And they say 60,000-75,000+ (more or less) or "tens of thousands". Seriously, let it go; the mainstream press was very consistent about their numbers and the only sources claiming over 100,000 are fringe sources. Samboy (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For the love of God, are you even listening to me? I AM NOT MAKING THOSE ASCERTIONS! I prove it over and over again and you just deny it. You once again said I'm advocating putting up fringe sources and I HAVE NOT done that at all. Its like I say these apples are green and prove they are green, but you keep saying they are red and ending the debate in bad faith. I'm letting the facts speak for themselves. The SOURCES DO NOT support your analysis. If many reliable sources say there is no accurate count, then who are you to say that there is? You're forming conclusions based on nothing but misinterpretations of quotes. --Triadian (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you do not understand WP:NOR nor WP:V (those are links, click on them please). These are cornerstones and core rules for the Wikipedia. This discussion is closed; we can reopen it when and if you find reliable sources backing up your research. Samboy (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

so basically you dont care that the fact the 60,000-70,000 number came from one guy that had no authority or aibility to estimate the crowd and probably what happened was a local reporter asked me and he said unoffically its 60K-70K. The local reporter reported that then someone else picked it up and then it was picked up by MSNBC and CNN and then spread to new papers. The Orginal Source of this number is was is not a Reliabel Source. While MSNBC and CNN and FOX maybe RS, random PR guy for the DCFD is not. I think this statement should removed completely and maybe the statment just saying "for attendence figures plaease see the below section abotu attendance." Many other articles dont have the attendence in the lead or use the organzing group's estimate. I dont want it to say 1000000 or 500000, but rather be impartial and leave the attendance off and note it at the bottom. Maybe a summary list that say what various RS says the attendance was. We are trying to improve the article and you are clearly letting your POV skew your opinion regarding this. Solarguy17 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

also, I re-read the veriablity article and noted the following statement "Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included." this seems to be the case here.Solarguy17 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read both of those many times, as I have participated in discussions about them in a fair manner. Do not forget WP:NPOV either. I believe I have given ample reliable sources and I don't know why you don't believe the Washington Times, LA Times, NPR, and so on. I just believe the intro of the article can be misleading because of misquoting the sources that you are harking on. They say for themselves that the figure is irrelevant. Why can't we state the same as the sources? The debate had become whether we should lead with a biased figure without giving criticism until further down in the article, something which Wikipedia does not necessarily approve of. Nobody has given a single response to that aspect of the article I believe Solar's valid point has been ignored. --Triadian (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.