| Revision as of 01:06, 15 September 2009 editObserverNY (talk | contribs)2,560 editsm →Putting this issue to rest: more sources than you can shake a stick at← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:22, 19 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,315 editsNo edit summary |
| (491 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{notforum}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProject District of Columbia|class=Stub|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
{{DYK talk|18 September|2009|... that the ''']''' ''(pictured)'' was the largest demonstration against ] to date?}} |
|
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=Stub|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|DC=yes|DC-importance=Low|UShistory=y |UShistory-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|auto=Inherit|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low|Social movements=y}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Signage section== |
|
== Merge to Tea Party protests == |
|
|
|
The current version makes it sound like the signs had nothing but crazy/conspiracy related messages. I was at the event and can assure that the strong majority of signs were on sound policy ground, and pictures of the event verify that. I have added the POV-section template. ] (]) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
This is well-written and well-sourced but I recommend merging it into ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] dealing with protests in Washington, D.C. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] ] 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ] article. Making this a separate article, just because ] permits us to is not necessarily good judgment. A recent example of this is ]. I would wager that for every source that reports on this protest, there are 100 that reported on the "you lie" comment. ] 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Well, I disagree for reasons already mentioned. But I'll expand the article to resolve the stub issue. ] ] 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Ok. . This should provide more material distinct from the existing stuff. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== personal reminder(s) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Possible sources - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , <br /> |
|
|
] ] 13:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In case someone tries to readd the . ] ] 16:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Against Obama?== |
|
|
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 (] (]) 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. ] ] 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==912 Project== |
|
|
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. ] (]) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: This is mentioned in ], but keep in mind that the "9 12 Project" has not received much media attention. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Other Protests== |
|
|
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). ] (]) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: ] 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. ] (]) 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'? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Crowd Size== |
|
|
{{resolved|The issue has been resolved. ]}} |
|
|
{{archivetop}} |
|
|
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: . Personally, I don't see any ] supporting this number; I don't feel the Daily Mail is a ] because they have lost some high-profile libel cases where they flat out admitted their newspaper published patent nonsense: ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: statement from ABC News explains what happened. ] ] 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This link looks like a ] discussing the people exaggerating the crowd size. Should we mention the exaggerated attendance numbers in this article? ] (]) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK, I've added a section about the crowd size estimates. ] (]) 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"). ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::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 , , and 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 . 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 ], this discussion is pointless. Marking as resolved. (P.S. To the IP, welcome to Misplaced Pages. I suggest you read the site's policies before editing an article.) ] ] 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. ] (]) 00:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 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 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you can find a ] 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. ] ] 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. ] (]) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::But you'll have no problem with '']'' links, right? ] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::: 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. and . 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... — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::] Misplaced Pages 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 ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 12:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Bollucks. The does not state where they got their 1,000,000 number from, and ], as I have already pointed out. ] (]) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
to 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 ] to use the outlier, regardless of what various editors feel that photos show. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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). ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
:: 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 ]. Michelle Malkin , 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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 Misplaced Pages policy on a situation where the reliable sources are obviously wrong? ] (]) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The policy is ]. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, regardless of what you may believe the truth to be. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You're saying 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 , 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. ] (]) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:], ], and ]. Please understand Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines. ] (]) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think we all understand the rules. But it's frustrating. Who needs an encyclopedia with false information? ] (]) 21:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archivebottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge? == |
|
|
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. ] (]) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Read my reply the first time this was proposed. ] ] 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 60,000-70,000 or 75,000+ == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have found two reliable sources quoting the DC fire department on the crowd size. In we get 'A spokesman for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services estimated the crowd at "in excess of 75,000" people.', but in 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? ] (]) 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"''. 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 ] of ] is also the boss of ], it is very much in their best interest to be as generous with their estimate as possible. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::How about "Washington, DC Fire Department estimations range from 60,000 to 75,000 or more"? ] (]) 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"''. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've updated the article; this sounds reasonable. ] (]) 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?] (]) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Looking at the (image of just one of the roads, not the center grounds) and compare it to the (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). ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
:::::], ], and ]. Please understand Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
::::::: Why does it seem inaccurate? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
::::::::: I'm a big college football fan, and I was in ] 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 ]). 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). — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] (]) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: 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 ], your image is not comparable to a satellite photo, and a blog written by a protest attendee is not a ]. 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 ] are claiming at this crowd was comparable or exceeding the Obama Inauguration (''based on ] 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 ]'s ]. How much more objective can we get? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
::::::: 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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, ] points out that secondary sources are actually better. As a Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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"? ] (]) 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 ] line. ] (]) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::There's no way that Michelle Malkin's blog is a ], 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 ]. 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? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] (]) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::: It's not a matter of you or me accepting Malkin's blog or not accepting it. ] 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 ]'''. 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 ] 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 ] become part of what conservatives refer to as the "mainstream media"? The paper is, as I'm sure you know, owned and operated by ] (just like ]) and they generally report on issues from a conservative standpoint (i.e., ] 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Putting this issue to rest: more sources than you can shake a stick at === |
|
|
* The ]-winning, non-partisan ] has about how many of these pictures we're seeing are not actually of the event on Saturday. In some of them, cranes near the ] are visible, which were last up in 1990 to install the IMAX theater equipment. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The admittedly partisan ] makes a good point when he says that a turnout of a million or ]'s TWO million would have been self-evident. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ]'s Max Fisher points out that two thirds of the mall writes<blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''NPR''''s Allison Keyes, who was at the event to report on it, . |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Fox News''' - |
|
|
|
|
|
* . You can see that the National Mall is far from Packed, even including the Black Family Reunion who is also on The Mall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
— <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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. ] (]) 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Made an attempt to give representation to rational protest signs in addition to the more obtuse ones. ] (]) 19:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
: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 . 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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== removing POV tag with no active discussion per ] == |
|
::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: The Examiner also states '''THERE WERE NO ARRESTS!''' DC Police presence was minimal. For God's sake, it was probably 60% senior citizens!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at ]: |
|
::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. ] (]) 00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
|
|
|
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever: |
|
|
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved |
|
|
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given |
|
|
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- ] (]) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
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. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>0:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
: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. ] (]) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
== Verifiability, not truth == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
From ]: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a ]. 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." |
|
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922172005/http://washingtonindependent.com/59109/beltway-conservatives-comb-tea-party-movement-for-converts to http://washingtonindependent.com/59109/beltway-conservatives-comb-tea-party-movement-for-converts |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711163437/http://www.heralddemocrat.com/hd/News/2009_09-15_news_Taxpayer-March-on-Washington to http://www.heralddemocrat.com/hd/News/2009_09-15_news_Taxpayer-March-on-Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
Even if the truth is more than a million, we have to use what is verifiable from reliable sources and we can't give ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
Second point: the Daily Mail IS a reliable source - Here's what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says: |
|
|
{{cquote|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. ] (]) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: Daily Mail may be using . It appears that ] is , so one would wonder if the Daily News is doing something similarly dubious. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 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 . 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. ] (]) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
Another policy that applies is ]: "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. ] (]) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
The current version makes it sound like the signs had nothing but crazy/conspiracy related messages. I was at the event and can assure that the strong majority of signs were on sound policy ground, and pictures of the event verify that. I have added the POV-section template. BS24 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
