Talk:Restoring Honor rally/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Crowd Controversies

As the uninvolved admin who protected this page I would like to stay that way. Therefore, I woud like to point the editors here to two other articles on Wikipedia concerning crowd size controversies, those are President Obama's Inauguration and the Million Man March. I think if you look at both of those articles you will get an idea about WP:WEIGHT. --WGFinley (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the trouble with the comparison to the Obama one is it has an estimate from the authorities which gets stated first and clearly before mentioning this Doig guy and intentionally includes a sentence to try and make him contradict himself on it being the largest gathering.

Here all we have is Doig, and many different news estimates. The problem is we are giving undue weight to the CBS figures whilst compacting all other news organisations estimates into a single paragraph, it does not seem fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If BritishWatcher was more familiar with the facts we would be less delayed in reaching consensus. The statement "Here all we have is Doig" is false: besides "this Doig guy" we have Shuler.

What more can be said about the unscientific estimates beyond what citations allow? They're lacking in depth, nuance and explained method. The result? An unavoidably short and compact paragraph. (BritishWatcher should be more careful, we have no idea how many Doig believes were at the was at the LBJ inauguration in making his comparison) Also there is a lot of Talk To the Hand use of argument by doing nothing more that citing shorcuts to Wiki policies. Could someone explain, not assert, how WP:WEIGHT wants us to treat all sources as equal? I thought they were referring to giving proportional treatment to different viewpoints. Am I missing something? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but if RSs devote (say) 20% of their coverage to crowd size issue, we should also devote 20% of our article to that issue. It's a hard thing to determine, of course, leaving us with consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting it. "RS's"? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Reliable Sources. Got it.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"I thought they were referring to giving proportional treatment to different viewpoints." - Exactly, we should give proportional treatment to the different estimates by different sources. At the moment we do not. We give a whole paragraph to two sources, and then jam everyone elses estimates into a single smaller paragraph. It is certainly undue weight to the CBS figures when treating other news organisations completely differently. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I was saying look at how much space in the articles of those events is dedicated to the crowd size issue. i would also note neither of them states all the various sources and neither of them has a table listing all the various sources. It would seem the crowd size issue as a whole is receiving undue weight in the article. Specifically from WP:WEIGHT:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

To be honest I think you could cover this issue with one sentence but the other articles had a paragraph or two (in MMM it was needed as a legislative change came about because of the issue). Neither consumed a good portion of the article like this one does. --WGFinley (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I could deal with deleting the table as long as all the estimates are reported in a crowd section. BS24 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Exactly, and going into detail about how someone arrived at their number is less significant to the subject than reporting crowd size. The section could look as simple as the following example.

Crowd size reports varied among media outlets. AirPhotosLive.com reported 87,000, with a statistical error +/− 9,000, via CBS, Doig reported 80,000 via CBS, Fox News reported thousands, Associated press reported tens of thousands, NBC Nightly News reported tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, ABC News reported hundreds of thousands, New York Post reported 300,000, Washington Examiner reported well into six figures, an unnamed NPS official reported 300,000–325,000 via NBC news, and MSNBC reported tens of thousands.

Akerans (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLUE

"The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea."

Any proposal that reduces the size of this section is an improvement, IMO. †TE†Talk 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep going. But I will try to stay out of this as this article needs an uninvolved admin. --WGFinley (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have reliable sources challenging the unscientific estimates being given "equal weight" to guesses. This edit also denies the existence of controversy not coming from fringe elements. The controversy is indeed an "aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not over-citing to make a point, so blue doesn't apply. I added example cites to show what the 10 different pieces of information would look like cited. It would look like the example above, or like the example below. I thought it looked cleaner to put cites at the end, but either way will work.

Crowd size reports varied among media outlets. AirPhotosLive.com reported 87,000, with a statistical error +/− 9,000, via CBS, Doig reported 80,000 via CBS, Fox News reported thousands, Associated press reported tens of thousands, NBC Nightly News reported tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, ABC News reported hundreds of thousands, New York Post reported 300,000, Washington Examiner reported well into six figures, an unnamed NPS official reported 300,000–325,000 via NBC news, and MSNBC reported tens of thousands.

There are more numbers, and commentary that can be added. Not sure what more WGFinley is looking for when he suggests to keep going. Akerans (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For more gentle direction from WGFinley, have a look at this section: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies with regard Beck's Mormonism

Mormonism section is bloated and irrelevant

I added an off topic template to the "Concern about Beck's Mormonism" section because it doesn't belong here. It really belongs on Glenn Beck's own page. This controversy should get a sentence or no more than a paragraph on this article, let alone a huge section. Thoughts? BS24 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the inclusionists will happily agree :) (j/k) --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, I am not sure how you find it to be "off topic", when all of the sources were written in response to this rally. The reality is that the "restoring honor" rally carried a heavy religious component, and Beck continually referenced "God" throughout the event, thus yes it is relevant if some of those same evangelicals who Beck was appealing to, are now questioning his God based revival, since a good number of them carry the belief that Beck's God, is not the same as their God. As to your statement that it belongs on Beck's page, I agree that a section discussing Beck's religious views and the public reception to them - belongs on his page as well, however his biographical article is on his entire life up to this point, and much of this Evangelical opposition to Beck's Mormonism is very recent and has taken place as a result of this rally (where Beck made his religious beliefs a central theme). As for shortening the section, I agree that it could be trimmed as well, and believe that as more information on the matter comes out, perhaps the overall narrative might change. However, what is present currently, are what the printed sources are saying at the moment.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, I have tried to shorten the section some, adjusted the sub-title to "Theological concern about Beck's Mormonism", removed the poll, and made sure that all of the references and comments are directly related to Beck and this specific rally. I also removed the off-topic tag, however if you disagree with me, please re-add the off topic tag and explain here how any of the remaining section is "off-topic". I don't believe any of it is, it seems that you are making more of an WP:Undue argument, than an off topic one – (although I would dispute that charge as well).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy that arose after the rally is notable and relevant to this article. But I don't think several paragraphs of debate belong in this particular article. The section would be perfect by itself in Glenn Beck's article. Concerns about Sarah Palin's ability to govern arose as a result of her being chosen as the VP nominee, but does that mean a big section about those concerns belongs on the 2008 Republican convention page? No, because event pages should cover the event itself. That's probably not the best example but it's the best I can think of at the moment. I have no objections to the section itself, just to the location of the section. All we need is a simple sentence or two saying, "Theological concerns about Beck's personal religion, Mormomism, arose as a result of the religious nature of the rally." I'm replacing the template for now per further discussion. BS24 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, all of these references and statements were in reference to the rally itself. Nearly every sentence in the section mentions the rally, or is in response to the rally specifically. How is it specifically not "relevant" or off-topic? The "on-topic(ness)" seems pretty clear. Furthermore, those "paragraphs of debate" are in relation to Beck taking such a new religious role at the rally, these criticisms weren't there for Beck when he was simply a radio host or political commentator. In fact, many of these evangelicals couch their statements by saying that they agree with Beck on everything politically, their concern just arose out of his new desire to lead a religious revival and bring people to "God".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have further trimmed down the section with the hopes of being more targeted with specificity to this particular rally. All of the remaining statements are in direct relevance to this rally, and I lessened the long quote on some of the theological specifics. BS24, let me know what you think and if you still find it "bloated" or "off-topic"? As you can see from the discussion below, Hodgson also finds the section relevant to the article and offers additional points of emphasis with an array of sources to corroborate his (+ my) view.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The version as it is in this locked state is alright with me. Any information should pertain directly to the rally. It's good that it's now in a subsection. BS24 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, good - I am glad that we could reach a compromise :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

The fact that Beck is a Mormon is his personal business and the section on his Mormonism is a WP:BLP violation. He does not bear the burden of the world's bias for or against Mormonism. This entire section and any criticism of him based on his religion should be removed.Malke2010 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean "he does not bear the burden of the world's bias for or against Mormonism"? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Fixed it. But of course, the way it reads right now, it does appear someone thinks he bears the burden. Malke2010 20:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody will respond, but I've posted a notice here: wp:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn Beck's Mormonism.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke,

(a) The fact that Beck is Mormon is not his "personal business" in relation to composing biographical articles on his life and religious events. Beck has also produced his own DVD for sale on Amazon entitled Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck and openly speaks about himself being a Mormon repeatedly on National television. It isn't like this is a secret he is trying to hide. Nor does Wikipedia concern ourselves with withholding (or censoring) reliable public information as it relates to notable individuals. We do not concern ourselves with the “privacy” of public individuals - see WP:Censor

(b) The section is clearly not a WP:BLP violation. The section is merely the cited comments of certain evangelical Christians in magazines and on websites that have commented on the matter. In no way does it slander or make false accusations against Beck.

(c) Of course Beck doesn't "bear the burden" of anti-Mormon sentiments in America, however they do exist and have arisen as a result of him holding a public religious-themed rally, where he openly spoke of God and one's duty to "get behind the shield of God", thus naturally, people will ask the question, well which "God" is Beck referring to when mentions his own personal relationship with God? Well, according to a sizable minority (near majority) of Evangelical Christians, the God that Mormon's pray to, in their view, is not the same God that Christians pray to. I actually don't have a personal opinion on the matter, nor does it matter what I or any other editor here thinks on the matter. What is important is what the sources say people think.

(d) Wikipedia does not have a policy saying that "any criticism of someone for their religion should be removed from their page". In the case of Beck, he has made religion a central theme of his show and speaks on religious matters daily to millions of people. By doing this, he has made his religion a relevant matter, per the sources. Moreover, the utilized sources have all come out since the rally, and are in response to the rally having taken place.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is a violation of WP:BLP. It is grossly anti-Mormon and should be deleted. This is a personal attack on the man, using his religion.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply shouting "BLP violation" without specifics, doesn't make it so. I'm not sure at this point from your comments, that you even understand how WP:BLP works.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I understand enough to know that using the man's religion is a very low stoop to be standing on.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well take that up with Mark Caleb Smith - director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University, Russell Moore - dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Brannon Howse - a professional organizer of Christian conferences, Breakpoint's Diane Singer, Warren Cole Smith - associate publisher of the Christian-themed World magazine, and The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer. Our threshold is WP:Verify, not religious sensitivity.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The section could be trimmed but it isn't a blp vio, IMO.

Let me approach my thinking by way of analogy. Wikipedi's touching on controversies about Steven Spielberg's Jewishness--or Lex Hixon's being a Muslim or such new religions practitioners as Greta Van Susteren in her Scientology beliefs or author Richard Bach in his Christian Science beliefs--in their bios or another article may easily veer into vios of BLP policy: Why use Spielberg's biography to point out the theological differences between Judaism and other faiths? (etc.) But, in this case, the Restoring Honor rally answers that question because these several evangelical thelogical conservatives don't directly criticize Beck's faith so much as they criticize fellow evangelicals' taking part in a religious revival with him. (Such criticisms would analogously relate to whether evangelicals should join in explicitly religious enterprises with professed evangelicals such as Pentacostals who might include theological interpretations that some of these critics don't take to be part and parcel of Christian evangelical faiths, as well.) The bottom line is, if there are Wikipedia articles about religious events popular specifically with evangelicals yet headlined by somebody not of that faith, mention of the contrast between the headliner's and evangelicals' beliefs, as this becomes part of the commentary about that event from such sources as the NYT, WSJ, high-brow opinion journals, well-known religious publications, and so on, becomes notable within that context, rather than its just serving as a hook to hang general kvetching about the individual's non- Christian-evangelical status.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hodgson, you are exactly right.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They are making bigoted statements about this man's religion in order to discredit him with his followers who may or may not be Christian. Repeating these attacks here is a violation of WP:BLP.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you are welcome to your own opinion, unfortunately for you, it isn't backed up by Wikipedia policies. In addition, most of the people cited are "his followers" politically, and even state how they agree with Beck on everything but the theology of his chosen religion. Repeating "factually true" attacks is not in violation of BLP (true as in they took place, not that the particular criticism is true, we as editors do not concern ourselves with ---> WP:Truth). Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is our guideline, as Hodgson accurately reiterated to you above.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the Mormon section isn't Notable. His religion isn't irrelevant solely based on it being his religion. It's irrelevant because it didn't affect the event. A few people with sound bytes saying they were worried about the direction his event could take doesn't mean there was a huge concern that affected attendance. Kennedy's Catholicism or both Obama's "Christlam" are Notable because they affected the voting percentages. If a major religious figure would have forbidden his followers from attending, or found out about a legion of busses attending and cancelled their trip, that would be Notable. But I just can't see a PoliSci professor (even I've taught at a college), a guy at a seminary (I've taught at a seminary too), or some guy who organizes a competing conference, each making comments on how the event is ironic or potentially of concern, is of itself Notable.--Mrcolj (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrcolj, all of the sources utilized were released "after the event" so your first point is irrelevant. None of these individuals were "concerned at the direction that the event could take", because they all were commenting after the event had taken place. If you missed such an obvious distinction of the section, then I am not sure on how seriously you even read a section that you are claiming isn't "notable". As for what you've done, that is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. With relation to notability, those commenting have done so in the usual publications, sources, and websites that would deal with matters related to the theology or Christianity. These are not random or anonymous people commenting on their own personal websites.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So this standoff comes down to four people who think it's off-topic, and you who think it's on-topic. I could defend myself point-by-point again, but you know our opinion and we know yours. Only one of the quotes grammatically states that it was after the event, what I've done is terribly relevant since I was demonstrating that these people's ranks aren't, and you've dropped into ad hominem. But again that whole preceding sentence won't do any good. And despite my being active on the wikipedia for nine years now, I don't know the protocol for how to resolve these things. The vote is obviously 4 to 1 right now, and that should be enough to drop the section.--Mrcolj (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mrcolj, interesting, where to start. (1) I'm not sure about your counting, but it looks to be 2-2 in this section in relation to be it being a "BLP violation", as Hodgson's comment up above actually argues that it is not a BLP violation (once again are you actually even reading, or merely commenting?). At most I guess you could claim 3-2 if you include the additional section above, however BS24 wants the section relocated to Beck's article rather than here (a different issue), while Malke seems to want any mention of Beck even being Mormon deleted, and you offered some convoluted argument dealing with notability and the lack of pre-event skepticism, despite the fact that all of the articles were post-event and in the "post-rally" section. (2) Nevertheless, Wiki is not a WP:Democracy, and it wouldn't necessarily matter what the tally was, 3-2 is not WP:Consensus for anything. In addition, If you have been on Wikipedia for 9 years as you state, then you should realize that the most likely solution is to first be specific with Wiki policy and determine if those that want it removed have a procedural basis for doing so, or if it is a case of WP:Idontlikeit.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There being some dichotomy between Beck's minority faith or belief and that of those ascribing to more common faiths among those in Beck's conservative fan base is quite plainly part of the dynamic of the event and of the story told in the sources; and, per wp:Manual of Style (summary style), if we were so inclined we could source a whole article on the question, leaving just an introductory overview in the present article about Beck's rally. (By the way, Beck's denomination is comparatively tiny (according to Pew survey, 1.7% of the US say they are Mormon) whereas lots of Americans say they are evangelical Christian (26.3%). Let's add in the Mainline Protestant Christians (18.1%), Christian adherents of historically black churches (6.9%), Roman Catholic Christians (23.9%), Eastern Orthodox Christians (0.6%), and total all of the foregoing with the tiny slice of remaining self-professed Christians in the U.S. until we've got a fairly large percentage of United States professing a faith that would lead them to affirm the theological sentiments expressed in the hymn "Amazing Grace.") Still, that Beck is Mormon and many in his audience are conservative Evangelicals/other conservative Christians and the tensions this theological contrast entails has been widely noted in the press.

Where? Well, the Mormon press has soft pedaled it some. Still, the official point man for public affairs for the Mormon Church said this. Jews? well, Tikkun said this (among a host of other commentators who are Jewish, of course). Practicing Catholics? Well, The American Catholic said this and NYT's Ross Douthat said this (among other commentators that happen to be Catholic). Religious, Protestant journalists? Well, how about the following posts from The Christian Post, Christianity Today, Black Christian News, Christian Broadcasting Network, First Things, Get Religion, Associated Baptist Press, Christian News Wire, Cross Walk, and on and on and on.

Secular news? Time, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Week, Mediaite....--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentary by Sarah Posner (Religion Dispatches), Chris Good (The Atlantic Wire), Goldberg (National Review Online), Zaitchik (The New Republic), another Goldberg (this time Michelle, The Daily Beast), Ben Smith (Politico), and history prof/weblog(co-)master Paul Harvey (Religion in American History)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And...a link farm at Mormon Chronicles?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And, the Rev. Jim Garlow's web posting (evangelical-Christian Beck-rally participant; at To Renew America). Plus, D. Sirmize commentary (at a Mormon blog The Millennial Star), Christopher Jones essay (a Mormon pursuing a PhD in early American history, published at Religion in American History), McKay Coppin's piece (a Mormon journalist; in Newsweek)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I agree Hodgson. The relevance is clear, as is the ability to cite WP:Reliable sources for notability.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's no Wiki policy that supports this kind of thing. It could be that criticizing Mormons has a low priority effect on the general population of the world and that is why there isn't a bigger outcry here. So stand back for a moment, and substitute another religion like Muslim for Mormon. Or Jew, or Catholic, or Buddhist. Or your own religion, or your own core beliefs. I guarantee you, you'll see this in a different light. If this section remains, I think it's a sad day for Wikipedia.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke, there is plenty of Wiki policy that supports "this kind of thing", and no Wiki policy that prohibits it. Additionally, Religion is not a "sacred" topic on Wikipedia above reproach, critical analysis, or criticism. Below are some current articles on Wikipedia:

(Mormon) Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mormon sacred texts, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr., (Christian) Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Christian doctrine, Criticism of the Bible, Christianity and slavery, Christian terrorism, Christian evangelist scandals, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Catholicism, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Moses, Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, (Judaism) Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Judaism and violence, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Zionism, (Islam) Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of Islamism, Islam and domestic violence, Islamic terrorism etc etc.

Does that make it a "sad day for Wikipedia"? Well I guess that is up to each individual editor to decide. As for the relevance to this section, Beck held a rally with 100-300,000 people where God played a central theme, thus of course it is relevant what "God" he himself subscribes to and the fact that many of his conservative political allies after the rally are becoming concerned with him being Mormon (as they don't view his faith as part of orthodox Christianity). These issues are just facts, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to censor or scrub referenced ideas from reliable sources, regardless of the fact that some editors (such as yourself in this instance) are personally offended by the conclusions of those individuals cited. Now if you simply just don't like the section, then your objection has been noted, but there really isn't anything left to debate.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hodgson, per your suggestion, I have tried to trim the section somewhat, and target the comments for direct relevancy to the rally and Beck. Let me know what you think.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, Redthoreau. Of course, a percentage of the links I listed above mention their own variations of Russell Moore's "civil religion" critique-- which you took out, leaving twenty people who mention over and over again the straight-up "Beck is a Mormon and we're not" critique. It would represent the breadth of the commentary out there more accurately to include Moore or another person who references concern about civil religion but then shorten some of the rest of the section.

Come to think of it, another section of the article includes a lot of people criticizing Beck for hijacking MLK's message. There also I would include a sampling of the principal or most characteristic instances and delete the rest (if I had that much interest in researching that type of commentary to touch that particular section, which I don't...).Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked up Palin's WP coverage and here is talk of her religion: Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Religion_in_public_life. I think if we're just going to give a quick "one-two" on something of this nature, something about the length/depth given for Palin is about right, I suppose. However, if we were to source a deeper analysis about issues pertaining to a particular opinion leader's religious beliefs, then we would obviously end up with something a bit more substantial than that. What we've included so far in the Beck section doesn't go that deep. So, as I've said already, maybe commentators that say the same thing could have their position combined and summarized.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is where Obama's religion is discussed on WP: Public_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, previously the article had the diplomatic, modulated words of Richard Land to PBS, from an interview after the rally, where Land said that charitably, Mormonism could be considered a fourth Abrahamic religion, before Land went on to express his opinion that Beck's words at the rally were more than acceptable to evangelical Christians. However, this was deleted once, then I returned it, and then it was deleted again. There is simiply a harshness of tone in LDS ears of "You're not Christian!," a la Bill Keller. And the substance and tone of Land's remarks (he's the SBC's point man for interactions with public officials and with other faiths) have a bit more nuance and depth and work more toward interfaith understanding--i.e., are more "encyclopedia friendly"--than are more typical theological statements by evangelicals offered primarily for an audience of fellow evangelicals.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All Things Considered, August 30, 2010

[SBC's Dr. Richard Land]:       ... We had rabbis praying. We had Catholic priests praying. We had Muslim imams praying and participating. We had Protestant Christians. And he kept saying over and over again: This is not a political event, and politics is not the answer. The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person; one family; one church, mosque, synagogue, temple and one community at a time. ... There were lots of differences of religion that were present at the rally. I mean, you know, you had Jewish rabbis and as you can imagine, I would have some differences of opinion with Jewish rabbis, and with Muslims and with Catholics. ...

[NPR's Robert Siegel]:       Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Is that brand of Christianity as distant, or more so, from yours than the National Council of Churches mainline Protestantism you----

[Land]:       Probably more so.

[Siegel]:       More so.

[Land]:       And look, Glenn knows this. He said, "Look, I'm a Mormon. Most Christians don't think that I'm a Christian; and so, you know, I'll quote the pope, when he's talking about liberation theology." I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hodgson, now that you have adapted the sectional sub-title, I think that Land's remarks of a "4th Abrahamic faith" should be re-added. What was difficult is that editors wanted trimming per WP:Undue, but by trimming, some of the context and counter arguments were lost. I think now that you have broadened the scope that Land would fit nicely as a counterpoint to those Evangelicals that deny this "4th" status. I also think it would be nice if you added Land to the section and trimmed what you see fit. Of note as well, I wanted to publicly thank you for your WP:Collaboration and efforts to work together. Your behavior and effort exemplifies what makes Wikipedia great.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, probably my ego was just bruised to have my Dr. Land quote deleted twice in favor of other quotes. Because, now that I re-read the section, the current quotes are pretty balanced and don't go too far into making Wikipedia seem to endorse any particular theological view.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size section trimming

In place of reptitious detailing of crowd size estimates, I used a reliable summation of the estimates range. This greatly reduced the length of the section without loss of content, meaning or NPOV while using a reliable source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trimming is fine, wholesale removal is not. I disagree with leaving 3 mentions there, when almost every mainstream source had something to say on the matter. Akerans (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source to say "almost every mainstream source had something to say on the matter" without us interjecting our analysis, that would improve the article (I also will try to find such a source, but time doesn't allow at the moment). But citation overkill is far worse than the Calderone's useful summation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that was the point of including the ref from Yahoo News (since they mention the various figures coming from other outlets). So perhaps we just need to touch up the text surrounding that ref to include the figures themselves? It would still be considerably more concise that way than it is currently. That source doubles as a ref for the fact that the parks service no longer does crowd estimates, officially (in light of the one employee being quoted in numerous articles). Millahnna (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The table is still there, it gives most if not all of the estimates previously mentioned in the section, which was mostly just summing those numbers up anyway? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) — 87.208.166.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The crowd size is summed up in the lead. If all we're going to do is restate the lead sentence in the body of the article, then what's the point of having the section? At that point, we should remove the section and leave the table. Otherwise, it's undue for CBS to be the only named source in the section. Akerans (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead's relevant line "The attendance of the rally is disputed; various media outlets have reported numbers ranging from 87,000 to 500,000 or more" is hardly adequate, as suggested. The lead is supposed to sum up the articles content, but not go into to detail or nuances of the estimates. That is the job of the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The CBS numbers are notable because they're the only ones made by professional crowd estimate experts. The other numbers are indeed given in the section, only more summarized than naming them all individually in one block of text, and still it's not difficult to look over to the table right next to it to see the estimates by the different news sources to see them all more specifically. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) — 87.208.166.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"[M]ost news organizations", "[s]ome media outlets", and "[o]thers went with" is not detailed, despite the suggestion. The quote is nothing more than a longer version of the lead sentence, as it doesn't detail which media outlet said what. Since the table provides detail, the quote is irrelevant. However, I believe the information should be presented in prose format. If people want a table in addition to the prose, then that's fine. But, I fail to see how a long summary in the body is any different from a short summary in the lead. Like you said, it should be detailed, but a long summary is not detailed. Akerans (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

87.208.166.234, all mainstream news sources are considered reliable. We don't judge the content of their articles and decide one source is more reliable than another. That's the point of weight. Weight says we give each source their due weight, and don't give a particular source, in this case CBS, undue weight. Akerans (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akerans, that edit violates WP:UNDUE. Consensus is to keep it the way it is. There are a bunch of sections where you keep pleading to only treat CBS's is credible that it makes me wonder of a conflict of interest. Every time consensus is against you and you keep doing it. BS24 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please - you know very well at no time was a "consensus against" 87.208.166.234, in contrary. And by the way, a "conflict of interest" is something different. For example, hypothetically, if you like Beck and want to support him, but you know from some other source that Beck reports wrong crowd numbers, then you have an conflict of interest between the truth and supporting Beck. But if you hypothetically work for for CBS knowing to report the correct numbers, then then there is no conflict of interest. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to argue, just report me or let it go okay? I don't work for CBS or airphotoslive.com or whatever. I'm just trying to make the section more accurate and shorter. At least two people agree with me on the CBS thing, so I don't know why me doing so is so very suspicious. And again, I'm not saying only CBS is credible, but they're the only ones with a professional estimate, which is certainly notable. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And, it's included in the article that CBS is using a professional estimate. Now, it's up to the reader to look at the details and decide which source is best for the information. However, editors don't get to make that choice. We don't get to remove all the other material and lean the readers in CBS' direction. That's one of the core policies we have to follow when writing articles; we can't pick and choose information, we have to show everything. And I'm not aruging with you. I'm simply trying to help you understand the policy we have to follow (and reminding others at the same time, I hope). Akerans (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you were arguing with me, I was responding to BS24 who keeps semi-accusing me of working for CBS/airphotoslive.com. Once again, I'm not in favor of removing all other material. What I am in favor of is trying to shorten the section, and since we're not doing that, adding the CBS response to the IMO silly "bloggers have questioned" line, because adding conservative blogs criticism and then not adding the CBS explanation as to why this concern is unfounded is not neutral, and not showing all information like you're saying we should. 87.208.166.234 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound as if I was accusing you of accusing me of arguing. Rather, I was trying to make clear my intention of conveying policy, and not trying to start an argument. Sorry for the confusion. As far adding CBS' reply to the bloggers, I don't think that's necessary because I think the bloggers comment should be removed; because we're getting off topic. We're no longer talking about the rally, and instead talking about a dispute between CBS and bloggers. While that's somewhat related to the article, it's not directly related and should be removed. Akerans (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just see your comment now after having added the blogger comment again, sorry for that. I am also happy with removing it again, but since there is so a heated discussion, I think we all are on the safe side to include "everything". Said this, in my optioning, I would cut the section radically, but there seems to be no majority for that. But maybe a good way is to add everything now, and later, in some month, after everything has settled down a little bit, some experienced editor summarizes the section. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the AP estimate because we need to be consistent in avoiding indirect sources as we did with the NBC 500,000 estimate. BS24 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find any indications that AP is a indirect source. Have you a reference for your claim? Until then, the number has to be included. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit as it is right now does not include CBS responding to the bloggers who questioned the estimate, which they did in the new article linked some days ago. The bloggers questions seem unaddressed right now, which is misleading. Can someone please fix this already? Thanks! 87.208.166.234 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See AirPhotoLive.com above before restoring unsupported citation.69.224.150.70 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely ok with removing this blogger statement. But is it intentional that in your change you also removed the "refers to scientific methods based on aerial pictures"? I think it is important to note that they (claim to) use scientific methods, and this information is backed up by the reference http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html, which even claims to be "only scientific estimate made".82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is wasn't intentional. Therefore I added that part again and tried to find a better wording.82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the Crowd Section now.. It is very clear that the CBS estimate is given undue weight. There is a huge paragraph just on CBS, whilst other organisations get less than 1 sentence mentioned in the text. This needs to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To make your point, and be seen as a gainsayer, your obligated to explain how undue weight applies. (BTW. Have a look at this Wiki policy which sensibly reminds us "In the course of a disagreement on Wikipedia, participants may post links to policy and other pages in place of reasoned arguments. Such behavior is the Wikipedia equivalent of saying "talk to the hand". It is uncivil and inimical to the building of consensus. (This is in bold in hopes other given to this "talk to the hand" tactic catch it.) 69.224.150.70 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He did briefly explain the issue. There is one paragraph devoted to CBS, and one sentence for everyone else. To add to that, the information is no longer about "Restoring Honor crowd size". Rather, the paragraph is written as a "CBS vs whomever dispute". We're straying away from Restoring Honor, and should really stay on topic. I understand people feel the section is bloated. But, the wrong way of handling that is cutting directly related material and adding somewhat related material in its place. Directly related material should have precedence, and the somewhat related material (i.e. the dispute) should be removed to help reduce bloat. Not to mention, there seems to be a few self published sources added to help support the dispute material. So, if the dispute is going to be covered (and I don't think it should), it should not have precedence and we should be relying on much better sourcing. For example, one of the sources was a forum post (it may have been removed), and forum posts should never be used as sources. Akerans (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is "briefly." He gave no reasons why impressionistic speculations should be given equal weight to scientific methods. He wrongly said the paragraph relating to CBS only, as you do as well. (There are two scientific estimates here, the one of Shuler's that CBS used and Doig's). The source disputing AirPhotoLive has been misquoted, misrepresented as multiple, and shown to useless. Self published sources are acceptable per Wiki policy which states Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. As indicated above, I have a major beef with those who argue by shortcuts to policy that apparently they haven't read - add to that citations they haven't looked at either. 69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the material is "CBS only", I said the material is somewhat related. And, I did not say to exclude self published sources, I said they shouldn't have precedence over mainstream news sources and that we should be using better sourcing. The only source I said to exclude were forum posts, because user perhapsuwrupset is not an expert, and appears to have started the thread to discuss the numbers. I seriously hope you were not suggesting using that as a source. I'm disappointed in your selective reading of my comments, and the suggestion that I hadn't looked at the source I was saying to exclude. Akerans (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look closer at what you wrote: "There is one paragraph devoted to CBS" is contradicted more than somewhat by the toned down reinterpretation of the paragraph as "somewhat related." Also missed was that a third party reliable source was used to establish Doig's expertise, but more were just added to make it indisputable. What policy says "mainstream news sources" have precedence over other reliable sources, especially those of conjecture and opinion as opposed to scientific and impartial estimates which were very well reported by "mainstream news sources", e.g. CBS, LA Times, and On The Media? There are many sources for saying Beck partisans disputed the findings, but who among them is a reliable source who can actually critique the scientific findings on scientific grounds? Finally, since this wasn't clear, my quote of Wiki policy on self-published sources was directed at you, but the point about editors not reading citations was a more general complaint, and it was apparently misinterpreted. However, your sloppy and misleading retelling of your own statement obliges me to verify all you say before accepting it. Finally, since the article shows different viewpoints and estimates, what is in dispute? I really have no idea of what I am supposed to be arguing against, if anything.69.224.150.70 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I almost missed this, put aside how ever and why ever the position changed, "somewhat related" acknowledges that the weight argument is moot.69.224.150.70 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon

You're putting too much emphasis on certain statements instead of understanding the paragraph as a whole. I've corrected your misinterpretation once, and noted how you drew the incorrect conclusion. Continuing to focus on certain statements is not helping. So, please stop. That said. Verifiability is the policy to which I'm referring. Doig is not an academic in crowd numbers. Doig is a journalist, and as a journalist he lacks oversight and fact checking. Whereas, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, NY Times, etc., have oversight and fact checking. Whether his method is scientific or not is irrelevant, because that's not what governs our policy. Our policy is based on oversight and fact checking, not Doig's scientific method. You need to stop putting emphasis on his method over our policy. Ergo, he's not more reliable than mainstream news sources and should not have precedence. Also, you're misunderstanding weight. Weight basically says that related material is due space, somewhat related is due little (or no) space and unrelated is due no space. Yet, you're saying we should devote more space to people commenting on CBS, rather than groups commenting on the rally? Or that Doig is due the most space because of his method and/or credentials? No, that's wrong. Again, please start focusing on policy, and less on Doig. Akerans (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been misinformed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Akerans. BS24 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size section proposals

Proposal by 82.135.29.209

Estimates of size of the crowds
Photo of central swath of the crowds taken from the east side of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool
Varying numbers of participants reported
CBS News / AirPhotosLive.com *	87,000, statistical error +/− 9,000
ASU Prof. Steve Doig *	80,000
Fox News	Thousands
Associated Press	Tens of thousands
NBC Nightly News	Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
ABC News	Hundreds of thousands
New York Post	300,000 (Overflow crowd)
Washington Examiner	Well into six figures
NBC News	300,000–325,000: As attributed to an unnamed official
MSNBC	Tens of thousands
Glenn Beck	300,000–650,000
Michele Bachmann	1,000,000–1,600,000
* By methods as explained in sources. Not asterisked: Retrieved by various other, unknown means.

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons. The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000 AirPhotosLive "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000." Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000, including people under trees. CBS, explaining their method on their website, said that their work was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size.

NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an unidentified "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended. The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said there were "500,000" present.

Explanation/Other editors input

(1) I removed the first paragraph, because I think it does not contain relevant information.
(2) I summarized the CBS and Doig part to make it shorter. This includes replacing more detailed explanations of the method by adding a half-sentence referring to their website. (Again, it would be WP:Undue to remove this information.)
(3) Furthermore, in the text I removed all estimates which don't state numbers - both low and high numbers(!), no bias: The vague "well into fix figures" of The Washington Examiner, the vague "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands" of Lester Holt, "tens of thousands" of The Associated Press and MSNBC. But I kept all numbers in the box.
(4) In the box I changed "Calculated by" into "Retrieved by", because it is not known if the sources "calculated" the numbers. For example The Washington Examiner obviously didn't. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope still undue weight to the CBS estimate and its even worse without the first paragraph. No way i can support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you explain why you think this is undue weight? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, WP is not a research paper. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you explain what exactly is "researched"? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This removes several important estimates. BS24 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is of course arguable... but it is interesting that this argument from someone who wants to delete important information about the CBS estimate... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by BS24

According to the Wall Street Journal the crowd "packed nearly a mile of the National Mall." But the number of attendees is a "hotly contested" issue.

CBS News estimated 87,000 attended, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000" were there. The Washington Examiner said "photographic comparisons to past events suggested a crowd well into six figures." NBC News reporter Domenico Montanaro wrote on his Twitter account that an "official at top of memorial said 300-325K" were present. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt said "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands". ABC News reported over 100,000 people attended.The New York Post reported "an overflow crowd of 300,000 people". The Associated Press and MSNBC both said "tens of thousands" Professor Stephen Doig estimated 80,000. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough repeatedly said there were "500,000" present. The New York Times simply called the crowd "enormous".

Beck mocked the media's reporting of the crowd size at the rally, saying, "I have just gotten word from the media that there is over a thousand people here today." In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday the day after, he said between 300,000 and 650,000 attended.

Explanation/Other editors input

This version is simple reporting. It contains zero commentary or further explanations. If the reader wants to look more into each estimate the references are, of course, provided. It simply contains all serious estimates in an easy to read write up. The organization can be reworked and I wouldn't object to adding a mention of AirPhotosLive.com as per Dflock80's revision above. Thoughts? Thanks! BS24 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The table as written in this section is not mine, but the IP user's. BS24 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This suggested section has many problems and should be discarded. There is no point in saying "hotly contested", then to say nothing more about how, by whom (conservatives, without exception), and why it is contested (conservatives wanted to present the crowd as larger than unbiased estimates said it was). This is followed a citation dump. No mention is made of CBS claiming it offered the only scientific estimate is insufficient. And in spite of omitting everything about CBS's procedure, the unsourced estimate from the Washington Examiner details the minimal procedures to arrive at its estimates, i.e., they looked at photos. What photos, by whom, and how we have no idea. But we certainly do with CBS. This is very much UNDUE in practice. Perhaps the best reporting on the controversy from On The Media [2], which establishes that not all estimates are equal, and that the these controversies are endemic to large open gathering on the mall, is inexplicably ignored.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Issue on "hypocrisy"

The following sentence from the lead has one problem, emphasis mine.

Beck received criticism from some civil rights leaders, social justice advocates and media personalities, for both holding the event at the Lincoln Memorial, the location of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I Have A Dream" speech on its 47th anniversary, and for what they contend was the hypocrisy of Beck's theme with regards to his previous behavior.[1][8]

The problem is that there is no "they" for the supposed hypocrisy of Beck. On person called Beck a hypocrite, but for what is not exactly clear. A DC councilman Harry "Tommy" Thomas Jr. says this.

"This has been purposefully done — it is hypocrisy at its highest degree," he argues, calling it "just another tactic of divisive behavior to keep people apart."

The lead claims "previous behavior" without giving any clue as to what this supposed previous behavior is, and the only source which mentioned it isn't clear either. He is calling Beck a hypocrite for trying to be divisive normally, but trying to bring people together here, but that would imply that Beck is always trying to be divisive, which is clearly not the case. Regardless it is the opinion of one, undue weight for the lead, and doesn't add any additional information. Additionally, this isn't discussed in the body of the article and per WP:LEAD does not belong in the lead under that reason alone. That section of the sentence should be removed for those reasons. Arzel (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, I would strongly disagree. Nearly every civil rights based pre-event criticism towards Beck was based on the supposed "hypocrisy" of him holding such an event on MLK's speech day. That was essentially why him holding the event on MLK's speech anniversary was seen as offensive to the various civil rights leaders. Yes Councilman Thomas literally mentions "hypocrisy" by name, but almost all the others clearly imply it with their comments. Rev Veazey claimed that Beck had previously been "trying to divide people" and thus it was a hijacking of MLK's legacy. Civil rights leader Eleanor Holmes Norton stated that Beck's "all white march ... cannot possibly appeal across racial lines because of how he has modeled himself on radio and television" (once again the hypocrisy of his past behavior). Rev Wallis noted that MLK was "clearly a Social Justice Christian" and noted the hypocrisy of Beck having called out such people. While biographer Alexander Zaitchik rejected Beck's embrace of the civil rights mantle, remarking: "This is the guy who has a whole history, going back in Top 40 radio, of using racist jokes, racist humor, making fun of police brutality, and with a very deep hatred for black social justice activists. Beck stood by his claim that Obama is a racist and has frequently referred to the president's initiatives – including health care – as reparations" --- (once again he is pointing to the hypocrisy of Beck's past actions). This seems pretty clear, what part about this is in dispute for you?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As Morph pointed out on the Glen Beck article; you have just demonstrated the WP:OR aspect of this issue. You are using all of that other stuff to prove that Beck's actions constitue hypocricy. However, the sources do not back up your claim. The statement is OR to claim "they" are saying he is a hyocrite for having the rally on that day. Unless you can come up with some reliable sources to back up the claim, it has to go. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

While I might burn in hell for doing so, I have to say that Arzel's assertion is correct in this matter. I'm not saying that your summation is incorrect, Redthoreau, it's just that our Wikipedia article isn't allowed to cite you. We need to find reliable sources that more clearly and definitively express the same conclusions that you have. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On Beck's biography, I reworded this based on talk discussion to reduce WP:OR WP:SYN - using the wording from the source which is attributed to the opinion of these leaders. It now reads "Beck received criticism from some civil rights leaders, social justice advocates and media personalities, for holding the event at the Lincoln Memorial, the location of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I Have A Dream" speech on its 47th anniversary, and the event theme, which African American leaders believe was distorting the legacy of the civil rights movement." Morphh ^(talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, that is suitable.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24's unanswered challenges

BS24 has left unanswered many challenges, and thereby conceded to their validity unless the editor is more forthcoming. Here is a list of challenges that without response are concessions of BS24.

1. The NBC estimate of 300,000 is accepted as debunked.
2. My removal of a critique a "unscientific estimate" was justified.
3. BS24 did the same as me and "removed criticism of CBS's estimate" promising to check into the source. Without follow up BS24 has thereby agreed that the source is unreliable in this case.
4. After I agreed early on that without citation, estimates can not be labeled unscientific, and the editor knows of no instances where I have contradicted this agreement.

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Congratulations, you "debunked" the New York Times. You should get an award for journalism. BS24 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he just found a reliable source who showed that the New York Times didn't make their own estimate, but just copied a number from someone else. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

2. You do not decide which estimates are scientific or not. BS24 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. But you do not decide to hold back the information from the reader if a source clearly states that in their view they made the only scientific estimation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

3. I actually have other things to do than spend hours looking for better citations. BS24 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Question seems incoherent. BS24 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I appreciate the concession, the sarcasm in is however unfortunate and has no place here. BTW the alleged, but non-existent estimate of 300,000 by NBC was, in fact, debunked. The New York Times just did lousy fact checking.
2. Of course not. Could you point to where I have done so?
3. One good citation will do. If you can't spend the time, don't throw the slime.:-) This is taken as a concession.
4. See 2. The sentence is coherent, if not elegant. The presumed concession is that "the editor [you] knows of no instances where I have contradicted this agreement." Again, see 2.

One more presumed concession of BS24:

1. Because BS24 had promoted a blogger[3] as a good source, and has not yet repudiated it, and because he has departed the argument On The Media's notability, he has agreed to On The Media being used as a reference.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This all seems to be some sort of personal vendetta you have against me. You can brag about my "concessions" that I have supposedly made by not responding to every single point you make within 24 hours. I have school and a job so I don't have time to respond to every point within 24 hours. I'm not going to play petty games any longer. Consensus is to report the estimates and treat CBS's as being no more or less accurate than the rest. Stop the bullying. BS24 (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't declare consensus unilaterally when it does not exist. (See section immediately below) Unless you can substantiate your charges, accusations of "personal vendetta" and "bullying" are made in bad faith. If you have no basis for what you said, you should have not said it in the first place. You should in that case withdraw the accusations. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, you know very well that there is no such "consensus"! As mentioned, it is somehow interesting to see that Beck himself argued for saying the truth, and then people who obviously want to defend Beck's views of the event use blatant lies...82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental issue: Why include the crowd count controversy?

This issue creeps frequently and needs to have consensus, otherwise repeated arguments are going to keep occurring.

My argument:

Per WP:WEIGHT An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

The controversy has not been contained to isolated news reports. It has been reported by On The Media[4], The LA Times[5], AOLNews, YahooNews[6], CNN[7], The Washington Post etc... There is no way to ignore it. Nonetheless, we don't need to labor over the methods of extracting methods, we just can report them as presented, while not ignoring how they were presented. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Beck himself introduced this as in issue, he mentioned it several times during the event and it's the second thing he says and then goes on with estimates of the crowd size. C-SPAN. It appears something about the crowd size should be in the article, but it's suffering from source creep. --WGFinley (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If we don't gain consensus on including the controversy, it will be hard to gain consensus on anything else since arguments seem to revert to the issue frequently, but no resolution has been approached.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been against everything you propose that rejects Wikipedia policy. It is impossible to achieve consensus when editors refuse to comply with Wikipedia quality policy. BS24 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you two could use some tea and step back for a bit. Getting rather pointed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You suggest they should hold a tea party? ;) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, we don't need to labor over the methods of extracting methods, we just can report them as presented, while not ignoring how they were presented." good words. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote farm

Due to the nature of the beast with concern coverage of current events, we end up with quote farms, not wanting to step out on a limb, as things transpire, with something that could only be "original research"--so we directly quote reliable sources at every turn and let readers make of it what they may. However, after what has transpired sort of crystalizes within the media reports, a consensus having been reached as to what its parameters were, we can go to putting Wikipedia's take into simple prose.

With this in mind, perhaps we could take the entire "theological tensions" section and render it straighforwardly, with a few selected references. For example, as Alex Zaitchik said to the Anchorage Press, published this past Wednesday,

As Beck has become more and more explicitly religious in his commentary, his evangelical fans are becoming more and more nervous about his Mormonism, which the vast majority of evangelical Christians believe to be a false faith. They were comfortable with Beck so long as he was saying what they wanted to hear about politics and economics, but now that he’s detailing his personal conversations with God and talking about the end of days and his visions of America awash in rivers of blood, he’s forcing Evangelical leaders to distance themselves from him because of his Mormonism.

Boom. That is, we write something similar, throw on a few refs, and we're done, saving our readers a bit of minutia. Then after we do the same thing with all the other sections in the article, we end up with an article less than half its present size. What does everyone think?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow this discussion in detail, but sounds very plausible to me. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request to the Lead

{{editprotected}}

Request the lead be changed to match the summary concensus from the Glen Beck primary article. From this. Related discussion here.

...speech on its 47th anniversary, and for what they contend was the hypocrisy of Beck's theme with regards to his previous behavior.

To this.

...speech on its 47th anniversary, and the event theme, which African American leaders believe was distorting the legacy of the civil rights movement.

All sourcing to remain the same. Arzel (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good change, should be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards wikitable

Wikipedia awards sections are seemingly always in list form. Cf. 83rd Academy Awards, List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates#Laureates, 2010 Pulitzer Prize, AVN_Award#Winners_2010_-....--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons.[77] The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that "between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".[78] AirPhotosLive based its estimation on aerial photos taken at noon, which they estimated to be the rally's peak.[78] The company's image analyst "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000."[79] CBS said it was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size.[77] Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000. Doig made density estimates in eight different areas of the crowd including under trees, used Google Earth to estimate the square footage of the various different regions, estimated crowd sizes in the different regions, and then added them together.[79][76][80] Doig said conservatives regarded his rally estimate as biased, but also said they were more approving of his estimate of the Obama inauguration which others thought of as too small.

What would be wrong with something like this, which is easily derived from the current version? If an external link to Airphotoslive.com is provided, then the reader could easily visit the site to gauge the kind of data that CBS and Stephen Doig were working with. The footnotes associated with the sentence could be kept in place, and the reader could further visit them to get a more complete picture of how the numbers were calculated. The blurb explaining margin of error is unneeded, and instead, a link to the margin of error article could be placed there. The last sentence speaking of Doig's reaction to conservative criticism is out of place in a section reporting solely facts relating to crowd numbers, and would be better placed in one of the "reaction" sections of this article. The resulting 3 sentences concerning the CBS and Doig could then be easily placed in the same paragraph with the other media estimates, which, in conjunction with the chart on the page, provide an easy to read and concise layout of the varying crowd estimates. The first paragraph in this section (concerning how the mall was "packed for a mile" and explaining why the Parks Service cannot estimate crowds) is poorly written (the second sentence is a fragment), and can probably be scrapped altogether with no loss of value to this article. A sentence in a separate paragraph at the end of this section explaining that the Parks Service is no longer allowed to provide estimates could be useful though if you all feel that this fact is important to mention. I appreciate any thoughts and feedback on cutting the clutter down to something along these lines. Dflocks80 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse the new section for this, but it is a new topic. I like the edit, which I am assuming is a suggested trim of the 2nd paragraph. I think keeping Doig's comments on how conservative partisans could both approve and disapprove of his estimates depending on who held the event should be kept, as the last line - or as the start of a new paragraph. Maybe something like this:

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons.[77] The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000. Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's images to arrive at an independent estimate of 80,000. In response to critics who alleged Doig to have a liberal bias guiding his lower estimate, he noted that many conservatives were more accepting of his estimate of the Obama inauguration which others thought of as too small.

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

'Agree with Dflocks80's revision. Disagree with The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous' revision. Akerans (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dflocks80's version seems like a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting important information footnotes is not sufficient. Again, WP:Undue does NOT mean EQUAL weight. It means DUE weight. Would you also suggest that round earth and flat earth theory should be given equal weight, because "reader could further visit footnotes" to get a "more complete picture"....? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dflock80. It would be so much better just to report the numbers with as little commentary as possible, and it's a fair compromise. We provide references so the reader can find out more for themselves. BS24 (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24 is confusing us. Here the editor is saying nothing should be made of the controversy, despite it being a notable one, while below the editor insists that the estimates are "hotly contested." Because only conservatives had issue, the Doig line about conservative opposition, and their welcoming of his lower Obama Inauguration estimate covers the controversy accurately without bogging down the article with POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Both new proposals are definitely inacceptable. Crucial information is missing:
(1) "CBS said it was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size." (Again, Wikipedia should not claim as fact that it is scientific, but it should report this context information by a established source.)
(2) The methods are not explained anymore. Also here, this is important context information.
The point is: WP:Undue does NOT mean EQUAL weight. It means DUE weight. Sometimes EQUAL weight can be WP:Undue, see the flat earth sample at WP:Undue. If source A provides a lot of explanations and information, whereas sources B only mentions a number in passing without any explanation at all, then WP:Undue requires that the explanations of A get also some weight (of course summarized). It would be WP:Undue if A and B would be just reported with equal weight.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IP82, I fail to see how the compromise I outlined above fails to address your two issues. (1) I don't think CBS' claim about their self is huge to this issue. Admittedly, they (and Doig) have been the most transparent with their counting methodology, and I believe the compromise shown above recognizes that (considering that only CBS and Doig receive a mention of how they obtained the data they analyzed, while the other sources are simply referred to as estimates). (2) Your argument comparing non-CBS media outlets to "flat earthers" is not very strong. CBS and their competitors have been estimating crowd sizes at various rallies for many years, and because of this they have all established credibility and weight in this area. The WP:Undue argument would come into play if we were giving an unreliable estimate (such as Michelle Bachman's estimate of 1,000,000 attendees) an entire paragraph alongside the professional media. Once again, if you look at the compromise (and imagine the current 2nd paragraph which currently houses all non-CBS estimates simply tacked on to the end of the compromised paragraph), you'll see that CBS and Doig get proportionately (and given their current transparency, deservedly) more weight in this paragraph. Dflocks80 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely open for a discussion about how to include which estimates in which way. And I would say, if there is a discussion, it is better to include more information than less, so that the user can decide. But part of this information is - as you say - that CBS has "been the most transparent with their counting methodology" or that CBS says it is the only scientific estimate - this is from a reliable source. Yes, the flat earth comparison is a stretch. But the point is: Making something "equal" which is not equal in the original sources is undue weight. This is what the flat earth sample trying to point out. I'm im favor about shortening the paragraphs, but not at cost of removing important context information. And I think this note about the only scientific estimation and that only CBS is explaining their methodology is important information. BTW having "been estimating crowd sizes at various rallies for many years" does not automatically mean that they have "established credibility". In contrary, as already has pointed out in this talk page, also established media can be proven to just copy questionable numbers. Wikipedia is no place for original research about credibility, but should just report information from other sources. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is my attempt as paring down the paragraph while still trying to address your concerns:

CBS News commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to estimate the crowd using aerial photos taken from tethered balloons aerial photography.[77] The company estimated that 87,000 people attended the rally, with a margin of error of 9,000, meaning that " between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally".,[78] AirPhotosLive based its on an estimation on of aerial photos taken at noon, which they estimated assessed to be the rally's peak.[78] The company's image analyst "created a grid of small squares on the photos, counted individuals in a selected sample of squares and came up with a count of 87,000."[79] CBS said it was "the only scientific estimate" made of the crowd size.[77] Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University, used AirPhotosLive.com's the same images to make density estimates in eight different areas of the crowd and arrived at an independent estimate of 80,000. Doig made including under trees, used Google Earth to estimate the square footage of the various different regions, estimated crowd sizes in the different regions, and then added them together.[79][76][80] Doig said conservatives regarded his rally estimate as biased, but also said commented that they were more approving of his estimate of the Obama inauguration which others thought of as too small.

That type of photographic sampling has a name, which is evading me at the moment (it's late at night). If I (or anyone) remembers the name it would be useful to put in there. And who are these "others"? > Minnecologies^Talk 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, based on how many words were spent by the various press sources into explaining the numbers, the currently protected version gives too much weight to the other non-CBS numbers. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, why is the Fox estimate is gone? It is no more vague than the The Washington Examiner estimate.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it is obvious that Fox's was not an estimate, they were just playing it safe. Everyone, even you, agrees that there were more than 19,000 people there (the maximum number that would fit as "thousands" and not "tens of thousands". The Washington Examiner estimate is not vague, they said photographic comparisons suggested a crowd well into the hundreds of thousands. That's an actual estimate, and actually, by your standards it is a scientific estimate. BS24 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"a crowd well into the hundreds of thousands" is a precise estimate? I won't presume what IP209's standards are for a "scientific estimate", and would caution anyone else from doing so, but are you suggesting you regard it as such? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Btw, I don't want to "agree" on numbers - I just want to report about the various estimates with due weight. If we really a looking the final answer about the "true" number, then we can continue until we all meet Beck in heaven (or hell).82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)