Talk:Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Rally vs demonstration[edit]

I harmonized the two opposing articles (Beck's and Stewart's rallies) by using "rally". This one had "demonstration" added, which in American English implies more than just a gathering, but also marching, usually with police involvement and sometimes arrests. This was hardly a "demonstration", so I removed it as a superfluous and misleading word. Rally is more accurate. My edit was reverted with this edit summary:

"Undid revision 394216330 by Filmfluff (talk) Link is definitely helpful in defining the subject. See WP:LEDE#Links)"

The last part is totally weird and has no bearing on the edit, and I still consider the use of the term "demonstration" in the beginning to be superfluous and misleading. The word "rally" is enough, just like in the Restoring Honor rally article, where, considering the militant nature of the Tea Party movement, "demonstration" might be more appropriate, but "rally" is used. Filmfluff (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray WP:BRD! I apologize for being a little quick on the revert trigger; the lede is acceptable either way, although I still prefer the first version. Since my edit summary was lacking, I'll do my best to justify my opinion here. If "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" were a descriptive title, I would be in favor of your version, but I would venture that most pages on WP that have a proper noun as the title have the first sentence in the form: <subject> is a <description> that <reason for notability>. In this particular case, I will also point out that rally is a DAB page: the type we're talking about here ("Political Rally") redirects to, and is a sub-set of Demonstration (people), but it can also be a type of auto racing or a stock market behavior. Mildly MadTC 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the word "rally" isn't wikilinked, and "demonstration" is rather misleading. There were no confrontations as is usual with demonstrations, where both sides often confront each other and the police get involved. If anything it was about as peaceful as a picnic. There is only one other (and unreferenced) use of the word demonstration in the article. It is overwhelmingly (43 times) described as a "rally". Filmfluff (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For the record, I'm not particularly attached to the word "demonstration", but I think it is a definite improvement to the article to have a link to the article about what it is. If the main objection is that "demonstration" is too general, perhaps, at the risk of being a little redundant, we could use Political rally (which unfortunately redirects to Demonstration (people))); that's the reason "demonstration" was originally added. Otherwise, if we want to keep the language introduced by Filmfluff, we could simply use "The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear took place on..." Mildly MadTC 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice is to keep the word "demonstration", then it should also be added as a descriptor to the lead of the Restoring Honor rally article. Filmfluff (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally turned off by the use of "demonstration", but after reading Demonstration (people), I have to agree that is what both rallies were. Both events had other elements of a demonstration, such as a large number of signs brought by the participants. A non-violent rally is one of the types of demonstrations listed in the linked article. I suggest we make the change in both rally articles. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct a statement above, the Restoring Honor rally did not have signs brought by the participants. We have many sources that describe the events as rallies - that's how they were advertised. Do we have many sources describing them as a demonstration, or is that just a label we're applying based on the general definition. I don't have an issue with the word, but if we're going to put it in the lead, we should have something to back it up, since the term can have a negative connotation. Morphh (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on the general definition (e.g. to distinguish it from Rallying). "Demonstration" is perfectly appropriate here; a rally is a type of demonstration. Merriam-Webster defines a demonstration as "a public display of feelings towards a group or cause"; Demonstration (people) and Wiktionary are much the same. None of them make any mention of whether the people are moving, bring signs, or get arrested. In short, "demonstration" is not strictly a synonym for "protest" or "march". Mildly MadTC 15:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Rally[edit]

The crowd size at the Beck rally is enormously contested, and therefore no number should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's contested by Beck and Bachmann. The real numbers are safe to include. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually contested by more than just Beck and Bachmann...try doing a little research first. TforTwo214 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request Add Satellite Imagery to External Links Images[edit]

Geoeye has posted a Satellite Image of the rally capturing almost the entire crowd it should be added to the article to give a sense of scale http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/gallery/detail.aspx?iid=327&gid=1 --65.217.222.254 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it as an external link. Unfortunately, he Geoeye terms of use are not acceptable for including the image directly in the article per WP:NONFREE. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link to other website in article?!?[edit]

airphotoslive.com has a link to there website in the first paragraph of this page. I didn't think wikipedia allows links to other websites in the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented Success Of Rally[edit]

Need a new paragraph on what a great success the rally was. Just 72 hours after the rally the people voted overwhelmingly to restore sanity...72.209.63.226 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like original synthesis to me. Do you have any reliable sources to back it up? Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Mildly MadTC 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see by the edits done by that IP, this is a Republican possibly Tea Partier trying to inject political discussion to rile things up. That's why I've removed the comment more than once. This is talk page vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. Just hoping that some judiciously applied sanity (heh) and over-the top WP:AGF will scare him away :-) If it continues, I'm all in favor of pursuing other actions. Mildly MadTC 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts from closing speech[edit]

Two edits today removed and subsequently re-added the excerpts from Stewart's closing speech (relevant guidlines: WP:NOFULLTEXT and WP:NONFREE). IMO the article should mention something about the speech because it sums up the rally and Stewart's intents quite nicely, but there's probably too much of the text replicated there right now, without much supporting text. It would serve the article better to quote a few choice sentences and add some (sourced?) prose that describes what he said and made references to. I'll try to write something up later this evening. Mildly MadTC 19:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the present content under review violates neither WP:NOFULLTEXT or WP:NONFREE in its present state, I agree it could probably be reduced further and made more concise. I'll see if I can find some sourced prose as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the removal, it does seem to be a rather large quote/cut and copy portion of a transcript. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few sources that may be useful. (question: are blogs from large news organizations considered WP:RS?)

I'm not sure if any of these are already in the article. Mildly MadTC 21:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two blogs post - it depends if the publication is taking any editorial control and who they are and what they are discussing, without editorial control its WP:selfpub. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the peer review that was done a few weeks ago. The reviewer raised concerns about the inclusion of so much text. I want to nominate this article for GA status down the road, so it should be cut down from what it was. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just revert it back to how it was originally added, and if you want or feel its needed expand a little with another couple of citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I feel like it needs a little expansion from that, but it would be a great starting point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would give it 24hours to allow interested parties to comment prior to making the edit, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you all understand at this point that, meanwhile, the article should go without the text. That we didn't wrote the section yet is no excuse for duplicating the whole copyrighted text here. It like keeping some song's complete lyrics on a wiki page while we wait someone to write a real article about it.--Damiens.rf 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man, it got protected while I was in the middle of fixing it :-( I think the parties have agreed to stop the edit war, anyhow. Or not... Mildly MadTC 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unintended consquence. But it will help if this user continues to edit war on this article once protection has expired. Dreadstar ☥ 02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Change[edit]

Here's a start, that I can't put on the page anymore:

Stewart closed the rally with a "moment... for some sincerity" to explain his intentions for the rally:

This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith, or people of activism, or look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are, and we do.

He spoke of the role the press plays in polarizing political debates, stating that the media ("The country’s 24-hour politico–pundit perpetual panic 'conflict-inator'") amplifies problems and no longer makes a distinction between "hav(ing) animus" and "be(ing) enemies". He warned that demonizing opponents and accepting propaganda makes people "less safe, not more" and that "it is an insult, not only to those people, but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate."

Much of the speech was devoted to the idea that "(m)ost Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives." He spoke on the subject of "reasonable compromises" between persons of different beliefs, citing as an example traffic merging at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel connecting New York City and Jersey City.

Unless anyone objects, I plan on putting this in to the article when it gets un-protected. Please leave comments, insights, ideas, etc. Mildly MadTC 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was going to suggest something that keeps the Holland Tunnel metaphor in the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm the one who created the initial version of the speech extract. I originally considered an approach similar to what Mildly Mad has proposed here, but I decided to go with the quote in the end to avoid WP:SYN issues. I choose the most moving passages that can be understood without a lot of explanation. The version prior to the edit war, slightly expanded from my original, was 471 words out of 1389 words in the full closing speech, which is 34%. That does seem like a lot. However, I believe that when comparing all quotes in the article to the full two hour rally, the ratio is more than acceptable for fair use. We have significant commentary about all aspects of the rally in other sections. It's not right to judge just because we put the closing extract in a separate section to aid user navigation linked to a reference of only the closing speech transcript. Would it be better to use a reference for the entire rally transcript to make the word percentage police happy? There is a slippery slope here in which it becomes impossible to quote any full sentence because that sentence is 100% of the source material. We need some sanity. I'm willing to compromise of course; I just wanted to explain the big picture for others. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We could also ask for permission if people are so worried about it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would help the discussion if you refrained from referring to users that are applying policy and guidelines in a more restrictive interpretation than you interpret it without referring to them in ways, such as "word percentage police" Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like 34% isn't a concern in terms of copyright violation (though as I said at the request for aid page, I certainly do not know copyright law), but I agree with the concerns of the peer review that it was too much, just from a Wikipedia point of view. Maybe something between the original version and the proposed change would work. I certainly feel the proposed change cuts too much out, although it is a great start. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free-use claim[edit]

I have requested assistance with determining how much of the quote is acceptable to use. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested permission for the entire closing speech. If they agree, we can then decide how much to use. If not, we can still use whatever we find reasonable per fair-use. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly have you asked them? to release the speech under a commons license? I would also point out that private conversations with you via any method, email or telephone are an incorrect method of reliable release, you should direct then to OTRS. Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the guide! —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, best of luck with that. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the case they agree to release it, wouldn't it be best fit for Wikisource? The article on the Sermon on the Mount does not includes the whole text, and I believe this is the right way to write an encyclopedic article. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, there is no reason or common practice that we host large speeches from people in articles where Wikisource would be much more correct. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • Thanks for your hard work on this article. It shouldn't take much to get it to GA standards. Let's start with the references where I indicated they are needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that was a much quicker start to the GA review than I expected. OK, I've added references where you tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Announcement section, the timeline isn't quite clear in terms of when and in what context the announcements were made. Also there is some word repetition in this section that could be reduced by using some different vocab. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (?) I took a stab at adding a bit more info, I think I also eliminated some of the repetitive language. Mildly MadTC 12:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That prose looks much better. I'm not sure if it's clear to the casual reader, though, that the "corresponding" or "subsequent" Colbert Report episode refers to the fact that the Daily Show and Colbert Report air back-to-back. I tried to make it a bit more clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few dead refs in the article. If the information they reference can be found in any of the other sources you've included, it would be preferable to go ahead and reallocate the info to one of the other sources. Then I'd like to see all of these sources archived using something like WebCite (using the archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in the reference template) so future readers of the article can be guaranteed access to these online sources in the future. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dead refs:
The Associated Press: Obama backs Jon Stewart's sanity rally on Oct. 30
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert rally allows Americans to revel in satire
Thousands descend on National Mall for Stewart's and Colbert's 'Sanity' rally
In election's shadow, rally draws laughs, activism
Dead refs have been replaced. I'll check out the prose now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear NOT satirizing Restoring Honor Rally[edit]

The demand for hotels during the period of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear outpaced that of the "Restoring Honor" rally.{{cite news|publisher=[[NBC]]|url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/around-town/events/Dueling-Rallies-Spike-Hotel-Bookings-103892163.html|date=September 28, 2010|title=Dueling Rallies Spike Hotel Bookings}}

Since this rally was not satirizing Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, I have moved the above quote to the talk page for discussion. It has nothing to do with the article, and there is no comparison. It would be like comparing the annual March for Life to the Girl Scouts of America's annual Rock the Mall. As such, I have removed it from the article for the time being. —141.152.28.107 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above sentence does not convey that one rally was satirizing the other. Are you saying that reliable sources did not draw comparisons between the two rallies? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. However, seeing as how the two rallies ostensibly had nothing to do with one another, I'm not really seeing why the comparison is being made, yeah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.28.107 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WSWS response removed?[edit]

Given that Stewart made specific reference to Marxists in the rally, why is the response of leading Marxist news source "not important" to the article? It's unbalanced to only report on the response of right-wing pundits. --Nixin06 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every response is worth including here, or else this page would balloon to astronomical proportions. A biased site like the WSWS is a good example of one to avoid. Bill Maher's criticism gets the point across of the criticism of "non-partisanship" from this rally, and he has a large enough platform to be worth including. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only including Maher implies that everyone on the left thought this was fine. If you had used another left-wing critic of Stewart, then I wouldn't raise the complaint. --Nixin06 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WSWS' critique seems to be the belief that the rally promoted a false equivalency between the left and the right (something Stewart himself denied in the Rachel Maddow interview), which is exactly what Bill Maher criticized the rally of, so that point of view has already been included in this article. So... what does including the WSWS' criticism really add to this article? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for that matter, what is this "unbalance" you speak of, where we "only report on the response of right-wing pundits"? I don't see a single right-wing pundit quoted in this thing. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro record comparing Rally breaking Desert Storm Record with normal saturday service[edit]

The rally broke the DC Metro light rail service's ride record, besting a record made by the Desert Storm ... Could it be made clear, first, that there was a difference in service, that, like for the Beck rally, that the Metro service for the Desert Storm parade was basically "full service", with, for instance, all operating cars in service, whereas for the Rally to Restore Sanity, the Metro service was the same for any average saturday, roughly half service. So with the level of service, and number of cars designed to serve 350,000 rides, 825,437 rides were made. Also, apparently car traffic was also, if not record breaking, certainly boosted enough to merit a mention.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EL[edit]

The "Satellite view of the crowd" external link redirects to a general image gallery. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I replaced that link with an archived link of the original image here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guests[edit]

I re-removed a sentence which says nothing about the subject of this article (the Rally). It is already handled - and with a bit more context - at the more appropriate article here. The removed sentence was also problematic for several other reasons (i.e.; it uses the phrase "support of a Fatwa to kill" in Wikipedia's factual voice, when that is disputed; using the phrase "mistake to invite" when that is an inference by Arturo Garcia (?) and Stewart actually said he wouldn't have done the bit; no mention that Stewart was unaware of the "controversy" beforehand, etc.). Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I did not realize there is a controversy regarding what exactly Yusuf Islam said, but we can certainly link to the article [[Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie.
  2. I have no idea who is Arturo Garcia. Here is what I do know. In the second reference Stewart very clearly states “I should have looked into it more,” and “I should have known better.” when talking about extending the invitation to Yusuf Islam. In the first reference it is reported (by Ross Luippold) that "Another guest unlikely to return is Yusuf Islam, a.k.a. Cat Stevens. The singer-songwriter appeared on Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" in 2010, and his inclusion set off the ire of Salman Rushdie, a friend of "The Daily Show" who was the target of a fatwa that Mr. Islam endorsed in the '80s. After Stewart learned that Rushdie was offended, he reached out to Islam to find out how he really felt -- and the conversation did not leave Stewart confident that Islam was truly remorseful."
  3. Your first sentence is beyond baffling. The subject of the article is the rally. When the organizer of the rally says after the rally that it was a mistake to invite one of the singers, that is notable to the rally. Admittedly Stewart did not use the word "mistake" (see above point), but it is clear that he's having doubts about the decision to invite Yusuf Islam.
Here is what we can write instead to address your concerns:

On a couple of occasions, Jon Stewart conceded that inviting Yusuf Islam to perform at the rally may have been a mistake, due to Islam's comments about the author Salman Rashdie. -- same references as originally presented

Victor Victoria (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not realize there is a controversy regarding what exactly Yusuf Islam said...
...and neither did the producers of this Rally; nor is it even an issue related to this Rally. Even if you were unaware of the details of the dispute between the two gentlemen (Rushdie and Stevens), you certainly must have realized the sentence you were introducing included contentious information about living people. Wikipedia policy is very clear that, in such circumstances, extra care with accuracy, proper context and high quality sourcing must be used.
  • I have no idea who is Arturo Garcia.
Yeah, no one does, which is rather the point. The source you cited lists him as a blogger who edits at Racialicious.com. His commentary is not exactly a shining example of the high quality sourcing Wikipedia requires for contentious material about living people. The link does at least include a video clip of Stewart's comedy monologue, but even if a comedy bit were citable for factual information, nowhere in it does Stewart state it was a mistake to invite Stevens to the Rally.
  • When the organizer of the rally says after the rally that it was a mistake to invite one of the singers, that is notable to the rally.
Yeah, but that isn't what happened. And to drop an insinuating sentence containing contentious implications about living people without explanation or context into an otherwise unrelated article is improper — even with a wikilink to the more appropriate article with more information.
  • Here is what we can write instead to address your concerns...
My concerns as explained above, and in edit summaries, include the fact that the dispute between Rushdie and Stevens is not significantly relevant to this article. The two articles you cite are not about the Rally, and the Rally is only mentioned by them in passing. The two cited articles also do not support your sentence. Outside of a quip by Hannity, and a phone call from Rushdie to Stewart to express his disappointment, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources establishing it as notable Rally-related content. Inserting a sentence in this article disregards that concern. May I ask you what information about the Rally you are trying to convey to our readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles you have cited (one about Stewart & Colbert's talk at the Montclair fundraiser, and the other about Stewart's fued with Hannity) don't discuss the rally. Looking at the original article cited by comedy editor Luippold in HuffPo, we can see a bit more information. A possible suggestion; do you think we can find a transcript of the talk at the fundraiser, or similar reliable sources? If so, what are your thoughts about a mention in the "Response" section of our article that after the Rally Rushdie contacted Stewart to express his disappointment that Stevens was invited, and Stewart's explanation that had he known about Stevens' comments (link to the Stevens comments Wikipedia article here) beforehand, he doesn't think he would have done the "Train" bit? I'm not seeing a lot of sources indicating that Rushdie's complaint ever rose to the level of a significant issue requiring mention in our Rally article, but then I haven't followed the matter closely. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea who you were talking about when you referenced "Arturo Garcia", as opposed to Raw Story, but your attack of Raw Story is dubious. We don't have to reference Raw Story, we could reference the Daily Show episode itself (there is no requirement that the reference have a URL associated with it). What makes the Raw Story reference more convenient is that there is a transcript of the relevant sentences "I should have looked into it more, I should have known better.” + there is the video clip of the show on the same page, which makes referencing the page very convenient.
  • The references do not have to be exclusively about the rally to be used in the article about the rally. They do mention the rally in the manner referenced, and that's all that is needed.
  • On two occassions Stewart mentioned that he shouldn't have invited Yusuf Islam to the rally. Since he is an organizer of the rally, it is notable to the rally. It does not need to have been covered by 1000 newspapers to be notable. The rally's notability is not in question, as it has been covered by 1000 newspapers. Not each and every detail within the article needs to have been covered by 1000 newspapers. It is quite significant when an organizer of a rally concedes that inviting a performer to the rally was a mistake.
  • Your comments are not clear as to whether or not you are citing WP:BLP concerns. I rewrote the sentence to say Islam's comments about the author Salman Rashdie, so there should be no WP:BLP ocncerns, but your statements are not clear if you think there are still WP:BLP concerns. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • your attack of Raw Story is dubious
You are mistaken; I never attacked Raw Story as a source. I raised a concern about using commentary from a pundit blogger, Arturo Garcia. I would be similarily concerned with citing commentary pieces reprinted in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal in support of factual assertions about living people. If you are now saying we should cite that link merely as a convenient way to reference the video clip of Stewart's own words in his comedy monologue, please keep in mind that it's a comedy bit, wherein Stewart also claims he loves nothing more than his family and his collection of ceramic cats named Morris ... or Sean Hannity (while rubbing his nipple), etc. Please don't misunderstand my position; I agree that any reasonable interpretation of his comedy routine would conclude that Stewart would have done things differently had he been aware of the Rushdie-Stevens controversy. So repeating what I said above, high quality reliable sources should be used, since you wish to introduce content about 3 living people and not about the Rally, per se. Here is a direct link to the comedy bit at The Daily Show -- Note that it does not make an assertion of fact like Garcia did that Stevens "openly stated his support for an Islamic fatwa", which appears to be disputed here and here.
  • The references do not have to be exclusively about the rally to be used in the article about the rally.
Agreed, and I never said otherwise. But the ones you provided do not say exactly what you claim they say, and are not being used in support of content about the Rally. They are being used instead for contentious content involving 3 people: Stewart, Rushdie and Stevens. In such cases, high quality reliable sources about that contentious content should be used.
  • On two occassions Stewart mentioned that he shouldn't have invited Yusuf Islam to the rally.
No, he did not -- unless you are speaking of occssions which you haven't yet mentioned or cited in this discussion. That may be, however, generally the interpretive conclusion of Garcia and Luippold, based on Stewart's actual remarks in his Daily Show comedy bit about Hannity and the Montclair fundraiser, respectively. Other sources may come to somewhat different conclusions from those very same remarks (One example).
  • Not each and every detail within the article needs to have been covered by 1000 newspapers.
Of course not, but at the same time, articles are not to become repositories for insignificant info, trivia, and most certainly should not become coatracks for otherwise unrelated controversial content. That is why I asked you above, "May I ask you what information about the Rally you are trying to convey to our readers?" My question still stands unanswered. Your first edit appeared to me to convey to readers that "Stewart admitted/conceded it was a mistake to invite someone who supported killing another person." The crux of the information (and misinformation) that sentence conveys is inappropriate for this article and is only tangentially related to the Rally - especially considering that the same source also refers to invites to the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
  • It is quite significant when an organizer of a rally concedes that inviting a performer to the rally was a mistake.
Yeah, but that isn't what happened. And to drop an insinuating sentence containing contentious implications about living people without explanation or context into an otherwise unrelated article is improper — even with a wikilink to the more appropriate article with more information. I understand Stewart's comments about Stevens must be significant to you; why else would you introduce the matter to a Wikipedia article? But I was hoping it was actually significant enough to have generated more than an anecdotal comment 2 years after the rally, and a dismissive comedy routine mention 4 years after the rally.
  • Your comments are not clear as to whether or not you are citing WP:BLP concerns.
Hopefully my comments above have made my BLP concerns more clear. In a nutshell: If your intent is to inform our readers about a Stevens controversy, there is a more appropriate article for that. If your intent is to inform our readers about Jon Stewart's opinions about other living people, there is a more approriate article for that, too. Just inserting a sentence stating that Stewart says xxx about living person yyy because of [link to controversy Wiki-article zzz] fails to inform the reader in any meaningful way about this rally, and instead appears to serve only as a vehicle to insert a pointer to another article. No context. No indication that Stewart was unaware of any controversy; no indication that he was responding to people (Rushdie and Hannity, so far), who were themselves responding to Stevens' appearance at the rally. That brings me back to my suggestion above, and my request for your thoughts regarding an addition to the 'Response' section. I guess you missed it. Since posting that, I've found this ABC Channel 7 source indicating there may indeed be enough material to warrant an addition to the 'Response' section. Still waiting for your input. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You comment that this does not belong in the article on the rally is beyond baffling, as the rally is the underlying reason why Stewart mentioned Yusuf Islam and Salman Rushdie. This is not even in dispute. I'll rewrite the sentence with the new reference you introduced, and substitute the Raw Story link with a link to the episode. This should solve the problem. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are mistaken several times over. When an editor reverts a bold edit of yours and explains why on the Talk page, your edits are indeed considered "in dispute". Your opinion that "the rally is the underlying reason why Stewart mentioned Yusuf Islam and Salman Rushdie" is refuted by every source listed above, both yours and mine. Please review them more carefully. According to all the various 2012 Montclair fundraiser sources, Stewart mentioned Yusuf & Rushdie because Rushdie called Stewart to express "disappointment" that Stewart would invite someone who allegedly supported a fatwa to kill Rushdie. According to all the comedy bit sources, Stewart mentioned Yusuf & Rushdie because Hannity criticized Stewart for associating with someone who allegedly supported a fatwa to kill Rushdie. Neither Rushdie nor Hannity criticized the actual Rally, or even Yusuf's particular performance at the Rally - the "underlying reason" why there was discussion at all was the 25 year old allegation that Yusuf "allegedly supported a fatwa to kill Rushdie", and we already have a more appropriate article covering that subject matter. Yet you appear quite determined to insert a reference to that dispute in this otherwise unrelated article, which has me baffled. To help me better understand what you are trying to do here, I've asked twice above, and now a third time here: "May I ask you what information about the Rally you are trying to convey to our readers?" Perhaps if we are both clear as to what encyclopedic information about this Rally you are trying to convey to readers, we can genuinely resolve any problems. And as a reminder, please note I offered a suggestion above that would allow for the addition of some of this same information to this article. Still no input on that?
Xenophrenic (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very hard to communicate with you because you keep throwing walls of text. What you fail to acknowledge is that Stewart brought up Yusuf Islam's comments on Salman Rushdie because he invited Yusuf Islam to the rally w/o knowing about the comments, and had he known about the comments he would have have reconsidered inviting Yusuf Islam to the rally. It is notable to the rally, when the rally organizer publicly says that there is something about one of the guests that had he known about it, he would not have invited him. I hope this time the message gets through. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you find reading a couple paragraphs difficult. I come from an era of books and magazines (some with *gasp* hundreds of pages of text!), so it is easy for me to forget how daunting something longer than a 140-character tweet or instant message can be to some people. You repeatedly said you were "beyond baffled", so I attempted to address your confusion the best I knew how. Please accept my apologies; it was not my intent to make it "very hard" for you.
I did indeed "acknowledge" what you claim I did not, and I even suggested how we could implement it, and repeatedly asked for your input. Since you haven't rejected the suggestion, I'll implement it now. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mockery notwithstanding, the way you put the incident in the article was for the most part OK. I put your paragraph (which I broke into two because Hannity doesn't belong in the same paragraph as Rushdie) in its own section because the response to Yusuf Islam is more specific than the response to the rally as a whole. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mistake anything I said above as "mockery"; I was sincere. As for highlighting one section, with its own header no less, over the others - I don't see the need. I would say the same about the other responses (like Olbermann's response to his image popping up as an example of anger and hyperbole - he wasn't responding to "the rally as a whole", etc.). Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think it's necessary to verbatim quote every word that Stewart said, I think paraphrasing is legitimate, but at the very least, we do not need to include unnecessary colloquialism that conveys no meaning. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separation between response to Rally vs. response to Yusuf Islam's appearance[edit]

There is no need to comingle to the two. Also, there is no need to put Salman Rushdie's criticism in the same paragraph as Sean Hannity's criticism. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to separate the Yusuf response from the main Response section; this appears to over-emphasize the importance of the Yusuf issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that since Stewart accepted the criticism of inviting Yusuf Islam to the rally, it does deserve emphasis over the run of the mill response to the rally as a whole. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...while others would say that you just admitted you are no longer talking about the rally, or even the organizers of the rally, but about a specific feud between Hannity and Stewart "separate" from the topic of this article. That would be better handled in an article more appropriate to that content. Also, in the comedy bit you are citing, Stewart only says he "should have looked into it more" and known about the controversy beforehand. Stewart does not in any way express agreement with Hannity's opinions on Yusuf or say that he shouldn't have invited Yusuf in the comedy bit. I already cautioned you above about the problems inherent in citing comedy routines as references for contentious material about living persons. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

Per WP:CSECTION: "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material". Seems like the condition is satisfied vis a vis the criticism of Yusuf Islam's appearance. Am I missing something? Victor Victoria (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look to me like the two cited sources amount to a "large body of critical material" about the rally. What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LINKFARM Wikipedia is not a repository of links, so for the purpose of the article, there is no need to add more links. But to satisfy your curiosity, here is a half million links on the topic. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those Google hits link to independent secondary sources analyzing or discussing criticism of Yusuf Islam's appearance, i.e., are "on the topic"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, you can count to see how many of the half million are independent secondary sources -- my point is that since there is enough secondary references that have mentioned the criticism to satisify the guideline for a criticism section.
Since Jon Stewart accepted the criticism, there are no issues of balance and neutrality. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you formulated your Google search, you just searched for "jon stewart yusuf islam Rally to restore hope". Sure, there are a half million hits that contain those particular words, but that doesn't mean there is a large body of material critical of Yusuf Islam's appearance at the rally. Perhaps you should try producing a Google hits result that shows that there is a large body of critical material with secondary sources analyzing or discussing the criticism? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added the word "Fatwa" to the Google Search -- now 140,000. I think the burden is on you now to disprove that there isn't a large body of secondary sources that mention the controversy. Victor Victoria (talk)
I looked through some of the links, and I'm still not seeing a large body of material specifically discussing and anlayzing criticism of Islam's appearance at the rally to support creating a Criticism section in the way I interpret WP:CSECTION. Obviously, you disagree, so let's invite other editors to take a look at what you've presented and see if they think creating a "Criticism" section in this article is appropriate. If a consensus emerges to add such a section, I'll withdraw my opposition. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should be able to resolve this w/o getting others to weigh in, as we don't know if and when other will weigh in. Here are 4 references in addition to the ones already in the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] Victor Victoria (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think there should be one and I think there shouldn't, we really need others to weigh in to change the status quo. If others don't weigh in, you can always pursue options like Third Opinion or an RfC. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what exactly is your issue? How many secondary sources do you need to see? Victor Victoria (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your posting, I've replied on my Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief comments on the above discussion:
1) When someone links to, or suggests citing, "Newsbusters" - they automatically lose whatever argument they were engaged in.
2) What is this "Rally to Restore Hope" you keep referring to (in your search strings and on my Talk page), and should we create a Wikipedia article on it?
3) WP:CSECTION is not policy, and not even a Wikipedia Guideline - it's an essay. Despite that, its advice is clear that we should "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". WP:NPOV, an actual pillar policy, further clarifies that editors should not skew the neutral presentation of information by creating special criticism and controversy sections. It appears to me that someone in the above discussion is bending over backward to justify doing the opposite.
4) Claiming "the burden is on you now to disprove that there isn't a large body of secondary sources that mention the controversy" is an interesting reversal of Wikipedia policy. There are, arguably, reliable sources conveying there was some response to Yusuf's appearance at the rally. I was able to find a couple sources which described (not "mention") the response, and that's why the information is in this article. There has been no justification provided above for claiming an exception to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policy regarding that content by creating a dedicated criticism section, and that is where the burden lies.
5) Are you serious about your "4 references in addition to the ones already in the article"? The Variety piece only mentions the Rally once in passing and says nothing about the "controversy", and instead devotes itself to the unrelated Hannity -vs- Stewart feud. The citation to the high-quality HappyNiceTimePeople.com piece by Doktor Zoom (disguised as Wonkette) is almost as bad as the Newsbusters cite, and the Mediaite piece is actually already in this article. If a Google search should someday produce the required references to warrant a dedicated section or article on the topic, you will of course want it to neutrally cover all sides, and include the history of the controversy. Perhaps you could use a more descriptive title; I would suggest: Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie.
Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to have a different subsection title. I have already put a "Response to Yusuf Islam's appearance" subsection heading, and that got deleted too. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better the way it stands right now and still don't see the need to separate out the text with a subsection for something that is only tangentially related to the rally (opinions will differ of course). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The explicit admission that you would be "more than happy" to subsection that text has already become evident above. Wikipedia has very clear rules (from essays to core policies) against that form of text positioning and POV presentation. Mentioning in this article that there was some response to Stevens' appearance at the Rally might be warranted. Further framing that content in its own dedicated section, regardless of what it is named, is not justified by existing reliable sources. Inflating the issue beyond relevance to this article by searching for "fatwa" or Stewart vs Hannity or Rushdie vs Yusuf, may produce enough reliable sourcing for a separate dedicated venue -- but someone already beat you to it here. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets refresh[edit]

So what is the opposition to separating the response to the rally in general to the response to Yusuf Islam's appearance in the rally? Victor Victoria (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that given that the text on the response to Yusuf Islam's appearance is quite lengthy, a separate section heading is certainly justified for it, unless there is policy against such section heading. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated at the top of this thread, there is no need to separate the Yusuf response from the main Response section; this appears to over-emphasize it. I think the article is better without a subsection heading and don't see the need to separate out the text with a subsection for something that is only tangentially related to the rally. Opinions will differ of course, but nothing has changed my view to date. If you want to pick this topic up again, you'll probably want to respond to the comment here to continue the discussion where it left off. Also, please stop separating out the section at issue until we've reached a consensus. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear&oldid=1209956090"