Jump to content

Talk:Flash mob

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.180.19.238 (talk) at 15:22, 28 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSociology B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


Difference between flash mobs and publicity stunts

Apparently a lot of edits are people trying to add an event that they consider to be a flashmob, but which do not fit the criteria. What about a section that compares and contrasts some of the more well publicized events (ie, pillow fight day, the EuroVision finale event) with actual flashmobs and explains specifically why they don't fit the definition, and what term is better used to describe them? 174.65.10.224 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That idea has certainly been considered and mostly so in regards to "flash mob crime". Essentially, in order for a section like that to exist and avoid original research from the editors here, it needs to be the subject of focus from enough reliable sources to warrant due weight in the article. The only real topic where this was heavily debated was involving crimes where since 2011 the association has nearly disappeared. Since it has been criticized by other media for having falsely associated the two terms together. In regards to the other events such as EuroVision, I think it is up to the readers to read the meaning of flash mob and specifically the part about promotion and commercial "performance" and know the difference. In any regard, it is fairly rare to mention specific examples or "not examples" unless they significantly impacted the evolution or meaning of the principal topic. Mkdwtalk 18:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning flash mob robberies in article lead

Mkdw, I'm confused as to why you removed the sentence I added to the lead summarizing this aspect of the topic. Your edit summary read: "This isn't appropriate for the lede. The section below covers it and flash mob robberies is a separate term." You then added a sentence to the "flash mob robbery" section making the unsourced claim that this was only briefly a thing in 2011.
Your edit summary itself seems to imply that all the sources referring to criminal acts as "flash mobs" are simply getting it wrong; where is the sourcing for such a view? All I see is a cite to HuffPo which is exaggerated quite exensively. In any event why wouldn't this significant aspect of the topic be in the lead summary?
In the same edit you also added the following prose:

Some media has criticized the association of crime with flash mobs, citing the media "responsible for stirring things up", as in many cases the local authorities have not confirmed the use of social media nor other similarities to flash mobs making the "use of the term flash mob questionable."

This language is problematic and appears to exaggerate or misrepresent the source in a number of ways.
Most egregiously, the piece doesn't actually say the media is "responsible for stirring things up". It poses the sentence as a question — "Is there really a 'flash mob' problem or is the media responsible for stirring things up?" — probably confirming Betteridge's law of headlines as it applies to hack "journalism". The piece answers with the utterly noncommittal "The truth seems to lie in between", perhaps because the author knows he is coming very close to making a claim he can't substantiate.
Furthermore you seem to have exaggerated the position that the HuffPo piece does not quite actually take in that article. The HuffPo article says "police have not confirmed the use of social networking in all the reported incidents", which you changed to "in many cases the local authorities have not confirmed the use of social media nor other similarities to flash mobs making". The second part of the sentence is not supported by anything in the source. Thus not only do you exaggerate what the source says, you add in something it doesn't even hint at.
Finally, the view is sourced to HuffPo and no one else; the piece doesn't mention any other media outlets. But the WP prose you wrote says "Some media has criticized the association of crime with flash mobs", implying that multiple (unnamed) media outlets have criticized the association. Since the HuffPo post itself mostly stops short of actually criticizing the association, that's quite a feat of bootstrapping. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the lede since this article is about flash mobs, not flash robs, and that since it's a contested fact there is any association at all, having it in the lede would be undue and inappropriate. Secondly, I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish when you say things like "the author knows he is coming very close to making a claim he can't substantiate" and "hack journalism". That's not only the definition of synthesis, it's also bootstrapping, or perhaps you have some reliable source to substantiate your claim which would then make it an admissible argument in the discussion. In any regard, the section was in poor shape with many outdated and misleading sentences. I've stripped a lot of irrelevant information or unnecessary redundant information that is found in the lede article. Also focused on content that directly focuses on the relationship to flash mobs rather than a summary of flash robs. Mkdwtalk 21:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's not clear to me what theory you think I've synthesized or what other implication I'm trying to build in. No, I'm pretty clearly concerned about you misrepresenting a source, and I am also asking why you don't feel any of this should be mentioned in the lead.
As for the comment about "hack journalism", I was referring to the article's use of a rhetorical technique that lends itself to questionable editorial techniques such as quoting the language out of context and presenting it as a factual assertion, which assertion is then misleadingly cited to the source as if that source had answered the question in the affirmative, when in fact it had not.
Surely you can see why I would be concerned over an edit matching that description.
Finally I note that your prose still has a claim that doesn't appear to be raised in the source in any way (the bit about "other similarities"). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's always a difference between editorial feedback and accusations that come off as just as flawed. The article is generally well reference except for the section about a separate term that really has no real connection to flash mobb -- other than it being an invention of the media. There is already a section about how the media continually misuses the word for just about anything they can to sell a paper. One of the references I added today actually talks about the media using these words including flash mob in inaccurate and careless ways. So you can see how a separate term that is generally seen as being very separate of flash mobbing should not be included in the lede. Additionally, there wasn't any content in the article that supported word for word, and meaning by meaning, what you added to the lede. In fact it was somewhat misleading where that fact had actually been disputed. Lastly, in a somewhat pointy way, you focused on the small bit I added which if you had either done a quick check to add more references, or request more references to be added, would have been a very different approach then bringing up all sorts of bad faith stuff like feats of bootstrapping. It would have been clear very quickly that this opinion is held by writers in the media and out and that it is a common criticism. It's been fixed now and ultimately ended in a much needed rewrite but I cannot help this all came about in the wrong way. Mkdwtalk 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"So you can see how a separate term that is generally seen as being very separate of flash mobbing should not be included in the lede."
No, actually I am not seeing that. You seem rather intent on educating WP readers on errors of usage committed by American media, law enforcement agencies, governments, and the general public. You ought to know that WP policy severely restricts the ways in which you can legitimately do that.
Your argument is that our WP article should not reflect such usage because it is "incorrect", in some obscure sense that presupposes a very finicky insistence on the (purported) exactly correct meaning of a rather fuzzy neologism that is — in actual fact, and as amply demonstrated by sources — used to refer to multiple things.
Elsewhere, your editorial practices seen here are questionable. The prose asserting that "crimes organized by teenage youth using social media rose to international notoriety beginning in 2011" is one of the purest examples of OR/SYN I've seen in a long time — citing the claim to one source that almost makes it, and three others that don't even come close and in fact tend to contradict it. Your primary substantiation for the actual claim made in prose seems to be that the cited articles were all published in 2011.
Violent flash mobs are often referred to as flash mobs, and they were a thing before 2011. Also, WP article lead paragraphs usually summarize article contents. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"crimes organized by teenage youth using social media rose to international notoriety beginning in 2011" (from the article)
  1. "“flash robs,” these crimes are being organized by young teenagers through various social media outlets"[1]
  2. "Many different types of crowd disturbance have bubbled up during 2011, but perhaps the oddest category has been the “flash mob robbery,” or “flash rob.”" [2]
  3. "As temperatures rose this summer, a particularly disturbing type of violence reached a boiling point in the downtowns and wealthier neighborhoods of American cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. and, in particular, Philadelphia. The attacks were not like the riots that rocked English cities in early August." [3]
  4. I included the TIME source, since you've been continuously stating not enough references were being used, to show that it has been garnering attention from some of the top and most reputable publications. I would also like you to re-read what the sentence says. It does not make the claim the first violent flash robs occurred in 2011, but rather that's when they gained international attention. Perhaps you should look at the number of stories there are from 2011 in the mainstream media before you jump back to bootstrapping or OR accusation.
You're saying the red sentence, supported by the green sentences found in the reliable sources provided are "one of the purest examples of OR/SYN I've seen in a long time"? What exactly is being synthesized here? I generally have the feeling this has become more about a personal attack than actually based on looking properly at the policies and sources. If you would like a third opinion because you have concerns over OR then I would willing participate, otherwise this roundabout accusation stream is not going anywhere. Mkdwtalk 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources say that the phenomenon rose to international prominence in 2011. And what about the lead? Can you discuss this without blowing a gasket? And could you please figure out what you want to say before you post it, instead of confusingly editing your prior comments over and over? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough reliable sources that support that statement. Secondly, please stop with these accusations. No one is blowing a gasket. I've already addressed the lede. It's clear this conversation is at a stand still and if you think your argument is strong enough then please take it to dispute resolution where I will be a willing participant. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 18:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, all I saw was the one Wasik source that was given a highly debatable paraphrase. In any event are you really saying that we should not even touch the flash mob robbery subtopic in the lead? Won't that be a bit confusing, especially given that the lead already takes pains to mention 3 or 4 other things that dimwitted members of the public such as myself might otherwise mistake for a flash mob, or expect to find on Wikipedia after using "flash mob" as a search term? Wouldn't it be better to say something like "Although the term 'flash mob' or 'flash mob robbery' continues to be used by the mainstream media to describe sudden criminal acts committed simultaneously by large numbers of individuals, organized via social media, Internet buzzword experts such as Bill Wasik contend that such usage is incorrect." ... etc.?
Only slightly kidding... don't you think you're leaning a little too hard on this effort to scrub out the most commonly used terminology associated with this phenomenon by mainstream sources, based on a view that this usage isn't correct? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2 of a sentence for the lead:

The term is also used to describe robberies and assaults perpetrated suddenly by large numbers of people, though some commentators have objected to this usage in cases where the perpetrators know each other beforehand and do not use social media to organize.

I've also rewritten much of the "Crime" section to track the cited sources more accurately. What do you think? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leary is talking about "two distinct phenomena" so it's unclear and somewhat misleading to apply the secondary quote which comes from a different section titled part of the article. Also, no where in the article does it mention anything about participants knowing each other and that being the basis of why "some" commentators are objecting. The point of any statement in the lede is to summarize something already brought up and supported in the article body. I've tagged them and given you a change to write a section that would support that statement. I do know some of those views are shared in some of the sources in the article provided so it should not be difficult for you, but since you've been particularly opposed any content not literally referenced, you should see from what you wrote that this should be to no different standard. Mkdwtalk 00:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try some close reading. My paraphrase captured exactly what the author was trying to say — that the violent crimes in question are ordinary in one way and unusual in another way, and that the use of social media to recruit large numbers of perpetrators is the unusual, "flash mobby" part. Replacing a good paraphrase with an awkward and confusing sentence-fragment quotation, for no reason, is just plain indefensibly bad. Reverted.
And of course there is material about participants knowing each other and that being a basis for the objection. You added it yourself. It's quoted, and it is apparently from one of the only two sources that actually questions the use of the term to describe criminal acts. Read, please.
In fact, everything in that lead sentence I wrote is directly covered in the body, so I'm just going to go ahead and delete those tags. We do need to expand the section to cover flash mob assaults, though.
Finally, I find it curious that you keep insisting that "flash rob" is the most commonly used term, seeing how it seems to be used sparingly — if at all — in the sources, and I actually had never heard of the term before chatting with you about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources use flash rob so it's not curious. Secondly, the intro sentences are supposed to be a summary of content in the article not the sources. Please stick to the MOS. I've done the close reading, likely more than you have. I find that statement yet another tongue and cheek comment verging on a personal attack. This is exactly why I have proposed dispute resolution since making statements like that is only an attempt to add fuel to the fire. Also, unless those tags are addressed in any regard, please do not remove them as "baseless'. I gave you the same courtesy when you added tags and made a genuine attempt to address your concerns. I even rewrote the entire section. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 00:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentiousness. As I just stated, everything in that sentence is directly covered in the article body. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that very few sources actually use the term "flash rob" at all, and none use that term to the exclusion of "flash mob", which is the common term that is actually known to the public. On your flash rob article I note that only 2 of the 7 cited sources even use the words "flash rob". I think you are exaggerating the prevalence of this viewpoint rather significantly. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A considerable number of reliable sources use flash rob or flash robbery. Bill Wasik, arguably the foremost authority on flash mobs, titled his article ‘Flash Robs’: Trying to Stop a Meme Gone Wrong. A considerable number of other sources used in this article including TIME, the CBC, Daily Mail, France 24, WhatIs (a website that defines the term), NY Daily News, NBC that quotes the Police saying "flash robbery", the list goes on. Also, you're going to need to provide a reference for "large groups" as there have been reports of flash robs with as few as three participants. This has been brought up multiple times; please do not keep reintroducing this content without the reference. Mkdwtalk 15:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the number is considerable, but it is quite small in relative terms. That is to say:
  • the majority of sources use "flash mob" all by itself to describe flash mob robberies;
  • a few sources use "flash mob" and "flash mob robbery";
  • very few use "flash rob" at all;
  • no sources use only "flash rob" without also using "flash mob"; and
  • the term "flash rob" seems inapplicable on its face to violent flash-mob crimes other than robberies
Do you acknowledge all of this or do you dispute any part of it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide some references and specific examples that brought you to the above conclusion? That would help me weight my decision, but in the meantime, I do not support the changes on your deductive reasoning or theory about the usage of the term. Additionally, the support material must be strong enough to overcome the fact that these other reliable sources have defined the term and thus are in the minority or wrong about what they've reported. I just don't come to the same place when publications like TIME say, "But while flash mobs are mostly peaceful and created for pure entertainment, flash robberies — otherwise known as “flash robs” — are just the opposite." or Wired by Bill Wasik says, "oddest category has been the “flash mob robbery,” or “flash rob.”" or the Christian Science Monitor says, "Flash robs are a criminal twist on “flash mobs”" or Fox News says, "Called “flash robs,”". These sources are not cherry picked: a TIME article, another by Bill Wasik (arguably the foremost authority of flash mobs), another by the Christian Science Monitor whose article has been cited in several other publications, the CBC, Fox News, etc. Even if you or I were to agree that these sources were incorrect, we'd need to support that conclusion. Also, please engage in the conversation about "large groups" before you keep reintroducing that content. No sources state "large groups" and some of the sources have reported on groups as few as a couple of people participating in flash robs thus making "large groups" inaccurate. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the above conclusions by reading every single source at your flash rob page. The bullet points are all in reference to those sources, though you have since added new ones.
I continue to be puzzled by your insistence at having this article deny, or perhaps merely not mention, that the term "flash mob" is commonly used to describe all sorts of violent mayhem that, in one or more ways, is generally thought to resemble the quirky little fun-time-game-slash-publicity-stunt that Bill Wasik became famous for publicizing.
  • Do you agree that the reluctance of some people to use the word "flash mob" in reference to violent crimes really does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the term is quite widely used in reference to violent crimes?
  • Do you acknowledge that flash mob assaults exist, and are not the same as "flash robs", called by whatever name?
The sources you list do demonstrate that the term "flash rob" is sometimes used in reference to flash mob robberies, and that some commentators find the term preferable. We may also get the sense that Bill Wasik wishes the term were not used in this way, as we can see from the title of his editorial. But that's about it.
You want me to discuss the "large groups" language. I find the objection puzzling. The largeness of the group, or in some situations the mere presence of a group where none was expected, is generally a hallmark of flash mobs. I think even you would have to admit that a "3-man flash mob" would be a bit of a misnomer. I was simply trying to come up with descriptive wording that matches the sources, so I'm not wedded to any specific language. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited quite a few quotes in my previous reply from the sources used in the article that state the contrary. Your current conclusion does not seem to be supported by the references in the article and is the main reason why I asked for very specific examples from sources that you could highlight. Stating "every single source" as your basis and then not pointing out any literal statements from them does not help explain how you reached your conclusion. Especially when some of the sources literally say things like "flash robberies — otherwise known as “flash robs” — are just the opposite" (opposite in this case meaning flash mobs). So once again, please provide some examples from the sources and an explanation of why the paragraph or phrase supports your position. I am insistent that any and all original research is avoided in the content. That should not be puzzling as it is an important foundation in terms of the accuracy of the article. You do not need my acknowledgement on your questions, or deductions, you need to start providing sources that answer these questions. Then we can have a meaningful discussion. Find sources that separates flash mob assaults and flash robs where the distinction is clear. Find sources that say Bill Wasik "wishes" the term was not used. Statements remain original research and your own personal opinion on the matter until a reliable publication supports that theory. We cannot include it nor should it be the basis for the tone of the article. The same goes for the notion that these violent mobs are most commonly referred to as flash mobs. You were such a strong proponent of being true to the word for word accuracy of the sources but everything discussed has been seemingly largely based on personal opinion. Let's stick to the sources and their literal wording. If you find enough reliable sources of notable reputation that criticize these commentators, or discuss that these violent mobs are actually flash mobs and not flash robs, then that's definitely worth including. I haven't seen it. I've pointed out many cases and quotes from the sources where the opposed is stated.
In terms of the large groups, whether a 3 man flash mob is a misnomer or not is not for us to decide. The same goes for flash robs and their size unless it's supported by a reference. If you want descriptive wording that matches the sources, then the current wording is correct "groups of teenage youth" found literally in the sources on the sentences describing what are these violent mobs. Regards, Mkdwtalk 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. This latest roadblock is rather verbose. To conserve energy, I will simply direct my efforts at highlighting the language in the existing source that clearly substantiates the use of this term, which language you seem curiously unable to find.
I note, meanwhile, that the view that "flash mob" is not used to describe violent crimes remains an unsourced assertion which contradicts countless reliable sources — including many you have worked with yourself — and is insisted upon by you based on nothing more than your highly questionable and self-declared expertise on the subject.
You ought to be ashamed, administrator. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason or need to resort to name calling. I was actually beginning to think the discussion was starting to get somewhere and away from personal attacks. Sadly, it would appear that is not the case. Additionally, an administrator is no different than any other established editor, when it comes to writing or editing. The sysop tools are merely technical tools like rollback. What exactly that has to do with this editorial disagreement is completely irrelevant.
I have provided a number of reliable sources that directly state these mobs are called "flash robs" and differ from "flash mobs". Again, the TIME article one of many examples provided. For you to say it`s "nothing more than [my] questionable and self-declared expertise on the subject" is both uncalled for and unfounded. I have made a very concerted effort to address many of your concerns and provided sources when required. You have not provided a single source or example, let alone a wide range like I have, so your position has yet to be substantiated and remains your personal opinion on the matter until such a time.
I have asked you since the beginning to provide examples in the existing sources to support your argument, so I am pleased to see now that you will be directing your focus in that regard. This will certainly advance the discussion and hopefully in a respectful and civil manner without resorting to insults. I needn't remind you that civility is pillar of Wikipedia. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By commenting on your administrator status I meant to say that you ought to know policy well enough to recognize you're in the wrong here. You are violating WPV and NPOV at a very basic level and creating a bunch of pointless busy work for me in the process. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That "pointless busy work" that I've been asking you to meet is actually WP:V at a basic level. I'm not sure why you believe that asking you to provide reliable sources is somehow a violation of WP:V but I suggest you read the policy again. Other concerns have been expressed above and need not be repeated. Regards, Mkdwtalk 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, the sources you have already used for this article — and your "flash rob" article — refer primarily to the violent crimes in question as "flash mobs", "flash mob robberies", and "flash mob assaults".
Thus I literally have no idea what you are talking about, except that you seem to think a source is entitled to exclusive controlling weight if it uses a term other than "flash mob".
To date, I don't believe you have provided any sourcing whatsoever for the view that "flash mob" is actually not used to describe violent crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker_atyourservice (talk • contribs)
My reply continued below. Mkdwtalk 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I appreciate the thoughtfull diaologue, and I am sorry I can't weigh in on either "side" but is there somewhere you can get others involved in this "debate"? I have always found that the more folks involved the better, good luck and continued civility. --Malerooster (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I offered dispute resolution (WP:3O, WP:RFC, and WP:DRN) back on June 19th and June 23 where I agreed to be a willing participant. In most of those venues it requires all parties to be participatory. Still happily willing to do it. Mkdwtalk 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually initiate dispute resolution? No, you invited me to either accept your edits as authoritative, or open a case myself. No thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never initiated dispute resolution because I first wanted to ask you as I already know dispute resolution does not initiate unless all parties agree to it. In fact you're involved in another dispute resolution case that appears to be closing in less than 24 hours due to a lack of participation. I hadn't pressed you further on the matter, more than the two times I already mentioned it, as I had been hoping that our discussion would still result in some form of agreement (even if it seems we are very far apart). Largely in that you'd be willing to provide a number of specific examples and text from sources to support your argument. Many of the articles discuss flash mobs but also take care to specify "flash mob robberies", "flash robs", "flash mob crime", or use another modifier. Additionally, I have provided numerous sources that specifically take note of the fact that flash mobs and flash robs are different. The TIME and Wired articles are the best examples as cited above and in the article. In response to your statement purporting that I haven't provided any sources that "flash mobs" are not used to describe violent crimes, that is not necessary. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources to support your claim that they are used to describe violent crimes. Not only that, but the fact that I have provided numerous sources that differentiate flash mobs and flash robs means that you'll need to find sources that counter those sources such as TIME and Wired. In the very least that will need to be addressed. I'm more than willing to discuss the examples and sources you end up providing on a case by case basis. Mkdwtalk 23:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the lead again with a couple of new sources. There sure is a lot of flash mob violence out there in the world, and lots of unenlightened ordinary RS's that have apparently not gotten the memo about "flash mob" being an inappropriate term to refer to violent crimes. Almost all of them, it would seem. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing some sources. I can't speak to your reference about unenlightened or memo but perhaps they didn't but perhaps they didn't receive a similar memo saying the word could be used for something other than what is written in the dictionary? Seems open ended to me. I have also provided plenty of reliable sources that make specific efforts to avoid calling them flash mobs (including ones that directly address the issue as to whether to call criminal activity flash mobs) or in fact call them by another name.
  • The Huffington Post article in particular is a good example of illustrating a point I've made early on. The article is about the pending legislation and the actual part that would be needed to support the claim that "flash mob" is used to describe criminal activity is actually a link to another Huffington Post article. When examining that cited article it does not call them "flash mobs". It refers to them as "'flash mob'-style robberies" and "flash mob-style robbery". Noting a similarity but stopping short of actually calling them flash mobs but rather robberies that are "flash mob-style". Also noteworthy is that it calls them "wilding". As such there isn't a provided example where "flash mob" is being used to describe criminal activity in the source you provided and in fact the contrary. There are also quite a few sources I have provided on this talk page and the article that continuously make the same or similar statements such as "flash mob-like" or call them something else.
  • The New York Post article actually describes criminal activity as a "flash mob". This is one the few instances that I have read about that appear to actually have been a flash mob that then erupted into violence. CNN also reported on the story and said "Flash mobs have been known to descend on malls across the country, singing, dancing and even accompanying couples getting engaged. But the Brooklyn flash mob isn't the first to turn ugly.". I have reworded the introduction to include the clarity that it was a flash mob that turned violent and it makes a good counter argument to the commentators who argue the term should not be applied to criminal activity. Additionally the CNN article provides another example where a flash mob started out and then turned violent.
Cheers, Mkdwtalk 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what any of the above is supposed to mean in terms of actual WP policy, but I've restored the lead sentence indicating (quite correctly, and with sourcing) that the term "flash mob" is used to refer to violent crimes organized by social media. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means that other reliable sources (even some from the same publisher) give contrary information. The other sources not only outnumber the provided source but also are more directly relevant. The other source you provided discusses flash mobs that turned violent, so the wording was changed to exactly present the information that way. By restoring the information it isn't fully supported by the references and also makes it repetitive. Relevant policies are as follows: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG (specifically regarding specialists over journalists). If you think the sources are "quite correctly" being interpreted and applied then I disagree and one place we could see resolution would be WP:RS/N. Mkdwtalk 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a single one of your sources says that the term "flash mob" is not used to describe violent crimes, so I don't know what "contrary information" you're talking about. Even if you did have such a source, it is outside a WP editor's remit to decide that one of the views taken by sources is correct and another is incorrect, and then proceed to reflect only the sources that take the "correct" view. Also the vast, vast majority of sources in the wild use "flash mob" to refer to violent crimes and only a handful "flash rob", the supposedly uniquely correct term that you insist upon. This includes news articles actually using the term in that way, and analysis pieces talking about those. Thus your "source outnumbering" argument is flat false — in addition to being based on a policy misunderstanding. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the two Huffington Post articles that were cited in the article you provided that demonstrate the articles did not describe the events as "flash mobs" but as something else similar ("styled") or more accurately as flash mobs that turned violent, in which the lead was adjusted to match that wording and context. Additionally, I have provided multiple sources that further demonstrate other terms are both more common and used. The fact that both the sources you provided did not support the statement you added were the grounds for removing the contentious material. Lastly, WP:GEVAL has been a big concern of mine in that you have been strongly pushing for your viewpoint to add a statement that has yet to be supported in the clear and by a large enough grouping of reliable sources to demonstrate it's weighted properly. So far I haven't seen any evidence see it pass the threshold of significant minority for even the amount of weight that's been given. You must remember that the crime section is now the largest section in the article for a term that most commonly associated with the social activity, let alone crime, let alone as the description of violent crime. Mkdwtalk 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a Huffington Post article that clearly shows the term is used as I say it is. There are countless more like it. The article that it links to also uses "flash mob" in reference to violent crimes. Again: there are countless more like it.
Please point me to your sources (or at least one source) that claims or shows that "other terms are both more common and used".
"Flash rob" is an unheard-of, barely-used term. You're grinding an axe here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided over 8 sources from some of the most notable publications out there that directly cites these incidents as called "flash robs" and that they are different than "flash mobs". Your claim that "flash rob" is "unheard-of, barely used" is really not support by anything.
I am not making the claim that the cited terms are "both more commonly used" so I do not have the WP:BURDEN of needing to provide a source. You are making the claim that "flash rob" is basically unheard-of (and moreover "flash mob" is used more commonly to describe violent acts) and have yet to provide a clear source that draws this conclusion. I have no axe to grind and I would appreciate it if you leave any personal accusations out of the conversation. Thank you. Mkdwtalk 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've demonstrated that there's an alternate term that a few edgy commentators occasionally use. That is enough to have the article mention and explain the term, but not more. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Factchecker atyourservice will you be a willing participant if we take this to WP:DRN? Mkdwtalk 23:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy and Flash Robs

FLASH MOBS TURNED FLASH “ROBS”

In Germantown, Maryland, it took less than a minute for teenagers to descend on a 7-Eleven, ransack shelves, and make off with hundreds of dollars of merchandise. During the summer of 2011, spontaneous incidents of group violence dubbed flash robs have occurred in Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and Washington, D.C., among other cities.

Most of these episodes involved groups of 20 to hundreds of young people looting stores or assaulting pedestrians and then running off. The National Retail Federation reported that 79 percent of its members had been victims of multiple-offender crime, and 10 percent of members said they had been targeted by groups of thieves using flash mob tactics in the past year.

Given the current economic crisis in the United States, it is most likely that flash mob violence will spread to more urban communities and suburbs. Jeff Gardere, a California psychologist who lectures widely on the motivations of young people, believes that part of the reason that flash mobs have become violent is that young people are discontent and bored.

They don’t have jobs. They hear their parents talking about the lack of jobs and the poor economy and are left feeling that their future options are winnowing every day. “This isn’t just in England or Philly or Germantown but everywhere,” said Gardere. “You’ve got a group that feels angry and powerless, and they are trying to assume a sense of power.”

This sense of powerlessness is part of the motivation behind the Occupy Wall Street protests that started in September 2011 in New York City and are spreading across the nation to such cities as Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and Washington D.C. While these groups are not flash mobs, they are using social media to organize, communicate, and raise awareness on a number of issues.8 As the use of social media increases, the potential for more flash mobs that are used for political protest and for criminal purposes is likely to increase.

— Dr. Linda Kiltz, PM Magazine

This is the full context and Dr. Linda Kiltz is clearly comparing aspects of the "Flash Mob Turned 'Flash Rob'" to parts of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Removing any mention of the Occupy Movement removes the literal context of the quote and misleads the reader. The quote makes no claim that the Occupy Wall Street protests were criminal (a controversial fact) or about robberies. The quote, word for word as presented, clearly states, "the use of social media increases, the potential for more flash mobs that are used for political protest and for criminal purposes is likely to increase". Mkdwtalk 19:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the quote to contain the context in which the comparison was made - stating that they are similar not because they're related to violence, but because they were motivated by youth powerlessness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS the quote should be a block. Also, it was Jeff Gardere that stated the motivations behind flash robs, and it was Dr. Linda Kiltz that made the same comparisons of the Occupy Movement. Mkdwtalk 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Theory

I suggest you read back through the archives before calling WP:OR and making a bad faith assumption that I solely removed the example "without explanation". The original basis of the discussion (yes, a discussion took place amongst the editors of the article) was that the articles fire, protest, party are not repositories of examples regardless of the notability of scale of incidents of those things occurring. The consensus at the time was to maintain that standard and remove examples that were not historically significant to the term. Wasik's first few flash mobs were included because they outline the beginning of flash mobs. Those flash mobs are commonly cited by articles about flash mobs so due weight was shown. I personally added examples of some major flash mobs (e.g. the largest flash mob, the first globally organized flash mob, etc.) but those were among the ones removed in favour of keeping the article encyclopaedic and in line with the standards of other articles. It was however, proposed by me, that a sub-article or list could be created to outline examples of notable flash mobs in all interpretations of the term. In terms of the "sources", YouTube is not a reliable source, nor is TV when it's only mentioning the title of the episode and not an independent reliable source that is making the claim it is a "flash mob". I am going to have to stand by my reverts and ask you that seek consensus to overturn the previous consensus to include examples that are not really significant to the term. There have been hundreds of reported flash mobs, so I don't see how the Big Bang Theory is unique among those ones. Mkdwtalk 03:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some archived discussions worth noting:
So I would very much appreciate an apology. Mkdwtalk 04:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research is defined on Wikipedia as material that is derived from an editor's personal knowledge, rather than from cited reliable sources. Since I harbor no personal knowledge on flash mobs, and my additions were entirely based on the citations I gave for them, your accusation that I engaged in original research is a lie on your part, if not an example of ignorance of what OR is.
"I suggest you read back through the archives before calling WP:OR and making a bad faith assumption that I solely removed the example "without explanation"."
You were not stated have removed the information "without explanation". Please read the edit summary in question a bit more carefully.
"In terms of the "sources", YouTube is not a reliable source."
YouTube was not cited as the main source. TV Guide was. The YouTube link was a best, a supplement to allow the reader to see the event.
"nor is TV when it's only mentioning the title of the episode..."
No episode title was cited. The citations were of TV Guide and The Hollywood Reporter. The reason for this is that the event in question didn't occur in any "episode". If you bothered to actually read the cited sources before just mindlessly reverting in knee-jerk fashion, it might've precluded you from making such ignorant remarks. TV Guide, contrary to your edit summary, is not "the name of [an] episode". It's a magazine, as is The Hollywood Reporter, and that are indeed independent reliable sources, since they are not published by the production of The Big Bang Theory, and document the expansion of the term. Discussing the expansion of the term would indeed be apt for a consensus discussion, but the linked discussion that you boldfaced above doesn't come even close to being one. That brief discussion consists of three editors with username accounts and one anonymous IP account (which I generally tend not to regard much in consensus discussions, given how IPs can be easily abused for sockpuppetry), and of those three editors, only two--you and Cheesebikini -- expressed opinions based on definition of the term. The third, GimliDotNet, did not. That is not a consensus.
Words and their usage expand. Sometimes it becomes rather perverse, IMO, as with Websters now providing "figuratively" as one of the latter definitions of the word literally. But that aside, when usage of terms like flash mob expands to include events organized through channels other than social media, including planned events, it bears discussion on how and whether the Wikipedia article on it should deal with this.
So I would very much appreciate an apology.
And I'd like a brand new Ferrari to be delivered to my driveway by Salma Hayek, dressed only in a bikini made of whipped cream.
But I'm not holding my breath. So I suggest you don't either. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term

Science fiction writer Larry Niven coined the term "Flash Crowd" in a short story of the same name, in the early 1970s. It had the same meaning as "flash mob" 50.180.19.238 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flash_mob&oldid=639952161"