Talk:Restoring Honor rally

Merit Honorees

Resolved

Should we add a section on the recipients of the merit "badges" for Faith, Hope, and Charity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekrecon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that the most in-depth part of the article constitutes a discussion of the opposition, and almost nothing is said about the actual content of the rally... that would seem appropriate.--216.188.230.134 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 3 awards and their recipients should be added to the article with a reference.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

Maybe we should add an aerial photograph of the crowd after the event is over as there has been a great deal of speculation as to how many people showed up. 174.99.91.186 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire article needs photographs. Hopefully some users who attended will start to upload some.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Allahpundit

Is Allahpundit a reliable source? I think we could find a better one. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blogger is anonymous, I would say no.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how this is also a blogger, and even bigger no.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Resolved

Putting "Restoring honor" in quotations is clearly an attempt to discredit it, and/or input skepticism into the title. We don't refer to the Reclaim the Dream commemorative march as the "Reclaim the Dream" commemorative march. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotation marks were utilized in the first ABC News reference, and thus were included in the title. I believe that rather than an attempt to discredit the title, by placing "Restoring Honor" in qts, we are showing that this is the way Beck himself officially referred to it (admittedly, quotation marks can be problematic though because of the common disingenuous use of air quotes to imply sarcasm). I am open to other options or arguments though. For instance, per WP:Undue, do the majority of ref’s utilize the " marks?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems they do, so with that in mind perhaps we should keep it. Nonetheless I too am open to any suggestions to make the quotation marks appear less like they are trying to make it appear disingenuous, and more like that is simply the title.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Wikiposter, the quotations look like scare quotes even if that was not the intention. I propose moving it to Restoring Honor rally to be in line with a similar event, Taxpayer March on Washington, which was organized by FreedomWorks but does not include them in their title. If we are going to have an organizer in the title, it would be more accurate to put Glenn Beck and SOWF's..." BS24 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I have no problem with a move to something like that, provided no rally with a similar name clashes. But this article should certainly be moved to something as the current title does not look quite right. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I dropped the quote marks to see if that makes a difference. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I like. :) Thank you.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly Worth it's own page

Resolved

This should be merged into the Glenn Beck page and broken out if it gets too big. Soxwon (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I strongly disagree, it is already too big for the Glenn Beck page, and will only swell into being much larger in the next day or two.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for more media coverage, but honestly, what's in the lead is probably all that's needed on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Many other important rallies have proven to be notable as this one will be notable as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - We only have preliminary coverage right now and it's already big. It will only get bigger. Considering the sheer size of the crowd, it is plenty notable for its own page. BS24 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Becks article is already overloaded, this is without doubt notable enough for an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - we have articles on the Million Man March, Millions More Movement, and this rally is comparable in crowd size to those two (although, it has a very different political agenda). Stonemason89 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Just wondering what folks think about the tag "values-and-patriotism rally" at the start--wouldn't simply 'rally' suffice to be neutral, which description to follow? Ntomlin (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that, should say rally and then describe it in more detail in the next sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not descriptive enough. Rally was about values and patriotism. I don't see any reason to rmv that descriptor.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit:If you find better descriptors then go ahead and show them, but I think just rally isn't enough to describe the event.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is controversy as to whether or not politics were in fact involved in the rally, to stay neutral I was thinking of perhaps crediting Beck himself with the tag, modifying the first sentence from this:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a values-and-patriotism rally promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck and held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010.

to something like this:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck as a values-and-patriotism rally and was held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010. Ntomlin (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck"

Repetitive?

How about:

Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a 2010 Washington D.C. rally promoted as a values-and-patriotism event to restore honor in America and to raise funds for the non-profit Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I like that for the most part. I think it should be either 'values-and-patriotism event' or 'to restore honor in America' not both, and should use a quote from Beck rather than summary...did he say 'values-and-patriotism' or 'to restore honor in America'? If so we can cite him to maintain neutrality.

Also, how about:

The Restoring Honor rally was held in Washington D.C. in 2010 and was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck as a values-and-patriotism event to raise funds for the non-profit Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

Support either of those proposed changes they are better than the present wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is a "values-and-patriotism rally"? This should simply be described as a rally. If you are going to use the term "values-and-patriotism rally", then it should say: Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was a self described "values-and-patriotism rally"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.240.154 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

please see new change and let me know what you think--add citations if needed--there is a citation in the 2nd paragraph which I think suffices. Ntomlin (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck and was held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 2010. The rally was co-sponsored by the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, promoted by FreedomWorks and heavily supported by the Tea Party movement.[1]"

I think it could be better...
First off
""Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally was promoted by conservative pundit Glenn Beck"
This is like a "no duh" statement, it's needlessly repetitive.
"The rally was co-sponsored by the Special Operations Warrior Foundation,"
It should say that the rally was used to raise funds for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.
The current wording now makes it seem like it is a political rally as it doesn't say it's a fund raising rally or supposed to restore honor, instead it just says Tea Party supports it.
I've gone ahead and added British Watcher's suggestion which I liked more, but I think we can still come up with something better.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the new intro is good in that it implies the 'values and patriotism' label is subjective. Also, the redundancy of the Beck tag in my example was forced since the old title used his name. Ntomlin (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

However, according to most of the sources, it was for all intents and purposes a political/religious rally and not branded as primarily being a fundraiser. For instance, the rally was initially planned as a book rollout event, and only took the SOWF fundraising alternative relatively late in the planning process. Moreover, the utilized source supports the previous wording and most sources mention the connection to the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"For instance, the rally was initially planned as a book rollout event, and only took the SOWF fundraising alternative relatively late in the planning process."

Where did you hear this? I read in one of the articles(I'm having trouble finding it) on this that it was quickly changed into a fundraiser shortly after it was announced instead of being Glenn Beck's revealing of his 100 year plan.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Change title?

Resolved

Should be changed to: Restoring Honor rally. No other rally titles mention people's names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C. I need help changing title; don't know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The title "Restoring Honor rally" is already taken, so I had to go for "Restoring Honor rally (Washington, D. C.)". Stonemason89 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Restoring Honor rally (Glenn Beck) makes more sense.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes for article name ?

Resolved

This article has had its name changed several times. Please choose which one you prefer?
(a) Restoring Honor Rally
(b) Restoring Honor rally
(c) Restoring Honor Rally (Glenn Beck)
(d) Restoring Honor rally (Glenn Beck)
(e) Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally
(f) Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally

• I'd prefer either either F, D or B in that order.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• B is my preference or D. Ntomlin (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• B is my preference followed by D. I have to ask to those who want to add (Glenn Beck), is there another "Restoring Honor rally" that people could be confusing with this one? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was initially going to change it to B, but B was already taken. I still prefer B; if there were some way to get an admin to remove the redirect that currently exists at B, then I could move this article to B. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just copy and paste the article's text from here to B, and then make this article a redirect to B?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd Demographics

The section on Crowd Demographics has been challenged by two anons, one of whom just left a message on my talk page about it. I was the one who initially added that section and who has reverted both removals of it; however, I'd like to see what other editors think of that section. I still think we ought to point out the contrast between the Beck and Sharpton rallies (the former being almost 100% white, the latter one mostly black), as well as the fact that the LaRouchies tried to hijack the event for their own purposes, but the source currently used for these statements is one both of the anons have objected to, with one of them calling it biased. Any thoughts, better sources, or suggestions for how we could improve the section?

I don't see how this warrants it's own section. A single line saying Beck's rally was mostly white and Sharpton's mostly black integrated into the article would be fine without adding unnecessary weight by giving it it's own section.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That section caught me earlier as well; if I am not mistaken there is not a citation for the Sharpton demographic, or if there is, it isn't explicit enough. Does that make sense? I will look again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only implied in the source given, but since there are over 3,000 articles relating to this topic currently available online which could be used as potential sources, it would be quite easy to find another source that says so more explicitly. Start here. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK. In my view, though, the Star piece leans on the editorialized side, however informative it is. That's going to upset folks. Any objective demographic information out there or perhaps some will surface? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntomlin (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just caught the BBC article. Better, much more objective. My thought is to delete the Star and use the BBC.Ntomlin (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't label a section "crowd demographics" when it only points out a few individuals saying or doing things that weren't in line with the rest of the crowd. I agree with editors above that a sentence is sufficient. BS24 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the whole section was unnecessary and WP:Undue the way it was written, and took the WP:bold step of removing it. I anticipate however that I will probably be reverted.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the section was a bit out of place as well, but didn't want to start an edit war over it. Count me as supporting the removal.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also leave it out for now. Can always revist it in a few days/weeks. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with either removing it/revisiting or just a sentence. A whole section is unnecessary. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size

Please, try to work professionally:
(1) Don't remove numbers which are sourced by established media sources. The numbers may contradict, but so what? It makes no sense if pro-Beck people delete all low numbers, and anti-Beck-people delete all high numbers.
(2) Make clear the background of each estimation: Is the number from the organizer or from a neutral news organization? Does the source say just in passing a rough estimate, or does the source refer to a scientific analysis, including for example also a margin of error?
(3) Always link to the source of the number.
(4) The most scientific analysis from a neutral source should be reported in the box, of course linked to the source.
93.244.200.166 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's been removing numbers.

What exactly are www.airphotoslive.com's qualifications for estimating crowd size?

Even if there is a "whole article"(a whole six sentences long blog post) if that post doesn't provide analysis and reasoning behind it's estimation, there is no reason to assume it's any different from the estimations of others.

The "most scientific analysis"? Are you kidding me? What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on. Saying "with a margin of error of 9,000" might sound scientific to you, but it really doesn't indicate that a whole lot of science is going on any further.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one can assume airphotoslive.com has no credentials whatesover, we'll see what reliable sources some to say about it other than CBS.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a big difference between noting a number just in passing without explaining in any way where this number comes from (maybe its just from the organizer's website? Journalists are lazy.), or when at least laying out which independent source (in this case www.airphotoslive.com) determined the numbers, including an error of margin. Currently all of these estimates are far away from being bullet-proven; but this is no reason to ignore obvious differences of what we know or don't know about the source of the number82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? Or at least try to figure out the credentials of this company to see if we should? They do have quite some notable clients mentioned on their site (CNN, National Geographic, etc.). 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"What here has led to you believe there has been anything scientific going on." From CNN: "CNN contacted AirPhotosLive.com about the estimate they did for CBS News. A company official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes." This seems scientific to me. Any second opinions? 87.208.166.234 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the citations that say tens of thousands or less than 100,000, are all from the 28th, while the 300,000 plus citations are from the following day or later? Its obvious that the numbers from the following day are more accurate. A MSNBC citation is used in this article to say "Tens of thousands", yet on the "Today Show", (also NBC), Brian Williams said that the crowd was perhaps north of 300,000. Why would he say that just this morning? Because the early numbers were obviously wrong. The whole section needs to be revamped with correct and updated information and we need to stop using the old and outdated citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh we can probably keep the early estimates, but you're right that we need to revamp a little. We'll just have to change the text to refer to them as early estimates and then note the updated stats from various outlets after that. Millahnna (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

82.135.29.209 removed many inconvenient estimates with this edit, especially the part about the misleading CBS estimate. I am restoring it to the way it was. BS24 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also removed Michelle Bachmann's(sp) commentary, not sure we need her fringe stuff/commentary, maybe add to her bio if it gets alot of coverage, but doubtful. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed this again, as undue weight. We have various MS media outlets reporting and then 1 fringe type comment from whom exactly, a US rep? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We need an edit war over something as trivial as crowd estimates. The final tally may nevr really be known, but its obvious now that the early estimates were WAY OFF. I say we make sure that when wee refer to the citations on the 28th, we say that those were early estimates and that the final count was much higher.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could see adding that back in is if several sources start exaggerating similarly and then more sources report on that. Otherwise, I agree that it currently has no place in this article since Bachman is in no way notable to this event itself (not a speaker, not a crowd counting expert, etc.). It probably has merit in any entry about her own event on her page. Millahnna (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe as the only number estimated by a company who does this professionally, we should give the estimate more weight? " I didn't see crowd size estimation listed as one of their services, so it doesn't seem they do this regularly. As for scientific, does this sound scientific? "By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters." "These are relatively small estimates compared to some, so let’s just note that I’m taking a very conservative approach: -I’m only using photographs of the reflecting pool area itself. -I’m not attempting to add in the people around the Lincoln Memorial, since I don’t have a good photo of that. -I didn’t attempt to include people between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool. So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say,... about 330,000 people." I don't think we need to add weight to the number 86,000 when the person behind the numbers said it could easily be about 330,000.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source

Here is another source on the racial composition of Beck's and Sharpton's rallies: [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

Does the "Glenn Beck is Not Martin Luther King Jr. - opposition site by Glenn Greenwald" link really serve a relevant purpose to this article? It seems to me that this site is just a petition created by a left-leaning blogger with a relatively small signing base. I propose it be removed, as it appears to be here just to make a political point. Dflocks80 (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, the petition has over 36,000 signatures (around half of the number estimated by CBS news to have attended the rally i.e. 87,000) so I don't know if I would call it "small".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't matter if a million people signed up. We don't link to self-promoation websites like that. There isn't even anything that would state that the website is notable. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Donations, cost of rally etc ?

The lead stated:

Donations by Beck's supporters funded the event, and an additional $5.5 million (to date) was donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, once the costs of the event had been covered.

This raises a few questions:
(1) A reference needs to be located.
(2) From reading the sources, I was under the impression that the total amount raised was 5.5 million, but that the cost of the rally would need to be paid out of that amount. Not that the 5.5 million was the total take after the expenses were paid for.
(3) What did the rally cost to put on? and has it already been paid for?
(4) A source would also need to be found from the SOWF foundation detailing the total amount that they are given.
Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Per this Time magazine blog article, all proceeds raised through Beck's promotion of the event were slated to go to SOWF, after the estimated $1 million costs for the rally itself were covered. So it looks like around 5.5 million $ were raised, and the event was slated to cost 1 million dollars. Hopefully, in the next day or so the finalized numbers will be released and can be included fully.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

next day or so? Dam, I wish my account worked that fast :). Seriously, I hate these "current events" articles because it seems like folks are so eager to be the first to "update" articles. How will this article look a year, 5, or 10 years from now? Why the rush? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

If external links are truely notable and NPOV, hopefully they can be worked into the article rather than the start of a linkfarm. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to "work in" photo slideshows or videos into the article. Thus they are valuable as external links.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, but the general partisan non NPOV don't comply to ELs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

We can get free images here, if we want them. I'm too lazy to upload them to commons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Hopefully down the road, pictures can be worked into the article and then removed from the EL section. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page is Racist

 Fixed
LOL, Why is it written as "black civil rights leaders"? Isn't "civil rights leaders" enough? What does "black" add to the title? Nothing. I'm sure that's as mild and the writer could tone down his/her real thought.

But maybe I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.23.207 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. See my comment above about current news articles. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)ps, the article isn't "protected", which I am glad to see, so feel free to make changes and then be ready to comment here :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's black civil rights leaders, because it's civil rights leaders of the black community for the black community, not to indicate that the leaders themselves are black. "Civil rights leaders" alone makes it seem like civil rights leaders from other causes like women's rights and gay rights are included, which for large part they aren't.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like its too off. Could folks think of better wording? It can be confused to think the folks are being called "black". Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just "He has received criticism from... civil rights leaders of the black community... concerning the date and time of the event..."

Is "civil rights leaders of the black community" okay?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have gone ahead and changed it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Move opposition section down

The "Opposition" section should be moved down. No, not for POV reasons. Rather, the rally is described, then the opposition is described, then the rally is described some more. That is bad organization. The rally should be described first, then the opposition should be described. For example, the opposition such as from Al Sharpton who did not attend the rally appears before the section about Alveda King who spoke "I have a dream ..." at the rally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. However, the vast majority of it is "pre-event" opposition (since renamed). Those comments that occured post-event should be moved however down below into chronological order.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, although then the opposition section gets broken up, thereby switching the problem from the rally to the opposition. Perhaps it would be best to have an opposition section containing subsections for pre-event opposition and post-event opposition.

There is also the possibility that the pre/post dichotomy is spurious/irrelevant in the first place and only appears relevant now because not enough time has past. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All opposition would be pre-event, as anything post event would simply be a reaction or criticism to the event that took place. Moreover, the section is not really broken up as 95 % of the previous section was pre-event. The article has yet to include much post-event reactions, as those are still coming in. As for relevance down the line, that's possible, although only time can help determine that.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It just looks wrong/POV if Al Sharpton gets higher billing than Alveda King, no matter what the reason. Etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Alveda King's name appears several times in the article before Sharptons (she also has her own expandable subsection). As for "higher up being better", there isn't a wiki policy governing that. The article is simply chronological. Sharpton was criticizing the event before Alveda signed up to be a part of it and addressed the criticism.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Beck rejects some of King's views

I'm aware that MMFA is not the best source to use; however, this Fox News Sunday clip is quite interesting; during an interview with Chris Wallace, Beck says he doesn't agree with all of what King and the civil rights movement stood for, only some aspects of it. He dismissed certain aspects of the civil rights movement as "racial politics". Would this be worth mentioning (perhaps once someone finds a better source)?Stonemason89 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No. That may be something to put on Beck's page (and even with that, it will probably make the article more biased), but that has nothing to do with the rally. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Beck says he doesn't agree with all of what King and the civil rights movement stood for"

Does that sound notable to you?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but once again, not relevant enough to put on the Restoring Honor rally page, but maybe Glenn's bio (even if we did put it on there, it may unbalance the neutrality that it has). Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in intro?

Wondering what others think of this tag in the intro: "The religious and patriotic themed rally"

I believe it is an obvious subjective judgment and is called into question in countless sources...in other words, politics were claimed by Beck and others as outside of the event but still others point to examples of how politics were involved. Further, the label is not cited. Who, exactly, thinks this is religious and patriotic? Depends on the viewer. Not neutral. It is also not needed as this better, neutral and cited label is given shortly thereafter:

The rally was billed as a "celebration of America's heroes and heritage".[4]

Ntomlin (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't even address the religious aspect, almost every report on the rally called it religious themed. As for patriotic, this was clearly patriotic. We are talking about the theme of the rally, and no one would argue that politics was a theme of the rally. If you can find a source saying that then bring it up, otherwise I don't see the point in discussing this. Many pointed to this patriotic and religious themed rally as having political implications and motivations, but no one has argued the rally itself was political in its talks and speeches, even calling it "ostensibly non-political".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. However, as you mention in the differentiation between 'theme' and 'implications and motivations,' this is a highly nuanced issue and deserves more than a cursory uncited mention, especially in the intro where you give a cited label in the very next sentence. If so crucial, why not cite it, as in the 2nd example? Further, where does Beck's overwelming focus on 'reclaiming Civil rights' fall in this thematic schema? Religious or patriotic? Seems political. Also, looking at our previous discussion, I thought we comprimised on attributing the 'theme' to Beck, the creator of the event? I suppose this doesn't seem worth arguing, but seeing that we want to maintain neutrality and this label appears in the first line of an event that might have been described as patriotic and religious yet has both political implications and arguably covert political messages. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703618504575459612802925600.html

take this line: Woodstock Music & Art Fair (informally, Woodstock or The Woodstock Festival) was a music festival, billed as "An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music".

'Billed' is very important here. This attributes the label.

imagine, instead, if it said this:

Woodstock Music & Art Fair (informally, Woodstock or The Woodstock Festival) was a peace themed music festival. Ntomlin (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Woodstock most definitely was peace themed and I would have no problem with saying that.

"However, as you mention in the differentiation between 'theme' and 'implications and motivations,' this is a highly nuanced issue and deserves more than a cursory uncited mention, "

There is no nuance. Although people say the rally had political implications, no one has argued that the speeches made and the rally itself was political except those who argue it was covertly political. It is clearly religious and patriotic. Do the American flags and constant peppering of speeches with religious phrases not convey that to you? The theme of the rally was religion and patriotism, you can argue it was still a political rally, but the theme is generally agreed upon.

"and this label appears in the first line of an event"

Actually the second line which bothers me. I would've wanted some sort of descriptor in the first line.

"Further, where does Beck's overwelming focus on 'reclaiming Civil rights' fall in this thematic schema? Religious or patriotic? Seems political."

Overwhelming focus? You are aware he made one line saying that but definitely did not make that his focus at all. Furthermore the Civil rights movement is definitely seen by Beck as being about religion and honor. Tell me, if you think the Civil Rights movement was about politics, then does that mean you think it was a Democratic movement?

"Also, looking at our previous discussion, I thought we comprimised on attributing the 'theme' to Beck, the creator of the event?"

I thought so to, somebody else changed it. I'd rather though he just re-write as it was as opposed to negating the obvious, that this rally was a religious and patriotic themed event.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your change improved it greatly thanks :) Ntomlin (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problemWikiposter0123 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

whoa now we've got 4 labels in sentence 2 and 1 in sentence 5...all priority? Ntomlin (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence 5? Are we now talking about sentences outside of the lead? As for the "celebration of Americn heroes" I think it's necessary to say in order to then mention that many troops were honored. Am I missing something?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

oops meant sentence 3. looking great at this point...although I see a bit of redundancy: values then honor, patriotism then heritage. Brevity rules. Ntomlin (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendance in the sidebar

It is unwise to use the CBS estimate as the correct one in the sidebar, since their estimate differs from many other media outlets. Also, CBS doesn't specify at what time the photo was taken on which they based the estimate, which is important because it could have been taken early or as the crowd was winding down. I am changing the sidebar to "Disputed -- See Crowd size". BS24 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was taken at noon. However, their estimate only includes people in the mall and not the hundreds of thousands who couldn't fit into the mall and were just outside of it. Only citing the people in the mall is clearly misleading.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know people "just outside" of the mall were excluded from the CBS estimate? Just trying to catch up on the controversy that occurs after any of these events.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Final Time mag quote. Rather than merely quoting urban legends about a million plus blah blah, we include the CBS-commissioned, aerial crowd-estimate, which is great. That said, the article at present ends with a Time magazine quote about the landmark of exceeding reported crowd numbers at the Great March on Washington. Time's remarks are ill-informed because crowd estimates at the iconic march were not scientific and historical/current pix show the crowd's at Beck's and King's gatherings to be comparable. Maybe if a really big deal gets made about these conflicting folk-estimations, then, along with the various and competing sides' assertions, perhaps what ever are the (varying?) professional opinions about the matter could be included, too.

But Time's comparison of what is to be reported about Beck's rally and what was reported about King's is pointless anyway...the two events being nearly half a century apart, with the journalistic measure of the '63 seminal event's attendance less scientific than what we are going to get w Glenn's (the Great March, 250k; Glenn's < 100K). However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; therefore we should either include quotes from the reliable sources (and I've read it more than once in news reports) that say from comparing photographs of Glenn's and the other events, the attendance at the Glenn's 8-28-2010 rally was in the ballpark of the others or we should stay away from the whole business all together. What do you all think?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

1. [...C]ompany official told CNN they used photos taken from their tethered balloons to shoot photos at the height of the crowd. They then had 3 experts use their own methodologies to evaluate the crowd. Company officials said they extrapolated the crowd size from 2-D and 3-D grids of the photographs marked off in small boxes.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Here is an aerial photograph of the '63 Great March. Why do we say there was 250k ppl there? Because 250k is a nice round number, that's why. No one knows. There is no scientific data available on the MLK-'63 Washington DC March.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
3. According to Charlie Martin

   Using Google Earth, I constructed a polygon that covers the apparent area of the crowd, and another that takes in just the reflecting pool (since there are not a lot of people standing in the water).

   With the aid of an excellent online tool, we find the enclosing area is about 223,000 square meters and the reflecting pool about 26,000 square meters. By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters. The Park Service considers a “dense crowd” to be around 10 square feet per person, or about 0.93 square meters per person — call it 1.1 people per square meter. If the whole area were packed that densely, we’d have about 215,000 people.

   Of course, it’s clear from these pictures that the whole area isn’t that tightly packed; on the other hand, we don’t know when the photos were taken. So let’s make a range of estimates.

   Maximum 215,000 people
   90 percent 200,000
   75 percent 163,000
   50 percent 108,000
   CBS News Estimate 87,000
   40 percent 86,000

   These are relatively small estimates compared to some, so let’s just note that I’m taking a very conservative approach:
   -I’m only using photographs of the reflecting pool area itself.
   -I’m not attempting to add in the people around the Lincoln Memorial, since I don’t have a good photo of that.
   -I didn’t attempt to include people between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool.
   So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say, twice the 75 percent estimate, or about 330,000 people.

My own opinion about Charlie Martin's armchair stuff? Well...I think the CBS's estimate is praps as good as any. The aerial photos in Martin's piece of Beck's 8-28 rally is impressive, though.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless we can get more sources talking about the angle you mention (the lack of scientific counting of the Great March crowd) I think it might be best to ditch the mention at all, pretty much for the reasons you note. Now if sources start talking about that particular element and noting that there's no way to actually compare (or something like that anyway), then it would be an interesting footnote to the Crowd analysis section. Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it directly and clear: Wikipedia is no place for original research. Wikipedia reports about existing information. And if this existing information is inconsistent, then it is inconsistent, and Wikipedia reports the different aspects. Just claiming that a report is wrong without source (therefore being "original research") is not very helpful. (Especially if such claims are obviously nonsense if you look that picture of the original article the estimation is based on contains the whole crowd.) And in this particular case, many may not like this or that estimation. But at the end, the CBS estimation seems still to be the most scientific ones, addressing a whole article to the way they did it, compared to others which just mention a number in their article without giving more information about how they calculated it. Btw, if there is a direct source (NBC) and a indirect source (Politico referring to NBC), then obviously Wikipedia should go with the direct source. (In this case the indirect source seems to be out of date.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to step back for a sec to figure out your point. You're labeling as o/r my talkpage analysis of which reports are more reliable. Editors analyze reliability which isn't o/r. Your own analysis comes to the self-same conclusion as mine--which isn't o/r, either, but simply your expression on the talkpage of your good-faith analysis of which reports are more reliable.

As I said, I recall reading (a?) news report(s) that say photos of the Beck rally look similar to other large crowds on the Mall; maybe I'll be able to google it/them up?

As for a "range of estimates," here's a recent example from CNN.com:

Park Service officials have stopped giving crowd counts after previous controversies. But an estimate commissioned by CBS News, using aerial photography, put attendance at between 78,000 and 96,000. ABC News reported more than 100,000, while Fox -- and Beck -- estimated it at above half a million.

--which is more concise than we do it (for now, this being a wiki).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much more concise summary. I just doubt that as long as not every single estimation from any source is included in the article, there will be people from each "side" which are unhappy. So adding all sources is the best way to end an edit war. Maybe this does not lead to good summaries, but this seems to be a standard pragmatic way in Wikipedia... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, by OR I meant that someone rejected the CBS estimation in the main article (not on talk) by own arguments without source. While his rejection argument itself was flawed in my opinion, this does not matter: the main point is that the articles of Wikipedia are no place for providing new arguments. If there is a source A saying that source B is flawed - this is a different situation. But no OR please.82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikiposter said above, CBS's may sound scientific to you because, wow, they have a whole article on it and they have a margin of error. Doesn't mean any real science is going on. We need to report the range of estimates because they're coming from reliable mainstream media outlets. You can't pick and choose the estimates you like. Report them all. BS24 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue might be the difference between an "estimate" based on the inexact science that goes into crowd estimations, and a reporter/pundit/politician/organizer simply looking out at the crowd and saying "Yeah it looks like 300,000 people are here". It seems that CBS (wrong as it may or not be) is the only "estimate" right now, and the others are closer to eyeball "guess-timates".   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should continue to include the range as no one will know for sure which figure is the closest to being accurate. Including lowest/highest in the intro and explaining the different figures in the rest of the article seems like the most neutral way of handling this. The range should also be in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Rally section expansion

The rally was over three hours long and included more than signs, Palin, King, and Beck. We need to expand the section to include more parts of it. I added a template. BS24 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Beck sounding like an "evangelical preacher"?

In the section about Glenn Beck in the rally section, it says that Beck sounded like "an evangelical preacher" at times. Is this really needed? Besides sounding biased, it's just not needed. It doesn't matter if it comes from a source like NPR, in my opinion that is:

A)Opinion B)Biased C)Unneeded info

That being the case, I'm removing that little part for now, unless someone can give me good reason to do otherwise.

Anyone agree with me? Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could mention that various commentators have opined that he sounded like an evangelical preacher. That would let readers make up their own minds, and wouldn't violate NPOV. I watched some of Media Matters' videos of him from the rally, and to my ear, he did sound a lot like a preacher. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We should say that only if a number of reliable sources said the same thing. It may be warranted, though.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't have to be reliable sources, just prominent. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. The reliability issue is whether, if a source reports that Mr. X said Y, we can be confident that Mr. X did indeed say Y. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know how it works. It doesn't seem to be in the article anymore anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because I removed it. There was only one source that stated this opinion (NPR). Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Content issues

Hi everyone,

As you may have noticed from the page history, one editor (Itreeye) has been consistently adding the same POV material (calling people leftists, referring to Beck-criticism as slander, etc. -- it's all in the histories; I'd post diffs if I knew how) to the page. I have reverted Itreeye twice, but can't do anything more without running up against WP:3RR. (I know the rule doesn't apply to vandalism, but I'm not certain whether this ought to be considered vandalism or a content dispute.) In any case, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to continue to revert Itreeye, so if others can keep their eyes out and revert inappropriate edits (like Itreeye's last two), that would be great. Thank you. dcd139 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He/she got blocked indefinitely; but we should probably keep an eye out for similar edits. I was particularly concerned with the items referring to criticism of Mr. Beck as slander; last time I checked that's an actual legal term and probably shouldn't just be thrown around willy nilly. Now if a source referred to the criticisms as such, we could mention that. Millahnna (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of this article needs to be re-written due to these content issues. For example, terms like "Far Left", "Leftist", "Keith Olbermann Mockingly Claimed", etc... need to be flat out removed. If people can't add content in a responsible manner, perhaps a more deletionist approach needs to be taken in regard to keeping this article in adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. — Mike :  tlk  14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of that was from the editor Dcd139 noted and his IP sockpuppet. It's been a bit tricky cleaning it up; dude edits fast and we missed some in the reverts. But it was not really part of the article until he got started. Millahnna (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

Should Michele Bachmann's crowd estimate of over 1,000,000 be mentioned in the article? I don't see any reason why not, since she's a nationally known political figure whose support base overlaps that of Beck. However, another user disagrees with me and so removed the Bachmann quote from the article. Any thoughts? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up to the Crowd size section here for my initial thoughts. I see your point about the shared support based but I'm still not sure how her statement is notable in this context since it was so hyperbolic. Millahnna (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see above section where it has been/is being discussed, thanks. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that before. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size source

Anyone know where NBC makes their 500000 estimate. We're currently using Politico to source what NBC said, which is funky. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I.e., is this an "NBC determination" or just some commentator's offhand comment at some point.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we change it to something like "A Politico article said NBC estimated 500,000, though the NBC source for that number is unclear."? BS24 (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Until we find the NBC source, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendance section is bloated

due to possible bickering between sources Attendance is a number. Is there any particular reason that all of these numbers need to be in there. This is a case where excessive "completeness" creates total confusion. The reader reaches the end of the section having no clue of even the order of magnitude of the attendance.

I propose the following

1) Remove Beck's estimate of the size of his own event. The event permit from the National Park Service was for 300,000 people, so throwing a number out there like 650,000 is well outside the range of reasonable. I am not doubting that he said this number, or that the source in which he is quoted is reliable, but simply whether it makes sense to include his own estimate of crowd size on equal footing with third parties (news outlets, arial photo analysts) who have less to gain from inflating the number.

2) Track down the estimates from the news outlets to their primary sources. If news outlets retract an estimate and replace it with a new one, there's no need to report on the retraction unless it is somehow relevant to the event.

3) Pare down the section in its entirety (even if that means removing a few reliable sources). Wikipedia is not meant to be a dumping ground for all information in the media about a given event.

We went through these same problems for the page on the 9/12 rally. I look forward to working with you other editors to create a more encyclopedic and accurate article. — Mike :  tlk  03:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Already being discussed in an above section.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My revert

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see anything in those articles to support the info. I could be wrong. Here's the revert.[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar issues

It seems like the sidebar has way too much information, and it doesn't even have all the information. A lot of this is too much for a sidebar and belongs in the rally description. I propose deleting the "Promoters" as not important enough for the sidebar, and "Other program" and "Presenters" as being incomplete and too big if it was complete. BS24 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sidebar has become long. I would recommend a second additional sidebar for the "Rally" section itself and divide the current sections. Top sidebar = Sponsors, Promoters, Main Speakers, Date, Website. Lower sidebar = Other Program, Presenters, Badges of Merit, To Armed Service Veterans.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris Matthews

Why is his quote being given prominence in the article? Who says that his rant is this notable? If anyone's comments should be given special attention it would be Beck since it is he who put the event togeter, not some critic that obviously dislikes Beck. Not the least of which his rant doesn't make a whole lot of sense, King would have a nightmare that people with different ideologies would come together on the aniversary of his speach where he gave it? It would seem that would be his Dream fulfilled. Remove his strange quote, and just add him to the gang of others bashing Beck. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to within the text. As for it "making sense", that would be WP:OR and not for us to decide.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Palin's Title

She is no longer a candidate of any kind, to the best of my knowledge. You can call her a "former candidate" or "2008 candidate", but not just "Republican Vice Presidential Candidate". It might make sense to refer to her as "Former Governor" since it describes a position in government she held (as opposed to one she was trying to hold), or "Conservative Activist" or "Conservative Commentator" since they describe what she is currently. — Mike :  tlk  04:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How does the source refer to her? That is how she should be referred as.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And what if many sources can be found, and they differ in how they refer to her? Perhaps it's best to give her no title, and leave it to the user to click on her name if they want more information about who she is? — Mike :  tlk  20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You all realize people are going to now who she is right?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since not all users of the English Wikipedia are from America I wouldn't assume that they would. Millahnna (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to state "2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate" or something like that. We do need to explain why she is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Media reaction and response

Jokes from Comedy Central are not credible media sources for Wiki. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert references should be removed. Editor99 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a wikipedia policy or guideline for this. Despite the fact that the channel on which his show airs is called "Comedy Central", what's the rationale for including one political commentator's views over another? Again, cite wikipedia policies please. — Mike :  tlk  20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:WEIGHT.Political commentators? Colbert and Stewart aren't pundits, they're jokesters. Obviously the political jokes they make are not actual political commentary and shouldn't be weighted alongside actual political commentary, have you not seen their programs? They're good indications of pop-culture icons mentioning it though, so they can be included that way.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that both shows have been nominated for and won awards for journalistic content (in spite of being billed as news satire and comedy), I don't see why their opinion wouldn't be notable. It gives one of of the spectrum of opinion about the event. Millahnna (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Colbert Report has won four Emmys each in 2006, 2007 and 2008, two Television Critics Association Awards, and two Satellite Awards, but nothing for journalistic content. The Daily Show has also received many awards for entertainment and comedy, but I have seen nothing that declares it has journalistic merit, so I would dispute those claims in their entirety.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)(PS:I have indented the comments of those below me, I hope you all don't mind)

Both shows have won Peabody awards for News and Information categories and have been nominated for the same several times. That's irrelevant in this case due to the issue Editor99 brings up below. But they have been recognized for having journalistic merit via official accolades. Millahnna (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Where have you heard that they won the award in the journalism and not the entertainment category? The same year Colbert won his Peabody award Bravo's Project Runway, AMC's Mad Men, and Showtime's Dexter won similar awards. Similarly The Onion has received a Peabody and I doubt due to their journalistic merit.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We have their awards noted and sourced on this very site. Daily Show won for their coverage of the 2000 and 2004 elections (under News and Information). Colbert Report won in 2008, although not for anything specific, if I recall correctly: just a general win under the "News and Information" category. Millahnna (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Seriously" there is no mention at all that their coverage won under News and Information and not Entertainment, and even if it did being recognized for a single story is not the same as being recognized for overall journalistic merit. Under that definition the National Enquirer which could've won a Pulitzer for breaking the John Edwards affair almost half a year before everyone else would then be recognized as a serious journalistic source. As for Colbert, you recollections would be better verified and more trusted with some sort of source.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the precise reason why they should not be included...there's no way to tell whether or not their statements were their "political opinion" or simply a "joke" designed to get laughs. Those are two separate things and giving weight to "jokes" is a very slippery slope for Wiki.Editor99 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Perhaps, as Wikiposter said, it is something that might be added back in if a pop-culture section develops down the line or if either clarifies the degree of joke in their statement (unlikely with Colbert, at least) via interview through a more conventional source. In light of the "opinion vs. joke" issue, for the moment I think I agree. Millahnna (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, such content should be removed or a new section for popular culture (or along those lines) created, but the best option for the time being would be to remove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)