Talk:Restore Sanity rally

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Crowd Numbers

Changed the estimated size of the Rally, as the 50k to 100k numbers were not cited and I various estimates put the numbers between 200k to 250k. I hope we can be fair and balanced about this, since clearly the Rally filled the whole mall. Based upon "conservative" estimates of Becks Rally, the Honor Rally had possibly over a million people. Since the photos from this rally very much rival becks rally of possible 500k to a million (of courting to some conservative(I use conservative naturally meaning right side of the political spectrum, and not meaning low ball numbers of course) argue Beck had over a million people attend), then by all means the Stewert/Colbert Rally must have had similar numbers. This of course means that if we assume that Glenn Beck's Rally had over a million, it is possible that the Restoring Sanity/Keep fear alive rally had over a million. So my numbers might be conservative(in this case meaning low ball numbers). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorge (talk)

Don't know the answer, but keep in mind that many attended the "Restore Sanity" rally to hear the popular rock stars, and I'm not sure it's fair to include the number of people who attend to hear a popular rock concert in the rally figures. Would we also, for example, include how many people were attending a football game that day if the home team was playing?--Andy Schlafly 00:37, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Three things. One, the estimates are higher than the 60,000 Comedy Central park request found in this ref but a million, don't think so. [1] Two, I'd prefer to see a ref with a more trustworthy estimate than the liberal shills of the Huffington Post. Third, fair and balanced is a news channel slogan, we don't give equal time to half truths.--Jpatt 00:45, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Fourth: MoveOn.org and the HuffingtonSmear are not reputable news sources. Gods speed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:04, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Breitbart reported an estimate of 215,000. We have an agenda of minimizing and dismissing this rally, but we shouldn't go so far as to mislead readers by intentionally underreporting the crowd size (e.g. the main page reporting a misleading "few thousand"). If the crowd size was more than we would like to report, don't report it. It's not very important anyway. KyleDD 19:56, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
USA Today reported the crowd as tens of thousands, not more than 100,000. Moreover, at least 10,000 were bused in for free and probably many more simply showed up to hear the popular rock stars. The "few thousand" reference on the main page refers to the nutcases and potheads who showed up. Are you saying more of them were there?--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
I'm sure most of them were potheads and nutcases. It seems that you're saying most of them were not (only a "few thousand" of the "tens of thousands")!
But seriously, Andy, Breitbart is one of the best conservative news sources available today. The USA Today is a liberal rag. What are you doing? If you don't like the numbers that the best conservative news sources available choose to report, just don't report them. It seems desperate, if not misleading, to read between the lines of a USA Today article like that. KyleDD 20:58, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Kyle, if the USA today is a liberal rag, as you say, then its admission that the rally was attended by only tens of thousands is even more compelling.
By the way, Breitbart may or may not be right, but I don't think he's particularly conservative. Does he ever run pro-life stories?
I don't know how you want me to change our Main Page. There weren't 215,000 nutcases and potheads there, I'm sure of that.--Andy Schlafly 21:18, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Andy, the USA Today is liberal as you say. If the USA Today has the equivalent of the "nutritional value of a meal at a fast food restaurant such as McDonalds", it's not at all compelling. You acknowledge Breitbart's status as one of the best news sources. I want you to report what the best news sources have to tell us. You're letting your agenda get in the way of trustworthiness. It's worrisome, that's all. KyleDD 21:25, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Kyle, I welcome a specific suggestion for editing (not rewriting) the Main Page. It's old news at this point but if you have a clarifying edit then let's consider it. By the way, do you know how many people Breitbart estimated were at the March for Life? I could thereby gauge his credibility on this issue.--Andy Schlafly 21:38, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
As you accurately assess, this is old news, so I'm not terribly concerned with the Main Page news feed, but this article is potentially permanent. As far as I can tell, Breitbart did not report an estimate for the March for Life, and conservatively referred to the size of the crowd as "thousands". As we both believe Breitbart is one of the best news sources, I'm inclined to conclude that they didn't have an estimate made available to them and were not comfortable/capable of estimating it themselves. Do you have any evidence that Breitbart is in the business of crowd estimation? Would you prefer that they offered an amateur estimation? I believe the fact that Breitbart didn't do so evidences our belief that they are indeed a trustworthy news source. As a suggestion for improving the article, I propose removing "Estimates have the crowd from 60,000 to 100,000,[1] the television audience of the comedians and not as much a union presence." altogether. We both know that estimates have the crowd at higher numbers, but neither of us wants to trumpet that useless bit of information. KyleDD 22:11, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
So Breitbart claims the March for Life crowd was only in the thousands (I was there, and agree with estimates of 400,000), while claiming that this crowd for a liberal rally was 215,000, despite USA Today describing it as merely tens of thousands?
I have an open mind about this, but based on the above I don't find Breitbart to be any more credible than USA Today on this issue. Add the complication that tens of thousands were at the rally to hear popular rock stars, and I'm not compelled to change the estimate. If you can find more reliable estimates then let's discuss them.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
After publishing the amateur estimation by the reporter, the estimate which USA Today chose to report is the same 215,000 that Breitbart reported. [2] If you have an open mind and are adamant about keeping crowd estimates in the article, wouldn't you change it to "Estimates have the crowd from 60,000 to 215,000". Could we agree on that? KyleDD 23:17, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Sorge Kyle, That is enough. If you so desperately need a place to argue in favor of inflating the crowd numbers, I suggest you stick to your known vandal site. Bye. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 03:27, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
Personal tools