Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
answering question
Line 20: Line 20:     
:::::::: 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 22:11, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
69

edits

Navigation menu