Talk:Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant

Route map

The text is too small to be readily legible. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture Caption

The picture (Queen Elizabeth II Thames Royal Pageant.jpg) and caption is incorrect. It incorrectly says that Queen Elizabeth II is in the photo, when, in fact, that is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The Queen is not in the picture at all. -- LtGen (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, she is, just not prominently so. Read the caption on the picture file page...she is the white blob behind Prince Albert. Camilla is properly identified there as well. That being said, I'd hope we can find a more fitting picture as days go by. 204.65.34.171 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I scour the image with a magnifying glass, I do see where The Queen is there, but mostly obscured behind Prince Philip (not sure why you said Prince Albert). That said, it's hardly worth noting. The caption on the picture file page is still not encouraging as it doesn't identify that Prince William is in the photo, partially obscured by Prince Charles, but still more visible than The Queen. -- LtGen (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Parade and pageant

Can these terms be used interchangeably? At the present it seems they can. Ericoides (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It was officially a "pageant". Pageant sums up the entire event. The actual processing of the vessels down the river constituted a parade. The fireworks, tooting train, raising of the bascules and proposed fly-past were part of the pageant, but not the "parade". Amandajm (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Vessels

Many of the vessels taking part have article on Wikipedia. The article would benifit from a section listing those that took part and that have articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about making a list of all the vessels we have names for. Some, like the flag-bearing dinghies, don't need to have names listed.

Amandajm (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Would it be apt to include a controversy section, detailing about jobseekers being forced to help out in the Pageant? Been covered in The Guardian, which has since recieved response from Lord Prescott, and several other media companies (ITV, The Mirror, BBC, TIME). – Lemonade51 (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Jobseekers being FORCED to work? What were they at gunpoint? No, this doesn't need to be added. But if you do, please note that the fuss is about the workers being dropped off too early at their assembly point and thus having to hang around in the cold and wet. Not ideal I agree, but it hardly the controversy you seek to add. It's just the British press, or should I say lefty, anti-monarchy elements of it, stirring the mire to forward their political agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.13.4 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a section is necessary. However, you have several reputable sources, so a mention somewhere is certainly supported. One could question the notability/current nature of the issue, but the whole article would fall under that same scrutiny, as it's unlikely to be an especially notable aspect of an event that's ot especially notable in a long term perspective. So in a current events type article, this issue is certainly fair game(which seems, to an outsider, a bit more severe than the workers just "being dropped off too early". According to BBC, they had no toilet access, had to try to sleep in cold conditions under a bridge, etc. That's more than a minor inconvenience.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.171 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this is necessary, unless far more about the allegations emerge. There has been far greater coverage in the press about the quality of the BBC coverage. Leaky Caldron 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the BBC's Blue Peter/The One Show Special approach to the coverage is being more hotly debated and crticised. The jobseekers story has fallen out of the headlines during the course of the day. I'm sure this is a result of investigation into the allegations proving them to be largely unfounded. They were not forced to sleep anywhere, they were dropped off too early and some chose to sleep. They were also moaning that they had no indoor facilities to change into ponchos and high-viz jackets that were part on their uniform. Since when do you need changing rooms to put on a coat or poncho? Sounds like trouble-makers found the ear of a desperate journo.90.204.13.4 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaints

Useful info here about the number of complaints about this turgid shite being on the TV for 4.5 hours. Lugnuts (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can use the phrase "turgid shite" – it's not in the source... ;) matt (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Who thought "tens of thousands" an ESTIMATE or a turn of phrase

The Commissioner of the MET police says 1.5 million. That's an ESTIMATE.

"Tens of thousands" is a linguistic term used by journalists to mean "LOTS". rather than a number between 10,000 and not greater than 100,000. It is not an "estimate". The article from CNN also states that 20,000 people were on the water on the 1,000 boats. (that's 2 tens of thousands to start with).

Republic state that they had 1,200 people protesting.. http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=502

Can someone clarify, when the vast bulk of published estimates are of a specific number, and there are a relatively small number of results which are far from the standard deviation, is it really encyclopedic to report that as a RANGE, especially when the range is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.181.153 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus of opinion here, with some of the discussion taking part on the page of User talk:Richardeast that "tens of thousands" is not an estimate. There appears to be a consensus of opinion, coming out of London and including the Met Police, that 1.5 million people watched the pageant. 1.5 is an estimate. Tens of thousand is not an estimate. Initial "estimates" from London were "about a million". Met Police confirms this ball-park figure with a more precise 1.5 million. I think we can safely delete the "tens of thousands" as only one editor seems to seriously support having something that seems way-off-mark included. Amandajm (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to User talk:Richardeast's edit summary

1,500,000 minus 60,000 at the Emirates and you are still left with 1,440,000. Let us suppose that 200,000 people were shopping on Oxford St and so on, and another 140,000 were visiting The Tate Modern, the BM, the National Gallery, the Tower of London and the other top sites. And another 100,000 were feeding pigeons, visiting churches, going to the theatre and sitting in bus shelters. That still gives us a million people who were "on the streets" on a cold, blowy, rainy day when they could have been at home watching the tele. NOTE: if they were at a pub, (any pub) then they were in all probability watching the pageant and singing "God Save the Queen" every 15 minutes, because that is what those people who couldn't get near the river because of the crowds did.

The people along the embankments were not 7 deep; they were twenty deep and on every balcony and in every window. Look at the videos.

Amandajm (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Canaletto Inspiration

Wasn't the whole thing inspired by a Canaletto painting? Shouldn't this get a mention in the article somewhere? It's one of the few facts that the BBC managed to include in their coverage. http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2012/04/canaletto-masterpiece-gives-queen-preview-of-diamond-jubilee-flotilla.html Gmackematix (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Amandajm (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The numbers game

Richardeast, let me point out that the statement "Estimates for the number of spectators lining the banks of the Thames ranged from between tens of thousands[5][6] to a million" is strictly inaccurate. There is no "range between".

A couple of US sources loosely say "tens of thousands". Every British source says "a million", "more than a million", "one and a half million".

• There is no "range" within the estimates that is less than a million.

No source says "an estimated 50,000"

No source says "perhaps a hundred thousand".

No source says "hundreds of thousands".

No source says "half a million"

No source says "an estimated three quarters of a million"

If there was a range of estimates between tens of thousands and one and a half million, then these are the sorts of estimates one might find. But that is not the case. Two US sources say "tens of thousands of people" and all the British sources and other sources world-wide say "a million", or something to that effect.

The range is between "about a million" and the police estimate that 1.5 million people were on the streets "to see the event". It is perfectly clear that the loose expression "tens of thousands" doesn't constitute the bottom end of a "range of estimates" but merely a figure of speech. I hope that the change that I have made reflects the fact that no such "range of estimates" exists.

Amandajm (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Richardeast, you are playing games with the numbers again

READ what is written immediately above this.

Take on board the meaning. No-one made an estimate, not a proper estimate, that was less than 1 million. What you have from the American reporters is not even a "guestimate", it is just a casual statement.

The Met numbers of people on the street, allowing for other sporting activities etc, support this figure. I notice that you have deleted the Met figures. Again

Amandajm (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(Paste)

Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant page

Crowds at the Thames Jubilee pageant

Amandajm, kindly stop removing my edits - which have been properly sourced by respected media organisation. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the articles published by CNN or the LA times is not relevant. Kindly refer to WP:IRS and WP:NPOV. --Richardeast (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Richard, this is not about my "disagreeing with the articles". It is not about "personal opinion".
• This is about the fact that the British sources, including the Met Police, attempted to make genuine ESTIMATES of the numbers.

ALL Uk sources say "one million" or "one million plus".

The MET say "One and a half million on the streets". (The extra half million might be accounted for by football crowd, shoppers, tourists. MY comment)

NO-ONE made any estimate that was lower than one million.

No-one suggested "half-a million", not even off the tops of their heads!

"Tens of thousands" runs from 10,000 to 90,000. This means that the whole crowd would have fitted into Wembley Stadium.

• You don't seem to have taken on board the significance of the fact that no commentator came up with a figure between your 90,000 and 1,000,000. In other words, there is a gap in the (supposed) estimates of 910,000 thousand.

• What you don't seem to get is that the statement "tens of thousands" was not an estimate; it was a casual statement.

If the commentator had stated"There are at least forty thousand people watching" or "the crowd on the banks must number at least fifty to 60 thousand" , then you would know that the commentator was actually attempting to estimate the number.

• The US commentators were not attempting to make "estimates".

Your insistence that they were, is based on a calculation that you made previously that if a million people stood side-by-side, five deep, they would stretch seventy kilometres (or some such, I can't recall the exact figure).

But the people were not five deep. They were twenty deep or thirty. They were in every window, on every balcony, on every bridge, on rooftops and parapets, and spilling out of every Thames-side pub and restaurant.

Your application of you calculations was based on a misconception that the people might be "five deep".

• You are taking a literalistic understanding of a statement that was not meant to be taken as literal. Do you understand that sometimes people use a big sum to mean "lots" without intending to mean it literally? Just think about where all the people in that 910,000 gap went, and you might realise that the American announcer was just making a "figurative" not "literal" comment.

A person might say "There were a zillion mosquitoes in my room last night" when in fact there were only two.

or "half the class was away sick" when in fact it was eight out of twenty four.

or "there were at least a thousand people at the supermarket. There were no trolleys left". when in fact there were only sixty shoppers in the supermarket.

The "tens of thousands" statement fits into this category of expression. It doesn't matter how well you back it up with a reference. You cannot turn what is so obviously a casual statement, into a serious estimate.

• Question: How much information did the makers of the comment have to hand, when they spoke of "tens of thousands"?
• Question: At what point in the proceedings was the comment made?

Amandajm (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Amanda, the met police made an estimate of the number of people on the streets of London, as you say, including bank holiday shoppers, tourists, people going to see muse at the emirates - people going to work, to see friends, etc, etc - The original wording the article seemed to be written in a way so to give the reader the impression that they were on the streets to see the pageant, which was disingenious. Given 8m people live in London, 1 in 5 people who live there travelling somewhere during the day could be argued would be quite normal.

But, saying that - It's not mine, or your job to include personal opinions about the validity of sources (or try to attach additional meaning) which is exactly what happens when we deliberately ignore certain sources because we don't agree with what they're reporting! It is however our job to ensure the article is balanced and includes a range of opinions based on reiable sources. Many media organisations based in England carried the headline that 'a million' people were there, this is unlikely - but still an estimate which is sourced so should be reported. While many foreign media outlets put this figure in the 'tens of thousands' again, unlikely, but still their estimate. If it were a blog I'd likely write 'estimates ranged from tens of thousands to a million, with the real figure probably in the low hundreds of thousands' - but it's not, soto ensure the article is balanced we include both.

--Richardeast (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox holiday

Articles with this infobox are generally about annual re-occurring holidays. To distinguish its uses on articles with other frequencies, the field "frequency" was added. For this article, it would be "frequency=once". Maybe it shouldn't be using Infobox holiday though. -- 签名 _sig at 02:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your average reader has no idea that Wikipedia classes that box as a Holiday Infobox. The addition of "once" simply looks stupid to anyone who doesn't realise that someone is trying to distinguish it from annual holidays. I have tried clicking on the info-box, and since it doesn't connect me with other info-boxes for annual holidays, no confusion is possible. (not to the reader at any rate, and surely no Wikipedian editor would imagine that a Diamond Jubilee happened every year. Amandajm (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there another infobox we could use. This event doesn't really have anything to do with reoccurring holidays. As an intermediary solution, we could add a field that suppresses the display of "once". -- 签名 _sig at 07:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)