Jump to content

Talk:Flash mob/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

First Flash Mob?

Confused info in article: (The first attempt was unsuccessful after the targeted retail store was tipped off about the plan for people to gather.[14] Wasik avoided such problems during the second flash mob, which occurred on June 3, 2003, at Macy's department store, by sending participants to preliminary staging areas – in four prearranged Manhattan bars – where they received further instructions about the ultimate event and location just before the event began.) So which was the first flash mob? The failed one? Or the first of the four prearranged Manhattan bar flash mobs? The subsequent Macy's meeting was possibly not a flash mob since it was organized by people in the four bars using a paper instruction handout, not via "telecommunications, social media, or viral emails" Clarification anyone? And "Modern Origin" needs help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Which was first - Good point. I'll change this calling the first SUCCESSFUL flash mob the first, and refer to the botched precursor just an attempt, since the crowd there never convened.
As for the first (Macy's) flash mob – yes, the participants received pieces of paper that divulged the final destination once they reached the four staging areas. But digital communications led them to those staging areas, so it still classifies as a flash mob. (Most major flash mobs that followed used staging areas and pieces of paper or verbal announcements leading people from staging area to final destination. Attempts at forming large flash mobs via e-mails divulging the final destination tended to fail, like Bill's first attempt, because it was too easy for authorities to be tipped off and to preempt flash mobs. The last-minute announcements made face-to-face helped bypass that problem.)
RE: "Modern Origin" – This was to distinguish the 21st Century events called "flash mobs" from the subculture called "flash mobs" in 19th Century Tasmania (described elsewhere in this article). I wouldn't argue if you changed that to just "Origin" or something else to clarify. Cheesebikini (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: drop the failed flash mob all together, not notable? If a mob organized with paper is to be considered a flash mob then the definition needs to be changed radically. There's also the limited time frame to reconsider as the flash mob started at the bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Modern Origin" Agreement to drop "modern" then? "Origin" feels long ago. How about just: "First Flash Mob". Or "First use of term Flash Mob"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Anybody have an objection to changing "Modern Origin"? Its redundant. "Origin" implies historic roots as in "Origin of the Species". "First Flash Mob" describes the paragraph content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone want to pitch in on the use of paper to organize the Macy's mob? It doesn't fit the definition established, and the archives of this article are filled with more interesting mobs that have been rejected for less obvious divergence from the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It's relevant information detailing the development of how the modern usage came to be and how various failures constructed its base structure. To think that information doesn't need inclusion to an encyclopaedia is rather uninformed if you compare it to the general referential material in other encyclopaedia's. Mkdwtalk 03:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As for the first, botched flash mob attempt – I agree with Mkdw's point. As for the inaccurate claim about the Macy's flash mob repeated twice by the anonymous person at 12.52.198.89 who won't sign his or her statements – I already corrected this error the first time you made it, above. The Macy's flash mob was not just "organized by paper," its primary organization medium was e-mail, so that event clearly matches the definition. Please read the entire talk thread before commenting, to avoid unnecessarily repeated misunderstandings and explanations. Cheesebikini (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As for the first, botched flash mob attempt – This is historically relevant in the same way the early, failed light bulbs by Davy and others that preceded Edison's successful light bulb are relevant and useful to anyone studying the history of light bulbs or of innovation in general. Early partial failures shape later successes. Cheesebikini (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The actual organizing medium was paper. The assembly meetings in bars may have been flash mobs, the meeting in Macy's may not have been, by the definition. What was the time between assembling in the bars and leaving Macys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is grossly misleading. To say the organizing medium was paper and only paper is flat our wrong. Anyone who has organized anything in their life would know that getting people the meeting point was by far the largest and most complicated aspect of the organization. Getting people to show up is problem 1 for any event organizer, end of story. That was all done through telecommunications. Let's move on and look at the rules. Participants had an idea of what they were going to do, the overall plan, how flash mobs more or less worked, and even a CoC. The only rule left out was the location in which was explained on paper at the location. Frankly that suggests in the grand scope of communicated information to the participants that almost none of it was explained via paper. I think the use of paper also examines the use of varying tactics and an attempt to try a step outside of telecommunications. Ultimately that step was no longer included as participants in flash mobs and the rule of sharing it with 'good vibe people' became a necessary step in weeding out people who might tip off a store. Furthermore with the escalation in popularity of flash mobs, imposing on a location became more socially accepted, whereas in the beginning there might have been justified reasons to be concerned. This is starting to become a waste of time. It's clearly relevant. An encyclopaedia isn't supposed to spell this out for you. It's to report the facts and allow educated people to use these findings in their own analysis. Mkdwtalk 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Where are the rules?  In the archives there are hundreds of flash mobs deleted for similar differences. The the critical location information was by paper, end of story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I'm being trolled with the lack of adequate argument or reasoning, asking silly questions about the fundamental principals surrounding flash mobs such as their defining organizational steps, unregistered account, IP with history of vandalism and trolling elsewhere, unsigned, unformatted, grammatically repetitions... 'critical' doesn't even touch on what I'm trying to bring up nor the fact that other much more contemporary flash mobs have been removed. Almost always because they are unremarkable and have not impacted the current usage. In fact most of them are usually PR stunts. I want you to look up the word human. You will find that Sahelanthropus tchadensis is listed in the evolution section. This was not the first nor the last 'critical' step in the evolutionary process that created homo sapiens (they're not even sure if its part of the evo-cycle) -- nor does it qualify under the definition as being a modern homo sapien -- yet for some odd reason its included. Why? Because its important to the definition and article and shapes our understanding. I'm really having trouble justifying arguing with you further how the first successful flash mob by its creator should be included... If people want to know the use of paper as being a unique feature of that one, well fine. Lots of important variations have been made before a somewhat finished widespread product was released. I've decided not to spend more time on this unless it becomes a problem at which point I'm sure consensus or arbitration will find the outcome favourable. I frankly don't have the time to educate you on suitable inclusive material for an encyclopaedia. If you have quarrel with the nature of this incident, then you may have to approach the publishers or other encyclopaedia's to rewrite their principal authorship methods because I can assure you that this would be a notable enough subject to include on any subject. First successful flash mob by its creator. Think about it real hard. Mkdwtalk 06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Where are the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I defer to the definition to answer your question. Mkdwtalk 01:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So these are the rules: "A flash mob (or flashmob)[1] is a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression.[2][3][4] Flash mobs are organized via telecommunications, social media, or viral emails.[5][6][7][8][9][10] The term, coined in 2003, is generally not applied to events and performances organized for the purposes of politics (such as protests), commercial advertisement, publicity stunts that involve public relation firms, or paid professionals.[7][11][12] In these cases of a planned purpose for the social activity in question, the term smart mobs is often applied instead.

Who wrote these rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Those little numbers in the brackets are called citations and where the information for those sentences comes from. Mkdwtalk 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Removing examples

I would like to reopen the debate about removing the notable flash mobs section. For those of you joining the long time editors on this page, please read through the previous talk archives for some colourful back reading into the mater (particularly Talk:Flash mob/Archive 1).

I have been an advocate in keeping the section, as long as they were extremely important flash mobs, such as the world record holder and the first internationally organized flash mob. My reason for advocating was to show the scale in which they can occur and the scope of how wide spread they have become. I also wanted the examples to show what a true flash mob looks like unlike the many publicity stunts that are labelled incorrectly by the media as "flash mobs". A few that were hotly debated to be added were Oprah Winfrey's birthday concert with the Black Eyed Peas, the finale episode of the Eurovision contest (has an audience base the size of American Idol but in Europe and each country sends a representative singer), Weeds (television series) episode, T-Mobile advertisement for the Sound of Music reality TV show, and the list goes on.

The time might have come to remove the current examples as well. Every year thousands of legitimate flash mobs occur. They receive local coverage, and some times by large media giants like the New York Times, BBC News, CNN, CBC News, TIME, etc. This leads some contributors, often new ones to the process and whom participated in the event, to want to add it in the examples section. This creates problems. Almost all of them have no lasting effects or endurance which is a root concept of what should be included in an encyclopedia. Other policies such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT, WP:EVENTS, WP:NRVE and so forth enter the picture.

At this point in time I would like to point out the articles: fire, protest, performance, publicity stunt, advertisement, party, and election. What they all share in common are no notable example section. There have definitely been some historically important instances of each. The articles themselves have left those instances to be created in separate articles if they had enough depth of coverage, notability, verifiable, and has lasting effects. The same is the case if you open any other reputable and large scale encyclopedias. The idea of creating a separate article such as List of notable flash mobs came up and could be an alternative. Mkdwtalk 19:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. Just because something happens (and is reported in the news) doesn't mean we need a know about it in this article. GimliDotNet (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be removed. An accurate and well-maintained "Notable Flash Mobs" section, in concept, could be beneficial. But in practice the section with that title has not been accurate or well-maintained. As Mkdw points out, this section became a magnet for a plethora of descriptions of events labelled incorrectly "flash mobs" that are not flash mobs (i.e., that don't meet the very simple requirements described in the definition of the term that appears at the top of the article.) As I write this the section lists just two events, and both of them clearly fail to meet the definition of "flash mob." Over the years I and other longtime editors have corrected these errors and added notable real flash mobs to the list, but the section very quickly devolves again as marketers and excited new participants add new examples of gatherings that aren't actually flash mobs (and usually aren't noteworthy, according to Wikipedia's definition, either) to the list. I'd vote to have the section removed because it tends to draw more inaccurate edits than the rest of the article. Cheesebikini (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds neat. Just change the article title to: "Bill Wasik's Flash Mob". There are no others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we reaching consensus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

fire, protest, performance, publicity stunt, advertisement, party, and election don't focus on "first" or "origin". The idea of creating a separate article such as Flash Mob:Modern Origin could be an alternative, this could include List of notable flash mobs .

Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.198.89 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well its finally been done. Only took us 12 months, but I think the changes give enough insight to the illegal incidents and first pioneering flash mobs while allowing us to eliminate future examples. A problem that has continuously plagued this article. Mkdwtalk 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

eurovision song contest 2010

it should be mentioned because it is the biggest use of flash mob. there was sources once that i could have linked to back then but those sources have since been removed. there was a flash mob in each participating country though and in telenor arena perhaps. finding a source shouldnt be so difficult but i have other things to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Except it wasn't a flash mob. It was a paid and rehearsed publicity stunt. See: Talk:Flash_mob/Archive_2#Eurovision Mkdwtalk 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Example recap

Over the creation the development of this article, the discussion whether examples should be included or excluded appears frequently. The primary contributing factors for this have been the relative longevity of flash mobs as a trend both by flash mob enthusiasts and companies for the purposes of syndicated entertainment or publicity.

Originally this article contained a handful of current examples. Most notably the London silent disco that first broke international media headlines and the subsequent Pillow Fight Day record holder for the largest flash mob. The inclusion of these examples were debated over by some of the regular contributors over a number of years. Ultimately, we arrived at the consensus that the examples should be removed to make the article more encyclopaedic. If a flash mob meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, it could be created into its own sub-article or potentially added to a list. The first flash mobs were to be kept as they were an essential part of the information needed to portray how flash mobs began and their evolution to their current state. They also provided insight to the culture and its creator at the time of the trend.

Since, the popularity of using flash mobs in publicity stunts and performances in the media greatly increased between 2010 to 2012. Notable examples were the Eurovision, T-Mobile, Oprah, The Big Bang Theory, and Weeds. They all created events that superficially shared the appearance of a flash mob. Purely from a direct definition point of view, they did not meet the criteria. They were professionally assembled, rehearsed, and televised on closed sets, by professionals for the purposes of commercial entertainment. While they may suddenly assemble and disappear, they merely exit the set and continue with the shoot. Lastly, while a portion of it may be organized via telecommunications, the flash mob itself will largely be organized at a production level at the studio. Also, the question of pointless and bizarre come into question as performing a piece on a set, in front of an audience on a television set does not really seem all that bizarre and the point is quite obvious.

The final point is the distinction between the fiction of televised entertainment and the outside world. A staged protest in a film or television series would not be a good example to use in an article about civil disobedience. While producers will do everything to make them appear as real as possible, general assembly, etc. etc. it will never be a real protest. It is also important to mention that broad articles that cover events such as the article protest, fire, and performance share this same encyclopaedic layout where examples are excluded and separate articles for each example written if notable enough. Furthermore, there are many other articles on Wikipedia in which these events could and should be mentioned. Most of these television series have articles relating to their episodes. Other terms such as publicity stunts and smart mobs may share an even closer definition, or again the creation of a sub-article about the event if notability warrants it.

I have not written this to say it's the article canon. Rather, these are the common points brought up via the talk page over the years. For those editors joining in now its a starting point along with reading the other archived talk pages. Also, this article has seen changes from including examples to excluding them later on so the discussion is never closed. I have highlighted some key conversations below:

The rest you can read above such as the U2 'flash mob' and the conversation that finally led to removing the examples. Mkdwtalk 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the part about flash mob violence should be taken out. Those incidents are not flash mobs at all; they are wilding.Arlesd (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Direct Action

I fail to see how Direct action, a type of nonviolent protest, is an appropriate 'see also' for flash mobs. I believe in this case flash mobs are being incorrectly identified as types of protests or smart mobs. Additionally, if the organization of a group of people in any way is politically motivated it is not a flash mob despite any seeming similarities. For example many protests have been called flash mobs because they support a cause and they share the same format of occurring suddenly but fail to meet the actual definition which directly excludes protests. Direct action will need a reliable source to show their link to flash mobs as correctly identified by its dictionary definition. The reason being is that the media commonly mistakes the meaning of flash mob and there is a section that addresses that. Mkdwtalk 06:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Dispute Resolution

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

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

Some archived discussions worth noting:
So I would very much appreciate an apology. Mkdwtalk 04:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

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)

Larry Niven's short story Flash Crowd is mentioned in the second paragraph of the 'Precedents and precursors' section. Inclusion of Niven's contribution to the idea of modern day flash mobs has been referenced in this article since 2005 (nearly a decade). Mkdwtalk 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flash mob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin and first flash mob

Summer b I think we should move the discussion here so other editors can comment and join the discussion. We should do our best to avoid original research and be mindful of WP:TRUTH. There is discussion about whether Wasik is the original creator of the modern day flash mob or if it should be attributed to the Cacophony Society or Wasik's assistant Sean Savage. There are several notable publications like TIME, The New York Times, Wired (Magazine), The New York Observer, among many others that cite Wasik as the creator and person who coined the term as it is most applied today. I think it's possible that the Cacophony Society or Sean Savage either participated or hosted events that were similar, but it seems very definitive that the social phenomenon of flash mobbing (as it exists today) leads towards Wasik. In any case, I would oppose the removal of this information in lieu of the latter information due to how heavily cited it is that Wasik was the creator. I'm open to having a section about alternate claims about the creator of flash mobs, but only with due weight and substantially reliable sources. The website of the Cacophony Society and Improv Everywhere are primary sources and therefore should not be given nearly as much weight as third party publications with editorial oversight. Mkdwtalk 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ok thank you - just to clarify i was joking about the assistant thing...Flash mobs are most certainly SF-born and almost a decade older than Wasik's 2003 claim, though they weren't yet called that; Santacon was the first one in 1994. Sean Savage, the San Francisco flash mob organizer who coined the term, had been affiliated with the Cacophony Society, or at least aware of and writing about Santacon, since 2000. I will learn my Wikipedia citation and verification rules, narrow down to the hefty third-party sources, and try again on this entry to make room for everyone's side of the (true and verifiable) story. Summer b (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flash mob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flash mob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flash mob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flash_mob/Archive_3&oldid=1027906258"