Talk:Protests against the Iraq War

(Article contents adapted from entry in current events)

Please supply cites for these attendance figures. The Anome 18:41 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be merged with Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but any simultaneous action by (alleged) several million people worldwide is surely an historic event in itself? The Anome

No, it's not. It's a historic event. ;) -- Oliver P. 19:35 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. English usage. Google says:

"a historic" 578,000 hits

"an historic" 353,000 hits

The Anome 19:39 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Scotland Yard estimated 1/2 million for London (that was on Radio 4 news at 16:00 on the day, so might have been revised since. The organizers were quoted as saying over 1 mil. -- Tarquin 19:55 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

And activists always say there are more than there really are. Remember the "Million Man March" where only a quarter million men showed-up? We shouldn't rely on the activists for accurate information in this regard. --mav 20:51 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

"And I love how they reported the peace march... 'Well, there were 400 people there. And they were using mirrors.'" - Kate Clinton

Scotland yard said it was 750,000 at teh end of it, but organizers sadi it ws 2 million. -fonzy

Sky News now report the march as involving over one million, RTÉ News reported approximately one million. Remember, while organisers do invariably over-estimate the numbers, the police often grossly under-estimate figures for three reasons:

• most marches are anti-government. It is in a police force's interest not to hype up the scale of such a march, as by the nature of their job they cannot be seen to be lending credibility to anti-government organisations.

• the police themselves often have a strained relationship with some organisers of a march; eg, in the anti-war marches, many of the organisers were associated with groups like the Socialist Workers Party, an organisation police forces generally have an antagonistic relationship with. So again, they would have no desire to 'boost the ego' of such organisations by suggesting a high number.

• Police forces are inherently cautious about supplying information, as journalists who deal with police forces invariably discover. They invariably go for the most cautious extimate. (One policeman told me once that if there was a march of what he guessed was 550 people, the police would round the figure down to 500, while the marchers would round it up, at minimum to 600, possibly 800 or 1000.

I know some media organisations follow a rule of thumb of taking a police 'number' and increasing it by one third. (One journalist I know said he reduces the highest estimate by 1/3, increases the police estimate by 1/3, adds them together then divides by 2. ) JTD 22:50 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Forget all the weird math - let's just say that the organizers give x number, police give y and some independent observers give z. --mav

${{\frac {4}{3}}p+{\frac {2}{3}}h \over 2}$, basically. ;-) -- Tarquin

ITN now says one million were in Hyde Park. (Sky News says 'more than a million'.) Normally, not all marchers would go as far as Hyde Park, so if one million were there, probably in the region of 50,000, possibly 100,000 will have dropped off (many to try to beat the traffic chaos by leaving earlier or feeling uncomfortable in such a crowd, feeling there are enough to 'send the message' and so leaving.) And ITN has now given 600 as the total number of cities where marches took place. JTD So has Sky News. 23:22 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I just got back from the New York demonstration. At one point, they announced that there were between half a million and a million there. I guess the CNN report of 200,000 isn't that off then. It was crowded ... and cold. Danny 23:25 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Not as cold in Ireland. The organisers expected 20,000 and many expected that they would be hardpressed to reach that total. Instead they got 100,000, an astonishing turnout. In that context, 200,000 in New York sounds rather small for a city of its size.

I removed mass mobilisation from the article. The phrase is traditionally use by left wing groups and perhaps accidentially, gave the article a left-wing pro march feel. I've rewritten the opening in a more NPOV manner.

More estimates of London March turnout:

• Mail on Sunday: 1,500,000 ( 'middle-england' middle class newspaper)
• News of the World: 750,000 (right wing pro-Blair paper)
• The Observer: 1,000,000 (left of centre radical paper)

Breaking News: Report in The Observer (February 16) claims US Pentagon is out to 'hit' Germany by reducing US soldier numbers to deliberately damage the German economy. The State Department is reported horrified at Donald Rumsfeld's plan. Is Rumsfeld brain-dead or does he want to the US hated worldwide? The Bush administration is not highly regarded in Europe. Such a policy of petty revenge because someone won't let America do what American wants would turn all of Europe against it. JTD 00:21 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

100,000 in Montreal! O.O Certainly one of the largest protests in Canadian history. And I was there...! *swoon* - Montréalais

I'm concerned that the war of words between the NATO allies, especially over the refusal of Germany, France and Belgium to defend Turkey, may lead to the end of NATO. -- Zoe

Why are you concerned? What usefull function exactly does NATO perform nowadays that the "Communist threat" is nonexistant. snoyes 03:41 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)