Talk:Flash mob/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Copenhagen conference

As far as I can tell based upon reading the sources for the International Day of Climate Action and the content of the day that it does not meet the flash mob criteria much like Mother's Day. Everything was well planned, hotels booked, staff hired, and media advertising much like a festival. Also, the planned activities that took many days and the education of people about climate change and tree planting do not seem that unusual and more convention like. Mkdw^talk 19:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is just one example showing a flash mob organized by 350.org. Thousands of these events took place all over the world, often planned using social media at a specific time, and many of these are also on Youtube. Many of the global activities were also featured on the local news, so it appears to fit the criteria. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The page specifically states its a protest and to bring alarm clocks and signs. The difference between protests and flash mobs are quite difference despite them linking the Wikipedia article for flash mobs. Mkdw^talk 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More flash mobs are planned for future activities in the 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests, according to CBC: Starts around 1:50:00, if I remember correctly. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Improv Everywhere

I couldn't help but notice that in the lead section of the article Improv Everywhere it says

Everywhere has stated that they do not identify their work with the term flash mob, in part because their site was created two years prior to the flash mob trend.

Also I found this statement on their website in their FAQ.

Aren’t these flash mobs? No. Improv Everywhere was created about 2 years before the first “flash mob.” While some of our missions may have certain similarities to a flash mob (large numbers of people appearing in a public place and then disappearing suddenly), we really don’t have anything to do with flash mobbing. Some missions use just a few folks while others might use hundreds, depending on the idea and depending on how many people show up to participate.

They are essentially a theatre improv group that performer in found public locations. In fact there is a term that directly describes this form of improv called Guerrilla improv. This is where the term flashmob has cross over to various types of live performance and Street theatre. I would not link street busking in with flash mobs though they in theory appear similar. I would like to think flashmobs are definitely separate from all these categories as per its definition, or we'd have to revamp everything we've been doing with this article and integrate it into this whole other category. What are your thoughts on the manner? Mkdw^talk 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand their reasons for denying being a "flash mob", or even a group that does flash mobs. But they're definitely a group that does what our article defines as flash mobs. And both the group as a whole and specific mobs they've run have been quite notable. I'm fine with not calling them a "notable flash mob" per se, since they do activities other than flash mobs. But as an encyclopedic subject, and as a group, there's a very high interconnection between Improv Everywhere and the subject of "flash mobs". One way or another, they should be in this article's "see also" section.--Father Goose (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia 2010

There have been a series of violent flash mobs here in Philly, organized via Twitter. [1][2][3] --Xero (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent in Philly ...

Rowbottoms were a common event on the University of Pennsylvania campus from about 1910 until the 1970s. Once a "Rowbottom" got underway, automobiles might be overturned, windows smashed, and trolley tracks doused with gasoline and set ablaze. In the 1940s "panty raids" of the women's dormitories became a prominent feature. Rowbottoms were most frequent in the fall, particularly after football games.

Philly jawn (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not currently classify these as flash mobs, hence the lack of discussion over the quantity of philadelphia flash mobs as of late. Richard LaBorde (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rowbottom

The article Joseph Rowbottom after looking into its relationship to Flash mobs appeared to be about an unremarkable person whom many rioting acts were nicknamed at the University of Philadelphia. The article also happens to be an orphan article and its sources don't assert notability of the person or the term, and are not notable sources in themselves. A google test came back with no results back. As this editor removed my tags on the other article calling them 'bad faith' edits, I'm coming here to discuss and resolve this issue to the other editors and their advice. Mkdw^talk 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you posting this here? Philly jawn (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted this here to discuss how it does not relate to flash mobs -- this was prior to you summoning me to WP:AN/I... but we'll let it work its way out there I suppose. Mkdw^talk 03:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Rowbottoms have no meaningful connection to this article -- they are neither flash mobs (i.e., whimsical) nor even smart mobs; they're student riots. The recent Philly mobs probably qualify as smart mobs, being coordinated on Twitter, but still not as whimsical-type flash mobs.--Father Goose (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Smart Mob vs Flash Mob

The definition of "flash mob" has clearly grown to have the same meaning as "smart mob". Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic, which means that articles should strive towards the common denominator -- smart mob and flash mob are synonymous in general usage. If we're going to discuss controversy in this article it should be that some people think smart mobs and flash mobs ARE NOT the same. Richard LaBorde (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say they are blatantly different. While they have many similarities, flash mobs are essentially a type of performance art with no real purpose whereas a smart mob can be anything from a synergy movement of the stock market to a form of organized civil unrest. The only thing in common they truly have is they use technology in groups -- which could encompass just about everything these days. Mkdw^talk 06:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mkdw is correct here. Flash mobs and smart mobs are different, as you can see by comparing the smart mob definition in the "smart mob" entry with the flash mob definition in the "flash mob" entry. Many who study these phenomena consider "flash mob" to be a subset of "smart mobs" (and flash mobs to be specific types of smart mobs). (For whatever it's worth, in the midst of the flash mob heyday when these events were making headlines all over the world, Bill Wasik (the inventor and organizer of the first flash mobs), Howard Rheingold (inventor of the term "smart mobs" and the smart mob concept), and myself (inventor of the term "flash mob") all gathered in Rheingold's garden one afternoon to discuss this terminology and the social phenomena the terms describe. We all agreed that flash mobs were a specific form of the broader concept of smart mobs.) Cheesebikini (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your intention in coining the term should not change the way it's usage is represented. Richard LaBorde (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response section - biased? No positive responses?

I note the response section listing UK, Germany and USA responses are all negative. Surely there are positives that governments acknowledge? It acts as a tourism drawcard as it shows the place is a fun place.

Anyone want to do some news research to uncover it? Surely it can't all be negative........ 118.208.23.43 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

The season premiere of Weeds had a flash mob featured in it (maybe 3 minutes long). Surely there are more uses in popular culture. Should an In Popular Culture section be started? GRHooked (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I've called it "fictional flash mobs", but an "in popular culture" section heading be just as appropriate. Someone deleted the entry when I first put it in (without discussion, I believe), and I've just re-inserted it. I don't know of any other examples other than the Weeds episode, but anyway, that's a start. Hermitage (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly this is original research unless you can find a source that states its a flash mob. Just about every movie or television show might have something that qualifies as bizarre and unexpected in it, but they're certainly not flash mobs. The entire movie of Chicago could be considered a flash mob then or any other musical where they bust into song and dance. Mkdw^talk 07:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez. Watch the episode before you undo my edit. Here's what happens in the show:

Nancy is sitting next to a guy on a bench. The dancing starts up.

Nancy: Hey, what's going on?

Guy: Flash mob.

Nancy: Why?

Guy: Cause it's cool.

Nancy: [to herself] Cause it's cool...

The time code is about 26:35 when this starts.

This has got to be one of the first mentions of the flash mob phenomenon in popular media, so it definitely deserves a place in this article. Hermitage (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So your solution to properly citing an arguably piece of original research from a notable third party as per Wikipedia's guidelines was to "watch the episode". And no, flash mobs concepts have been used in "popular media" for at least four years such as Sound of Music Advertisement. Mkdw^talk 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously not original research. That's absurd. It's a TV show. Anyone who watches the show will know that it depicts a flash mob. This is incredibly straightforward, and I can't possibly imagine why you would feel the need to argue about it.

I enjoyed your Antwerp video. If you'd like to include it in the article, that's fine with me. I personally don't see how it is an example of use in popular media, but perhaps your definition of this is different from mine? My understanding is that 'in popular culture' sections on Wikipedia pages generally refer to things like movies and TV shows, i.e. cultural phenomena with very large audiences.

According to Wikipedia, 1.2 million people watched the Weeds episode when it was first broadcast; most likely the total number of people who have watched it to date is far greater, due to its availability on netflix instant watch, showtime on demand, etc. So my point is that a very large percentage of the people who have heard of 'flash mobs' first heard about them by watching that Weeds episode. Which makes the episode an important part of the way that the phenomenon is perceived and understood. Hence it would be completely silly not to include it in the article. Hopefully you see that now. Hermitage (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A {{fact}} template was added and after several weeks it was removed per policy. "Looking for yourself" is not Wikipedia's cite or verify policy and subject to its rules and regulations. If you continue to re-add this content with out finding a proper citation for a notable third party source you will be reported for persistent vandalism. Mkdw^talk 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the vandal. This section belongs on the page. It is incorrect for you to delete it. Look at other Wikipedia pages to see how event in popular TV shows are cited. My understanding is that they are not cited. If you find that they are cited, feel free to apply the citation format here, but do not continue to remove the section. It makes no sense. 72.194.209.242 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here are some other suggestions for possible sources. I still don't think that a citation is necessary, but if you're hell-bent on adding one, add one of these and then leave the section alone.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-fien-print/posts/2009-6-8-tv-review-weeds-season-five

http://www.tv.com/weeds/wonderful-wonderful/episode/1225998/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;summary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fm0LhJVPNI

http://videosift.com/video/Weeds-Flashmob-with-Michael-Franti-s-I-love-you

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090609115434AAesoXU Hermitage (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is considered one of "Wikipedia's core content policies" along with WP:OR. Under this guidelines, "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". And videos are not generally considered notable third party sources. Also it is highly discouraged that you use your IP and user account in conjunction to appear to be separate editors. Mkdw^talk 00:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, (a) there is no rule stating that videos can't be reliable sources, (b) videos are especially appropriate here, because the event in question occurs on a TV show and (c) not all of my sources are videos. I apologize if I've made anonymous edits; if I do, it's just because I don't realize that I'm not logged in. Hermitage (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read the sources policy about non-notable publishers like blogs and video hosting websites. Mkdw^talk 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the forest for the trees. The information that you keep deleting is both true and verifiable. You have no reason to doubt this, and yet you obsessively continue to delete it. Why? Hermitage (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, your sources are Yahoo Answers and Youtube videos. I appreciate that you are a new editor, under 1000 edits, and trying to improve this encyclopedia, but one thing you will learn here is that proper citations are very important. Furthermore, there are several guidelines in the Manual Style that discuss trivia sections, and in popular culture. The addition of weeds adds no further insight to the term, and frankly is an in discriminant lone point that in no way has affect this term in real life. If you found a study discussing the importance of this television episode or a newspaper article that looks as flash mobs and talks about that Weeds episode then it would be sufficient. Otherwise, this is another non-notable example being added in another section that won't stand the test of time. Mkdw^talk 05:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's notable for several reasons, including, as I've stated, that it has quite possibly been seen by more actual viewers than any other flash mob. The Weeds scene is the point of entry for many, many people in becoming aware of the flash mob phenomenon in the first place. Your comment that I'm a "new user" is pretentious, patronizing, and not particularly accurate, in that I've been editing since 2005. The essence of our disagreement seems to be what kind of citations are necessary for 'in popular culture' sections. My understanding is that, in this case, no citations are necessary, as it is monumentally easy to verify that the information in the section is true. However, if you continue to disagree, then we'd probably do best to refer this to a mediation process rather than endlessly undoing each other's edits. Hermitage (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was that pretentious. WP:VERIFY is the cornerstone on which Wikipedia was founded, and your lack of knowledge about it, as per your solution for me to "go out and watch the episode" showed a lack of understanding. Also your attempts to use Yahoo Answers and Youtube, show a further lack of understanding about WP:CITE. So naturally you can see how I made the assumption. Having edits for 3 years, does not make you an experienced editor if you do not understand the policies behind properly editing and then coming here to notify me that I'm a vandal when an admin reverted your edits. I've set up a mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flash mob. You may state your case there if it is accepted. Also, there are many videos on Youtube of flash mobs that have exceeded the viewership of that single episode of Weeds. Oprah did a 'flash mob' like publicity stunt with the Black Eyed Peas. You have judge each case in its relationship to an encyclopedia. Just because a lot of people saw it or the term was used, doesn't mean that example should find its way into an encyclopedia. Mkdw^talk 06:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mkdw and I have requested mediation. Please note that the relevant discussion is above, under the section heading "in popular culture?". Hermitage (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for reference, here is what happened. I added the following content, under the heading "in popular culture", and Mkdw deleted it. Then, this repeated several times.

• Episode 51 of Weeds ("Wonderful Wonderful") ends with a flash mob of variously dressed people doing a choreographed dance to Say Hey (I Love You).

In the last few iterations of this, Mkdw asked for citations. I don't think that citations are the norm in "in popular culture" sections of this type, but I provided these links:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-fien-print/posts/2009-6-8-tv-review-weeds-season-five

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090609115434AAesoXU

http://www.tv.com/weeds/wonderful-wonderful/episode/1225998/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;summary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fm0LhJVPNI

Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg; a google search for weeds flash mob gives about 20,000 hits, most of which appear to be relevant. Surely Mkdw can't possibly dispute that the content in question is both true and verifiable; hence his initial arguments seem to be without merit. More recently he has taken the tack that the content is not notable. Again, with 20,000 hits on google, and a viewership of 1.2 million for the original broadcast alone, this seems specious as well. Hermitage (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You've also made your argument in the wrong place when we set up mediation. Please read over the mediation process.

I really can't explain this any further than what I already have. As I've said, over and over... and over, it's not just about finding a source to prove it happened. This single point is minor trivia and in no way improves the article. It is encouraged that all in trivia or popular culture references not be in point form and indicate how this event has changed or been important to the term. You don't list every single example of musical numbers from television shows in the article musicals. There's not much else to say, you keep repeating yourself with the same Youtube links and not addressing the policies at all. Mkdw^talk 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You think that it's trivial. I disagree. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with OR policy or anything like that. You just don't want it in the article. Maybe you don't like TV, or you don't like that show in particular... I have no idea. Whatever your reason, I see no reason to think that your opinion carries more weight than mine in this instance. Perhaps the best way to resolve this would probably be to ask wikipedia users at random for their opinion, but as far as I know, although wikipedia has a random article feature, I don't know if it has a random user page feature. Too bad. Hermitage (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Today was the first time I found out about flash mobs and a TV show called Weeds. So I might be considered a disinterested third party.

I have reviewed the contributions from both parties and I can say this.

1. Both parties are fine upstanding Wikipedians.
2. Both parties have made significant contributions to Wikipedia.
3. Both parties take time out of their lives to contribute to the education of the rest of the world by contributing to Wikipedia -- for free -- and that is a very admirable thing to do.
4. I assume good faith. I believe both parties are trying to improve Wikipedia.
5. I believe both parties can work toward a middle ground and find a compromise.

Here are two examples. These are not necessarily proposals, these are just examples of what one side could offer to the other for a compromise so they can work toward a middle ground.

Example 1: Incorporate the Weeds information in to the article rather than having a "In popular culture" section.

Example 2: Incorporate the flash mob information in to the Weeds (TV series) article rather than the Flash mob article.

I would very much like to see both sides offer compromise solutions because I believe they are both good people that can find a solution. - 64.40.62.120 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your response to this discussion topic. I notice that you have used an anonymous IP address for your comments here? Would you mind identifying yourself by your user name? Hermitage (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply, Hermitage. I sincerly appreciate your willingness to get this issue resolved. I do not have a username at this time, but I can create one if that will help. It appears as if the issue may not be resolved. To move towards a resolution, the parties may initiate any of the following.

1. Review Wikipedia's dispute resolution practices
2. Request a third opinion on the issue
3. Ask for assistance from another editor
4. Request outside input on the issue
5. Get advice from the Mediation Cabal
6. Request advice regarding encyclopedic content

64.40.60.234 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Time Savers re: Defining "Flash Mob" and Deciding What Examples Should Be Listed

I've been asked to help focus an assortment of long and circular discussions here regarding the definition of "flash mob," which governs what events are listed in the article as "flash mob" examples.

In the interest of reducing the amount of time, effort and aggravation we all spend struggling with varying definitions, please consider this approach which I suggest (yet have no desire to demand):

Consider: Every definition of the word "flash" involves suddenness, extremely short duration. So much confusion and argumentation here revolves around well-meaning people adding descriptions of specific events that may have been fascinating or fun or newsworthy, but very clearly didn't happen in a "flash." If the average person wouldn't say gathering X convened and **dispersed** in a "flash," then event X was not a flash mob.

The "flash mob" test: if the group (1) assembles very quickly, (2) does an unusual thing very quickly, and (3) disperses very quickly, then it's a flash mob. If it doesn't, "flash mob" doesn't describe it. (Think: a flash of lightning or a flash flood.)

Of the many thousands of flash mobs that have occurred, only the most significant ones (the first ever, biggest ever, etc.) should be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry. Reason: The same reason why it wouldn't make sense for the entry for War to list every single war that has happened in history.

The media, bloggers, etc. have applied the term "flash mob" to everything from concerts to dances to sporting events to sales at auto dealerships, but a specific definition of the term should be enforced in a "flash mob" encyclopedia article. Reason: If we don't agree to apply *some* definition, everything under the sun can be considered a flash mob by someone, and the term loses all meaning. I recommend using the definition of the term that was adopted by the person who originated and organized the very first flash mobs (Bill Wasik), and that was intended by the person who invented the term itself (me). That definition is the one I've described many times in previous discussion on this Talk page, which is outlined by the "flash mob test" I describe above.

Thanks. Cheesebikini (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the press and general public routinely uses the term "flash mob" to refer to smart mobs of just about every sort should strongly influence how we choose to present both subjects. People want to add mention of non-flash smart mobs to this article constantly, because they see them referred to as "flash mobs" constantly. To really cover both subjects correctly, we should maintain both the flash mob and smart mob articles jointly. Any mention of non-flash flash mobs that are added here should not be deleted, but rather, transferred into the smart mob article.

Unfortunately, the simplest way to edit an article is to hit the 'revert' button. As a result, Wikipedia's coverage of smart mobs is sorely lacking, because people keep trying to add information on smart mobs to flash mob -- because that's what the press calls them -- and we delete their contributions as being "in the wrong article".

This situation frustrates me.--Father Goose (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that 99% of example additions fail any lasting notability and are not suitable for inclusion to an encyclopedia. They fail the policies flat out. In fact, if you open up any other encyclopedia in the world you will not find any examples, or if you do it will mention one and you better believe it was the most important example of that event in history. That's the real problem here. Every time a major fire happens and the local news covers it, you don't add it to an encyclopedic article. I can't stress enough that we have WikiNews for a reason, and complimentary policies to WP:N to ensure that events that come and go in a day don't get added (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTS, and by far most importantly WP:RECENTISM). I can't imagine how it would be appropriate to add an entry about a water fight that happened in Vancouver two years ago to an encyclopedia. The fact that the watchers of Smart mob have not chosen to enforce those policies is up to them, and I'm sure if you took it to an WP:FAR or arbitration those examples would be deleted. The article itself has significantly fewer edits and seems to not be as well maintained nor does it receive the same interest (per viewership and hit count) than this article. If you really feel there's a problem with the fact that you can't add trivial examples then perhaps you should make your case at the policy pages for change. Mkdw^talk 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "trivial examples"; it's examples of fairly notable smart mobs (the recent Philly events, or certain political protests) that are valid content in our smart mob article but that get added here because "flash mob" has become the term used in the field for all smart mobs. And thus our coverage of smart mobs is lacking; it gets added to, then purged from, this article.--Father Goose (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Except they are in the context of this article. The article fire doesn't list every single large fire in history, the article protest doesn't list every single historic protest, and crowd doesn't list every large crowd that ever assembled, so please tell me why you think flash mobs and smart mobs should be the exception in the history of all encyclopedias? Mkdw^talk 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

They should not be. There's no reason to apply different standards to this article than those applied to every other article. Cheesebikini (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Flashmob

There is an online gather of people on Wikipedia on May 18th 2010. Wondering how this kind of event fits into Flashmobs? http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=114190705266222&ref=ts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.36.131 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally I would say it does not. The concept of organizing editors to work on an article is something organized by hundreds of WikiProjects. The The FA-Team would be a good example of this. Considering the length of time you plan, and that the purpose of Wikipedia is to edit, and what you're planning to do is edit, does not make it an "unusual" and "pointless" act. It'd be like saying, we're all going to go to a swimming pool, swim, and then leave at the end of the day. Mkdw^talk 21:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Killing teenagers

This line: "Police departments have warned that if flash mobs continue, they will be forced to open fire with live ammunition and kill as many teenagers as possible." is not possible. I'm removing it until someone can prove it's been said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.198.237 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That was obviously vandalism and was reverted almost immediately by an admin. Mkdw^talk 04:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision

The Eurovision flash mob is now referenced with reliable media sources from multiple countries. This qualifies as "internationally covered". It is being claimed as a world record but will wait for Guinness to make a ruling before adding this to the article. 121.45.217.74 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As per their definition, flash mobs, smart mobs, publicity stunts, and advertising campaigns have their respective definitions and articles on this encyclopedia. In fact in the introduction it clearly states what flash mobs exclude. This is a common case of organizers using popular terms from pop culture and naming their event after it. The media often exaggerates or incorrectly use terms to make them more shocking; calling things cataclysmic or historic when they don't turn out to be. If someone calls it something, if it does not fit the description, then either the description is wrong or the person was wrong. Considering definitions for publicity stunts and flash mobs exist, and the event was either one or the other, then in this case the person was wrong. Everything advertising claims cannot be taken at face value and often coined terms become commonplace.

This came up in the past when the Vancouver 2010 Paralympics called their opening ceremony a flash mob with 60,000 people attending and uncounted people watching and participating, and also named by popular media. Over 1,600 performers attended rehearsals, and the entire audience prior to the show were coached on the dance, but in the end the choreographers, directors, ticket buyers, dancers, and all participants were part of a media stunt that did not network, quickly assemble, do something bizarre and pointless, and disperse. It was all for show and promotion, and as a result was not a flash mob by definition.

Also during the 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy, was a flash mob, covered by international media regarding an incident that occurred, it was decided that due to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM that its inclusion in this Wikipedia was not sufficient. Quite simply, just because it gets a lot of media attention does not make it encyclopedic material.

Examples are very rare for encyclopedic articles and its even been discussed whether examples belong on this article or not for this very reason. Events that cross the line end up where they do not belong are added because at this point in time they were popular, but in two years they will have faded. Even some of the examples listed in this article are starting to lose their weight save for one being the first known massive flash mob and the first internationally organized flash mob. Mkdw^talk 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mkdw is correct. The Eurovision entertainment events referred to above were not a flash mob, simply because they didn't meet the flash mob definition: "...a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and pointless act for a brief time, then quickly disperse." Like so many publicity events that have been erroneously submitted here as flash mobs, this was not a gathering that assembled or dispersed suddenly. Unlike most of those examples, this was not even a single gathering in a public place, but instead a montage of footage of non-flash-mob activities in multiple different places. In fact, the only attribute that this event (or rather, series of events) shared with flash mobs was the fact that it involved a large (albeit, very distributed) group of people. If you stretched the definition of "flash mob" so far that it described these Eurovision events, it would also describe the entire mass of humans on the planet Earth. Then you could call Earth the world's largest flash mob, but at that point the term "flash mob" would be meaningless and of no practical use. Cheesebikini (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Apolitical?

I disagree with the suggestion that flash mobs are "pointless." The thought of Hakim Bey, particularly in Immediatism, is relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.96.115 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pointless, as described in the article, is a cited word included in the Oxford English Dictionary definition. This one key word is important to the term as far as its original meaning and its underground use as it continues on today. Apolitical only refers to flash mobs as being non-political when in fact the biggest misconceptions about flash mobs currently is due to companies and the media calling every publicity stunt for the purposes of commercial advertising that occur in public a flash mob. Mkdw^talk 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote Mob?

Should they be here, or as a separate entry? I'm surprised not to find anything about them - they were a significant event during the recent 2011 Cdn election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.211.198 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Based upon the CBC News: Vote mob article, I'd generally say that while their 'vote mob' appeared similar to a flash mob, they are in fact two very separate things. Essentially what happened was a bunch of young students planned an event to get a bunch of other students and young voters to show up and vote... which in my opinion is nothing different than a creative political campaign, and not a flash mob. It also fails the general definition in that (while young voters are rare) having people assemble and vote at voting stations hardly elicits being described as an "unusual and pointless act". Mkdw^talk 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it looks like we should start a vote mob article. But I think it should perhaps be linked here - as this was the inspiring concept, even though vote mobs are clearly not about something frivolous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.209.180 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You can give it a go. Generally I find that one time events generally get deleted because of their lack of lasting effects and WP:NOTNEWS policy. You could try writing the article and adding links from the smart mob article as that's the root article for flash mob. Mkdw^talk 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tried adding a link here - but it got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.102 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Being bold

I recent decided to pour over the news articles that cite flash mobs and not too surprisingly enough the vast majority of them cite Wikipedia for the definition of a flash mob. The three primary sources for the term have been the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and interviews with Bill Wasik. Over the last four years this article has been built up in a very segmented way and honestly did not have much information on the subject that would meet Wikipedia's verify policy as it was hugely underground until its mainstream breakout in 2008. Even now we still see the media loosely apply it to everything from hacking to paid public choir performances and advertisements. A few legitimate sources that have been very on track with flash mob culture like the NYT consistently come up in this article as they've had a history not only with Bill Wasik in interviews but also apply the term as per its definition. As such I decided to make a bold move and clean up the article. The introduction has what seemed like two separate sentences defining the term. I tried to clean it up to make the first sentence not too long and include the OED and Webster definition, and left the details of how they're organized to the second sentence. I elaborated on the third sentence as it was in need of a modern update since its been applied to so many wrongly categorized protests or other smart mobs. I took the 'response' section that seemed to have only negative responses and turned it into a generalized legal response section and eliminate the minor incidents that have occurred but so have many others like it. Lastly, there seemed to be many sub sub sub sections added over the years and I merged them together to give the article a more full and encyclopedic wikification. After all, ideas can be separated by paragraphs with out needing a giant bold title and two sentences in its section. If I've made some controversial changes and what nots I'm making this section to open it up. Mkdw^talk 11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If sources disagree on what qualified as a "flash mob", then shouldn't the article include some discussion on the contrasting views and definitions? It should not be for editors to adopt a particular definition as final (even if supported by reliable sources) and therefore decide that other cases that are describes as "flash mobs" in other reliable sources do not merit a mention. Shouldn't there at least be a passing mention of some cases that have been described as "flash mobs", noting that they do not meet the definitions adopted by others? —sroc (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder? Nothing I changed falls under original research and had a notable third party source with a citation. The definition as I said above is kept consistent with the dictionary definition and as I'm sure you've already read the article there is an entire section dedicated to its use in the media for other descriptions. Mkdw^talk 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the purpose for a flash mob?

As the article claims in the beginning, "The term 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". Full stop, end of the lede. So why are flash mobs are being generally organized then, anyway? Nothing is said about that. Could someone please expand? --Garik 11 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll just have to read the rest of the article for that information. Mkdw^talk 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Violent mobs such as those seen in Philadelphia in the news right now, are not flash mobs, this section needs to be removed entirely as violence runs counter to the very idea of flash mobs. Flash mobs are not violent..period. Those are just plain old mobs. Flash mobs purpose is to entertain or just do something silly, NOT violent. From dictionary.com "a large group of people mobilized by social media to meet in a public place for the purpose of doing an unusual or entertaining activity of short duration" Top answer from Urban dictionary "A group of people who appear from out of nowhere, to perfom predetermined actions, designed to amuse and confuse surrounding people. The group performs these actions for a short amount of time before quickly dispersing. Flash mobs are often organised through email and/or newsgroup postings." If you question the use of Urban Dictionary as a reliable source, I question the use of stuffy dictionary and news reporter types where the author was likely completely clueless as to what a flash mob was before he heard he was writing a piece on one and asked a kid. If you wanted to know what the latest slang term meant, would you ask someone in their 40's or their teens? Yeah, thought so. In this case, the news is the LEAST reliable source for the definition of the term since it is relatively new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baevar (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole flash mob thing is nothing new or exciting

I only recently found out about this phenomenon, it seems through a group of people who couldn't even accurately describe what it was. But as they finally settled on what they thought a flash mob was I realised that it is nothing new or original. There has been events like this under different names for a long time and it may actually be more a reflection on societies ability to forget / circulate information rapidly then an new form of expression. The main equivalent of this (that I'm aware of) that existed prior was the Spontaneous Choir, something led by a few individuals at various festivals in Australia such ConFest. Its an old social experiment / activity that has just been tagged with a new name so crediting someone with its 'invention' is poor form for Wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly can't say we haven't seen this argument time and time again. /sigh. I assume you're comparing your example of a Spontaneous Choir to the recent viral advertising video Christmas Food Court Flash Mob, Hallelujah Chorus - Must See! that garnered over 30 million hits on youtube. Was this a flash mob by definition? Absolutely not. Did they make it appear flash mob like? Yes. In reality it was a well rehearsed choir group that was hired by http://www.AlphabetPhotography.com that paid the mall to host this event. If you go to your local mall I'm sure you'll see many events. Child entertainer that gets the audience involved, choir conductor recruit some strangers to sing a song (in fact I'm pretty sure this happens every time they sing the national anthem at any large event) and perhaps even Santa. While to some Santa appearing in your mall may appear to be a bizarre, not really unusual, but out of the ordinary act then call it a flash mob and Santa pre-dates your Spontaneous Choir by a few decades thanks to Coca Cola / Christianity / Pagan religion it was borrowed from. Again I suggest you read over the definition word for word more carefully, look a the first two flash mobs, how they were social experiment, and then compare them to popularized flash mobs like pillow fights and not make the argument that pillow fights have existed and aren't anything new. (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Mkdw^talk 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The hilarious irony being

That flash mobs, any form of even remotely successful one, are never spontaneous or involve people not previously aware of the event joining in. Sounds to me like some post-graduate drama students need to come to grips with not being the centre of attention anymore. 58.7.214.181 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

I assume you're talking to me since I seem to be one of the last ones remaining that bothers replying to some of these ridiculous talk comments. Yes I love being the centre of attention... I love it... hence my choice to edit behind a username and participate in faceless events that credits no one with their success... Anyhow it's clear you don't even know what a flash mob is as you'd know that they're not spontaneous at all. In fact in almost every dictionary definition it clearly states they are pre-organized. If you're distrustful of the Wikipedia definition then I quote:

"a public gathering of complete strangers, organized via the Internet or mobile phone, who perform a pointless act and then disperse again." - Oxford English Dictionary.

So please do us all a favour and grow up. Mkdw^talk 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bit odd to assume that. Since I didn't post in any section even remotely related to your comments. Probably should have picked that up with the new title and all. Way to further prove my point with your hilarious rant though, hahaha. 58.7.214.181 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Earlier Examples

In the mid-to-late late 1990s and the early 2000, the swing dance scene often engaged in what they referred to as "Lindy Bombs" where a group of dancers would show up at random places and start dancing Lindy Hop. Preferred places to attempt these were places with large numbers of people such as malls, restaurants, or popular parks. For a while there was also a trend where some would pile into a few cars or a vehicle that could hold a bunch of people and head for an intersection that was known to have a red light that lasted a long time. Once stopped at the red light, everyone would jump out, start dancing between the stopped vehicles, and before the light turned green again, would pile back into the vehicle. Typically, the more out of place the Lindy Bomb appeared in the location it was done, and the more people present to witness it, the better it was thought to be (same concept holds in Flash Mobs). Interestingly enough, a number of Flash Mobs that I've seen on YouTube are organized by former or current Lindy Hop swing dancers. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

White vs Black culture

User:Shii's changes to segregate the article into 'white' and 'black' culture is completely inappropriate, racist, and for the most part appear to be original research. For starters, where did he get "flash mobs in white culture"? There's no indication that there is even a 'white' culture of flash mobs as people from all ethnical backgrounds participate in flash mobs. Also, frankly, I'm even hesitant to have the Philly flash mobs as they were riots not really flash mobs. The only reason they are here is because its a prime case of the media using flash mobs to describe any large gathering, and in this particular case may have started from a simple flash mob. Mkdw^talk 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The media is referring to them as flash mobs because of the way they have been organized. A riot is an entirely different socialogical beast. The recent incidents in Philly and elsewhere have been designed with a specific illegal activity in mind. One must be careful to not turn it into a racial issue, but you cannot ignore that they are happening. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the media was not a reliable source. Shii (tock) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is creating controversy where it doesn't exist. The riots in London—for example—were started as what is described as "flash mobs" and the last I heard a good chunk of the the folks participating in those riots were chavs which the last I checked were as white as white can get. But that said, I have removed "African-American" from the description of Philadelphia violence. This stuff has 100% nothing to do with race but has to do with violence among idle, jerky youth in whatever country or region it occurs. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, we're mature enough to see this as a sociological problem and we're not going to slippery-slope into lyncing blacks just because we're noticing a trend. It's OK to talk about this. We should talked about this. Michael Nutter was not afraid to address "flash mobs" as a growing trend and problem in the black community. Thank God he's black so he's allowed to talk about this without being labeled a racist. Look at the picture in the New York Times [4]. It has 100% nothing to do with race? Fine. I understand that word is touchy. Let's call it a problem in the black "community". Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it. --cmtmoore (talk) 22 August 2011

“Just please stop being a pussy and let's address it.” You’re being given more credit than you deserve considering your very clear confrontational tone towards anyone who disagrees with you. The issue is not race, but social status and class conflict. In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines, but the U.K. and other places it’s not. And stating it’s “black” achieves what exactly? Let’s say you race-baiting edits stand, will folks suddenly ”wake up” and say: “Hey, I know what the problem is! It’s those black kids!” and then what? How do you then explain “flash mobs” in the U.K. that are mixed race or other similar events elsewhere that are “monorace” for lack of a better term. The violent “flash mobs” are a class based issue. Not race. It’s 2011. Please get some perspective. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Louis CK has this joke where he's talking about a hasidic Jew trying to stuff an oversized bag into the overhead storage on an airplane, and he stops half way through the joke to aknowlegde that there's no reason for him to mention that the guy is a hasisidc Jew, it's totally not really releveant to the story, but he still mentions it, because it's was true, and that's just what you do. You paint the picture. It's bizzare that the media is dancing around mentioning "black youths" in these stories when it's such an immediate detail. Now, you're intelligent enough to know that I'm not wrong. In the particular instances in the United States flash mobs are being dominated by black youths. Now before you mention London again, when I say "don't be a pussy" I'm saying: don't be afraid to let the article reflect that "In Philadelphia it might be drawn on race lines." That seems like an interesting and important aspect of the story! It literally, semantically, does not mean that flash mobs can only be instigated by black people. All it means is that in a partcular area of the world, at a particular time in history, we saw a pattern. We saw class conflict. You're going to tell me that it's still irrelevant to mention race, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you were in a store and one of these Twitter flash mobs started, a bunch of black kids came in and stole everything, when you went home to tell the story to your freinds and family, would you mention that they were black kids at any point in the recount or would you just tell everyone that you witnessed a violent expression of class conflict and nothing more? --Cmtmoore (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with geniuses like you Cmtmoore who want to point out race is you only do it when you get a chance to point out that black people have done something. It’s like you are sitting there behind your keyboard just waiting for the moment you can point out black people did something! Why not point out the pillow fight flash mobs were instigated by a mainly white core of people? Because it’s a stupid division. The vast majority of kids flash mobbing in Philadelphia are indeed black, but the motivation behind the flash mobbing was not race based. It was clearly class and crime based. Also, if I came across a store being looted by a bunch of kids, the very first thing I would say when I came home is simply say “The store was looted by a bunch of kids!” That’s it. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you had to say that you wouldn't mention race in the story to be consistent. But it's just weird. Like, what's wrong with saying that? Anyway. You could mention that pillow fights are done by white people. Factually true. It just doesn't seem like pillow fights are a problem drawn down race lines. Call me crazy for making this observation. I'm all for the embetterment of the black community and I priase people like Michael Nutter who have the balls to stand up and say maybe you could start trying to embetter yourselves and stop represening yourselves so poorly. This attitude doesn't mesh well with the liberal attitude that sees poor people purely as victims who are too weak to not succumb to crime. But they're not weak. They can embetter themslves.--Cmtmoore (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you are a genius who is dividing the debate here into “liberal attitude” versus “balls” and/or “pussy” let me explain why I “wouldn't mention race” in your ridiculous example. I am white and grew up in a poor neighborhood of New York City that was mixed, but primarily lower class and the biggest bunch of “thugs” I had to deal with were predominantly white kids who were just thugs. This isn’t being said for consistency, it’s reality. If “flash mobs” happened in South Boston or Rhode Island, it would be white thugs beating up anyone. Also you say “I'm all for the embetterment of the black community…” I assure you absolutely nobody on Earth needs to hear your patronizing nonsense or needs your encouragement for “em-betterment.” But this is Wikipedia, not Cmtmoore-pedia. If you want to start your own collaborative project where people with “balls” who are not “pussies” tell it “like it is” go for it! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's just something laughable about not being allowed to say it.--Cmtmoore (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And the reason you're not allowed to say it is obvious. It's because for people like SpyMagician, it hurts too much to hear. A description of reality that one cannot live with is better suppressed than addressed. His objections to mentioning it are primarily, if not totally emotional in nature. My apologies for messing up the discussion flow.184.174.148.13 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a violation of NPOV to use personal anecdotes in an argument like this? 184.174.148.13 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad at least some one agrees. SpyMagician doesn't trust the readers to be intelligent enough to not make erroneous cause-causation assumptions (i.e. the erroneous belief that race causes violence). It's actually kind of patronizing.--Cmtmoore (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

John Cage

Should 4'33 be considered the first recorded flash mob event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.33.71 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting notion, but ultimately falls under performance art if anything. While silence is perhaps unusual, its a scripted performance piece, and has a statement as with all art. Furthermore, the fact that they are generally not assembled rapidly, or disperse quickly, nor use telecommunications with a decentralized organizational structure keeps it outside the fundamental principals (or 'rules' as often referred to) that would define it as a flash mob. Mkdw^talk 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In what way would 4'33 be a flash mob? Nothing about it comes close to meeting the definition of the term. I think this suggestion is a prank. 71.198.248.208 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Flash Mobs & Violence

I have done some small—and cited edits—to the main article to reflect the fact that for better or worse, the phrase “flash mob” is now being associated with acts of violence and rioting. I am not suggesting or have made edits to reflect other more playful/fun uses of the term “flash mob” are invalid, but presenting it as part of the full spectrum of the phrases use in culture. Another editor Mkdw has taken issue with the use of the violent connotations and has reverted my edits more than once, which I do not understand [5][6]. While there is clearly some controversy in the world as to who is to blame for the use of the phase “flash mob” in the context of violent acts—for better or worse—that is how it is being used in the media and in casual conversation. One cannot have an article about “flash mobs” and somehow ignore that fact. If someone can provide better citations, please do. But ignoring the current use of the phrase in 2011 (8 years after the first known use of the phrase) is a tad naive. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

U2 Streets have no Name

Certainly my Wiki skills are a little weak. Would making a link to the youtube video work as a reference? It's self evidently a record of a flash mob. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQxl9EI9YBg This event seems to fit the both the Oxford "a public gathering of complete strangers organized by the internet or mobile phone, who perform a pointless act then disperse again", and the Webster definitions in the Wiki closely. And as the Wiki says < news media and promoters have subsequently used the term to refer to any form of smart mob, including political protests;[26] a collaborative Internet denial of service attack;[27] a collaborative supercomputing demonstration;[28] and promotional appearances by pop musicians.[29]> Surely as in all functional dictionaries popular usage is what ultimately defines a word. Perhaps you would like to park the event under <Notable Flash Mobs>? for the moment? 76.175.193.153 (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Publicity stunts and flash mobs are completely different. It'd be like adding Oprah's birthday celebration to the article riot. Everyone was wild, and even some unlawful things happened and someone was arrested for disrupting the peace, but that still does not make it a riot. Frankly, it's ridiculous to even propose that this music video is any way remotely related to flash mobs other than being organized as a street party. Mkdw^talk 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 you say that this video fits the definition of flash mob since “organized by the internet or mobile phone.” That is 100% not the case. The song was released in 1987 and the video made in 1987. You also wrote “The location was leaked to fans and media…” C’mon, who leaked it? Some random person not connected to the band and the video production? This was not a spontaneous event that just formed at the spur of the moment. It was and is a publicity stunt choreographed for a music video. Nothing more and nothing less. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

SpyMagician Thank you. Respectfully: The first word of the quoted definition is "organized". So being organized is not a valid basis to exclude a particular flash mob. Every flash mob is organized, and not some "spontaneous" social effervescence."on the spur of the moment" The location of every flash mob is leaked by an organizer with a creative intention, not some "random" person. As for 1987, we did have and use "internet or mobile phones" back then, and to organize this event.

Being "Choreographed" would seem to be an inherent feature of most flash mobs76.175.193.153 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Computers existed in 1987 but were mainly used for home use and the Internet and online services barely existed and were not pervasive. Cell phones did technically exist as well, but have you seen Wall Street because the only people who used mobile phone were rich guys and they we the size of 1/2 a suitcase. A music video made in 1987 and with a group of fans told to mob in one location so as to be filmed is not a flash. The context of this article is the modern use of the term “flash mobs” to spontaneously organize large groups of people on the spur of the moment. If you do not understand that please re-read the article. Thus U2 video is cute but not a flash mob but any extent. --SpyMagician (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A postscript to this mini-edit war: Please check the talk page for Where the Streets Have No Name. 76.175.193.153 obviously has a conflict of interest. --SpyMagician (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

SpyMagician ([[User talk:SpyMagician|talk] The first practical mobile phone was in limited public use from 1946.

By 1987 there were over a million cell phone subscribers, most of them, as you might imagine, in wealthier cities like Los Angeles,

I can't find statistics about their average income bracket, but is that relevant? Is there an income ceiling for participating in a Flash Mob?

Not sure its worth following the Wall Street straw man any further, but the phone in Wall Street is a Motorola 800Ox (1983). It is actually only about the size of a brick and weighs 28 ounces.

They were fairly common by 1987, not only on Wall Street.

Stating that an event is "not a flash mob" is an opinion. I respect your opinion, but I may have an alternate one.

The context of the article is Flash Mob, not "modern flash mob". A flash mob can have occurred before the word flash mob came into existence.

The phrase "on the spur of the moment" does not appear on the page. Wasik's mob, as specifically described in the Wiki, relied on tactical planning before the actual event and therefore clearly was neither "spontaneous" or "on the spur of the moment". Perhaps that was not a flash mob either?. Or perhaps "Streets" was one?

I have read and re-read the article. It is incomplete. It needs revision. The opening paragraph defines Flash Mob accurately, and the "Streets" event should be considered for inclusion in the article, by its own definition. Rebuttals and semantics aside, I would argue that it doesn't matter so much how the people got there, or what technology was used, it is the spirit of the thing, when masses of people with a shared knowledge and gestalt, simultaneously appear in a public place to the surprise of uninvolved observers in the setting or community.

I appreciate your continuing help in clarifying the issue.

An encyclopedia is by definition a compendium, not a dictionary.76.175.193.153 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 you have a conflict of interest and you are making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote yourself and your work. And in this case you are obsessed with changing this page so as to painfully connect your music video work to flash mobs for bizarre reasons. It’s also hilarious to read your edits & explanations that painfully try to imply cell phones were in such common/everyday use in 1987 they were used to organize people for the production of the Where the Streets Have No Name music video. If anyone thought your edits were valid, you would have other editors coming here to defend them, but they aren’t so that isn’t happening. --SpyMagician (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SpyMagician Respectfully. Hilarity and Ad Hominem aside, if one can't be satisfied that, with a million cell subscribers already in place by 1987, technologically orientated early adaptors in Los Angeles didn't routinely use cell phones to organize any complicated off-site event like this one, let's move on past this well stuffed straw man. The definition of flash mob on the Wiki page also defines 'telecommunications" as an appropriate flash mob organizational tool. By Wiki definition telecommunications: "includes the use of electrical devices such as telegraphs, telephones, and teleprinters, the use of radio and microwave communications," Would one accept that the standard telephone would have been used by the participants? Or should one edit the flash mob Wiki page to exclude telecommunications so that the definition is sufficiently narrow to protect the modernist POV of the article? Significantly the Wiki definition of telecommunications is so broad that even smoke signals are accurately categorized as telecommunication devices, perhaps the first flash mob was organized by the original people? It is inspiring to read a page that is so inclusive. As for the painful process, apologies, is the discussion page is the appropriate page to discuss the proposed edit, in this case by specific invitation? If other editors are in fact lurking, could some help out?. Until they do, using an invisible college consensus to invalidate an argument is fallacious.76.175.193.153 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153, I think there is one guy on the night shift on Wikipedia monitoring all the pages. Find his talk page and complain about the edit reversions there and see if he can do something about it. If he doesn’t get back to you it means he ran downstairs to get some candy from the machine and will be right back. --SpyMagician (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SpyMagician Anything on the substance?76.175.193.153 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is some reliable independent source that calls "Where the Streets Have No Name" the first instance of a flash mob, it's pointless to debate this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Y2Kcrazyjoker4 Respectfully. The title of the article is Flash Mob, not "First" Flash Mob. As politely suggested at the top of this thread perhaps we could park "Streets" under "Notable Flash Mobs" for the moment. Is it reasonable to deduce, from the absence of rebuttal, that it is now agreed that this event fits the editor's definition of Flash Mob, and the event should be noted on the page? If not under "Notable" then perhaps under: " Precedents and Precursors" where specific flash mob phrasing in the references doesn't seem to be required? Appreciate your time and thoughts76.175.193.153 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

“Is it reasonable to deduce, from the absence of rebuttal, that it is now agreed…” the absence of a rebuttal stems from the fact you are completely disconnected from reality & do not understand that without proper citations, your broad and arrogant claims—that a music video that you directed in 1987 is the source of the so-called "…first and greatest contemporary flash mob ever…”—will never stand. Not with this editor. Not with other editors. Your edits and behavior have been reported on multiple admin noticeboards and if any of the hundreds of editors who read those boards thought the removal of the info was unfair, they would come in here and say “Hey, wait a second…” But what is happening? Nobody disagrees with the active editors actions here. If anything your talk page is now filled with more warnings from more editors. Give it a rest and if you can find proper citations for your claims, feel free to present them here in the future. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SpyMagician Respectfully and, as a result, unfortunately somewhat pedantically. Apologies for the initial multiple revisions. Wiki ignorance rather than vandalism. The discussion was quickly bought here appropriately and has been polite. The current discussion is not whether the event qualifies as the "First"" but whether it is in fact a flash mob or not. As for citations, understood. The question raised was whether the citations under "Precedents and Precusors" would have to specifically include the word flash mob, as there are currently acceptable citations for entries on the article that do not. If you have time perhaps you would be able to try to help clarify these two issues. If not, as whole issue is entirely trivial, you might be forgiven for giving it a wide birth, as apparently have "hundred of other editors". A discussion on "completely disconnected from reality" would certainly be more interesting, but perhaps this is not the best forum . 76.175.193.153 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. It's not even a flash mob to begin with. It completely fails the definition. There are 3 people telling you so. Mkdw^talk 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mkdw^talk Respectfully. It would be helpful if the editor would take a moment to address how the event "completely fails the definition", rather than just stating that opinion with the supporting authority of two people who may have have abandoned the discussion. With respect, "people telling you so" is not the function of the discussion page. The definition in the first paragraph of the flash mob page is clear enough, and while other editors have already been through much of the low-hanging fruit, it should be easy to find support there for such a clear statement of fact, if it is valid. In the meantime, in the Wiki spirit of compromise, the current question is whether the event could even be properly noted on the flash mob page under "Precedents and Precursors". where a consensus may be easier to find,.76.175.193.153 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Did they suddenly assemble? No. Apparently the crowd gathered over several hours. Were they there for a brief time? No. They remained on site for hours after. Did they do something bizarre and pointless? No. They danced to some music at a purpose built venue for a live performance. Nothing bizarre or unique about that. In fact I'm sure this is exactly what happens at every music video set. Was this a publicity stunt (as clearly said do not qualify as Flash Mobs)? Absolutely. They made a professional music video. Do you really think music videos and flash mobs are the same. If you truly believe this to be a precedent to flash mobbing then I argue that every large gathering of people assembled whether it was the million man march to fans gathering at a football game are precedents to flash mobs making this one particular instance unremarkable. Fortunately, we have other words in the English language to describe public performances, film making, protests, publicity stunts, and so forth that more accurately describe what happened. You say no one has pointed this painfully obvious argument to you, but we have. Many times. We're through repeating ourselves over and over. Can't you read the entire discussion here and on the U2 talk pages. This is becoming a detriment to the time and efforts of several legitimate editors and the fact that you're self promoting your own work on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest and you can be banned for it. Mkdw^talk 07:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not aware that there was either a time limit or any conflict of interest guidelines prescribing discussions on these Wiki discussion pages. If banning is required for the integrity of the Wiki community by all means carry on with it. As for the legitimate arguments presented above please let me know if it is permitted to reply. 76.175.193.153 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Every post by you in these discussion threads 76.175.193.153 is the utter same pedantic patronizing nonsense. You keep on saying you are willing to learn, but 100% none of the comments you have made here indicate any desire to learn. You are talking the talk, not walking the walk. These are not difficult concepts: You cannot edit Wikipedia pages as radically as you have done without CITED and VALID sources. That’s it. You do not have to ask permission nor do you have to build a consensus. You simply have to abide by some very basic rules. That is it! Also, there is no “time limit” to this either beyond the concept of you wasting other editors time and filibustering your discussion comments to the point it almost feels like one is dealing with a pestering, nonsensical customer at a store or a tenacious panhandler who will not take “No!” for an answer. I can only speak for myself, but I am not giving you permission to edit in a certain way, nor am I denying it. You are an adult. You can clearly edit Wikipedia pages. Follow the rules like everyone else, and you can edit whatever you want. Don’t follow the rules and your edits are removed. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Spymagician. Respectfully. Please excuse the pedantic and patronizing element of the "nonsense". It is a by-product of trying to write in an impersonal style in order to be polite, while keeping the focus of the discussion on the definition of flash mob, which was the basis for the initial rejection of the "Streets" page edit. It is accepted that Wiki pages should not be edited radically without citation. Apologies were made. The matter was refered to the discussion page for resolution. This is the discussion page, though at times it more resembles the back of the woodshed. The matter is entirely trivial, so one is free to ignore it if is felt to be a waste of time. 76.175.193.153 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide Pillow Fight Day

I saw this come through the underground that the idea that Pillow Fight Day was not a pillow fight flash mob is under contention. I'm going to play the opposition here, purely to point out a few facts before we get a mad rush of people coming here to change it.

• Firstly, pre-2008 and before New Mind Space rebranded it as Pillow Fight Day, most of these pillow fight flash mobs were taking place on an annual basis.
• During that time they were in fact organized as flash mobs and many of them still identify in that movement mainly because most of them are organized by the flash mob community. Kevin gave us a centralized place to organize and post, but to say we all went over to the pillow fight day movement in place of the flash mob movement is in a way not something that everyone agreed to.
• Some today, and especially pre-2008, these flash mobs were in the prime of their true definition: Organized underground using technology (cell phones, forum posts, etc.), came out of the blue, and lasted only minutes. Since the movement has exploded into public popularity and its nearly impossible to accomplish certain things like time limit.
• The fact that pillow fight day is organized in advance on websites does not mean its not a flash mob. The whole secret location beforehand where instructions were read are not mentioned in the definition as that was a tactic used by Wasik for planning just like "don't hit anyone with out a pillow" became one for pillow fights.

Smartmob does come to mind. I will admit that many if not most do not necessarily follow the flash mob outline, but some still do, and to ignore its roots, or simply say attempted flash mobs than completely using a different word that means something totally different seems a bit odd. I won't fight the general consensus tho. I would also like to add that only the 2008 Worldwide Pillow Fight Day is included. The entry only talks about that day because it was the first, and is not meant to be informative on the subsequent evolution of how that day might be now. Mkdw^talk 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, none of the pillow fight events were flash mobs, because none of them dispersed quickly. If something is not even remotely flash-like, it doesn't make sense to call it a flash mob. Most (if not all) of the pillow fight gatherings didn't gather quickly either. I could be wrong and I don't know ALL the details of all the pillow fight events, and I've only taken part in six such events, but the burden of proof isn't mine. Do we have evidence of any pillow fight events dispersing quickly or even taking place briefly? Each I've attended or heard described lasted more than an hour. In any case, even if we establish that some early pillow fight events fit the flash mob definition, the latter huge, long-lasting pillow fight events including "Pillow Fight Day" events weren't flash mobs.

I invented the term "flash mob" and these pillow fights don't match the original definition, but I don't own the term or control it. The definition of the term can change and become meaningless depending on how people choose to use it, and I've given up trying to remove all the postings of non-flash-mobs in the Flash Mob Wikipedia entry because so many people keep posting those non-examples for promotional purposes, rather than approaching this logically or following the Wikipedia Terms of Use.

In any case, I doubt that many people would disagree that:

• the pillow fight events fit the definition of smart mobs,
• the pillow fight events were inspired by flash mobs, and
• the pillow fight events share some similarities with flash mobs.

Cheesebikini (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record: no single "flash mob community" exists. You might argue that Wasik and his co-organizers of the very first flash mobs formed such a community, and you might argue that the organizers of the earliest flash mobs beyond Manhattan who exchanged notes and tips at Cheesebikini.com formed a community in the early days of the movement, but that very quickly dissipated as thousands of disconnected groups across the globe formed their own flash mobs. This point may seem nitpicky but it bears remembering, because many people (including the inventor of the first flash mobs) find the decentralized, fragmented nature of the flash mob movement – the lack of any single cohesive community in charge of it – to be one of its most intriguing and historically significant attributes. Cheesebikini (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said when I mentioned community as a whole. The misconception that a community must activity be in communication in order to say it exists is sorely outweighed by the definition itself. A group of people with a simple shared characteristic by definition falls under the scope of community and can be an identifier in all rights. What I think you may be confused with is taking that as meaning there was some sort of central organization for flash mobs in which you're right, there is not -- but that's not what I meant by community. That said, simply by copying each other and forming groups in various cities made it a community that virally shared their ideas and sparked interest in each other's groups. If this had not happened, flash mobs would have died in New York very early on. I used the term flash mob community to simply distinguish its organizers (though not necessarily connected to one another, do identify with the movement, making them a community) and not to be interpreted as a central managing body. In regards to the definition, frankly the fact that they didn't disperse rapidly enough (though some did) the large ones did not and henceforth might not make the definition -- but that's also open to interpretation. The sheer fact that the term 'quickly or rapidly' have no time stamp means that what may be rapid for a simple thing like clapping and then leaving versus more complex flash mobs as naturally came about with its popularization, then rapidly has to take in scale. When organizing a group, saying 5000 people assembled for a 30 minute flash light war and then dispersed would be arguably rapid, when similar such events or anything seemingly normal to organize like that would take hours. While many purists have problems with this, it's a fair argument (to play devil's advocate). Mkdw^talk 04:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)