Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

Disputed: Most photographed?

What is with the need to arbitrarily decide that the Golden Gate Bridge is "the most photographed bridge in the world". It's not like anyone dilligently counts and records the number of photographs that are taken of it, or indeed any other bridge. Citing as a reference a Frommers' guide which makes the same romantic-but-unsubstantiated claim (with no basis for it) doesn't make it the truth. Perhaps London's Tower Bridge is more photographed, or maybe the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. No-one knows... so why put it in the article? mjlodge 15:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that we include the atomic weight of Helium in its article; facts are interesting things to include in articles. Is this a fact with a lot of deeply researched, heavily corss-referenced, peer-reviewed literary articles and other proof behind it? No. But it does seem to garner some good support, even if it's not from you. Frommer's, after all, is a reputable publisher of tourist guidebooks and they probably have a more-stringent editorial process than allowing anybody to come in and edit and/or comment-upon the article. Why can't you accept what they say? And if you have another bridge in mind, state your case and the Wiki community can evaluate it.

Atlant 16:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't accept it because of the difference between fact and opinion. The atomic weight of helium is a physical fact measurable to a given degree of accuracy and verifiable by anyone else who cares to repeat the same experiment(s). Whether or not the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed in the world is not even something that is measured, never mind a measurement that is accurate, verifyable or repeatable. The Frommers' quote is editorial opinion -- totally fine for a travel guide, which deals in the romance of travel as much as facts such as the details of train schedules, but this is an encyclopedia article. My opinion is that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most beautiful bridge in the world, and yours is that it's the most photographed. Both are equally unqualified editorial opinion inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

mjlodge 01:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do you know Frommers doesn't have data? Do you suppose that camera/film companies *MIGHT* keep track of what people are shooting pictures of, if only through the occasional marketing survey? Perhaps Frommers has asked people what they take pictures of when they travel. Maybe it's based on how many rolls of film are sold at the souvenir shops near each bridge. Maybe the San Francisco department of tourism sent someone out to count people with cameras. Maybe it's based on a survey of http://images.google.com/. Just because you (and yes, I admit it, I) don't have the data at hand doesn't mean it ain't true. And given the Frommers citation, I think you should accept it.

Atlant 13:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, you have no idea of what "fact" means, nor what a supporting reference is. You're just guessing and making baseless assertions. There is no way to count the number of photos taken of a public structure, and your suggestions don't provide support for your opinion. "Most photographed" is simply an opinion, and therefore will be removed.

mjlodge 02:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, reversion to insults as a method of defending your position. Sorry, but that isn't a fact either. I'll; stand by Frommer's professional opinion as being good enough. I'd also welcome input from other editors since you seem to be the only one with criticisms of this point.

Atlant 12:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This assertion seems to be an article of faith for you -- for whatever reason -- so explaining a logical argument may be a waste of my time as blind faith, by definition, can't be swayed by rational argument. But here goes: the following is what makes a logical argument to back up your assertion:

1) The burden of proof is on you to show that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed. Making an assertion and then effectively saying "prove me wrong" doesn't make the assertion true (because it says nothing about the original assertion)

2) You must not only come up with some measurement of the number of photographs taken of the bridge with known accuracy, but you must also show that the number is larger than any other bridge. The burden of proof is actually higher than that for the atomic weight of Helium, because you not only need a measurement, you need to be able to compare it to many other measurements.

3) Repetition of the same assertion is not a logical argument. The Internet is full of this, but many people repeating the same thing does not make that thing true. In the rational world, logical argument is the only way to show something is true. A reference to a valid logical argument is what you need -- not a reference to a repeat of the same assertion. Frommers is a reputable travel guide, I agree, but they don't write encyclopedias -- they write travel editorial. Show us a reference from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia for a better argument. See Wiki article on citing authoritative sources.

4) There must be some measurement of some kind for the number of photographs taken, with a *known* margin of error for the number of photographs. You need this for two reasons. The first one is so that you have a number with some known degree of confidence, and the second is...

5) There must be a way to do a valid comparison. So there must be comparable measurements for every other contending bridge in the world with a known margin of error. The measurement methodology does not have to be the same (though that would be best), but you do need to know the margin of error in order to be able to do a valid comparison.

6) There only needs to be one counter-example to render a proof invalid. For example, I live in San Francisco and so even though the burden is on you to show that any of your suggested measurement methodologies are authoritative and comparable, I did a little research. The fact is that there are no "camera police" on the bridge asking people if they have a camera and how many photos they have taken. And even if there were, they could not count the people taking photos of the bridge from afar, or on tour buses, or... you get the picture (pardon the pun). They do count the number of cars and cyclists who use the bridge, though -- perhaps these are better candidate figures for the article.

7) Finally, and this is a nuance but is perhaps important -- clearly, there is some number of photographs taken of the bridge -- and every other bridge world-wide -- each year. But you don't know what it is, nor can you cite anyone else who has figured it out *and* done the comparison. So it could be that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most photographed -- but we just don't know.

The strength and weakness of Wikis is that anyone can make edits, so of course I cannot stop your "faith-based initiative". It's just like the France page, which seems to get vandalized at least once a day -- but in the end is always restored to health. If you like edit wars, head on over to the Opus Dei page instead...

mjlodge 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're the one on the attack. Why don't YOU call Frommer's and ask them where their statistic comes from?

By the way, here's another claim in another article for you to attack:

Mount Monadnock has long been described as the second-most-climbed mountain in the world (after Mount Fuji in Japan). Since 1990, it has been suggested that so many of Fuji's climbers have shifted to newly available public transportation for that ascent, that Monadnock's annual total of foot traffic now exceeds Fuji's.

So far as I know, there's no tollbooth at the base of either mountain, so they probably don't have the actual count of climbers accurate to five or six significant figures.

My point, of course, is that even encyclopedias accept these sorts of statements under the color of "generally recognized to be credible", and either of us could find hundreds of such examples whether here in Wikipedia or in a "real" encyclopedia. I don't understand why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this statement (most-photographed), ESPECIALLY because it is backed-up by a citation to a company that has a pretty-good reputation in assessing such things.

Atlant 17:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it because it degrades the quality of the article and despite all my attempts, you simply refuse to engage in any form of rational debate or form a logical argument for your edit. This cannot make for a good quality Wikipedia. I don't feel sorry for wanting to improve the quality of the Wikipedia -- but I am sorry you feel this is somehow inappropriate or constitutes a "bee in my bonnet". If I supported your position, would you be ticking me off for having a bee in my bonnet about supporting you?

Re: Frommers' reputation in assessing "most photographed" of anything. Yet another baseless assertion -- what is your basis for believing this?

Re: Mount Fuji. Also has no basis for saying "most climbed". Two wrongs don't make a right.

If everyone continues to make edits that are not backed by facts or logical argument, the quality of the Wikipedia degrades. When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again. So the moment your "evidence" fails to support your position, you ignore it and move on. What article is next for the same treatment? George Clooney (or Brad Pitt, or <insert celeb here>) as the Most Photographed Celebrity? Ground Zero as the Most Photographed Spot In America? Mount Fuji as the Most Photographed Mountain In Japan? The Buddha staute on Po Lin island as the Most Photographed Outdoor Bronze Statue Of Buddha In Asia?

mjlodge 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I showed that your original analogy was not only invalid but shed some light on why your edit is unsubstantiated, you discarded it and never mentioned it again.

You showed nothing of the sort. I offered you several ways to prove or disprove my claim and you've done none of them.

Atlant 18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images

File:Stamp-ctc-golden-gate-bridge.jpg

The Golden Gate Bridge was built during the 1930s

Well, it might be public domain, but why should we make U.S. taxpayers pay for the bandwidth?

Revenge for tearing up the Kyoto agreement?

Please e-mail the image to jasonr @ nupedia.com and have him upload it. Apparently, he knows how and where to do so. --LMS

OK. I've sent him the information (rather than send a huge unsolicited binary email) - GWO

---

Would anyone mind if added the "Golden Gate Bridge by night" image to the article? Picturewise the GGB is underrepresented in comparison to the Bay Bridge ;-) --Dschwen 19:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aparently no one did, so be it. (I now realize the the senselessness of the posting, so much for being bold ;-) ) --Dschwen 13:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only think I'd suggest is that you push the photo over to the right-hand column. This seems to be more "Wiki-standard" and it avoids future problems when someone inserts/moves a text header that would interfere with a photo that is left-aligned.

Atlant 14:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe the comments about when Golden Gate wasn't the longest bridge is wrong. I've notified the original author User talk:MichaelJanich. Samw 13:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)

The suspension bridge article lists the fifteen longest, and the Golden Gate is ranked seventh. The oldest of the six surpassing it was built in 1964. I will now change this article to conform to that one.

I'm pretty sure, however, that it had the tallest suspension towers until 2000 or thereabouts, when it was bested in that regard by a bridge in China.

It's not that it's the longest suspension bridge, as it never was. The SF-Oakland Bay Bridge's suspension section is longer and older than the Golden Gate Brigde. The GGB was the longest single span suspension bridge at that time.Gentgeen 19:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A flawed entry

This entry is flawed and frustrating to read in regards to its treatment of the other bridges that have since surpassed it. The first paragraph states that it was once simply the "longest suspension bridge" without specifying in San Francisco, California, the U.S., North America, the world, etc. Furthermore, it does not specify whether the measure of its relative length as compared to other bridges is based solely on its main span or on its total length (later this is somewhat clarified, though not entirely). Moreoever, in the first paragraph, it simply states that it was surpassed in 1964, but does not specify by what bridge and in what fashion until several paragraphs later. It is confusing to divide up a train of thought in this manner. Overall, this confusion is endemic of a greater confusion regarding the general treatment of suspension bridges by this encyclopedia. While there is a ranking of the longest main spans of world bridges, there is no ranking of the total length of single span suspension bridges, even though some entries make reference to the place of a bridge in such a ranking (see entry for Mackinac Bridge).