Jump to content

Talk:Bowling Green massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tedperl (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 13 December 2019 (→PPP poll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Excellent Article

This is quite good--well written and covers all the issues clearly and concisely. I am not sure why it gets a C from so many of the classification systems. Tedperl (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


PPP poll

Regarding this addition, is the poll necessary? I happened to find this poll few weeks ago, and had I not seen this, I would probably have added some content.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic poll known to throw a kooky question or two into the mix, got some interesting answers related to President Trump's (now stalled) executive order on immigration.

...

However, the information presented by Public Policy Polling should be considered carefully. Some of their previous polling practices have been called "unscientific" and the polling organization has also been called out for "[treating] its data inconsistently". One of its biggest critics is Nate Silver and his nonpartisan polling aggregation and analysis site, FiveThirtyEight. – Alyssa Pereira, SFGate, 2017-02-10

And I just found another critical piece:

That makes a splashy headline, and it’s catnip for liberals who want to laugh at how stupid they think Trump supporters are. But it’s not good polling practice and should not be reported without substantial caveats about how the question was written and likely perceived by respondents. – Natalie Jackson, The Huffington Post, 2017-02-10

Moreover, I don't think The Independent summary "[m]ore than half of Donald Trump supporters think a made-up massacre actually happened" is consistent with how reliable sources have usually summarized the result. As Jackson puts it:

So PPP’s results likely don’t tell us anything about whether people think the Bowling Green massacre was a real event, as some are interpreting the poll. The question directly tied the Bowling Green Massacre to Trump’s executive order and asked it in an agree/disagree format that would lean Trump supporters toward agreeing.

I think we should just remove the poll here and perhaps add appropriate content to Public Policy Polling. Politrukki (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the full results of the question per the actual PPP source. I agree that the interpretation of the results was inaccurate at best. The question didn't ask whether the event was true, the question presumed it is true, and asked whether it was a justification for policy. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove any reference to this bogus poll. The question as phrased was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question - one that assumed the Bowling Green massacre was real and asked how they felt about its effect. There was literally no way to answer the question if you already knew the "massacre" was imaginary, and people's responses show absolutely nothing about their knowledge of the subject or feelings about it. We should not mention this meaningless "survey" in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the discussion here, I have removed it from the article. Nice table and all, User:Timothyjosephwood, but IMO this adds nothing but confusion to the article. I'm open to persuasion, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN: I think it potentially adds something, put in the right context. That the question assumes you beat your wife doesn't mean the answer is meaningless. So long as the response is "no, I haven't stopped beating my wife" then the answer is meaningful, even if the question is disingenuous. TimothyJosephWood 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is meaningless. Does it mean "No, I haven't stopped, I am still beating my wife" or "No, I haven't stopped, because I never started"? We don't know. And the answers to this poll are equally meaningless. There is no way to answer "yes" or "no" to a question based on a false premise. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN: With all due respect, (and this is pretty exceptionally nuanced) in the classic example of "have you stopped beating your wife," it is only the "yes" responses that are in question. The "no" responses are unequivocal, where:
  • No = I beat my wife previously and I continue to do so, and
  • Yes =
  1. I beat my wife previously and I no longer do, but also
  2. I never beat my wife, and this is the most favorable of the available options.
In this case the "yes" answer is ambiguous but the "no" answer is definitive. If a poll showed that a significant portion of people answered in the unambiguous "no," then the results would still be meaningful. TimothyJosephWood 22:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy, With all due respect (and yes, I remember that essay too - what a shame the author deleted it), the bottom line remains that it is impossible to make anything meaningful out of this poll, and I oppose saying anything about it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with MelanieN here. While I don't think the poll is somehow unusable per se, I think it is a case of much more heat than light. Better left out. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. That's fine. I wasn't referring to any particular essay; I was being serious, and as I said, taking a particularly nuanced position, which I'm not surprised isn't appreciated. I say "with all due respect" because I respect your opinion, not because I'm being disingenuous. Respondents in the affirmative are affirming both the premise and the conclusion in this case, but I don't care enough about it to open an RfC, the facts of which will probably be lost on most of the respondents. TimothyJosephWood 23:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Timothy, Wikipedia isn't your own personal political blog. And false polls are not welcome on an encyclopedia. Please keep them to yourself in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Timothy's comment above, "no" responses are not unequivocal. "No" could be "No, I have never beaten my wife", which I think would be the normal response.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

It's much better to put an edit notice than EP. Why the protection? Wumbolo (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Merge?

Do we have a list of Trump mistaken and/or misstated assertions, or similar, where this could be merged?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. And for an article with almost 50 references, that's been on the main page, and to AfD and back with a SNOW keep, a notability tag is a little out of place. GMGtalk 18:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not suggesting deletion, but I admit that there have been so many that I had forgotten this one and and when I stumbled onto this page scanning an editor's edit history I assumed it would link to an incident in the Northwest Indian War. I see that it is linked from First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, and now remember that it was Kellyanne Conway who said this (it sounded like a Trump to me). I wonder whether it would be more useful to redirect to Kellyanne Conway#Bowling Green massacre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a substantial article of the type that would be UNDUE if merged with Conway, I'm guessing you are going to have a hard time finding a strong consensus for that. Either way, since this is a "notability does not guarantee a stand alone article" issue, and not a "notability" issue, I'm going to take the liberty of removing the tag. You are of course welcome to propose a merger at the target article, but discussion of a proposed merger is not the purpose of a notability tag. GMGtalk 15:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge. It's not substantial enough to have its only article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge at this point. Not sure what article to merge it into. Agree with removing the notability tag. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a merge because there is simply too much material that would overload a biography of a person like Conway. Most of the material is well sourced and encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 21:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the article got 15,000 views per month on average in the past year, with its best month being July 2018 with 22,000 views. That's pretty healthy for what seemed like a fleeting topic at the time. I generally don't like to use viewership stats at AfD, but I think this helps evaluate the relevance of the subject to the readers. It's got surprising longevity. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD again?

Should we go and run this article though AFD again? At this point it seems fairly clear there is no lasting impact or even modern mention just about anywhere. But before I give it a shot I was hoping to get a feel for what people think. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote keep if we have to have another AfD. It's still relevant in these days of fake news and alternative facts, and I do see some 2018 mentions of it in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about a merge to Kellyanne Conway? PackMecEng (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my point of view over this time. If AfD fails, I would support a a merge to the Conway page. However, given the result last time I doubt an AfD would be successful. It would be better just to try a merge. Alternatively, it would be good just to change the title, which is strange and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean towards keeping the article separate. It's too long to be merged into the Conway one without significant trimming, and incorporates other BG/terrorism background and context info that's not quite pertinent to her biography. I guess we could alter the title to be more accurate - Mythical BGM or something - but the current title would still redirect there. Just my 2c. jxm (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple misstatement. It doesn't have the status of a myth.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my survey below, the title should be "Kellyanne Conway Bowling Green misstatement". It's ugly, but that seems to be the pattern.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PackMecEng, maybe, I guess. I'd read other people's arguments for and against and then decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with other minor US political incidents

Based on this list, basically dredged from my memory, it seems that older incidents are more likely to have full articles. Perhaps you could say they have stood the test of time. And there seems to be a bias against Republicans. I don't think there's any basis for having an article about a misstatement by White House official.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Well, I hadn't heard of Conway's gaffe until I stumbled across this page! However, I think you have heard of the Auschwitz gaffe because I mentioned it in a discussion you were part of on this page back on 8 February 2017. If you were a politician people would be calling you a liar. I had forgotten the vomiting until I started the list. I don't see why it needs an article. There were no repercussions. Yes, these incidents are not all the same. How could they be? But can anyone point to an article about a misstatement by a White House official???--Jack Upland (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowling_Green_massacre&oldid=930644733"