Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green massacre

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green massacre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially an attack page aimed at the Trump administration. It is focussed on a misstatement that generated a lot of media attention at the time. From recent history, it seems clear that the Trump administration will continue to make similar misstatements. We do not need an article for each one. They can be adequately dealt with in passing in other article. In addition, this article is set up in a satirical way, referring to a massacre that didn't happen, which goes against the policy of neutrality Jack Upland (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an internet meme, and nothing more. The article does not even acknowledge Conway's efforts to clarify. Nobs01 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph of the lead: "The day after the Hardball interview, Conway said she misspoke, and had been referring to the arrest of the two Iraqi nationals. She stated that she had mentioned the incident because it led President Barack Obama to tighten immigration procedures for Iraqi citizens." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inference that a massacre occurred is an extrapolation by critics. Conway never said such a massacre occured. And as defenders of this article claim, an event doesn't have to occur to be an event.Nobs01 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She said a massacre occurred. Nobody extrapolated anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing all the article's underlying sources, nowhere did Kellyanne Conway say an incident occured. All discussions were in the context of prevention. Nobs01 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she did. The quote is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When she said "Bowling Green massacre", was she talking about an event that happened, or a plot on the drawing board as the indictments and DOJ and FBI press releases indicate? Nobs01 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She said "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre". That's pretty self-explanatory. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are presenting my argument now. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. Why do we have this article, then? or why is it titled a massacre? Nobs01 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because fictional events can be notable, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is whether this misstatement, and the internet meme it touched off, are notable enough for inclusion. The answer is clearly yes. This got enormous coverage at the time but it wasn't a passing thing; it was still getting plentiful coverage a month after she said it [1]. Part of the reason for its notoriety is that it was clearly not a slip of the tongue, but a carefully memorized talking point (based on the fact that she used virtually identical language in three separate interviews). BTW Nobs01, the article DOES devote a paragraph to her subsequent explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- As an internet meme it needs to be labeled as such in the opening, rather than the convoluted attack on a living person. Nobs01 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an internet meme, it's a "fictitious incident", just as the lead sentence explains. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This alternative fact clearly became notable per WP:GNG with WP:LASTING effect. Here's a source from ten days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I'm a little surprised to see this at Afd], perhaps. I think we have more than enough coverage of this meme tom meet WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised when deletion's been discussed on the talk page for a month???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is now linking to a fraudulent fundraising site. This meme is out of control. Nobs01 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue for WP:ELNO, not AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an issue for Wikipedia's reputation. Nobs01 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nobs01: I can't find that link in the article, can you point to where it's being linked to please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's been cleaned up now, but there remains a reference in the second paragraph of a "website was set up anonymously for the purpose of collecting donations". Because of the ambiguity of the title, this article should clearly identify the massacre as a meme, or be deleted. It adds to the public being defrauded. Nobs01 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK. I checked back until 1 March before asking the question above, so I guess it was removed before then. Why not rework/remove the sentence to address the issue you're raising here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If you remove it, it will certainly get restored. That is not a "fraudulent fundraising website", because it does not take any money. If you click on the "donate" link, it takes you to what is clearly identified as the actual ACLU website. And (after you laugh to see where it took you), you then have the choice whether or not to make a donation to the ACLU. The text makes that very clear: "A website was set up anonymously for the purpose of collecting donations for victims of the imaginary massacre; the donation link on the website goes to the ACLU's donation page." --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @MelanieN: It's not so clear in the article lead, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I can't see what merits "essentially an attack page aimed at the Trump administration... this article is set up in a satirical way..." Even if that were the case, that would be a fixable issue, but it seems to me to be a misrepresentation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a problem with that. Editors have proposed retitling, clarifications, merges, etc., but have met resistance. It seems there's a desire keep it as an attack page without clearly labeling it as an internet meme for readers. Nobs01 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think, in its current state, "attack page" is an accurate description of this article. A lot of things related to Trump and U.S. politics are going to be drama and POV magnets. We'll just have to muddle through as best we can. As I've stated, I think it's notable, regardless of the article's problems ~~, but that's all I'll say~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In it's current state, it was created to make Kellyanne Conway look like an idiot - a violation of BLP. It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities, and piles on derision by extrapolating inventions out of a fair reading of context. Nobs01 (talk)

"It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities" is one of the most bizarre arguments I've read at Afd in some time. I'm not quite sure what you expect an encyclopedia article to do in cases like this, other than attempt to be neutral. The more I read these objections, they more they seem to me to devolve into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I see your concerns stated and restated at Talk:Bowling_Green_massacre#This_article_is_little_more_than_an_attack_on_a_living_person but we're not here to absolve Ms. Conway -- or anyone for that matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is pretty clear - to err on the side of caution. This article makes no effort to go into the facts of the Bowling Green terrorists' case and is solely focused on ridicule of one living human being. Nobs01 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not about protecting a living human being's feelings. It's about ensuring content is well backed up by reliable sources so that there's very little if any chance the Wikipedia would be engaging in libel. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC

BLP is very clear in its intent in protecting reputation from innuendo. And nowhere in Kellyanne Conway's words can anyone prove Kellyanne Conway ever said an event took place. The plot was always on the drawing board. The notion she alleged an event occurred is an extrapolation cut from whole cloth. Conway clarified her statement which has been ignored by a viral meme with no boring on the facts of the case of the Bowling Green terrorists. Nobs01 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're here to protect a subject, and that's not what we're here for. We should be leaving our politics at the door. Wikipedia only reflects/describes based on RS. We didn't decide to make this notable. It just is. A meme/zeitgeist doesn't care about anyone's reputation, and we are not protectors of reputations. At any rate, if BLP is "very clear", you will show us the specific policy text that underlines your opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Ec x3) Nobs01, give it up. There is no way that her words - "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away", "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers" - can be interpreted in any other way but as describing an actual massacre/attack that actually took place. The feeble claim that she wasn't REALLY talking about an actual incident is not credible. She said it; if it made her look stupid that is her fault, not Wikipedia's. We report on what people do (if it is notable enough); we do not censor or explain away the facts to keep from hurting their feelings. And BTW we do report on her followup explanation in the article, as has been pointed out to you more than once, so please stop claiming her clarification was "ignored". --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanie: (1) Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers did occur - that's what the Bowling Green terrorists were convicted of - purchase and shipment of contraband to Iraq to be used in terrorist activities against American soldiers. That is an attack. (2) masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers lives refers to a plot, a future event. It is an extrapolation to say it is exclusively past tense, and a violation of BLP where we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt. Nobs01 (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An attack requires an attack. An aborted or failed attempt at an attack is not an attack. "Massacre" means it happened; you can't have an intended massacre that didn't succeed. This is tortured logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN calls it an attack; so does Politfact, the Washington Post, and the Department of Justice press release. They were convicted of conspiracy and helping al Qaeda carry out attacks.

Under the tortured logic of those wanting to keep this title, the plot to kill Castro ought to be titled, "The assassination of Castro" rather than "Operation Mongoose". Nobs01 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever claimed the CIA successfully assassinated Castro. CNN says "They were also convicted of helping al Qaeda carry out attacks on American troops in Iraq. In fact, the two men never plotted any attacks inside the United States, according to the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division at the time." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of a subject depends on coverage in multiple WP:RS. Based on the coverage, this is something highly notable. If there are incidents/misstatements/whatever with such wide coverage, one should create pages about them as well. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the subject is an internet meme, not what is represented in the title. Nobs01 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence it is notable. This could be fixed in text, but I do not think this is just a meme. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's like Bill Clinton's haircut and other things that create inordinate press coverage in the USA, but are forgotten by most sentient beings in 10 years. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a garbage disposal unit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know the future. This is notable and therefore deserves a page right now. As about the haircut, I have no idea what you are talking about. How this is relevant to the subject of this page? My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The haircut is relevant. Yes, you don't know about it, and that's my point. It was big news at the time, but now you would wonder why. Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, with widespread significant coverage in the media. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN. Sustained coverage of this zeitgeist makes this reasonably clear. Objectivity about what is happening isn't an attack. Also, I don't know why a Wikipedian would be concerned that a politician is being attacked from our application of policy. It cuts all ways. We're supposed to leave our politics at the door. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a forum to make political points.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we do not remove stuff because politicians won't like it. This is a highly notable topic that attracted significant in-depth media attention around the world. No credible reason has even been advanced for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:FART. We do not create an article every time Donald Trump has a bad hair day.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay! It tells "not every fart is notable". Yes, sure. However, that fart is notable, at least according to the coverage in WP:RS we have today. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a POINTy continuation of kvetching on the article's talk page. Passes GNG and LASTING. Hoping someone SNOW closes this soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lately every time Kellyanne is mentioned in the press, for what ever reason, her Boston Green error is mentioned. I'm sure she is still uncomfortable that it is brought up constantly. But the important point, for WP, its editors and the existence of this article, is that an explanation of the facts surrounding the incident are an obligation to our future readers as they search for information. Buster Seven Talk 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close AfD per WP:SNOW. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how else can the term and the incident's implications be understood? The article may be a little lengthy, but at the same time it is exemplary for other phenomena in this administration which the U.S. citizens and the rest of world have to deal with. -- Kku (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone close this garbage pointy poor attempt to push a POV. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there has been a sufficient demonstration of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been ongoing coverage for over a month in reliable sources. It's clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Muboshgu. Can we SNOW this yet? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.