This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PackMecEng, since you restored this material to the lead as "extensively sourced", and are thus taking responsibility for it, can you clarify how you think the sources support your wording? Specifically, you restored language reading: Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident. I've reviewed the three supporting sources ( Vox, CNN, and Huffington Post). I don't see any of these sources supporting your wording.
The second paragraph of the lead actually re-states much of this information, about changing perceptions of the incident, but in a way that's much more accurate and congruent with sources (At first, the anger focused on the students and the school; some of the students were the subject of death threats, and the school received threats of violence. As more videos were released, diverging views about what had really happened polarized Americans.). The first paragraph, which I removed and you restored, seems both redundant and poorly written if not misleading in its use of sources.
You also restored a sentence about comments by the comedian Kathy Griffin which, in the first paragraph of the lead, clearly constitutes undue weight. There are tons of sources and information to summarize in the lead, so could you explain why you feel the comments of a single comedian - in a case that generated hundreds of hot takes from prominent people - deserve mention in the first few sentences of the lead? Why her comments and not those of other prominent people?
Finally, you restored a statement that [o]utrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors. The cited source ( CNN) states that a private investigator hired and paid by Covington Catholic produced a report saying that the students had done nothing wrong. (The investigators interviewed neither Sandmann nor Phillips in creating their report). This report deserves mention in the body of the article, but to present it as definitive proof that the students were "falsely portrayed" as "aggressors" is a misrepresentation of the source. A report paid for by the students' school, which interviewed only Covington Catholic personnel and students, is relevant but not the definitive word on what really happened. The source itself doesn't present the report as definitive, and only describes its findings. It is inappropriate to use this source to state in Wiki-voice, without appropriate attribution, that the students were "falsely portrayed".
As you can see, the material in question doesn't appear to be supported by the cited sources, which is why I removed it. MastCell Talk 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident.The Vox piece notes the change in the narrative after longer format videos of the incident were released. With CNN if there is added context from new information that is the same as the original not having all the information. HuffPost talks about how the video was edited down and omits other parts of the encounter.
Reports of the incident triggered outrage in the United States, including calls to doxx the students.Fairly straight forward, Kathy Griffin called for doxing the kids which the source supports. Could use another source I suppose. Here is one. [1]
Outrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors.Later report found no evidence of offensive or racist statements by the students.
rm; dubious or mispresents sources (the cited sources do not say that media "omitted key details", or anything like that, nor that the the students were "falsely portrayed"); next paragraph better summarizes the same infoto undue weight or the like we can talk on that I suppose but that is a different discussion from your original removal rational. Honestly we could leave the text and pull the sources from the lead and that should correct the issues you mention. Finally me restoring long standing material from deletion with a misleading edit summary is not me taking responsibility for it, whatever that means. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I am an inexperienced editor and as such not sure on how to link to headlines inside an article, but I think Facecrime from the article on Newspeak should be added to the related articles section. - RRorg ( talk) 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The only reason this "confrontation" is notable is because of the media defamation against the students. The confrontation, in and of itself, is not notable at all. Therefore, I propose changing the name of the article to "Media defamation of Covington Catholic High School students."
Baxter329 ( talk) 19:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A well-covered, but missing piece of information is the threats that influential filmmaker Jack Morrissey [1] made against "MAGA kids" where he threatened to throw them in a woodchipper. He subsequently apologized for these threats. [2] [3] 2600:6C67:8B00:1CD0:1D4B:7BE5:72E6:82F7 ( talk) 08:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved to 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Favonian ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation → 2019 Lincoln Memorial clash – More WP:CONCISE name for incident. The month is clearly unnneccesary, and the incident was a "clash" both in the sense that there was a confrontation, but also in that it ultimately came from the clash of schedules of the two different marches held that day in Washington, D.C. Pharos ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: When I think of clash I think of a physical fight, confrontation means less physical violence, and as this was more of a verbal argument and no physical fighting occurred, its more fitting I think. I think month can be dropped, it’s been 4 years Justanotherguy54 ( talk) 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PackMecEng, since you restored this material to the lead as "extensively sourced", and are thus taking responsibility for it, can you clarify how you think the sources support your wording? Specifically, you restored language reading: Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident. I've reviewed the three supporting sources ( Vox, CNN, and Huffington Post). I don't see any of these sources supporting your wording.
The second paragraph of the lead actually re-states much of this information, about changing perceptions of the incident, but in a way that's much more accurate and congruent with sources (At first, the anger focused on the students and the school; some of the students were the subject of death threats, and the school received threats of violence. As more videos were released, diverging views about what had really happened polarized Americans.). The first paragraph, which I removed and you restored, seems both redundant and poorly written if not misleading in its use of sources.
You also restored a sentence about comments by the comedian Kathy Griffin which, in the first paragraph of the lead, clearly constitutes undue weight. There are tons of sources and information to summarize in the lead, so could you explain why you feel the comments of a single comedian - in a case that generated hundreds of hot takes from prominent people - deserve mention in the first few sentences of the lead? Why her comments and not those of other prominent people?
Finally, you restored a statement that [o]utrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors. The cited source ( CNN) states that a private investigator hired and paid by Covington Catholic produced a report saying that the students had done nothing wrong. (The investigators interviewed neither Sandmann nor Phillips in creating their report). This report deserves mention in the body of the article, but to present it as definitive proof that the students were "falsely portrayed" as "aggressors" is a misrepresentation of the source. A report paid for by the students' school, which interviewed only Covington Catholic personnel and students, is relevant but not the definitive word on what really happened. The source itself doesn't present the report as definitive, and only describes its findings. It is inappropriate to use this source to state in Wiki-voice, without appropriate attribution, that the students were "falsely portrayed".
As you can see, the material in question doesn't appear to be supported by the cited sources, which is why I removed it. MastCell Talk 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident.The Vox piece notes the change in the narrative after longer format videos of the incident were released. With CNN if there is added context from new information that is the same as the original not having all the information. HuffPost talks about how the video was edited down and omits other parts of the encounter.
Reports of the incident triggered outrage in the United States, including calls to doxx the students.Fairly straight forward, Kathy Griffin called for doxing the kids which the source supports. Could use another source I suppose. Here is one. [1]
Outrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors.Later report found no evidence of offensive or racist statements by the students.
rm; dubious or mispresents sources (the cited sources do not say that media "omitted key details", or anything like that, nor that the the students were "falsely portrayed"); next paragraph better summarizes the same infoto undue weight or the like we can talk on that I suppose but that is a different discussion from your original removal rational. Honestly we could leave the text and pull the sources from the lead and that should correct the issues you mention. Finally me restoring long standing material from deletion with a misleading edit summary is not me taking responsibility for it, whatever that means. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I am an inexperienced editor and as such not sure on how to link to headlines inside an article, but I think Facecrime from the article on Newspeak should be added to the related articles section. - RRorg ( talk) 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The only reason this "confrontation" is notable is because of the media defamation against the students. The confrontation, in and of itself, is not notable at all. Therefore, I propose changing the name of the article to "Media defamation of Covington Catholic High School students."
Baxter329 ( talk) 19:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A well-covered, but missing piece of information is the threats that influential filmmaker Jack Morrissey [1] made against "MAGA kids" where he threatened to throw them in a woodchipper. He subsequently apologized for these threats. [2] [3] 2600:6C67:8B00:1CD0:1D4B:7BE5:72E6:82F7 ( talk) 08:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved to 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Favonian ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation → 2019 Lincoln Memorial clash – More WP:CONCISE name for incident. The month is clearly unnneccesary, and the incident was a "clash" both in the sense that there was a confrontation, but also in that it ultimately came from the clash of schedules of the two different marches held that day in Washington, D.C. Pharos ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: When I think of clash I think of a physical fight, confrontation means less physical violence, and as this was more of a verbal argument and no physical fighting occurred, its more fitting I think. I think month can be dropped, it’s been 4 years Justanotherguy54 ( talk) 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)