Talk:Bowling Green massacre/Archive 3

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2017
I think it would be worthwhile to add a sentence to the "Aftermath" section regarding a recent comment she made in an interview with New York Magazine, in which she stated that she had meant to say "Bowling Green masterminds," instead of "Bowling Green massacre." At the very least, it adds some nuance to the misstatement, regardless of how dubious it may or may not be. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * SomeEnlightenedNarcissist: ✅ The piece seems relevant and even handed enough. I agree that it's probably a bit of a convenient post facto justification, but that's probably better left for readers, and not editors to decide the merits of. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thank you. Glad I could help. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I dunno, as written it seems like that wording uncritically repeats the false implication that those two were planning an attack in Bowling Green. VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it wrong? Yes. Is it what the source says? Yes.
 * I've changed the wording to a direct quote from the source to reflect where the information is coming from in that form, because you're right, they were AFAIK providing material support, and not in fact planning to carry out an attack. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It took her long enough to come up with this one - which is buried way toward the bottom of a long article, it took me 10 minutes to find it. So she now wants us to believe that when she said, three times, "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre", she meant to say "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green masterminds"? I really hate to include this kind of nonsense in the article. And since it is an interview, this is a primary source; I note that no secondary source picked it up, although some of the other things she said in that interview did get reported more widely. I would leave it out for lack of secondary coverage and WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * this kind of nonsense in the article Pretty much the entire subject of the article is "nonsense Kellyanne Conway says". Yes, it patently doesn't make sense as an explanation when you look at the original wording, and that much should be self-evident to any attentive reader.
 * Individuals are a perfectly acceptable source on themselves, and this easily meets the reputably published standard.
 * In an entire section on what Conway said about what Conway said, the argument that what Conway said about what Conway said is UNDUE falls a little flat. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A bit of scope on 'it wasn't covered'.
To clarify on the issue of;


 * However, there were approximately 90 news articles that covered the arrest and charges at the time.[20]

There are 722,000+ news articles on her gaff. So I would hazard to say 90 news articles would be a buried story which may add credulity to her statement. I follow the media closely, at a professional academic level, and was absolutely oblivious to the issue of the two Iraqi's arrested for terrorism in 2011 in Bowling Green. So at least part of her gaff may be correct and factual. It's worth providing that level of scope, saying '90 news articles' makes it sound like it had syndicated network coverage, 90 articles is ... well, I bet you I can find more than 90 articles of any random made up event, or any random mashing of keystrokes. 90 articles is absolutely nothing. Heck, 90,000 articles is significantly downplayed. We live in an international world, there are many countries outside of the USA. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So? There are 1,400,000 results for Bosnia sniper fire, a fictitious incident that never occurred, and we don't have an article on it. Nobs01 (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why?
Why does this article exist? A whole page dedicated to a misstatement made by a former campaign manager? Wikipedia editors really need to do some soul searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.120.241 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Bowling Green massacre, from the middle of March 2017, where the community discussed the merits of this article with respect to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Murph 9000  (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically to make people feel better. It has already failed the 10 year test and was just news that everyone at this point has forgotten about per WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having the Counselor to the President blatantly lie and create falsehoods doesn't exactly make me feel better. Trump having a bad hair day does not gain media coverage (well, not often) - this did, and that's the basis for it surviving the deletion, and why it's still notable now.
 * Wikipedia has many articles that are essentially historical - they no longer generate news items, but that doesn't lessen the impact or notability they had at the time: Freedom Fries, Crystal Pepsi and the Sinclair Executive are examples.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are saying given what we know now and the supposed impact that story had it passes WP:RECENTISM? I find that hard to believe. This article really should be merged with Kellyanne Conway, like every other political lie is. This one is not special. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's your privilege.  Then suggest a merge.  The deletion discussion would seem to disagree with you.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll give it a few days and see if anyone else has something to say. Then purpose the merge. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)