Talk:Nathan Phillips (activist)

The Washington Examiner doesn't pass WP:RS for negative claims about a WP:BLP
I noticed that someone had added a paragraph citing the Washington Examiner accusing Phillips of having a criminal history (which seems to have, itself, cited the dubious student newspaper mentioned above.) The Examiner is a WP:BIASED source - it does not pass WP:BLP for statements of fact; while a Fox article covering the Examiner article was included, it presented it as WP:BLPGOSSIP, and, of course, it itself is a WP:BIASED source. We need higher-quality and more neutral sources to make such explosive claims against a WP:BLP, especially since these claims are clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, ie. if they were true and could be reliably sourced, they would appear in far better sources than these. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh, someone just added The Washington Times. I don't think we can use this. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 21:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands0pen$0urce (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. They're a partisan source of marginal reliability, which means they don't meet the higher standard required for negative claims about a WP:BLP.  Also, I suggest you actually read the policy you cited, which notes that the quality of sourcing required depends on the claim you're trying to cite; then read WP:BLP and understand that negative claims about a living person require the highest standard of sourcing.  If you wanted to cite something uncontroversial and non-negative to these sources, they might be usable; but to make an unequivocally negative accusation against a living person, you need better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * please be civil saying things like “Also, I suggest you actually read the policy you cited” comes off as adversarial and again lacks wp:agf, please focus on content, just like how you have cited wp:blp probably 1/2 dozens times. I’ll shelve the civility and agf, please do the same with blp, we get it. Concur, my concerns are still stonewalling status quo unreasonable sourcing demands. Absolutely fine scrutinizing sources, as long as the intent is from a npov. Proclaiming “it’s a blog” “bias” we’ll just about every media outlet can be accused of some bias. However I do concur on the bias, do not concur on the blog claim. Has to be a reasonable limit to source validation though or really starts to give the perception of unreasonable source demands 0pen$0urce (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to side with OpenSource here. There's a difference of opinion here and no need to imply that someone didn't bother to read what they were citing (it could be an honest mistake, a mistaken link, a typo, a misunderstanding, etc.) WP:AGF applies.
 * Likewise, OpenSource, what are you trying to cite with T&P? His criminal record (if there is any)? Buffs (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Task and Purpose editor in chief reported on a Facebook video from 2018 several statements from Phillips regarding being a “Vietnam Vet” amongst other similar statements. I tried to add reference that it was reported on. The article linked the video, clearly Phillips and reported on the concerns of his portrayal of being a Vietnam Veteran. I understand outside the military community this seems like no big deal, but it is a big deal to portray you served in combat when you didn’t. So I get why after the media issues retractions and dropped the story. However becomes obvious where the source of Vietnam Veteran as opposed to Vietnam Era Veteran came from, Phillips. Thus why military centric reporting, Task and Purpose, Stars and Stripes, Military Times covered it a little more. There is a difference by the way. Concerning how a source is just labeled a blog and dismissed, without much in explanation of the blog claim or sourcing.0pen$0urce (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A bunch of changes
Hey everyone, I made a bunch of changes that I hope helps clarify. It isn't fair to Mr Phillips to only include quotes that are later wrong any more than it is to include errors/mistakes he made without further clarification. I hope this addresses both sides of the equation. Feel free to add to the given sources. If you have a concern about a source, there are probably dozens to support the assertions made regarding his military service, so feel free to add another one. If you can't find one that meets your standards, please let me or others know. We'll be happy to address your concerns! Happy collaborating! Buffs (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the phrasing, feel free to change it or discuss it here :-) Buffs (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like it might be worth going back over previous discussions, since a lot of this has been debated before, but in general... the Task & Purpose cite, as I mentioned below, is a hard no.  It's a blog post; there's no evidence that Business Insider exerts any editorial control over it (they seem to just repost everything posted there), but either way, it's at best a WP:NEWSBLOG and not sufficient to source negative material about a WP:BLP.  The other source you provided for that line didn't actually highlight the things you cited to it.  Likewise, the "recon ranger" cites only indicate that he said it, not that it "contributed to the confusion" (a WP:SYNTH-y interpretation of what happened that the usable sources there don't provide.)  But more generally, once you boil away the blog posts and other unusable sources, I feel that the the entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE - it was an error in reporting that was quickly corrected and received little coverage after that.  I don't think it's worth a sentence, let alone a paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I definitely don't think that newsmaven.io has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to source a negative claim about a WP:BLP, especially given that this is a reasonably WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that ought to be citeable elsewhere if it's accurate and worth covering. --Aquillion (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, regarding the deleted paragraph. There's no synthesis. His claim of being a Vietnam Vet is widespread and incorrect. While I don't think he's done a particularly good job of correcting that record, I think it's fair to say that it's incorrect and claims have been inconsistent (Personally, I also don't think he thinks that and he's unwilling to apologize/correct the record otherwise, he'll be constantly making corrections and clarifications for every misstep.). The same goes with the out-of-context claim he's a "Recon Ranger". Failing to address these controversies in a balanced manner/suppressing its inclusion only serves to encourage them to be re-added with less information. Given the national coverage of it, it certainly meets notability and verifiability criteria. All that remains is presenting it in an NPOV manner with accurate sources.
 * As mentioned in the edit summary, newsmaven is merely a host (a cheaper version of GoDaddy and other hosts); they are merely a repository for various other sites' homepages. The publisher is what we should be evaluating: indian country today, which has an editorial process and is a reliable source.
 * AWOL is not something that is done normally. That Phillips did so on 3 separate occasions is unusual/notable. Vaguely stating "disciplinary problems" also gives WP:UNDUE emphasis towards vaguery. Buffs (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, Indian Country today is owned by the National Congress of American Indians. It's been around since the early 1980s starting in print form and was previously owned by the Oneida Nation. It is not owned by newsmaven nor do they have any hand in the material published.Indigenous girl (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indian Country Today has gone through a couple periods of reorganization, changing ownership, editorial staff and how many journalists they've employed. Some of this is covered in their article. It's my understanding that they are still sorting out their servers after the most recent transfer in ownership, hence the temporarily odd/misleading URL, whereas all their articles used to simply be at https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com or https://ictmn.com. Word via folks at the Native American Journalists Association is that ICT should have the URL situation sorted Real Soon Now. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 19:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maven is one of several aggregators that are hosting individual online publications/magazines under their banner/url. abcnews.go.com would be an analogous situation when ABCNews was "on the GO Network!". Buffs (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Aquillion that all the stuff about the media mess is undue weight. I'm tempted to support cutting that paragraph. Somewhere in all this someone said it will just get added back, and badly, but if it's here, it will get edited to say various things, as well; that is no argument for keeping something of undue weight. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to say this here and then let it go, unless someone has a question. The entire incident at the Lincoln Memorial in January was a media debacle. The media screwed so much up about so many people, I think it's worth keeping the parts about the media mistakes in. I'd rather have the correct information clearly displayed in an NPOV manner than continuous updates that don't really tell the whole story. This has been a problem since the article was created
 * But, if I'm on an island of my own opinion on this, so be it and we'll remove it. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the minimal coverage of this after things got straightened out is sufficient rationale to just omit it, especially given how weak the sourcing is on central points. Even putting aside the reliability of the National Congress of American Indians, one comparatively-obscure source isn't sufficient to source such a clearly-negative statement about a WP:BLP (especially given that it's not given much focus in the cited article); given the level of scrutiny the controversy invited, these things would be citable to much better sources if they were WP:DUE and verifiable. --Aquillion (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Task & Purpose
Task & Purpose is a blog; we can't cite them for negative material about a WP:BLP. Being republished in Business Insider isn't sufficient (as I mentioned in my edit summary, that makes them a WP:NEWSBLOG instead). There's no indication that Business Insider exerted any editorial control or fact-checking over them. The military times source, meanwhile, doesn't mention this aspect at all. For something that falls under WP:BLP, it is not sufficient to link to a facebook video and say that it was highlighted in a blog - we would need a WP:BLP-quality reliable source that highlighted it specifically before we could highlight it in an article ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Aquillion, Military Times was used to source 3 separate claims (you deleted the link). Which part did they not mention "this aspect at all"? Please restore the link for the existing paragraphs that still reference it and we can discuss the rest. Yes T&P is a blog. The citation is here to verify his statement on camera. People cannot claim that he didn't say it and then not allow videos that show the opposite. There are dozens of sources. Just pick another and re-add.Buffs (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The military times source doesn't mention any of the key things it was supposedly being used to cite. No mention of him going AWOL, no mention of the alleged Facebook video (nor was it mentioned in the Stripes source.)  Since these are unambiguously negative claims about a WP:BLP, you need high-quality sources stating them directly, not WP:SYNTH between sources that don't mention any Facebook videos and a blog that does.  Even if you feel that this supposed facebook video is definitely real and definitely relevant, you need non-blog sources talking about it before it can be included. --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MT indeed DID source several components. Which ones do you contend it doesn't support? Buffs (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Task and purpose is not a blog. Can you backup your claim. Your comment about buisnessweek seems like original research.Reporting on a video of Nathan Phillips making statements about his military service.0pen$0urce (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Very interesting. Business insider and military times are reliable sources. There is a huge issue with npov, not assuming good faith, and undue weight. I think there’s enough sources to support that concerns were raised regarding the veracity of Phillips statements regarding his Vietnam service. This was reported on. Highly concerning what is going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They're a personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (and no evidence that they do any sort of fact-checking whatsoever); that is to say, they're a blog. If you honestly think they pass WP:RS for negative claims about a WP:BLP, you can take them to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN, but given that these claims are fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL given that they contradict the majority of sources, I don't see it going anywhere.  Phillips attracted massive amounts of attention during the incident; anything negative worth covering ought to be easy to find in far-better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again can you source these claims about Task and Purpose? Seems like Status quo stonewalling at this juncture. Spent a good amount of time reviewing wp:rs and researching task and Purpose. Can you please source what appears to be at this time a subjective opinion that source is merely a blog. Reporting on a Facebook video is contradicting what source? Just wondering how you concluded they were a blog and not a military centered digital news outlet. Highly concerning what’s going on here.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @Aquillion Task & Purpose is NOT simply a blog, as much as you'd like it to be. Quit stonewalling and cited a source or drop it. 2601:647:C802:F200:6084:A5FA:2228:780 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is from three years ago; as I recall (and as far as I can see) a broad consensus to exclude the entire thing was reached below. But if you really want to insist that Task & Purpose is usable as a source for this, you can raise the question at WP:BLPN. The crux of the issue is that WP:RS requires that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; and that requirement is particularly high when saying anything negative about a WP:BLP.  I don't think Task & Purpose meets those standards. (And even if it was, it probably wouldn't be sufficient - per BLP, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) Phillips is a public figure, but that means that, precisely for that reason, if you want to make some exceptional, shocking, or potentially-defamatory claim about him you should obviously expect to find multiple high-quality reliable sources - you can't cite it to a single marginal one. Accusing someone of lying about their military service is obviously a shocking claim and, per WP:BLP, requires multiple high-quality sources to back it up, especially when higher-quality sources have covered the topic and said otherwise - and given Phillips' high profile, you should have no trouble finding multiple high-quality / mainstream sources saying it if it is true, rather than just one relatively obscure one like this. --Aquillion (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Npov review military service section
So I sourced the reports of criticism of his “Vietnam Veteran” claims. The sources were reliable 3rd party. Sorry but undue weight given to one side of this. Highly concerning how fast folks pounce and try to discredit the sources then when that fails, discuss in circles. Wp:undue and npov are massive concerns with the way this article being edited and policed. To much weight seems to be given to the pro Phillips he didn’t embellish his Vietnam service or stolen valor. A Facebook video that was reported on by a major media outlet and furthermore sourced. The edits should be neutral neither for “Mr. Phillips” nor against. If there was multiple verified reports from reliable sources they should be included. Highly concerning what’s going on here. There’s enough reliable sources and reports of the “Vietnam Veteran” claims. That military section is not neutral whatsoever and has major undue weight issues... 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * See the discussion up in, and in the other sections above. Tagging and boards are for when there is an impasse in discussion, or an article needs cleanup. Discussion has been proceeding and all other editors have been reaching consensus, and discussing compromises before making edits. This is how Wikipedia works. Please respect consensus and Wikipedia procedures before accusing others of bad faith. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is required on any edit here all of a sudden? Is that in the Pillars? Do you guys really think the military service material is npov? So the consensus was no mention of “Vietnam vet” criticisms as reported in multiple sources. Very interesting what’s going on here. My first edit was immediately accused of POV. Where’s the assume good faith. I was fine with it being trimmed down “voracity” (actually a word) removed. Little by little nothing.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Look in the mirror please as you“POV” me. what consensus and please focus on content. Wow what is going on here is highly concerning. Whelp I am not in consensus as clearly a few others who likely got ran off aren’t either. Provided several sources and all my contributions got scrubbed. Then how dare I ask for a POV check apparently. Again stay on content please. I would like the sourced reports of Phillips portrayal of “Vietnam Vet” included. Buisness Week and Military Times for starters reported on this. Highly concerning what is going on here. Apparently no source is good enough. Whelp let me settle in an read thru this circular talk page, find this supposed consensus. Been on Wikipedia a while so I don’t run off easy. Just wow what is going on here. 0pen$0urce (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

PS- thus far not seeing a consensus. See a lot of contributions getting tamped down and any mention of “Vietnam vet” as was reported getting censored. Where’s this consensus and what was it exactly. Why is a npov check an issue? Asking the community to review. Apparently any edit I make here will get reverted, be accused of POV even though multiple sources were provided. Highly concerning what is going on here. Alright will continue to dig thru this talk page, since apparently only a few people can edit the article and not get reverted within hours....oh Wikipedia0pen$0urce (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Where and what is the “consensus” highly concerning activity. Perception some editors don’t want any mention of Vietnam Veteran portrayal no matter if sourced. Any attempted edits will be met with “POV” proclaiming and reverts. Highly concerning how this article is being policed, policed is definitely an appropriate term0pen$0urce (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder that we all should abide by WP:3RR. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh of course, however citing 3rr even with “friendly reminder” lead still can have a condescending and contentious perception. anything else to add? Let’s reach a consensus instead of just arbitrarily reverting and not discussing, highly concerning. What was the consensus? Revert any mention of “Vietnam vet” regardless if sourced?0pen$0urce (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing else to add. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

“Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive” Yup 0pen$0urce (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One edit in the last two months. You've got me.  My edit warring crimes are truly vile. Dumuzid (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Still anything to add, other than a 3rr warning and now a snarky reply? Again highly concerning what is going on here, seems like a lack of wp:agf, npov concerns. 0pen$0urce (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to get too much more into this, but as stated above, this is the discussion/editing I hoped to avoid with the additions to the military service section. The edits are well sourced and remove confusion/add balance. Buffs (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the relatively brief coverage and the fact that it was rapidly corrected, though, the simplest solution seems to be to omit mentioning it at all. Virtually no high-quality reliable sources blame Phillips for the confusion, making it tangential for his article.  Leaving it out entirely is therefore the simplest way to be fair to Phillips and to satisfy WP:BLP.  --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with Aquillion, as has been already agreed upon in sections above and in the edits made and supported by additional experienced editors who've come to the article. Starting a new section doesn't change consensus. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 21:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with Aquillion, per CorbieVreccan. --Jorm (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with Aquillion.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I, too, concur with Aquillion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Aquillion. Kire1975 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely do not concur, lack of NPOV and whitewashing. Rather this be presented to the wider wikipedia audience. Any mention of "Vietnam Vet" that "Mr. Phillips" was found saying in a 2018 Facebook video no matter how reliable the sources are will be reverted, editors with opposing viewpoints will not get wp:agf, sources will get scrutinized and be expected to meet an unrealistic beyond wp:rs standard. In closing highly concerning what is going on here, lack of wp:agf, degree of wp:civ lacking, and lack of wp:npov. Think this should be presented to the wider Wikipedia audience for discussion, not isolated here in a vacuum among a small and seemingly aggressive group of watchdog editors, then we might achieve a truly balanced and NPOV good day!--0pen$0urce (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I never heard of this person before; I just happened to notice a thread at WP:NPOVN and got curious. Having read through the discussion and the edit history, I would have to say that the sub-section as it is is unsatisfactory. "He was not deployed to Vietnam." "So what?", the uninformed reader is going to ask. Hundreds of thousands of people who enlisted in the 1970s were not deployed to Vietnam. Phillips didn't join the space program either. Then at the end, the reader is told, "In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran." Well, maybe if it said at the beginning, "In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran, but he was not deployed to Vietnam", it would at least make some sense. But the "so what?" is still not answered. It only matters because some news media said he was a Vietnam veteran and then retracted that, because what he had said was "Vietnam times". So, from a purely encyclopedic point of view, there are two options: As of now it's falling between two stools, and that makes it unreadable. Scolaire (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) State the facts of the news reports in a concise and NPOV way, or
 * 2) Take out everything to do with Vietnam, take out the section heading, and just have the Early life section say, "Phillips was in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves from 1972 to 1976. He served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman. He was discharged following disciplinary issues." The precise date of his enlistment and discharge, and his rank at the time of his discharge, are not relevant to the article.
 * It’d be a moot point but reports surfaced criticism of his portrayal of Vietnam Service. If it is proven he received financial benefits is criminal and is called stolen valor. There is sources reporting on criticisms of his portrayal of Vietnam service as well as not correcting the media when they labeled him a Vietnam Vet. Stolen valor and lying about serving in combat is a big deal thus the stolen valor laws.0pen$0urce (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, we're sliding a bit far into the hypothetical and original research realms here, but I think it's worth mentioning that this description of either the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (which was struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez) or the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 is inaccurate. Both acts are aimed at the fraudulent wearing, selling, bartering, etc., of decorations or medals awarded by the armed forces.  Mere statements about service are not covered by the Act.  Moreover, the current act requires fraudulent intent--basically that such deceit was for the purpose of personal gain (note that intent is required, merely that someone received financial benefits is not enough).  I can't judge whether Mr. Phillips told the truth or believed he was doing so.  What is clear, however, is that "Stolen Valor" is not at issue.  Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 0pen$0urce, thank you for (finally) responding. Can you suggest a concise, neutral, sourced sentence to be added to the paragraph per my option #1? You seem to understand the subject; I know nothing more than what I've read here, and that is endlessly confusing. If there is nothing on those lines added within a few days, I propose to take all the "Vietnam" stuff out per my option #2. Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , would this work for you?
 * Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972. During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman. On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents. In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran
 * Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service. Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications. Contributing to the confusion, on his Facebook page, he claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" and in an unrelated interview, he stated he was a "recon ranger".  He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.


 * That certainly seems to get everything in. One thing I would disagree with – as I said in my remarks about the current paragraph – is having "he is classified as a Vietnam era veteran" as a standalone, divorced from the "Vietnam veteran" content. I would prefer to see only the first three sentences in the first paragraph, and then in the second paragraph
 * Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service. In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran; however, several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a "Vietnam Veteran" then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications...
 * In other words, Whether he is classified as a Vietnam era veteran is not relevant except in the context of the media (or he himself) saying he was a Vietnam veteran.
 * FYI, doesn't work if you follow it with a line break, as you did here. I saw your post because the page is on my watchlist, but I didn't get an alert. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with it either way. Buffs (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing my support for your edit as a result of the discussion at NPOVN. Really, I'd prefer you to keep the discussion here rather than pinging other editors there. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fine with the discussion being located here too; I didn't start that discussion at WP:NPOV and now it's fractured in two locations. Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying from NPOVN:
 * Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that your contention that the statements "reflect on his credibility" are kind of the problem. It makes this seem like a WP:TROJAN Horse that implies a statement of opinion without simply coming out and citing a person who criticized Phillips. The reliable sources suggest that the initial reports got it wrong (which doesn't reflect on Phillips at all) and Snopes concludes that there is no evidence that he intentionally tried to mislead people about his military service. I'm not sure that really warrants two paragraphs in a fairly short article. Nblund talk 20:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, there are two issues here. The first is the fact that the media got a LOT wrong in that incident (that's pretty well acknowledged on all sides). The second is that he's also loose with the facts. In the 2019 January incident, he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading. This is a pattern of behavior as he DID claim to be both a "Vietnam Veteran" in a video as well as "Recon Ranger". I welcome and accept his clarification on both points, but it's notable that he's loose on accuracy in spontaneous conversation (commonly known as "exaggerating"). Does this assessment seem accurate? Or is it just too much? Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts (which you didn't ask for): your whole post looks a lot like original research. He's loose with the facts; he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading; this is a pattern of behavior. Are there multiple reliable sources that say exactly that? The Washington Post said he "misrepresented his military history", but that's not the same thing as saying he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I welcome and accept his clarification on both points...: it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here, and that does bring your motivation into question. I accepted your edit on the article talk page (and why did you ping Nblund and Jorm here, rather than on the article talk page), because it seemed a good faith summary of some (marginally) interesting facts, but it seems, as Nblund says, that its true purpose is to use verifiable and marginally interesting facts to imply things which are not verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, 3 points here you bring up.
 * Why I pinged them here: I pinged them here because they responded here. Their input pertained to the matters discussed on this page.
 * "it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here" Wow. I'm offering a substantiated opinion on the subject that is widely held/supported by third-party sources (see below). That's just putting the facts out there. As I said before,
 * I'm NOT saying he's he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I am saying that he exaggerates, like some people are prone to do; That isn't WP:OR. "He’s all over the map on his facts." His statements about himself/his actions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Since his own perception doesn't align with what actually happened, we need to give his claims context. For example "'That mass of young men surrounded me and the folks that were with me,' Phillips said, adding that when he did finally find a path to walk through the 'clear space, a person was there. I was blocked.'" when he actually waded into the middle of the students intentionally beating a drum a few feet from a teenager's face.
 * How I personally feel about Mr. Phillips is hardly the point. WP is supposed to be based on what reliable, third party sources say about the subject. Since these opinions are indeed part of the mainstream, it's important to both include his statements about military service, the errors, and any points of later clarification. To do otherwiseBuffs (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The purposed text seems to be an improvement with decent sources. I think it should be fine to add it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback! Buffs (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary break
There is no still no consensus on any alternative to the current "Military service" subsection. As I said above, the current version is unreadable, because talking about him not being deployed, or being "classified as a Vietnam era veteran", is of no relevance in the absence of context, i.e. what he said or what was said about him in the media. I am therefore – as I proposed earlier - taking out the subsection and putting the bare bones in the "Early life" section. If and when there is a consensus around the "did he lie? was he misrepresented?" question, the appropriate content can be added back. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

--Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to simply say he's a Vietnam Era veteran and leave it at that. The inaccurate initial reports are probably worth covering at the Lincoln Memorial Confrontation page, but there's no indication that Phillips himself was responsible for those reports. The other stuff seems like a thinly veiled accusation that he exaggerated his military past - if we're going to delve in to that issue, it seems like we should just go ahead and cite critical articles and attribute them to actual people instead of resorting to innuendo. But, in my view, this would be WP:UNDUE because it just hasn't received much coverage in reliable sources. Nblund talk 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with NBlund. --Jorm (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with NBlund Indigenous girl (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I, too, agree with NBlund. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Whitewash.0pen$0urce (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The initial inaccurate reports about Philips would be for this article since they are about him, incorrect reports about the event in general would be for the confrontation article. The initial reports about him are inaccurate because he has said many conflicting things in the past. It is something noted by several of the RS above so that would establish some weight. What the proper weight is for inclusion I am unsure of at this point but I do think the proposed text above is a move in the right direction. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But why say he's a Vietnam Era veteran? You wouldn't say it in a biography of somebody else who enlisted in 1972, if the word "Vietnam" didn't occur somewhere in their article. I can't give an example, because there's no Category:Vietnam era veterans where I can search for articles. Can any of you link to an article where it says that? --Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nblund that the confusing news reports could be covered in the Lincoln Memorial confrontation section; not the Early life section. In that case it would be appropriate to say he was a Vietnam Era veteran in that section, in the context of the reports. I disagree with just stating the fact on its own, without any context. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, I think just calling him a veteran is fine. PackMecEng: I'm not actually sure if it's true that his past statements are the reason for the inaccurate initial reports. Snopes notes that "the corrections indicated the misinformation had not come from Phillips himself", and the Facebook video was not discovered until after those initial retractions were released. Nblund talk 17:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To answer your query "Why say he's a Vietnam Era veteran?" Because that's legally what he is. "You wouldn't say it in a biography of somebody else who enlisted in 1972..." Yes, you would/should and we do: Bill Rosendahl, Kermit L. Hall, Mike Ferner, etc.
 * To just say he's a veteran is incomplete. FWIW, I don't care that he was a refrigerator mechanic or any other job. He did his duty for the US during a VERY diffcult time for servicemembers. Even if drafted, I appreciate his service when it wasn't popular. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Buffs (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

-- apologies for reverting you! I think you've gone just a shade beyond the cited source with this. The source implies the video contradicts Mr. Phillips' account, but doesn't actually say as much. Together with the "no video so far" language makes this one feel wrong to me. In addition, when we say "students' version," all I can see is the version from the student prominently displayed in the initial video. I feel like assigning this to some greater group of students is, again, just a shade too much. All that being said, if there are other sources, or if the weight of consensus is against me, I won't be a bother. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No apology needed for a revert. What you've done is well within standard editorial norms. I've respecified the points that support the assertion in the quote. Yes, Mr. Sandman's statement is what is talked about, but he also mentions "students" (plural) and that the video supports what Sandman stated happened to him and the students. Hopefully the quotes given and rephrasing address your concerns. Buffs (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. If you want to say that there is a contradiction with Phillips's account, you need a source saying so unambiguously (ie. saying is as many words that Phillips' words were contradicted by video); inferring it yourself from the sources - or, for that matter, even just using it to imply as much, when we lack a source saying so explicitly - is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard contains more discussion on the subject/balance. This was mentioned above and has, generally speaking, come to a different conclusion. In order to centralize discussion, I invite all to contribute there. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC) @buffs

News media debate
A recent edit added the following: "After Phillips' time in the media spotlight after a 2019 protest incident, several newsmedia debated whether Phillips' service during the Vietnam era made him a "Vietnam Era Veteran" versus a Vietnam veteran. " A number of sources did mistakenly identify Phillips as a "Vietnam veteran", but they simply issued corrections and clarifications when the error was brought to their attention. I haven't found any sign of an actual debate over this in reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Buisness Week and military Times reported on the concerns of how Phillips was portraying his military service including a Facebook video and a tribal award Phillips posted on his twitter that stated “Vietnam Veteran”--0pen$0urce (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial confrontation Section needs shortening
This section lacks balance in contrast to the rest of the article. Lengthy and does not jibe with wp:mos Maybe a light cleanup. Section has a main article, so more of a summary..0pen$0urce (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Tag removed--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Tag reapplied please discuss before removing. If notability hinges on this section maybe notability should be reviewed.0pen$0urce (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose some specific edits (or, even better make improvements) then we can discuss those, but I'm not seeing the issue here. It's a complicated topic and the section appears to do a decent job of hitting the major points in a couple of paragraphs.  Nblund talk 21:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag again. Do not re-add it without convincing others that it needs to be there.  If you re-add it, you will be at 3RR and you will be taken to the edit-warring noticeboard.--Jorm (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciate if you could be wp:civil, threatening going to a notice board is not civil and your approach has also has lacked good faith. This is at least the 3rd time I have asked you to be civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And it would be tossed out as absurd. Open has reverted once (recently), as you have done. If there is, however, an edit war over a tag, you both risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that tag-warring isn't helpful, but Opensource needs to offer some more specific critiques here. "Maybe a light cleanup" and "doesn't jibe with mos" don't give us much to work with. I can see some issues with clarity in that section, but 2 paragraphs doesn't seem wildly out of line. Nblund talk 23:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If anything, it should be expanded upon in the WP:LEAD and article. He's internationally known for this incident. Buffs (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nblund and Buffs. The Lincoln Memorial incident is what he is notable for, so that size of a section for the incident is due weight. A bit more wouldn't hurt. Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wording about contradicting Phillip's claims about the Lincoln Memorial incident
The author of the referred article goes to extensive lengths to point out that Phillips assertions were not true. Ergo, it's indeed a "contradiction". It doesn't matter that he didn't use that exact phrasing. To reduce it to "while it does not fully exonerate the boys, it releases them from most of the serious charges" with no specifics leaves the readers wondering WHAT "serious charges" they were accused of that were not true (fact is: almost everything except the appropriateness of the tomahawk chop). Removing the statement implies that what Phillips claimed was true when, in fact, it was not. Buffs (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it matters. The word choice in the Atlantic article strikes me as going a long way to not say it's a contradiction.  Merely that it is unsupported.  That's a distinction with a difference.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The word choice in the Atlantic article specifically calls out the media for what they got wrong:
 * "Journalists began to discover that the viral video was not, in fact, the Zapruder film of 2019, and that there were other videos—lots and lots of them—that showed the event from multiple perspectives and that explained more clearly what had happened. At first the journalists and their editors tried to patch the revelations onto the existing story, in hopes that the whole thing would somehow hold together. CNN, apparently by now aware that the event had taken place within a complicating larger picture, tried to use the new information to support its own biased interpretation, sorrowfully reporting that early in the afternoon the boys had clashed with 'four African American young men preaching about the Bible and oppression.' But the wild, uncontrollable internet kept pumping videos into the ether that allowed people to see for themselves what had happened."
 * These videos and this interpretation VERY clearly show the contradiction between what was initially claimed and what turned out to be the truth. To say that the article merely claims that the videos just "didn't support" the claims is absurd. Buffs (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a source (among many options) that uses the word "contradiction". Buffs (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Slight edit. Per Reason, the video(s) contradicted the "media narrative."  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Found a WP:RS that says both. Quoted and put in the article. Buffs (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My only comment to that would be attributing that particular quote to "journalists" strikes me as over broad. I would specifically say "The Washington Post found . . . ." or some such.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean we can add more sources, but journalists came to that conclusion, not just WP. Reason & Atlantic too. None are remotely conservative publications. If you throw those in too, I think the statement there is pretty well backed up. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)