Talk:2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article history

$\mathrm {N} \!\!\mathrm {B}$ The core of this page was created as part of the article on the Indigenous Peoples March, therefore the edit history can be found there. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

The provenance, role and confusion surrounding the first widely-shared c. one-minute videos

Some responses to the incident included characterizations that the uploading of the first short videos was a "deliberate attempt" to mislead and "to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter" — a violation of Twitter Rules — with a tweet that "had been boosted by a network of anonymous Twitter accounts to amplify the story."

I wrote the original content regarding the videos but the accuracy of some statements in the January 23 article by CNN Donie O'Sullivan need to be clarified further. Originally CNN Business reporter Donie O'Sullivan erroneously reported that a video posted on Twitter by 2020fight under the title, "This MAGA loser gleefully bothering a Native American protester at the Indigenous Peoples March", which had 2.5 million views by January 22, was the one that "helped frame the news cycle". In a January 23 article, CNN clarified that the video posted by @2020fight was actually a repost of Taitana's original one-minute video. NBC reported on January 23, that @2020fight was a "San Francisco Bay Area teacher who "did not expect to find herself at the center of a media firestorm." She used the account to "sell teaching materials".

I added in the "Notes" section that "The Twitter account that reposted Taitano's original video @2020fight was suspicious because, according to O'Sullivan's CNN article, Rob McDonagh from Storyful, a company under contract with CNN that monitors and verifies social media content, had reviewed @2020fight's account history, and found it suspicious: it has a "high follower count", a "highly polarized and yet inconsistent political messaging", an "unusually high rate of tweets", and used "someone else's image in the profile photo". CNN itself could not reach the account holder, and subsequently reported the account to Twitter. According to the NBC January 23 article, Twitter briefly suspended the account until the account owner's identity was verified. The account owner then deleted the account."

I had included this sentence from the O'Sullivan article in which he "had also cited Molly McKew, an information warfare researcher, who said @2020fight's tweet had been boosted by a network of anonymous Twitter accounts to amplify the story." However, the KC Noland received 4,771,820 views and was not considered to be "boosted." I am considering removing or revising the McKew statement until there is more confirmation.

Was there a deliberate attempt to amplify the story as cited? It appears the California teacher had no such intent and the Twitter account that appeared to be suspicious, was not. The insinuation that a foreign actor was at play, heightens the emotional polarization of the many people who continue to follow this story. McKew and Storify's role in this is another interesting angle. There will no doubt be more information available. Storyful, social media intelligence agency that monitors and verifies social media user-generated content for major main stream news platforms and for image risk-management for corporate clients, is an affiliate of Robert Murdoch's News Corp. It plays a very powerful role across many main stream platforms. I hope this story within the story, with enough of these details intact, stays in the article, at least in the Notes.

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Poorly-sourced additions to the retractions paragraph.

When I objected to this recent addition earlier, someone restored it; since this concerns multiple people covered by WP:BLP, I've removed it again. Please don't restore it until there's a clear consensus in favor of it. My objections are that the sources used here aren't sufficient to cover the actions of BLPs; the Fox piece is an opinion piece under their "media buzz" label, while the other two are opinion pieces from the Daily Caller and the New American, both clearly non-WP:RS sources (certainly for covering the actions of living people.) If these things are true and noteworthy, it should be easy to find higher-quality secondary sources covering them. If not, then they don't belong in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored your edit, I also added the section. I will say here only that the facts mentioned are by no means disputed – or disputable – and leave it to your conscience whether obscuring the reality that 'notable' national news ankers found it opportunity to judge the actions of a sixteen-year-old boy based on unreliable evidence is something you really want to defend. I suggest you start thinking about what or who the problem here really is. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

Please remember that our purpose here is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to perform our own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on events. Our purpose is to reflect coverage with the weight and focus accorded to it in mainstream reliable sources. Even if those sources are accurate - and I absolutely would not trust any of them for anything - it's still inappropriate to use poorly-sourced content, even if true, to try and push a particular analysis or perspective on the topic without a reliable source backing that interpretation up. You clearly feel that the fact that those tweets were deleted has deep significant meaning that reveals what's really important about this incident; but if that is the case, then it should be easy to find them in reliable, mainstream non-opinion sources. Also, please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages - the news anchors you're referring to are also living people, and the accusations you're making against them go far beyond what the sources support. I suggest striking the relevant part of your comment. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the mainstream reliable sources failed in this event, and they admitted giving unsubstantiated views. When I previously linked to tweets and archived (deleted) tweets, those links were removed – if the personal tweets of those involved are not considered applicable to source the content, there is nothing left for us to talk about, or is there? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

This is not a biography, so I fail to see how BLP applies. This article covers two main events: the actual confrontation itself, and the media's irresponsible reporting and subsequent backlash on said reporting. The removed paragraphs were relevant to the second. Opinion pieces are used as sources often, especially regarding current events. I see no events that suggest the New American is non-reliable. While it is biased, remember WP:RS states: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". There have been some incidents of misleading stories from the Daily Caller, so I could go either way on that. I agree that Buzzfeed has a very poor history of non-reliable reporting though. Databased (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere, not just in articles that are biographies. No comment on your other points. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to the community here, but wouldn't WP:BLPSPS apply? "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" In which case their tweets, even though they have since been deleted, would be an allowable source. I'm referring to the threats and violence section that was recently edited out because I believe the public response to the initial video to be notable. A large portion of the current coverage is currently dealing with this matter. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

The lead in the page completely fails to communicate what the incident was - everything but, in fact. The rest of the article was WP:TLDR, so I am still no clearer what happened. Any chance someone could fix it, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a difficult, many-faceted story, that has not stopped developing, so your request is hard to answer, IMO. Please check again in a week or so. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

PS I see now that several edits today messed up the lead somewhat, so that could and should fixed. Meanwhile I will change your paragraph title 'Rubbish lead' – if you would have given the page history a look, you could have detected the reason for the failing second part of the lead yourself, an effort that would have held you back from dropping a haughty 'TLDR' in the first place, @Nick Moyes:. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

Naming

I've renamed the article immediately to get it away from MAGAkids (a clearly-unacceptable title mentioned nowhere in the article or its sources; a quick search suggests some people are trying to push it as a hashtag.) Better names are probably possible, but given that that name was chosen with no prior discussion, and given its obvious unsuitability coupled with the fact that this is breaking news (which ought to be treated cautiously), I felt that moving away from that immediately was the best choice for now. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you acting swiftly and choosing a more neutral title for this article. I find it's better to ask forgiveness than permission in cases like this. I would suggest we revisit the discussion in after a week when things have stabilized a bit more. Personally, I don't even think 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident is necessarily an accurate title either because the incident (at least according to my knowledge of the incident, I could be wrong) happened after the Indigenous Peoples March officially ended. By this logic, the event could be called the 2019 March for Life Incident, which the teenagers were part of, or the 2019 Black Israelite Incident, who were the initial aggressors according to the videos. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we could definitely find a better title. I just wanted to get it to something definitely neutral-ish quickly while we discuss which one would be best. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I am no fan of the MAGAkids title, but for the record, I don't agree that "2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident" is a neutral title. As a thought experiment, why not name it "March For Life Attendees Incident" or "2019 Black Hebrew Israelites trolling incident" ... I think it went viral because of kids in MAGA hats "caught" on video doing something... and then there was more video that changed the context for some people. I was told that "Covington Catholic Incident" was not NPOV, so... I am out of ideas... but I still don't think it should be associated with one march over the other as if those kids in MAGA hats came to DC to disrupt the Indigenous Peoples March. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Of all of them, I'm in favor of having "Covington Catholic Incident" being the article name. Anything else would put too much emphasis on particular groups or events that really had nothing to do with the incident when it happened, in my opinion. No doubt in another week the media will settle on a common name for the incident and this entire debate will be moot. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think Lincoln Memorial confrontation video might be an alternative name, to get at it from another angle.--Pharos (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• What about 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation controversy? The article is not about 'a' or (one of) 'the' video(s) in itself, it's about the controversy. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
  • It does seem likely that the lasting notability of this incident will be related more to its coverage than the incident itself. clpo13_(talk) 18:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed. A name along this line would ensure WP:NPOV for all parties involved. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Or indeed just 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation would indeed be best. I see it as meaning both the confrontation, and the coverage of it, and the controversy over the coverage. MPS1992 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

image will be deleted

File:Convington Jan18 2019 incident.jpg will be deleted from Commons, as it has no free license, neither on Commons nor on Youtube. However, the image should be qualified for fair-use on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yah this is unfortunate but that is what happens when people screenshot youtubes and try to upload to the commons without explaining copyright pedigree. Someone [else] needs to figure out how to obtain a fair use image for this article. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This very image might well be qualified for fair use, assuming there is no equivalent free image available. Somebody needs to propose per Wikipedia:Non-free content and then upload it locally here on :en (Commons does not allo fair-use). --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I'm still confused over what's up for Wikipedia, and what for Commons. Currently, it says, the picture is "being re-uploaded to projects on which it is in use as a fair use candidate." If any of you guys is able to assist in moving or adding the proper fair-use criteria template to the file, be my guest. Thanks. Kochas (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded a still from a second video, and I think we need both in the article. EDIT: I reuploaded a smaller version of the initial image as well, with fair-use description, and I replaced the image on the page. I hope and think I produced a correct fair-use description for both. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

These pictures and footages drag private persons into the spotlight. Granted that they gave TV interviews but only after their images were in the news already. So that doesn't count. --Correctino (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is not up tou you to decide this. You can ask for deletion of the files, but simply removing them from the page is not the way. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

These two images are now up for fair use: Phillips Sandmann and Sandmann Phillips. They will be rescaled by a bot to 100.000 px max. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

Opinion: "staring contest"

@Oceanflynn: you just added in the intro a piece of opinion as if it were the (encyclopedic) truth, but it is not. It was not a 'staring contest'. I suggest we get a paragraph "Opinion", because these opinions are not truth per se. Also you added in the same edit a passage starting "In reality, the incident (...) only involved a few dozen etc." – this makes no sense, when reading the lines before that. I wanted to undo the complete edit, but could not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

(Pasting my edit summary here:) I'm sorry, but the New Yorker piece by Ruthman has no place here. It was, first, not a "staring contest", second, the "few dozen" were more likely 50, third, "no violence occured" is a dubious proposition, and fourth, it did not "end of its own accord", because the spell was broken when some lady entered the group of gathered people (see KC Noland's short clip: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs11BgBFv4a/). Please don't use opinion as fact. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

Mention of Incident on Black Hebrew Israelites article

I would be interested in anyone's feedback on the current discussion going on at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#Section on national attention and verbally abusive tactics ... There is currently an editorial impasse there about whether a paragraph on "the incident" should be included in the Black Hebrew Israelites article. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

Is there any reason this article is under theWP:RELIGION section? WP:POLITICS or similar looks to be a better fit to me. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I also question its inclusion in the Religion Project. Other comments? I will delete the heading here in the talk page after 24 hours unless other editors feel it should remain.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

doesn't really matter, does it? ... one explanation is that a project member tagged it based on Catholic school boys and/or the Black Hebrew Israelites ... Can an article fall under more than one wikiproject? If so, let the wikiprojects decide to work on this article (the more the merrier). What are the implications of "mislabeling" an article. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, in which case I will add the Politics Project tab because this article is of definite political interest. Both will be up concurrently and after the 24 hour timeline given by Oceanflynn is up we can then decide on what to do with the Religions Project. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It's now been over the 24 hour timeline given by Oceanflynn. I will now delete the religions tag. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There's the disruption of the mass at Basilica [1], which is covered at Nathan Phillips (activist) but not here for some reason. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use images

These pictures and footages drag private persons into the spotlight. Granted that they gave TV interviews but only after their images were in the news already. So that doesn't count. --Correctino (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is not up tou you to decide this. You can ask for deletion of the files, but simply removing them from the page is not the way. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

I've restored the section. Please do not re-incorporate it in the (technical!) topic: "Images will be deleted [in Wikipedia-Commons -> only moved from Commons to another part!]" The images are non-free content but still exist due to a loophole that exists in English Wikipedia. In other Wikipedia projects (e.g. de.wikipedia.org) that isn't allowed at all. I most often regret that fair-use isn't possible there but in this case it isn't quite "fair use", at least not in regard to the persons involved. As the images and videos are all over the internet there is no practical need (imho) to delete it on en.wikipedia.org but we should nevertheless be hesitant to display it (or only one picture as a compromise) in the article and remember that Wikipedia has the aim to provide free and legal content that should be usable for others to incorporate it in their works (see Creative Commons). That's the outstanding strength of Wikipedia. With dubious non-free content this gets tainted.--Correctino (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jürgen Eissink:, can you agree with that? --Correctino (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no problems with the fair-use images, and they illustrate the subject in a way that currently-available free sources do not. What exactly is "dubious" about the content? –dlthewave ☎ 13:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep both images. I watched an interview with Sandmann and he doesn't seem to want to prevent the videos from circulating. He says that he doesn't consider his facial expression to be a smirk. We want to WP:AVOIDVICTIM when the people involved have been receiving death threats, but this does not seem like a case of WP:MUG to me. wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep both images. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC).
• Keep only the image that makes clear how close the drum was held to the child's face while the adult was beating the drum, making clear what an invasion of personal space that was. The image that was misrepresented as "smirking" needs to go back whence it came. MPS1992 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm I doubt he considers himself a child. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The differing/changing interpretation of the footage is a central part of the story, and the multiple images from help illustrate this. It is appropriate to cover all viewpoints here. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that, Drmies, then I am glad that as a 15 year old you never had to endure a situation where you were subjected to nationwide condemnation because of something that was entirely outside your control and where you yourself had acted in an exemplary fashion. If only the same could be said of the adult who deliberately initiated the confrontation by walking towards the kids and getting right up in their faces. MPS1992 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm indifferent to whether we keep the second image or not, but we have to keep the primary one (the one that was sometimes interpreted as 'smirking' in the sources) - and it has to remain as the lead image, since it's the one that is most representative of the topic per MOS:LEADIMAGE. Most of the controversy, after all, was sparked by that image in particular. We can't hide it just because we feel it's problematic in light of later events - we can, and do, clarify the controversy over it in the article, describing the debate that followed, but since it's at the crux of the controversy we have to place it in the lead. Without it none of the rest of the article makes any sense. Remember, this article is about not just the confrontation but the controversy that followed it (which is, after all, what makes the topic notable.) Clearly the image at the center of that controversy is the most representative one for the topic; a quick search of the sources finds that they nearly all use it. The screenshot is even specifically mentioned in the lead (so putting another one there could potentially mislead readers and make them confused as to what the initial reaction was all about.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. In this case, please feel free to propose a new title at any time, particularly after related merge discussions have completed since that may help clarify issues. Also note that the current discussion was initiated by a sock puppet. Dekimasuよ! 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident → 2019 Indigenous Peoples March incident – all sources use lowercased i for incident EphFan (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Confused - this event didn't happen in relation to the IPM. A single participant who attended the IPM earlier was involved, but that's not the same thing. Why shouldn't this be called instead the "2019 Covington Catholic incident" or "2019 Black Hebrew Israelite incident"? or just merge this with Nathan Phillips (activist), the instigator and focus? Likewise, on reflection, the world seems to agree that there was no actual "incident" (no one committed a crime, etc.), just an encounter which was recorded and then misinterpreted. The notable quality of this was the social and mainstream media reaction and fallout. -- Netoholic @ 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Incident doesn't necessarily refer to a crime. It can refer to any event or occurrence, though I agree the title needs to deemphasize the Indigenous Peoples March. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Move after AFD - Move to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March incident after AFD is complete. Until then, make titles match. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with lowercased i, but see above for discussion on renaming too – I think we can have a better name. @Netoholic:, discussions on keep or merge please over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
• Comment: Sources are split as to whether to include an apostrophe in "Peoples" or not. StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• I renamed Indigenous Peoples March, because the organizers did and do not seem to use an apostrophe – that is, neither prior to the march and neither on the big banner that can be seen on the main article. Please sum up the sources pro and con if you really want to make this a point of debate, but I hope you recognize my point of view. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

• Lowercase i (incident) for sure, and I am open to even better names. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support a lowercase "i" (incident) in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support lowercase i per our naming convention. I also think there might be a better title here (e.g. something with Covington), but that's a separate issue and requires deeper analysis.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Counterproposal-- change to a completely different name such as "January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation" because all along I have maintained that this "incident" occurred after both the Indigenous March and the Right to Life March ended. Peace, MPS (talk)
• Support January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation (or 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation or even just Lincoln Memorial confrontation) per MPS. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The incident happened after the march was over. Phillips and his companies had left the March (which was mostly over). These are two different events/incidents.Mattnad (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose we merge Nathan Phillips (activist) into 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. As coverage dies down and RS condense what is important about this person I think we can safely move the important bits about Nathan Phillips into the Indigenous Peoples March Incident. I also believe this article is a candidate for WP:BLP1E and they would not be notable outside of this event. This also have the benefit of focusing what is important about him while removing the rest of the not notable aspects of his life. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

*Discussion moved here from Nathan Phillips (activist) article per WP:MERGE. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - almost entirely WP:BLP1E (a smattering of prior coverage - but wouldn't have passed an AfD prior to 2019 unless a very sympathetic crowd of editors to the activist were at the AfD). A single article on the social media kerfuffle and subsequent fallout (which sadly, is notable) is sufficient - long term having two articles on (essentially) the same thing is not conducive to Wikipedia quality and BLP policy. Should Phillips do something else that garners coverage in the future, then there might be cause to revisit. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I pointed this out below, but I want to emphasize it to avoid misunderstandings about WP:BLP1E - WP:BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals. As it says on Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. An activist could almost never fall under WP:BLP1E. There might be other arguments regarding his notability (perhaps the weaker and broader WP:BIO1E, although I think he has enough independent coverage to avoid that), but WP:BLP1E very definitely doesn't apply. The fact that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to an activist is extremely clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disagree, do not merge - It is disrespectful to delete the page of a famous American Indian leader, and a Vietnam Veteran to boot. Someone who was spat upon as he came "back to the U.S. as a veteran of the Vietnam era." Principles of inclusiveness, diversity and intersectionality ought to be respected on Wikipedia. It should be noted that the sources on Phillips go back decades. It is fatuous to argue that Phillips' name has only come to the fore now. XavierItzm (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  He wasn't a Vietnam Vet. "Respect" is not a reason for inclusion/exclusion. For the record, it appears he served after the War in CONUS as a refrigerator mechanic. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

While we all can agree this "veteran in the indigenous rights movement" was a refrigeration technician never deployed to Vietnam nor anywhere else overseas, you cannot deny he said «described coming back to the U.S. as a veteran of the Vietnam era. “People called me a baby killer and a hippie girl spit on me.”» - XavierItzm (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to deny, because Phillips did not write that article, nor do you know if he authorized it, if that was even possible. What is your point, XavierItzm? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

• No support – Phillips has been an activist for decades, and his activism now brought him international attention. He made the wide news from this one single event, but he, as some feel it, "has become the most recent face of indigenous resistance in the present-day United States" While his individual deeds might not have made him notable, the wheels of history have put him and his case on a stage and mad him a prominent or at least wellknown figure. Trying to shove him back into oblivion does not seem to help this encyclopedia, in my opinion. I think there is more to be found on his history of activism and that should be added to form the core of the article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
• Disagree. Only about half of Phillips' article pertains to this incident. If merged, this information would either have to be cut out, or it would have to be included. Neither of these choices seems correct to me, therefore the article should be kept. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The current article is dominated by his involvement in this incident. The rest of his activism, which is not notable enough for it's own article, could be summarized in a few sentenced in this article to give background on him. PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not only that - most of the article is sourced to 2019 articles from the incident. Part of his earlier life (his military service) was part of the incident (to being with - the boys being allegedly disrespectful to a Vietnam vet, subsequently the Vietnam vet (to a large degree miss-reported by the press) came into question). Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree Do not merge. Articles surrounding the meta story of the media coverage and explosive response to the incident, continue to be published over ten days after it happened. This article on the incident alone may actually increase in size if these analyses are given their own sections. The Nathan Phillips article has room for development as there is much happening in Native American communities that is unknown in mainstream culture and unrepresented in Wikipedia. There is a lot written in smaller but reliable local publications that can be added to this biography. For now the Phillips article has enough RS to remain. Wikipedia has dozens of one-paragraph biography articles about people who have served in administrative roles in an organization for years and accomplished little else. How many of Wikipedia editors are Native American? This is not a print production with a limited word count. As a reader of this article, one of the first things I would do is click on a link for a Nathan Phillips article.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Philips has been an activists for a long time, as well as featuring in a documentary about Native Americans as well as being in one of Skrillex's music videos, so there is certainly enough content and coverage before the incident to pass WP:GNG and have a stand-alone article. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Inter&anthro and Oceanflynn ... While he rose to many people's awareness during this incident, reliable sources have documented other significant activism and "popular culture" appearances. We def need to adhere to WP:BLP but the standalone article is not problematic at this point. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• oppose has been the subject of coverage for many years. Clearly passes WP:GNG. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• oppose Case has been clearly made that this individual is notable in his own right. While famous/infamous for this incident, he's been involved as an outspoken critic elsewhere. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd much rather see the non-notable 2019 March merged here, not the activist who passes WP:BASIC per sources prior to 2019 already present in the article: [2] [3] [4] [5]. I do note however that this is still a BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies even though initial coverage of the subject might contain many inaccuracies for multiple reasons. I recommend adhering to WP:recentism and take some advice from WP:PUBLICFIGURE. wumbolo ^^^ 22:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. There are multiple reliable sources in that article predating this incident that focus on him extensively. He would be a borderline WP:BIO case without this incident, but it clearly puts him over the top. Regarding WP:BLP1E, he fails two of the three criteria - we have coverage of him distinct from that event, and he patiently fails the "low-profile individual" criteria (as an activist, he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) Anyone who would spend more than a moment considering whether he falls under WP:BLP1E needs to actually read the criteria - an activist who has been interviewed by the media repeatedly before the incident in question is an extremely clear-cut case of it not applying. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - We don't remove someone's biography altogether just because they got involved in a (perhaps major now but might not pass 10-year test) incident. This is recentism at maximum. Philips is an activist for decades, what do you hope to achieve by this? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

His article is basically a dumping ground of largely things that are not notable about him or in general. The content that is there could easily be moved here and clean everything up so people do not have to go to another article for information. I still believe that without this event he would not pass GNG and the current state of his article is rather bad. If it were cleaned up to what is actually important, there would be almost no article left at all. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: not a BLP1E situation; was a notable activist before the incident. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a bit of a stretch, I do not think anyone is arguing they were notable before the incident. Did you follow me here? PackMecEng (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nathan Phillips was a notable public person years ago. The 2013 documentary film and extensive interviews in Vogue from 2018, News Reports in 2015 and was well known as a public person in the activist and Native American communities for years before that. The wiki editor who suggested removing his story and his voice this way must be politically motivated. Kire1975 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please avoid Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. There's no need for personal attacks or assumptions like this. Let's discuss the argument, not the person who posed the question. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Given the intense scrutiny his personal details came under, which the WP community has gone to great lengths to record and chronicle accurately, I think that it is important that his own WP article is properly maintained and protected. Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I oppose the merge of these two notable articles. BTW, is there work happening on closing the discussion at Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Closing this discussion, consensus to keep the articles separate. Template removed from page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 February 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion at § Requested move 25 January 2019 did have a consensus; that is, there was widespread support for spelling "incident" with a lowercase I and nobody disagreed. So again, I suggest renaming to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March incident, at least until a better name is proposed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support yes this is the correct -- or at least more correct - article title. MPS1992 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, there were lots of other names proposed, and they were all better. StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, there was some consensus on 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, and googling that term makes it seem rather appropriate too. I could live with 18 January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation too. Anyhow, a proposal for name change might be a better plan here. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC).

• Comment - I have decided to list this discussion at WP:RM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS TO MOVE -- 'I--> i' was rejected, but unanimous consensus of comments was to move to a new name that does not involve the Indigenous People's March. I boldly chose the "most commonly suggested" new title: January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Move discussion closed per per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC) MPS (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident → 2019 Indigenous Peoples March incident – There is significant debate about which title is best. Jax 0677 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation as the far superior option proposed above. StAnselm (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support for January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation too. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

• Speedy Close This proposal was rejected last week and I fail to see how 'i' vs 'I' is a significant debate. If we are going to change the name, I maintain (as I did last week in the exact same discussion) that a more significant point is that this incident actually had little to do with any particular march and should be renamed to something like January 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. The only valid renomination so soon would be one that suggests something which doesn't include "Indigenous Peoples March" in the title, since this event took place outside of that event. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Added: I think moving to Lincoln Memorial encounter is good enough. No need to include the month/year unless it becomes necessary per WP:NCEVENTS. Most recent sources seem to have softened it to "encounter" as there was no direct "confrontation" or "incident" (such was only mistakenly assumed in the early reporting). -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am open to other titles, and at the WP:MR discussion, someone said that having a subsequent discussion was perfectly OK. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am also very happy with Lincoln Memorial encounter. StAnselm (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support "January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation" as well Lovesaver (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If there was any honesty on Wikipedia at all, this would be called the 2019 March for Life incident. --BenMcLean (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is a strong reason in favour of the alternate title being proposed. Since there were two marches, it is better to name it after the location. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Just now moved to January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation per comments above. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vietnam Veteran

The article correctly notes "multiple news outlets erroneously identified Phillips as a vietnam war veteran." However this is lying by omission. Phillips falsely represented HIMSELF as a vietnam war veteran, one of many deliberate falsehoods he told the media during the fabrication of this incident. Include that fact or Wikipedia loses credibility as a serious resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.61.12 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are created by joint effort, and ever developing. While the article first stated that Phillips was Vietnam veteran, I noticed yesterday that media outlets rectified their statements on that, so I added the part you cite. At the moment I could not verify why Phillips was called a Vietnam veteran – I didn't and don't know why he was called a Vietnam veteran. Feel free to elucidate the fact by adding sourced information. Please don't condemn Wikipedia when you don't recognize that it is volunteers who try their best to create articles like this. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Snopes did a good analysis of the discrepancy. Phillips correctly described himself as a Vietnam Era or "Vietnam times" veteran which includes everyone who served during that time regardless of location. Media outlets incorrectly transcribed it as "Vietnam veteran" and later corrected their errors. We should certainly include any documented falsehoods that have received significant coverage, but our WP:BLP policy requires that accusations like this be properly sourced, regardless of whether they are made in an article or talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. Articles are based on primarily second and third party sources. The fact is, many of the news stories until recently were referring to Phillips as a "Vietnam Veteran," or and now it looks like he calls himself a "Vietnam Era Veteran" ... IMHO, not much of a problem and an easy fix -- simply find a reliable news source where Philips is quoted as saying "I am a vietnam Veteran" and be done with it. Wikipedia gets it right, eventually, thanks to editors like us! Peace, MPS (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

In NBC's January 24 article, Phillips "clarified ...that he was a Marines reservist during the Vietnam War, but didn't serve in Vietnam. Some reports have said he served overseas in the war."Oceanflynn (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips has claimed he is a "Vietnam Veteran" in a video from January 2018. The line in question is around the 9:35 mark where he says "I am a Vietnam Vet." He further goes on to say his "box" was marked for "in-theatre," presumably talking about his DD-214. He also claims to be "Honorably Discharged" when in fact his DD-214 shows he was listed as just "Discharged." This reveals his actual status as "Discharged Other than Honorable" which isn't as bad as Dishonorable but also most definitely not Honorable.

2607:FCC8:CE48:5200:118E:20AD:7539:40C1 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

That’s not a DD 214. It may or may not be actual information received under a FOIA request (RedState is not a reliable source). In any case, your assumptions about the type of discharge are wrong. Under the Federal Privacy Act the type of administrative discharge (honorable, general under honorable conditions, and general under other than honorable conditions) cannot be released without the former service member’s permission. "Discharged" could be any of the three; it just means he's not an active duty and he didn't receive a dishonorable discharge (which would be a matter of public record). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

This article is poorly sourced with many of the sourced citing acting with a political bias. There have been several contradictory sources regarding this incident leading to a non-politically charged description of the event being difficult to construct from secondary sources such as news sources. As a result, this article does not have its roots in Wikipedia's fully objective, non-political content policy. I suggest though that a video file may be a useful contribution primary source such as a video would likely, avoid most of the events politically bias reporting. I suggest though that it is probably best for this article to be deleted considering the minor nature of the event as well as the politically biased nature of the reporting and sources cited in the article. Raymond Leonard User talk:Raymond Leonard, 22:40, 23/1/19

Could you cite some examples? I see 49 source citations, most of them credible, to include CNN, Vogue, Slate,NYT, The Atlantic, BBC News, Time Magazine, Associated Press, Cincinnati Enquirer, The Hill, The Washington Times, Mashable, and the Washington Post. Please tell me which ones you think are not credible and why. Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident but be aware that other people may agree with your assertion that "This article is poorly sourced." I happen to think it is well-sourced. Edited to add Pretty sure Wikipedia does not have a "non-political content policy." ... There **is** a Neutral Point of View policy that allows multiple viewpoints to be explained as long as they are well sourced and ascribed the people that have those points of view. more at WP:NPOV. Peace, MPS (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Sorry for writing 'non-political content policy' I meant the natural content policy writing without any political bias. Many have accused sources such as CNN, NYT and many of the other sources cited as having a left-leaning bias in their reporting which is, considering the students attacked were perceived as being right-wing Trump supporters that liberal news sources have a strong aversion to. I suggest that sources from both sides be used in the responses section of the article and maybe a timeline of how the exact nature of the incident evolved over time. Also, I would also reiterate my suggestion that a video file showing the incident in full would be a good idea as it would allow of a less bias viewpoint and grant readers a greater ability to make up their own mind about the nature of the situation. Raymond Leonard User talk:Raymond Leonard 10:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we want to create an article that is neutral and unbiased. That said, you still haven't provided any examples of how CNN or NYT references currently in this article are biased. My guidance to you would be to (1) feel free to add reliable sources, and (2) feel free to edit the article to "bracket" those things that you think are biased points of view (for example, instead of saying "X is true(source: NYT)" you could say "The New York Times reported that X...(source:NYT)" I like your idea of a video file, but I am unaware of one that is available. Do you have a link to the long and short videos. There may be copyright issues uploading to Wikimedia unless we can get pix or video that are released to the Public Domain. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That more than half this article is about the biased uninformed reporting by the media subsequent to the event,the article itself proves the original complaint was correct. Even Wikipedia was dogpiling to attack the students with a false narrative. But better than deleting the article, it was corrected, which should be the goal for covering a notable event.J1DW (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

There seems to be a very heavy right wing bias here, and i don't understand how something like this is tolerated. Far too much undue emphasis on the Hebrew Israelites, far too much whitewashing of the MAGA-kids, and trying to portray them as heroes and victims. This is not a balanced take. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to make a suggestion for a change in the article based on reliable sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For starters i would recommend removing the entire "Black Hebrew Israelites" section. They were always mostly a deflection, and this case is no different. The section here is designed to set up a narrative where they are the villains and the kids are the heroes standing up to them. There's undue weight given to the kind of insults they were throwing, and especially to interactions they had with other bystanders who have absolutely nothing to do with the incident. The incident involves the confrontation between Nathan Phillips and the MAGA-kids. And might i add, I don't believe a word of the revised story. I've seen ethe entire video and NOTHING in the broader context exonerates the kids' outrageous behavior. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for such edits. If you have a reliable source, please feel free to add with due weight. Buffs (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice try. I wasn't talking about ADDING things. I was talking about REMOVING an irrelevant tangent that was added to back up the right wing narratives surrounding the MAGA-kids. It doesn't matter what the Hebrew Israelites were calling the bystanders, the incident is not about them. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Policy isn't a "try". It does matter what the Hebrew Israelites were calling the bystanders in that they were being relatively condescending/rude to everyone; it demonstrates their pattern of behavior. Their actions were at least a contribution to the eventual incident caught on camera. That you "don't believe a word of the revised story" is irrelevant. What is here is relevant/material to the people involved in the confrontation and subsequent media hullaballoo. When I was asking you to add, I was meaning to add that information here. Buffs (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, the Hebrew Israelites were NOT part of the incident. Their heckling was a completely separate (and non notable) incident that rightwingers use to push a narrative to exonerate the MAGA-kids. I expected better from Wikipedia. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The objections raised are to certain elements of the Black Israelites which are perceived by some as being unrelated. Perhaps there might be some truth to it, such as comments to other passerbys. Nonetheless, the discussion here is no grounds for wholesale deletion. Restoring until full consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Engaged editors are invited to review the full uncut video of the Lincoln Memorial confrontation. For example, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8EseZO3ts0 Assuming good faith, (as is essential for wikipedia editors), those who assert that the Black Israelites are somehow not relevant actors would appear to be unfamiliar with the uncut video. Sbelknap (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

An op-ed saying progressives are anti-Catholic in the lead?

Why does the lead devote space to an op-ed by some nobody in the Independent falsely claiming that progressives consider anti-Catholicism acceptable? Not only is the opinion ludicrous, but I find nothing about this in the body in the article, and I do not recall any substantial RS coverage about anti-Catholic sentiment in relation to the event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert

The editor Mongo stalked me to this page and indiscriminately reverted every change I made to the article. This includes restoring citations to deprecated sources (such as RS) and other indefensible nonsense.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

During this or your next shift, feel free to report him. --Malerooster (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not stalk you...retract that immediately. I've seen some egregious POV pushing but you take the cake. I have had this page watchlisted for a long while and Fox News is not yet deemed unrelaible though you seem to want to issue such an edict independently.--MONGO (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they meant the source from RT (even if people don't believe that should have been deprecated), but it doesn't look like the filter (869) was triggered. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Benedict Spence, writing in The Independent argued that the incident was proof that "prejudiced sentiments about Catholicism in the US runs deep," adding that progressive Americans view anti-Catholicism as "the last acceptable face of prejudice" in the twenty-first century United States." Can be moved to article body.
• "Reports of the incident triggered outrage in the United States, including calls to doxx the students." Fox News is not yet deemed unreliable source one cannot unilaterally determine this independently. The details seems well within the content needed for this article.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation&type=revision&diff=970001956&oldid=970001664} I concur with the removal of the Russia Today ref, but again, calling Fox News as unreliable is not within the yet to be determined noticeboard outcome.
• [7] I concur with this edit.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation&type=revision&diff=970003540&oldid=970003428} I concur with this edit
• [8] I concur with the removal of the sources, but this can be sourced to another more reliable one. Its clear McConnell was outspoken about the Covington HS issue and defensible about the students and how they were treated by the media. Ref: like he did here
• [9] I concur with this edit and they are no longer needed.--MONGO (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

(1) The op-ed by Spence should not cited in the lead and not in the body. It's a bizarre fringe opinion whose presence in the article is bad. I'm imagining people 50 years from now learning about this event and stumbling upon our mention of an op-ed which said that Progressives in the 2000s were anti-Catholics and that this episode had something to do with anti-Catholicism – just bizarre. (2) There is no agreement that Fox News is a RS. In this instance, it's used to source that Kathy Griffin tweeted some awful things about the boys. (3) This is sourced to Fox & Friends, which is an opinion show. (7) I have no objection to adding McConnell's remarks, if reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no agreement that Fox News is not reliable either and you cannot make that call independently. The Griffin doxxing tweets were covered [10] and not just by Fox and Friends as shown here. The lawsuit against her doxxing was dismissed mainly due to a juridictional issue.[11] Hollywood Reporter, while not the NYT is still fact checked as reliable.[12].--MONGO (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think tweets by Kathy Griffin belong in the article, but if they are to be in the article, they should state "Kathy Griffin called for doxxing the students" rather than a vague "people called for the doxxing of the students". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Others called for doxxing them as well: [13]. I can't find RS saying that the twitter mob repeatedly called for his doxxing, but his dad subsequently supported an anti-doxxing bill in KY, and common sense suggests that of course he was repeatedly threatened with doxxing. But at least this wrap report shows that it wasn't just Griffin. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bold edit of "Further coverage" section

@MPS: RE your edit 884471762. I found two RS, both in the UK: the Independent and the Evening Standard. While there's no proof that the teenage louts on the bench are Covington Catholic students, there is also no proof to the contrary. The woman who took the video says they were; she may have seen them wear school sweaters. The final report the diocese thinks exonerates the students merely says that they cannot confirm the identity and that "it is also not totally clear what was said in the video." I can clearly hear someone yelling "MAGA" and someone else yelling "build the wall" (the rest of the yelling is anyone's guess, I think I heard a couple of expletives) and then the woman recording the video scoffing "MAGA" before her friend says "I'm so tired already." The video confirms that Phillips did hear "build the wall." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

First, "there's no proof to the contrary" does not get you very far. Second, "she may have seen them wear school sweaters" is your own speculation. We can't base article content on this kind of thing and on your interpretation of what you heard in a video. MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

While the sweater thing is my speculation, according to your edit summary you also based your bold edit on your interpretation of what you heard or rather didn't hear in the same video: but it seems to me this independent article merely repeats a twitter allegation and when you watch the video it is not even clear who the hecklers are or what they are saying. You also wrote that you would want to see another RS report this. According to the Standard article linked above Boys from Covington Catholic High School heckled two women before their confrontation with Native American protesters, one of the women has claimed. A woman known as Linds on Twitter posted a video of her and a friend walking past a group of boys, who shout “MAGA” and “build the wall”. Not good enough? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion... I would still avoid putting this in the article. IMHO, the Wikipedia No Original Research policy means that you or I being Sherlock Holmes and deducing "what really happened" and "who those kids really are" and "what their garbled speech was really saying" in that twitter video is probably not the same thing as a reliable source digging in to the claim. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence that a journalist at a reputable newspaper simply looked at the same indecipherable twitter video, from across the Atlantic ocean, and wrote down on what they saw and heard without any additional background reporting. Both reports are basically a transcript of a tweeted video. Still no confirmation that they are Covington students or that this occurred on the day of the March for Life rally. "A bunch of anonymous boys yelled indecipherable things" is not the same as "Covington Catholic boys heckled women on January 18" This video could be of anything. Very weak reporting as far as I am concerned. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It was the Black Hebrew Israelites who said "Build that wall" KRLA18 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The truth about the "confrontation" should be mentioned in the intro of the article, how it originated and the what was discovered after the media started lynching the boy

Nothing else to add. --151.26.156.128 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How long until this whole page gets removed for wrongthink? We're not allowed to criticize the Left's lies on Wikipedia as we do the Right's, and when we do, it's quickly removed.

Well, almost a year after the above comment was written, this article hasn't been removed, and having been resoundingly kept at AFD in January 2019 it's unlikely to be. It's clearly a notable topic.

Having reviewed it again, I think the lead is a fairly reasonable summary, mentioning both the initial coverage and later developments in the story. Robofish (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to state that Nick Sandman received undisclosed settlements from CNN & Washington Post in the lede, which is step in the right direction. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)