Talk:2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation

Questioning sourcing for revert

PackMecEng, since you restored this material to the lead as "extensively sourced", and are thus taking responsibility for it, can you clarify how you think the sources support your wording? Specifically, you restored language reading: Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident. I've reviewed the three supporting sources (Vox, CNN, and Huffington Post). I don't see any of these sources supporting your wording.

• The Vox article notes that left- and right-leaning sources had very different takes on the videos, and that "it's impossible to know with certainty who has a more accurate read of the situation. It's clear some of the kids were confused by Phillips; it's equally clear some of the kids were making racist gestures." The article goes on to characterize the right-wing backlash against the initial perception of the incident and partisan vilification of the mainstream media, and the backlash to the backlash, etc. The theme of the article is that people saw different things in the videos depending on their underlying assumptions and beliefs about race, ideology, etc. (It's actually an excellent, nuanced piece). Nowhere in the article do I find support for a bald claim in Wiki-voice that "initial media reports... omitted key details of the incident". Could you point to which part of the article you believe supports that language?
• The CNN source notes that additional video has "added context", which is not the same as saying that initial media reports "omitted key details". The latter language suggests media malpractice, but the source absolutely doesn't support that implication, only that additional context came as more video surfaced.
• The HuffPost article says nothing about media "omitting key details". Instead, it focuses on the possibility that the Twitter account originally posting the video was a bot. Can you explain how you believe this source supports your wording?

The second paragraph of the lead actually re-states much of this information, about changing perceptions of the incident, but in a way that's much more accurate and congruent with sources (At first, the anger focused on the students and the school; some of the students were the subject of death threats, and the school received threats of violence. As more videos were released, diverging views about what had really happened polarized Americans.). The first paragraph, which I removed and you restored, seems both redundant and poorly written if not misleading in its use of sources.

You also restored a sentence about comments by the comedian Kathy Griffin which, in the first paragraph of the lead, clearly constitutes undue weight. There are tons of sources and information to summarize in the lead, so could you explain why you feel the comments of a single comedian - in a case that generated hundreds of hot takes from prominent people - deserve mention in the first few sentences of the lead? Why her comments and not those of other prominent people?

Finally, you restored a statement that [o]utrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors. The cited source (CNN) states that a private investigator hired and paid by Covington Catholic produced a report saying that the students had done nothing wrong. (The investigators interviewed neither Sandmann nor Phillips in creating their report). This report deserves mention in the body of the article, but to present it as definitive proof that the students were "falsely portrayed" as "aggressors" is a misrepresentation of the source. A report paid for by the students' school, which interviewed only Covington Catholic personnel and students, is relevant but not the definitive word on what really happened. The source itself doesn't present the report as definitive, and only describes its findings. It is inappropriate to use this source to state in Wiki-voice, without appropriate attribution, that the students were "falsely portrayed".

As you can see, the material in question doesn't appear to be supported by the cited sources, which is why I removed it. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Videos released days later showed that initial media reports had omitted key details of the incident. The Vox piece notes the change in the narrative after longer format videos of the incident were released. With CNN if there is added context from new information that is the same as the original not having all the information. HuffPost talks about how the video was edited down and omits other parts of the encounter.

Reports of the incident triggered outrage in the United States, including calls to doxx the students. Fairly straight forward, Kathy Griffin called for doxing the kids which the source supports. Could use another source I suppose. Here is one.[1]

Outrage arose after many stories falsely portrayed the Catholic students as the aggressors. Later report found no evidence of offensive or racist statements by the students.

If you want to switch your original argument from rm; dubious or mispresents sources (the cited sources do not say that media "omitted key details", or anything like that, nor that the the students were "falsely portrayed"); next paragraph better summarizes the same info to undue weight or the like we can talk on that I suppose but that is a different discussion from your original removal rational. Honestly we could leave the text and pull the sources from the lead and that should correct the issues you mention. Finally me restoring long standing material from deletion with a misleading edit summary is not me taking responsibility for it, whatever that means. PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Facecrime

I am an inexperienced editor and as such not sure on how to link to headlines inside an article, but I think Facecrime from the article on Newspeak should be added to the related articles section. -RRorg (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I propose changing the name of this article to "Media defamation of Covington Catholic High School students"

The only reason this "confrontation" is notable is because of the media defamation against the students. The confrontation, in and of itself, is not notable at all. Therefore, I propose changing the name of the article to "Media defamation of Covington Catholic High School students."

Baxter329 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC

Agreed, you could also insert a link to the full video. As you can see at 01:12:22, after over an hour of abuse from the "Black Hebrew Israelites", the Covington group are walked up on by native american "activist" Nathan, banging on his native American drum.

The referenced to lies in the articles are still repeated in the main article. They should also be removed. The rest of that article is just some self-serving specious waffle. The SM lied about the incident and here we have Wikipedia repeating the lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNyOD8FIQk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.1.183 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Baxter329 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What lies is Wikipedia repeating? X-Editor (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Haha good luck with that. Wikipedia is controlled by the left. Joeblacko (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I second both statements. It should be renamed as the notable point here is the media lying about what happened. I don't expect anything to happen because Wikipedia is thoroughly corrupted by Marxists and other confused secularists. I say go ahead and rename it if you care about Wikipedia saying true things. -- Newagelink (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Struck comments by blocked sockpuppet User:Baxter329. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Jack Morrisey Woodchipper Threats

A well-covered, but missing piece of information is the threats that influential filmmaker Jack Morrissey made against "MAGA kids" where he threatened to throw them in a woodchipper. He subsequently apologized for these threats. 2600:6C67:8B00:1CD0:1D4B:7BE5:72E6:82F7 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 14 January 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

---

January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation → 2019 Lincoln Memorial clash – More WP:CONCISE name for incident. The month is clearly unnneccesary, and the incident was a "clash" both in the sense that there was a confrontation, but also in that it ultimately came from the clash of schedules of the two different marches held that day in Washington, D.C. Pharos (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree that the month can be dropped, but "confrontation is better than "clash": the latter has more violent overtones. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. "Clash" implies physical violence, and I don't think it's anything like a WP:COMMONNAME. There might be other confrontations at the memorial in 2019 where the month might provide increased precision, so I'm neutral as to whether we need the month. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — As long as there wasn't an additional confrontation in 2019 in front of the Lincoln Memorial that passes muster with WP:NOTABLE, I think January can be dropped; I agree with others that especially in the context of post-1992 and especially post-2016 American politics, "clash" is a lot more evocative than "confrontation," so I'm in favor of the latter. ɯɐɔ 💬 07:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support: Support removal of the month per WP:CONCISE, oppose usage of "clash" due to inaccurate connotations (cf. StAnselm and Red-tailed hawk above). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Clash" is inappropriate. No problems with removal of month unless someone points out a comparable incident at the same location in that year. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: When I think of clash I think of a physical fight, confrontation means less physical violence, and as this was more of a verbal argument and no physical fighting occurred, its more fitting I think. I think month can be dropped, it’s been 4 years Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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.