Talk:Bowling Green massacre

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --50.89.184.18 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway did mention the Bowling Green Massacre on MSNBC Hardball, which seems to be a made up event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-w16cyQ8wQ&feature=youtu.be&t=2m43s

Wikipedia is not a repository for disambiguation of politicians' and pundits' fabrications. This doesn't deserve its own page, add it to [hers|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellyanne_Conway]: Ambiguator (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this page should stand as is. Any attempt to remove it is an attempt to remove information, knowledge , and I strongly protest Kg08854 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Could Kellyanne Conway be reffering to the Soylent Green Massacre in Charton Heston's Movie

hatting per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If not this simple mistake, please add a note to Kellyanne's page that she is a compulsive liar. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC) it is either incompetence or malice. either way Trump needs to fire her ass. 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:828E:C800:80EF:8618:417:F0C0 (talk)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... It is a notable and timely event, and deleting it under the speedy deletion criteria may render other people unable to fix this article. --24.99.83.187 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --74.217.72.250 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The stated text is accurate. It did NOT happen and people need to know this is BS.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... it is true that the “Bowling Green Massacre” is a fake event created by Kellyanne Conway to justify Donald Trump’s travel ban imposed on seven Muslim-majority countries. Of course, there is no proof that Kellyanne Conway is <redacted per BLP>, so that should be deleted, but the rest is not a hoax and is completely accurate and true. --Nicolás Macri (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Goclonefilms (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is not a hoax. It notes that the Bowling Green Massacre *is* a hoax, because it never happened. It might be considered vandalism, but it is a reliable and accurate documentation of the massacre exactly as it happened (i.e., it didn't).

What also never happened is anybody claiming that it did happen. She did refer to the "massacre" but the article says she "described it" which she never did. Also she said the next day that she did not mean it and it was a slip of the tongue, which I have experienced on many occasions in reality. Therefore this "news article" should not be on wikipedia as it is making Wikipedia look less reliable. Alen05 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Really?

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.

---

Is there really a consensus that this one misstatement deserves a whole article of its own? IMO this one-day news story is a sideshow to Alternative facts and should become a redirect to that article, where it is already mentioned. I'm not instituting a formal merge request at this point because I want to see other people have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

it Is getting a fair amount of attention. what i find interesting is that we dont have a category yet for "fictitious events", or even "lies". trumps team may be responsible for us having to create a category for alternative facts. Im not being snarky, there seems to be a missing category. is this lies, propaganda, misstatements, or all all of these too subjective/POV to have categories for them? is "controveries" enough?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "lies" or "fictitious events" and something taken out of context or confused with another event. A new list of this kind would have to accompany each politician and would look partisan and ridiculous. Controversies is for controversies of which this is not. No there was no Bowling Green Massacre. Yes there was an Bowling Green Massacre plot that was foiled and caused then Pres. Obama to tighten the refugee vetting process. Brainplay (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, there was no plot - foiled or otherwise - to commit any kind of terrorist attack in Bowling Green or anywhere else in the United States. Look at what the two were sentenced for: "Defendants Attempted to Ship Weapons and Money from U.S. to Iraqi Insurgents; Defendants Admitted to Extensive Terrorist Activities Against U.S. Soldiers in Iraq", "using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and who attempted to send weapons and money to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) for the purpose of killing U.S. soldiers", "These two former Iraqi insurgents participated in terrorist activities overseas and attempted to continue providing material support to terrorists while they lived here in the United States." "These are experienced terrorists who willingly and enthusiastically participated in what they believed were insurgent support operations designed to harm American soldiers in Iraq."[1] By perpetuating this "massacre" myth, you yourself are a part of the problem of the spread of "Alternative facts". --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, at first I was saying the exact same thing - delete, WP:RECENTISM. But then I started digging down, and you realize Rand Paul alluded to it. Peter King alluded to it. And there's something more here that deserves to be contextualized and examined. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the now-standard WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD for this. Not every misstatement, whether it was intended to deceive or not intended to deceive, deserves its own article. I don't even think a redirect or merger to alternative facts is needed at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

lol, did you mean to say "non-standard", or is WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD supposed to be a thing? As I write this, that link is dead, but your meaning is clear from context. Not every Trump scandal deserves its own article, in short? Juansmith (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was making a joke that we'll eventually have an essay on it, because after every Trump scandal, we tend to have a new article that ends up in an AfD or merger discussion with varying results as to what happens. My larger point though is that while I appreciate that this is a big deal today Wikipedia is not the news and the previous references to this plot that Fuzheado mentions didn't use this exact phrasing, so I don't think they really should be included here as they were different than the phrasing used by Conway. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me that there is a need for a Merge Request. After all, I want to be part of that essay! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Is there really a consensus that this one misstatement ..." actually, Conway made the false assertion on at least three occasions, plus Rand Paul and Peter King made comparable false statements. This is definitely not just "one misstatement", it would appear to be a pattern of outright lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been decided, in the merge request below, that this should be an article. I originally launched the merge request but I have changed my mind as the story has grown. I'm going to close this section. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2017 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

In the CONTEXT section of the article

Change: 2011 arrest of two Iraqi nationals for terrorism in Bowling Green, Kentucky

To: 2011 arrest in Bowling Green, Kentucky of two Iraqi nationals for terrorism

Reason: The misplaced modifier makes it appear that the terrorism was in Bowling Green -- precisely the fantasy that Conway made up. The arrest was in Bowling Green. There was no terrorism there or elsewhere. Jacitron (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal (February 2017)

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.

---

Merge Bowling Green massacre -> Alternative facts -- 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose merging/redirecting this article to Alternative facts, where it is already mentioned; that mention could be expanded some. IMO this one misstatement is part of the larger subject of false information presented as an alternative fact, and not deserving of its own article. Please see also the preliminary discussion, titled "Really?", just above this section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as mentioned above, while I appreciate Fuzheado's finding other potential references, none of them used this exact phrasing, which is what the article is about. Wikipedia is not the news and while this is most certainly newsworthy, I don't think it merits its own Wikipedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree with others that alternative fact might not be the best place to merge, but I still think a merge is warranted. Perhaps Kellyanne Conway#Bowling Green massacre as suggested by Ansh666. This is a recent controversy caused by a possible misstatement, not even necessarily a lie, in an interview. Not every well-reported slip of the tongue by Conway deserves its own article. If anything the creation of this article was premature. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comment below. There is simply no way to intend to talk about a couple of people who were arrested for promoting terrorist activity in Iraq, and have it accidentally come out as "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre." --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose If this isn't notable, it doesn't belong anywhere. However look at the international attention paid to this - of course it's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. Anyway, it's not even clear this is an alternative fact since Conway might be claiming she misspoke, and wanted to refer to the terrorists themselves rather than a massacre. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support merging somewhere - I'd initially had this redirected to Kellyanne Conway#Bowling Green massacre, but the proposed target seems good too. Though to be honest, it's not even clear that this is a case of alternative fact-ing as opposed to a simple misstatement. ansh666 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. By definition it is an alt-fact only as long as they continue to claim it is true. Keith McClary (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It cannot be an alternative fact because it has already been stated by the issuer of the "miss-speak" (Good grief) to be an "error", thus it cannot be merged there. Perhaps later it can go into "Admitted lies of the Trump administration" Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there was ever a case for something that is in the public discourse to be included this is it. Wikipedia stands as a Fact, not alt-fact and the fact this was said should be something included in the encyclopedia, so we know what mistakes not to repeat. To merge, or delete is to minimize the effect bold face lying has, and thus makes Wikipedia a political tool. Strongly oppose delete. Strongly oppose merge.Xyxyboy (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While Bowling Green is an alternative fact, the two events developed independently of each other and have little relations outside than mutual connection to Conway. Ueutyi (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

See the section above, where an editor tried to justify Conway's statement by claiming there really had been a PLOT to commit a Bowling Green Massacre - a claim that is also not true. This shows how this kind of thing passes into mythology even if the original speaker retracts it. By definition that IS an alternative fact. Note that Spicer retracted some of his false "facts" too, but they remain textbook examples of "alternative facts". --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Premature: This article is already more fulsome than I ever expected it to be, checking on a lark to see if it existed. When things die down in few weeks (as I hope they do), a merge discussion will be more rational.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• +1 Premature: Can't we let folks work on the article for a week or so? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature, per Milowent. I've seen lots of articles created like this in a flood of attention, that later ended up merged, and I've seen articles I was convinced were too narrow for stand-alone articles end up as substantial articles. (Also, as several people mentioned, I am not convinced that this counts as an "alternative fact", and barring a substantial proportion of sources calling it that, I don't think that's an appropriate target.) Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. This is a separate incident that happens to look like an "alternative fact" depending on how you look at it. I think it's certainly related, but isn't the same. In addition, the incident has a lot of press and attention from various media. People are going to search for it and should be able to find it on Wikipedia with (as neutral) information as we can provide. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy merge This article is the most ridiculous Trump-related article creation I have yet seen, and makes wikipedia look bad. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a notable and tragic event in which Harambe, Cecil the Lion, Frederick Douglass, and other notable figures died. Merging it will disrespect their memories.
  But in all seriousness, this is premature and we should wait a week to see if it's notable then. Also, this is not an alternative fact, as Conway later acknowledge it was a misspeaking. epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • More to my point, a rename might be more appropriate. Like Bowling Green Massacre controversy. epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature: In a week or two we'll have a better perspective on whether this merits a standalone or not. Keep for now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature: As per Mr. Swordfish --Penbat (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - The going joke is that it hasn't happened yet: this topic is far to greusome to have an independent article based on some event that never occurred. It fits perfectly into the proposed article and should be redirected as this specific example of an alternative fact does not constitute a notable event in and of itself. Benitoite (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature: I say let's keep it here for relevancy and later roll under Alternative Facts. Jaldous1 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect IMMEDIATELY: to Kellyanne Conway. No, @Another Believer:, we can't let it stick around for a week. The event did not happen in the manner KC suggested, nor will it. pbp 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature: I predict the falsification of an entire terrorist attack will probably stand on its own in the end. I agree with epicgenius in that a rename will probably be appropriate, but at the moment it's way too early to tell. It very well could have as much news coverage as the phenomenon of Alternative facts itself! It's the epitome of altfacts. Just because it doesn't have as much news coverage as other things in the first two or three days of its existence doesn't mean it never will. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Notice removed from front page, as it's clear the support is not there. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  And added back as this discussion is still ongoing. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  Discuss all you like. I didn't close the discussion. But it's folly to think that there is any open question about the fate of the merge proposal at this stage. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  Consensus is not a !vote count and it is very early into the proposal so there is no folly involved. As the premature arguments are weak since we do not create articles in the hope they might become notable later on I would disagree with your conclusion. AIRcorn (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  This type of proposal typically goes on for at least a week, often longer. In the meantime no action will be taken and the notices on the two articles should remain in place. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  I've added it back. Please don't remove it until the discussion has ended and has been closed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:Crystal Ball Maybe this will be a story worth covering, but at the moment it is just another part of the endless cycle of crap coming out of the US. Redirect it or merge it as we don't need endless coverage of every minor incident that happens in American politics. We have another four years of this to look forward to as it is. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure why you felt the need to post this comment, as nobody here is claiming that it's something that might happen in the future. Perhaps you should review what WP:Crystal Ball is referring to. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment To those who say this isn't an example of alternative facts, or has not been identified as such by Reliable Sources: The Guardian, US News, Washington Post, CNET. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, but if it's a misstatement from Conway, then it's no longer being asserted as a fact. By definition, it cannot be an alternative fact. Now, if you don't believe her, that's one thing. But then that's venturing into WP:NOR. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  She stated it as a fact at the time, and walked it back later when she got called on it. There is no way this could have been a "misstatement", i.e., she was trying to say something else and it came out wrong. There is no way that sentence could have emerged as (as someone claimed) a "slip of the tongue." There is no way to parse her comment - "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre" - to believe she actually meant to reference some people who got arrested for something entirely different. Slip of the tongue?? There is no way that "Bowling Green massacre" came from anyplace except her own imagination, or possibly a right-wing myth (Rand Paul?) that she may have heard earlier. The fact that she later withdrew it as a "misstatement" does not alter the fact that she put it out there originally as fact. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. And in any case, your analysis or mine is not really relevant here. What is relevant is that many Reliable Sources called it an example of alternative facts. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being. There is plenty of furor right now, and I think there's enough to distinguish it from the wider field. Time will tell, however. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – per the other oppose votes above. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Furthermore, WP's Event Notability Inclusion Criteria states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." Not only has Conway's misstatement received widespread coverage and reanalysis, but the fact that she's a senior aide for the President of the United States who has repeatedly claimed that refugees are a threat to this country and that the media isn't trustworthy suggests that this can have a large impact. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT are guidelines. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. This is a line in an interview. It is not even an event. There has been no evidence of continuing coverage, as it just happened, and its mindboggling to think that every misstatement by a presidential advisor that gets a flurry of coverage should be exempted from NOTNEWS based on GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is so badly and inconsistently interpreted that it's often just thrown out there just to say, "We're not news!" without any meaning. Exactly what part of the policy is being violated? There's not much rigid in the WP:NOTNEWS policy that precludes a topic like this, other than the fact we should not have original reporting, and this is not original reporting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. [...] While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. This is nothing if not breaking news and an interview. It is certainly newsworthy, but it is just an interview. Emphasizing it for a one week period before this is inevitably merged or deleted in a month when the coverage stops is at the core of what NOTNEWS was designed to discourage. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the general opinion of other editors participating in this discussion dramatically changes in the next few days, your assertion that this article will ultimately be deleted or merged in the future is utter nonsense. This is a poor reason for deleting or merging it now, unless you have some prescience that nobody else here has. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the opposes are on the assumption that this is a premature subject for a merge discussion. It is also a localized consensus during the height of a news event. Very few lines in interviews, even ones that cause a big rush of press, receive continuing coverage beyond 72 hours. Alternative facts is unique because it has been used to describe other misstatements of Trump's administration. This is claimed as a misstatement quickly by Conway and she is not pressing it. If it follows the traditional pattern of news events, it will stop getting coverage soon and in a few months time there will likely be much more feasible to merge or delete it. This is why Wikipedia wants enduring coverage before deciding something is notable. NOTNEWS applies here because it is supposed to protect us from the default of a news event automatically meeting GNG within the first 72 hours of its existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP dictates that once a topic has received "significant coverage" (which this issue has), it does not need to receive ongoing coverage to be considered notable. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, in agreement with the argument that it's especially notable. Link to it from the alternative facts page as a notable example.
• Oppose; topics are distinct. The fictional massacre is admitted to be a mistake by Propaganda Minister Conway, whereas her alternative facts are not. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; This incident raised enough credible sources, from all over the world, to justify it's existence as a separate page. I also don't see how this incident relates to 'Alternative facts', other than they're both caused by the same person. Amin (Talk) 21:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; Given the current trend of the Trump Presidency, the alternative facts article is likely to become very large indeed. The section on this event would very likely be split off to reduce page length. Lets not make more work for ourselves.--Auric talk 21:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support; Not clear that Conway's comment in and of itself is notable enough to have its own article. If this myth has some larger story, separate from the "Alternative Facts" story, then it might be worth keeping (e.g. if it turns out that the Bowling Green myth is the basis of some large Rebranded White Nationalism conspiracy or some such thing). If there is evidence that there is a larger story then maybe it is worth waiting. But if the whole story is just that Conway said one more stupid thing a separate article does not seem warranted. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - this was never claimed by Conway or anyone in the Trump camp to be an alternative fact. Putting it there is WP:SYNTH. It was a standalone gaffe that will live in infamy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It would not be SYNTH. A large number of sources explicitly connect the "Bowling Green" comment to the "alternative facts" notion. See the Washington Post (connecting the two in the very first paragraph); CNET, The Telegraph (connecting the two in headline and first paragraph); USA Today for news accounts; Marina Hyde does the same in an opinion piece in the Guardian (see here). Neutrality^talk 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support merger, per nom, to alternative facts, with an additional mention as Kellyanne Conway. Does not merit a standalone article, and appears very recentistic. Neutrality^talk 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Bowling Green Massacre is not by itself notable, except as a pattern of disinformation put out by the Trump White House. Belongs as a section of Alternative facts. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 22:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Notability is supported by numerous secondary sources. Your argument is a fiction. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There already is enough news coverage about this subject so that it won't just fit in a small section of Alternative facts. Llightex (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - At this point, it is too big for a merge if you want any decent coverage in the alternative facts article. The not news article is irrelevant at this point. At one point Donald Trump talking about becoming president wasn't not news either. It is Wikipedia's job to serve as an encyclopedia of information and covering this type of stuff is included. It fights the power that believes that alternative facts are just that, alternative facts. (Can you tell I'm mad as hell? :) ) Missvain (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - There will be more than enough people trying to look up this "Bowling Green Massacre". They should find it here, and also find out all about it. A link to Alternative facts in this article here is quite sufficient. A redirect to it, is indeed missleading. --Wuselig (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- a separate incident & notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per several comments above, this topic doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. It's essentially a three-word phrase uttered just once in a TV interview. It's notability solely derives from numerous sources that simply report this single incident. In contrast, Conway's use of the term Alternative Facts referred to a suite of apparently inaccurate material presented in the Spicer press conference, which resulted in the phrase rapidly becoming a neologism to describe numerous other unreliable assertions. As a single (albeit fictitious) incident, Bowling Green Massacre doesn't appear to have the same nelogistic potential. jxm (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"It's notability solely derives from numerous sources that simply report this single incident." This is patently false. The incident has received extensive discussion, outside of mere news reports, by several sources, some of which are explicitly mentioned in the main article. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (at least for the time being, and likely permanently) per: 1) WP:N; and 2) I'm not swayed by news sources' linking this to "alternative facts" claimed by Kellyanne (Redacted) or anyone else. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge to Alternative Facts, support merge to Kellyanne Conway - If anything, this deserves maybe three sentences in Kellyanne Conway's article. It does not merit a stand-alone article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Premature - There are news sources that commentate on this "incident"; However, if none report it in the future, then merge to "Alternative Facts" since it is another false statement by Kellyanne Conway. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge to Alternative Facts, support merge to Kellyanne Conway I also supported merging Alternative facts to Kellyanne Conway when that AfD was active. I certainly hope we don't create a new article every time she misspeaks/lies on television. The long term notability of both statements remains unclear, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS apply.LM2000 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This will set a precedence on wiki that every single time a politician lies or misspeaks about something an article will be created? This won't be notable past the next major event in the news cycle, and therefore isn't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Lithpiperpilot 05:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There are other criteria, outside of continued coverage, for which something can be considered notable. I would politely recommend that you check out WP:NTEMP for more information on this. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This item is notable, salient, and deserves its own article. Once there is a larger set 'alternative facts' promulgated by the current administration, the issue can be revisited once a larger corpus of false claims is presented and debunked. These are two independent statements and events,both notable in their own way rhyre (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Why it should not be merged with aforementioned is that it is not really an "Alternative Fact" in the sense of what has come to be known as the ruler's guise to mistreat the public's trust, it is rather a 'mis-direction' to magnify or inflate a background incident to proportions un-imagined until so spoken. In other words, it was official propaganda summoned to inject fear, not to present an alternative to any relatively real situation. But it is 'notable' in the classic WP sense in that it is and could be the makings of scandal that has yet to see full significance. Yup, it should stay around, contrary the protestations of partisans that linger around here.StyxinConn47 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Alternative facts is about the concept; it is not a dumping group for every alternative fact that comes along. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It meets the standards of notability, and I don't think another article should be a dumpster for every event that embarrasses a Trump surrogate. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest that BGM and AF are merged into a new KC White House aide tenure article. It is likely that this part of her life will get further coverage in media, and with the content from those articles it´s notable for an article now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Look at the international attention paid to this - of course it's notable.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is informative and concise, and directly helped me when I was looking for information about the covered subject. Looking at the Alternative Facts article, it doesn't make sense to me that the two would be merged. I do think "Alternative Facts" would be a good category, however. Liluala (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is notable among "Alternative facts" because of specificity and attention paid. Because it was a specific event that, had it occurred, would justify a Wikipedia article be written about it (see: articles on every mass shooting and terrorist attack), people will be looking for a specific article on it. I could get into many biased reasons why I think it's notable among the small embellishments and difficult-to-falsify statements that the Trump inner circle and Republicans more generally are drowning in, but that's obviously not the subject in hand, other than maybe to justify exceptional attention to this statement by critics of Trump. -VJ (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - A simple misstatement being hyped. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a flurry of media attention about this statement made two days ago. We need to ask ourselves, will this be discussed one week from now? Two weeks from now? There needs to be a certain amount of permanence to a topic for it to merit its own article, and I think that's what NOTNEWS is all about. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Alternative facts article is likely to get quite long during the remaining 206 weeks of the Trump administration, so this level of detail about just one incident would be clutter there. Best to use WP:SS by mentioning the "massacre" there with a wikilink here. I read about this in this story and, wanting more information, used "Bowling Green massacre" as my first Wikipedia search, so I think this is the right title. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• 'Strong Oppose - The entire proposal is a WP:NOR violation - a Wikipedia editor has decided that this is an example of "alternative facts, when in fact Conway has never defended it on those grounds, and moreover she has apologized for getting it wrong. If this were merged, then any mistake, by any Trump Administration official, could be be similarly declared - by a Wikipedia editor as an example of "alternative facts", which would obviously be absurd. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While this is an instance of an alternative fact, it possesses a singularity as it happened in the early days of the Trump administration. The uniqueness of the incident make it page-worthy in its own right. Eyes down, human. (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Add to Category: Alternative facts. The articles should stay separate. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The topic is clearly of strong public interest. Conway has apologised for mixing up "massacre" and "terrorist", but not for the apparently false claim that the Iraqi refugee program was suspended.The details of the incident and the subsequent actions are important. The article should be kept. The article should not, of course, pretend to know whether the multiple inaccuracies where deliberate or not.Mnjuckes (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is a specific incident with wide news coverage and a significant amount of social media interest. Linking to alternate facts as a topic would not do it justice.

• Oppose - While related and not necessarily a major event, this does not merit a merge and overall loss of information on the wiki. KingAntenor (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Related to the "alternative facts" thing, sure, but definitely its own incident. Leave "alternative facts" in a See Also section. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2017 (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.

Delete

Create a page of "Kelly Ann Conway-ism" like Bushisms or Obamaisms eg.

Creating a page for every slip of the tongue or misstatement or lie of any administration and their representatives seems to take away from any objectivity or neutrality for Wikipedia.

aaronarnwine 18:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)aaronarnwine

References

If that phrase comes into general use by Reliable Sources, as Bushisms did, we could consider an article. As far as I know there is no such word out there right now. BTW there is no article "Obamaisms". --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should be deleted due to the fact that it is not a fictional even but a slip of tongue. For example Obama once said that the US was training ISIS why is there not an article on this slip of the tongue? Alen05 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

verb tense

"Neither of the two were ever charged..." should be "Neither of the two was ever charged..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Hello, I just read your Wikipedia article of the Bowling Green Massacre mentioned by Kellyanne Conway. Since you are defining her comments as fake, I would like to see a list of other articles that you have posted regarding fake news by the major News Networks and Publications as well as any fake news accounts from political party members, both republican and democrat. I think if you want to be taken seriously and not viewed as simply a political hack for either party, you would have articles on both. I look forward to your response. (IP contact information redacted) 198.73.26.212 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a specific request for this article. Marking section as answered, and making no changes to the article based on this request. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've redacted the IPs contact info for their privacy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add a link to the victims fund under aftermath

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.188 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cute, but no. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

INCORRECT INCORRECT ASSERTION

"Conway did not correct herself on the incorrect assertion that President Obama instituted a six-month ban on the Iraq refugee program."

President Obama did have a 6 month ban on the Iraq refugee program. Source 2011 - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

 "As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show." 

I'll repeat, this article from 2011 says "the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011". Articles from 2017 have white washed that action and call it a "delay" or "slow down". If you delay something for six months, its stopped for 6 months. Go back to 2011 to get the story devoid of 2017 white wash and spin. Furthermore the entire sentence is inflammatory and in no way relates to the Bowling Green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.68 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the above, insofar as a ban and ceasing work are not the same thing. If a refugee submitted an application during the relevant months in 2011, it might well have been accepted (though obviously it would have been basically stagnant), whereas under the current ban, and indeed, I should think, any ban, such an application would be immediately denied or turned away. Just the difference I see. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There was clearly not a ban; the article says that "In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S.". That's still thousands of refugees from Iraq who DID come here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The article states that this amount is half the previous year's. And the policy change was for six months, which is half a year. So these numbers are consistent with a six-month ban, rather than "clearly not a ban." Actual entry by refugees never dropped to zero, because the pause in the program affected applicants rather than entrants. --DavidK93 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN: ABC news link indicates that some action was taken, but it appears that it was related to the application process, rather than the program as a whole. There is a recent article stating this explicitly here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-barack-obama-jimmy-carter-9717520), saying that Obama "Paused approvals of refugee applications from Iraq for a period of six months". http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ states that there was not a single month in which no refugees entered the USA from Iraq. Mnjuckes (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fictional?

I believe a more accurate adjective would be "fictitious". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.215.126 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What about the category, though? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it until we can get a consensus here to use it. "Fictional" typically implies literary, so I think the IPs objection still stands. If there is a consensus otherwise I don't have that strong an opinion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Fictitious" doesn't seem right either; there's no proof that anyone made it up intentionally. Maybe "nonexistent"? --Trovatore (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories

As mentioned above, I removed the "fictional events" category as being in line with the IPs objection. Looking at the categories further, I'm not sure if either "Hoaxes in the United States" or "Propaganda in the United States" is applicable. Leaning very heavily towards removing hoax because Conway has claimed its a misstatement and never actively tried to perpetuate it. Propaganda is a loaded term, and I couldn't find any reliable sources for it being used here, but am unsure if they are out there. I suggest removing it as well unless some can be found. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "Fictional events" is the perfect category for this and IMO it should be restored. I don't agree with "hoaxes" (which would be deliberate and persisted in) or "propaganda" which is too strong a term for this minor kerfuffle. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My only issue with Category:Fictional events is that with the exception of Pole shift hypothesis they all look to be literary or plot events, and I think pole-shift hypothesis might should be removed. I think Trump administration controversies covers this for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tony on all counts here; this is not really fictional (and the article is really about the very real controversy around the statement). Pole shift hypothesis, though often a feature of sci-fi plots, is an article about a theorized future event, so it doesn't really belong there either. And I think I just set a record for "real usage density in a sentence" or something. ansh666 05:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed them since there seems to be agreement that that hoax or propaganda isn't right. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Mistype correction

Someone please correct "missles".

190.151.147.69 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Daniel Osvaldo Roqueta

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete

So here is another attempt of saying that I think this article about a slip of the tongue should be deleted. I am trying not to say anything else this time because it is apparently considered vandalism to say I do not agree with this due to it not being a "fictional event" !but a slip of the tongue as the lady explained the day after it happened. Most probably both this post and my account will now be deleted. Alen05 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of notable "slips of the tongue" - and this is definitely one, it's been internationally reported in reliable sources. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that this is not a fiction event and should therefore be either described as a slip of the tongue or deleted as it is not a real thing. Alen05 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No. I have no idea how you've come to that conclusion - calm yourself down. This article should not be deleted - the General Notability Guideline has been met in this case. Try not to read between the lines - if I mean something, I come right out and say it. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This "slip of the tongue" excuse is not credible - borderline nonsense. As I pointed out above, there is simply no way for a person to intend to say something about a couple of people who were arrested for promoting terrorist activity in Iraq, and have it accidentally come out as "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre." That is not a slip of the tongue, not even a slip of the mind. That is an entirely different, novel idea, an invented "massacre", with no relationship to what actually happened. (Besides, the notion that there could be a "massacre" in 21st century America and have the 24-hour news channels not hype it to the max - impossible to believe.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my Scare Quotes around "slip of the tongue" - it's an extremely high profile fabrication and one that is definitely noteworthy. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont even believe you guys believe this, Anyway good luck. I've read enough to see What Wikipedia has become now. I've said it a couple of times in the comments that MelanieM deleted, I am a Muslim and I don't agree with What they are saying but these kind of lies and hatred against the Trump administration is What got him in the office and what will help him win again. There is no evidence at all that this is "a high profile fabrication" because its been said once and corrected the next day. The other two guys said something completely different because obviously nobody has a clue What happened in Bowling Green Alen05 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, as much as I am amazed at the luck that led a totally brand-new editor to this talk page for their first edits, I'm not sure you're speaking with a neutral point of view on this. It's covered in reliable sources, it doesn't appear to be an accident and as yet there has been no apology for it - going by the coverage from reliable sources globally, Wikipedia is correct to retain this article in its current form. Articles aren't deleted because their content is embarrassing to the people involved. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing a lot in the Dutch Wikipedia page and wanted to edit or delete this page as I thought it was written by internet trolls. I am very suprised though to see that people think this is actually something that would make it in any respectable encyclopedia. I am indeed not neutral, as a Muslim I am against the ban and I don't like a lot of the things Kellyanne is saying, however I usually prefer a dialogue on a slightly higher level. For example I have tried to provide evidence that the Obama 6 month Iraq indeed never happened, but for Some reason I havent been able to post that response on the other discussion where this is being discussed. I do think it would be reasonable to have an article about the incident that occured in Kentucky and note that several people have made incorrect statements about it, but that does not make it a fictional event. Just like Obama once said the USA is training ISIS, regardless of that being true or not, somebody saying something once and admitting that that was not What he or she meant is not enough to call it a fictional event in my opinion. It would be a different story if she would still claim it occured and wrote a book about it or something, but she her self is saying that it did not occur and that she is aware of that and that she meant something else. Alen05 (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Her intentions cannot be proven unless there's a reliable source that can read her mind. It's irrelevant anyway - the fact is, it has been reported in reliable sources (across the world) and therefore it meets the GNG's requirement for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I don't see any benefit in arguing further about this. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is Exactly my point, that there is no prof of het intention to make up a fictional event. There is only proof and coverage of her saying something and correcting herself the next day. There is no proof at all of either one of our points of view, the fact that all these realiable sources are saying she made it up is just poor journalism. Like I said there would be proof of this fictional event if she would Write a book or article about it specifically claiming that this happened. But she is saying that it did not happen and that she made a mistake. There never is a point in arguing with libtards because they obviously cant distinguish fact from fiction. Alen05 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure your choice of language is helping you. If you can prove that the GNG requirements aren't met, then please do so. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well if you would be so kind to explain how i can share a link here I wil share Some reliable sources that are saying What everybody knows that she was probably referring to the arrests of two terrorists and not trying to make up a fictional event. Alen05 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. Even if you're right about her intentions, that doesn't matter - what she said has been reported widely enough for Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines to be met. I don't know why you aren't listening to that simple fact. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You can probably also find this yourself if you use Google in the same way I did. Basically What I did was type bowling green and read Some of the articles, while Some are indeed jumping to conclusions about this being a huge conspiracy theory and pretending nothing ever happened there others are less biased and explaining that she probably was referring to those arrests. Its like when Obama said President Modi about Prime Minister Modi, we could say he made up a fictional caracter or when we give it a little more thought we can come to the conclusion that we can not read his mind and know if he was making up this person that does not exist or simply referring to Prime Minister Modi. Alen05 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because there are just as many reliable sources who have been smart enough to do a little bit of research and get to the conclusion that she did not make up a fictional event but inaccurately reffered to an event that did happen. Alen05 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I had actually only read about this in Dutch media and assumed that American media were reporting on this by saying she made it up completely but the more I read I see that all of the American news articles so far are also reporting that she probably meant the arrest of those terrorists. Alen05 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And even the source used for this article (The Guardian) says Kellyanne "misrepresented the events" and did not make it up. The NY times wrote also the following: "Both defendants pleaded guilty to the federal charges, and Mr. Hammadi was sentenced to life in prison, while Mr. Alwan, whose fingerprints were found on an undetonated improvised explosive device in Iraq, was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison, with a life term of supervised release." which means that other guys comment about the planned bombing is also quite accurate. I've purposely used a liberal news source which recently wrote its subscribers that they will try to be more objective and throw in a little bit of truth every now and then. So how much "coverage" do you need as proof that it is not a fictional event but a mistake. Alen05 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: jumping to conclusions about this being a huge conspiracy theory and pretending nothing ever happened there It will be impossible to talk to you if you are going to invent stuff like this. Nobody has said this is a conspiracy theory; it was just something stupid that she said and undoubtedly believed at the time. Nobody has claimed "nothing ever happened there"; on the contrary our article explains in detail about the arrest and conviction of two terrorists - neither of whom ever posed the slightest threat to Bowling Green. Everything they did was intended to support attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. I don't know what you mean about "that other guys comment about the planned bombing"; if you mean the claims by Rand Paul and Rep. Peter King that there was a plan to carry out a bombing in Bowling Green, they were mistaken;[2] there was never any such threat; if there had been it would certainly have been included as part of the trial and conviction of the two men. Bottom line, we have quoted her "correction" in the article, we have quoted the people who said "misspoke" or "misrepresented", we have done our Due Diligence to keep the article accurate and neutral. We can't help it if she said something stupid and later gave an unconvincing explanation of what she "really meant". We can't help it if there has been widespread ridicule in reaction. We report what is. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Delete or Merge - there isn't a enough encyclopedic material for more than a stub, as such it should be merged to Kellyanne Conway. Most of this article is non-notable trivia. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Pff; there is patently enough encyclopedic source material. Although CRYSTALBALL, I'd wager that this will become a touch stone for future historical analysis. Misinformation comes not just from lies, but also willful ignorance. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: It is not clear that this notable enough to merit its own article (there are plenty of less notable articles in WP, though). But I would say calling this matter a "slip of the tongue" is rather dangerously trivializing something that is more serious. If she had said some like "Remember all of the terrorist incidents like 9/11, Orlando, Bowling Green, ..." one might be able to chalk that up to a minor mistake. But the fact that she pulled this one out as a specific example and chastised the media for not covering it demonstrates, if not intentional deception (I doubt that's what it was), at least being seriously irresponsible with checking her facts before trying to make statements as an official representative of the government. That is not a small thing. Regardless of how you feel about it politically, it is historically quite unusual for a White House official to make such an irresponsible statement.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Are there any actual events upon which the Conway quote was based? If so, they should be included in the lead. Without them, I honestly don't know what happened after reading the article and am left with the impression that there might possibly have actually been a massacre. In short, the lead is long on people's reactions to a summary of the alleged event without allowing the reader to come to any conclusions about anything that did or did not happen at Bowling Green.Carl Wivagg (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  --Looking through the talk section, I see that two people were arrested for terrorism and that is somehow related to Bowling Green. This should be concisely stated in the lead.Carl Wivagg (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit diff, I believe that this statement summarises the reactions:

• The incident promoted widespread reactions, echoing those directed at Conway's statement on "alternative facts" in the wake of the inauguration of Donald Trump.

Note that it does not say that the "massacre" was an alternative fact, but that the reactions were similar (i.e. I did not want to say "prompted widespread ridicule" :-) ). Feedback?

The other edit was to introduce a section break, since the lead appears too long for a short article like this.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that wording works. I would suggest citing one of the sources Neutrality posted above in the merge discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Terrorist Attack Since 2003?

The sentence: "No Iraqi person has carried out a deadly attack within the U.S. since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003."

No Iraqi committed a terrorist attack within the US ever, as far as I know. There were no terrorist attacks by Iraqi in the US in 2003. The source (NPR) is just saying they have not committed a terrorist attack against us even though the US invaded their country in 2003.

99.156.160.153 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's very true. But the source said "since 2003" so that is what we are stuck with. Also: no-one from Syria, no-one from any of the seven countries in the ban, has ever attacked us on US soil. "Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015."[3] What would be good to point out (but we probably can't) is that immigrants or visitors from four other countries - Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon- carried out the 9/11 attacks, and none of those countries is on the ban list. There is no connection between actual threat and the list of targeted countries. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if a source states it (and I am pretty sure there are), we can. But probably not on this article. ansh666 05:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one that added that source. I thought it was weird phrasing too since I'm not sure what 2003 had to do with anything. Would be interesting to find out more, but I haven't turned up anything relevant (yet). Also, MelanieN, I agree it would be super to add that information (about Saudi Arabia, etc) to the article, but agree with Ansh666 that it's probably not related. However, that info is included in Executive Order 13769, so at least it's acknowledged in context on Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The emphasis on sourcing at Wikipedia produces misleading information here. Although it does not explicitly say so, the phrase suggests that there have been terrorist attacks by Iraqis in the U.S. before 2003. Bever (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a problem, and adding "since the Iraq war" only helped a little. Maybe we should just delete the sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence. We agree it is confusing, and attempts to clarify it have not really helped. The basic problem is "since 2003", which is from the source, and which does carry the unavoidable implication that there might have been attacks by Iraqis before 2003. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Photo for 'Reaction' section

Hatting per NOTFORUM. Apologize for my own participation in same. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A touching photo for this horrible tragedy. Please consider its inclusion: https://mobile.twitter.com/aravosis/status/827752877384953856 Fftc6dtvugbjhn (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC) If that was a free image then indeed we could use it, but that's unclear.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC) We wouldn't use it anyhow. This is just for laughs. (Personally I preferred one I saw online somewhere called "Memorial plaque to the victims of the Bowling Green massacre" - it showed a blank brass plaque.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (laughing) Good stuff! Really humorous. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC) You may as well use it, since the existence of articles like these now propagated across Wikipedia by folks with a clear agenda has, IMO, damaged this encyclopedia's reputation. Might as well call it the DNCyclopedia at some point. All of these should be on Kellyanne Conway's page, and warrant little more than a couple sentences. Wikipedia now creates an article for every late-night television joke and analysis by a cable news pundit. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC) The aftermath of the massacre. I agree. It is very funny, but not very professional. epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to Bowling Green page

Where the actual city of Bowling Green, Kentucky, is cited, there should be a link to the existing Wikipedia page: WP;Bowling_Green,_Kentucky.13:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Mnjuckes (talk)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the names of the actual "Bowling Green" Iraqis be mentioned? Instead of just "the men"?

Shouldn't the names of the actual "Bowling Green" Iraqis be mentioned? Certainly this is notable. If we are clarifying what the "Bowling Green massacre" isn't, it seems we should clarify and amplify on what the "Bowling Green Incident" was. Currently, it simply says "the men," when referring to the two terrorists.

Their names are Mohanad Shareef Hammadi (life sentence) and Waad Ramadan Alwan (40 years to life). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/bowling-green-massacre-kellyanne-conway.html

I cannot make the changes as I do not have ExtendedConfirmed access. --Petzl (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

My opinion would be to leave them out. The names are known, and if anyone wants to know them they can follow the links, but it seems unnecessary and kind of irrelevant to put them in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was also surprised that the names were not in the article, is there a policy about this? I agree that they are not notable enough to each have an article, but I don't think this would be a BLP issue, and there is no confidentiality law preventing other sources from mentioning them (news articles I have read mention them)... Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article creation policy

Two questions: (1) Why does Wikipedia have an article on an event that never occured, whereas on ongoing event, the Global jihad, remains a disambiguation page? (2) Was this article created simply as an attack piece on a living person? Nobs01 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) The gaffe was reported worldwide and has notability. The article is about Kellyanne Conway's widely reported error, not the nonexistent event itself, which is not notable because nothing happened. (2) No. epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like little more than fake news, then. Nobs01 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is fake news, since the massacre never happened. (The news about Conway's statement, however, is real.) epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The report is certainly not "fake news", which means deliberately false reports spread with intent to deceive. Nobody has suggested that Conway did that - that she knowingly talked about something she knew was imaginary, hoping that people would believe it. On the contrary, I think she thought it was true - maybe she had been influenced by the earlier references by a couple of congressman to (nonexistent) attempted bombings there. The FACT that she said it, and that it touched of a huge reaction, is the real news and is what this article is about. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The "massacre" is a cultural phenomenon at this point, with plenty of coverage. That's what the article is about. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And I agree that the gaffe is notable, and that the typo is real news. But saying that this previously-unknown "massacre" happened is news to the rest of the world (who didn't know that a massacre happened, if it ever did) and it's fake (which means that it never happened, so thus, "fake" "news"). epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so fake news gets a mainspace title but the Global jihad, which is real, is ignored. Oy vey. Nobs01 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the page on global jihad is several articles, which is why it's a disambiguation. (Jihadism, Offensive jihad, Pan-Islamism, or Worldwide Caliphate.) Jihadism may be what you're looking for. epicgenius (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Fictitious" vs. "nonexistent"

I've changed the word "fictitious" in the lede to "nonexistent". "Fictitious" implies a deliberate fiction, which is something we can't know unless we were privy to Conway's thought processes. "Nonsexistent" is objective, and I hope uncontroversial. -- The Anome (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I only used "fictitious" because an an IP above has pointed out it was not "fictional" and requested the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with you until you said "Conway's thought processes"? Isn't that stretching her capabilities a little far.... 86.215.33.92 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, everyone has a thought process, even those whom... um... seem to do before they think. But yes, to maintain neutral point of view, Conway's "thought process." epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonexistant isn't right, as it implies a noun. Agree that Fictitious is undesirable also, as it implies forethought, rather than BS. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Anome: I just noticed this ... "Nonsexistent" is objective, and I hope uncontroversial. "Nonsexistent" is objective? Uncontroversial? Maybe not so much. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd hope that the vast majority of even firm Trump supporters would agree that there wasn't an actual massacre. The nonexistence of this is clear-cut enough that it is actually capable of being proven factually. -- The Anome (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Anome: Did you not notice that you spelled it nonSEXistent? That's what I was teasing you about. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Attempted humor is so tricky online. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Anome: See also: Pizzagate conspiracy theory and voter fraud. epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Incident is a noun in this sentence. Hollth (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

"from certain Muslim countries" is not an impartial statement and should be removed/replaced 2601:2C3:4000:BC60:BDDF:DD0F:BF25:99C9 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources seem to prefer the descriptor "muslim-majority" countries; would this allay your concerns? Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done by me. I rephrased to "from seven Muslim-majority countries". epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@epicgenius I think it would be the most objective to not include any reference to the religion the subject countries. 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that the reliable sources think it worthwhile mentioning religion, and so we should as well. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What it mustn't do is simply state "Muslim majority countries". The seven specifically listed are a very arbitrary list and exclude the most populous and most Muslim majority countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the current wording of "seven Muslim-majority countries" works. Do you disagree? Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Seven Muslim-majority countries" is fine. Its neutral. Its true, and most importantly its what the reliable secondary sources are saying. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Cosmo

Conway mentioned a "Bowling Green massacre" in interviews with Cosmo days before her interview with MSNBC. Cosmo didn't use the fake news in what they published, but they're publishing it now. So, should this be included in a strict chronological way (Cosmo before MSNBC) or chronological to us (MSNBC before Cosmo)? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think MSNBC before Cosmo, so I'll add it now, but I'm open to feedback. Oh it's already there now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already added it below to "Previous references" but we may want to move it up. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you beat me to it by a matter of minutes :) I added the full quote, which displays its many inaccuracies (they didn't go back to the Middle East, she claimed "soldiers" died in the massacre). Maybe it should be expanded upon, maybe it's fine there. Not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Conway's comments are tough to discern. It's hard to make sense of them to make it quotable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we can't discern a whole lot from the comments, it seems clear that the quote on MSNBC was not, as Ms. Conway has indicated, a case of misspeaking, but rather that she misapprehended the situation entirely. How we use that to improve the article is certainly less clear. Dumuzid (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There's also now this, from The Daily Beast:[4]. Again, interesting, but I am not yet clear on how we fit it all together. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the specific level of inaccuracy is important to document. She mentioned soldiers dying to TMZ as well. The repeated nature of the lie shows it was not a simple misspeak. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this changes the whole thrust of the article. As more media come forward, we will probably have to rethink how we handle this new information. Maybe put it in the "initial misstatement" section and change its title? In fact we may very soon (after more coverage and analysis comes out) have to put it in the lede. It is now very clear this was not a "mistake" as she claims; it was a carefully prepared and memorized talking point. I wouldn't call it a lie - I think she believed it. Whoever briefed her gave her misinformation; she repeated it numerous times and is being blamed for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How about this: change "Initial misstatement" to "Statements by Conway". Keep what we have, but add a third paragraph: "It was later revealed that she had made virtually identical statements to Cosmo and TMZ prior to her appearance at MSNBC". With brief quotes and the two references. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to do that. This is important. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I like your edits. I agree that the Cosmo/TMZ revelations deserve the added weight of being included the way you changed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I also support the mention of the two prior interviews. I have changed the caption for the image. It give credance to the fact that the foolish Bowling Green Massacre claim that KellyAnne repeatedly made was not an "honest mistake". When we first heard the story we all took her at her word and gave her the benefit of the doubt. We all miss-speak at times and make "honest mistakes." The two prior interviews change all the good-will toward her into doubts as to her intention. The Cosmo.com mention of dead soldiers is troubling in that it seems to up the ante. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also concur now that we have three distinct references, and Rand Paul on top of that, it merits mentioning in the lead paragraph in some way. However, the TMZ interview is peculiar in that it does seem clear that she was referring to an attack on soldiers in Iraq, but initiated/linked to Bowling Green in some way. It would be WP:OR to try to draw some conclusion at this point, so we should wait for other sources to do this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rand Paul "Previous Reference"

The "previous reference" to the incident from Rand Paul is currently phrased as follows:

• Several days before the Conway interview, on January 31, Kentucky senator Rand Paul referenced a similarly unsubstantiated terrorist incident in an interview with MSNBC, when he referred to "the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where I live"[[5]][[6]]

Having read the information in the references, I believe it would be more neutral and more informative to rewrite it as follows:

• Several days before the Conway interview, on January 31, Kentucky senator Rand Paul mentioned the 2011 case in an interview with MSNBC, referring to it as "the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where I live". The Washington Post Fact Checker noted that Paul "is on more solid ground than Conway" because the Iraqi nationals did discuss bombing an Army target in the United States.[[7]][[8]]

The Washington post source explicitly states that Paul was talking about the 2011 case and that his statement was not inaccurate in the way that Conway's was; stating only that Paul talked about "a similarly unsubstantiated terrorist incident" seems to obscure both aspects of the information as presented in the source.

I know this article has a lot of attention right now, so I wanted to seek consensus here rather than make changes without taking that step. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point about Rand Paul. For one thing, many sources are clipping his comment, so that they report he said "the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, where I live." But that is seriously misleading. What he actually said was "the possibility or the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, where I live." I have edited the article to add "possibility" which makes his statement a lot more defensible. I am considering how to get rid of "unsubstantiated". I think I will use a variation of your suggested wording. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing this up. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bowling Green massacre

As of this posting, this section is already linked above. However, there is a Did You Know nomination ongoing. If you feel you have contributed a substantial amount to the article, please reply there. You can check your editing stats here. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that substantial doesn't necessarily mean many edits or lots of content added. It means that you contributed in a substantial way to the current state of the article. Participation in an RfC would be below the bar, but substantial participation on the talk page crafting language that eventually appeared in the text may qualify. If interested and in doubt, ask me to take a look at your contributions. (But don't worry about this all too much, honestly. Some people like collecting credits but it's not a huge deal!) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Point

Two of KellyAnnes quotes early in the article make the false point that...."(they) came here to this country, were radicalized‍—‌and they were....?" Truth is--its the other way round. They were radicalized elsewhere and then came to America. I realize the mis-statement is contained in her quote and it may be difficult to get around explaining that her quote contains a falsity. But, our reader should not be left with the false impression that they were trained in the States which I was left with until I read some of the sources. Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There, is that better? --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, TY. I see an other editor has edited the caption for the image. Its kind of like removing a footnote because it gives too much information. O well! Buster Seven Talk 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)