Jump to content

Talk:Montgomery Riverfront brawl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 03:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Teenyplayspop (talk). Nominated by CJ-Moki (talk) at 00:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Riverfront Brawl; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Harriott II
Harriott II
  • The article looked much different than it does now when I first made this nomination. I know this isn't exactly the most desirable outcome, but I wish to withdraw this nomination. I'm sorry if I wasted other editors' time with this nomination. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Use of shortened footnotes

[edit]

@CJ-Moki: Not sure why this article uses shortened footnotes. I note that there is a book reference in the bibliography, but the web citations do not need to be shortened, particularly when you're working with a current event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: By my count, four books are in the bibliography. With the several books cited, it makes sense to use short citations, and the citation style should be consistent throughout. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no expectation an article needs to use shortened footnotes for web citations. For example, I recently worked on Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case), where there's two books and dozens of web citations in the background section. Not using shortened footnotes consistently there allowed developments to be easily added. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes should not be used for news and web article links, only books. For web and news citation the long form should be used. The style does not have to be "consistent" between both. In fact, it is preferable to do the opposite. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and please use the Cite templates available in the editor window wherever possible. Wispinn (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. User:ElijahPepe/The New York Times uses shortened footnotes in the way that CJ-Moki is using them because there needs to be a separation of primary sources and secondary sources in a way that is very difficult with referring to references and embedding references in the reference list. CJ-Moki is not doing that, so it's not necessary in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is a long established article with countless references - this is a current event. It's really tricky to work with sources that are web/news links if they're shortened because you have to open up the previews to see what they are instead of getting a birds-eye glance at the list of sources and being able to check for what you're looking for. The templates/cite tool are set up to generate web/news citations that way Wispinn (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing against what you're stating, but using shortened footnotes is appropriate for some articles. This is an article where it would not be appropriate given that it's a current event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names, 'tongue in cheek' behavior

[edit]

Hey folks, please do not include 'alternative names' (WP:POVNAMING) for the event, 'tongue in cheek' descriptions (WP:WORDS) of the event or other memey content (WP:V/SILLY). There have been a variety of these edits that have had to be reverted. Despite the "popular culture reaction", this article documents a serious act of violence amidst ongoing racial unrest. Wispinn (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested semi-protection status last night; was applied this morning through August 13th. Wispinn (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Most of that seemed to be CJ's edits Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no "names" because there is no established name for the incident. All are merely descriptive. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

[edit]

Please change the sentence "The assailants were white and the defendants predominantly black" to "The assailants were white and the defenders predominantly black." This is about a physical altercation, not a court case 172.103.208.205 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The writing in this article is subpar

[edit]

The writing is unreadably bad in the section describing the events of the fight, not to mention largely unsourced and unlinked. I hope others have the time to improve it. It's very much below Wikipedia standards currently. Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moncrief: Agree, this article is terribly written. I may have some time to improve it later but for now I've just been trying to keep it from getting worse. Struggling to do even that though as AgntOtrth is edit warring over simple edits like keeping clearer wording and removing a source that has no consensus on its reliability and doesn't verify anything. If you see their comments below it appears they don't understand basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters. The context allows the use of the source. As for WP:OR, again context matters. Please remember my edits have been descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

And lets not forget you reverted a grammatically correct edit to be grammatical incorrect, which is highly suggestive you did not review the edit prior to you reverting it, which made the article worseAgntOtrth (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

AgntOtrth, please slow down and discuss your changes on the talk page before restoring them. While I understand wanting to change how facts are presented to improve text flow etc, FormalDude has reverted a number of the changes with good cause. It would be best to discuss potential changes here and get some buy in. Also, please keep in mind that we aren't supposed to interpret primary sources like videos of the events. If a RS says something that directly conflicts with the video or is misleading based on viewing the video the issue should be raised here where we can then evaluate things. We are allowed to argue that a RS got their facts wrong on the talk page. However, we can't correct them in the article nor can we add facts that we took from the video. If RSs didn't decide those facts were important then we shouldn't mention them. Anyway, given the back and forth nature of the edits please make suggestions here and get consensus before making additional changes. Springee (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

formaldude has reverted edits without reading the edits. formaldude most recently removed a source claiming it was not a reliable source. However, formaldude is incorrect about the source. The reliable source list shows I properly used the source for a topic it is considered reliable for. That formaldude would revert edit, which reversion made the article worse, and claiming a source is unreliable despite evidence otherwise, tends to show formaldude is not assuming goodfaith. It also tends to show that formaldude is applying their personal bias of wikipedia rules/policies/guidelines etc. While I thank you for you polite request, I will respectfully decline. If I have an edit in mind that could reasonable be deemed controversial, I will use the talk page.
As for videos, a non-interpretive fact, that can be verified by anyone else without specialized knowledge, is permissible. IF a primary source video has a time stamp, an edit could, within wiki policies etc, put in an article "Bodycam video shows that at 8:00pm the officer exited their vehicle." The source would be the primary source, and the statement is a verifiable by anyone that views the video. I keep my edits regarding video well within verifiable facts. AgntOtrth (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's always best when the reverting comments make the issue clear. Still, once an edit is rejected per BRD the next step should be start a discussion and make the case for the change. Basically the ONUS is on you to make a case on the talk page (this topic seems like a good place to do it). As for facts from the video, this is always a hard thing since the video is a primary source. It may be obvious to us what things in the video are important to discuss but we need to reply on our RSs for what goes into the article. As a hypothetical, consider a video about a fight between a man and a dog as well as the a news story covering the fight. The story says Man punches Dog. The video shows Man also kicks Dog. No one disputes the kick. However, since RS didn't decide the kick was important to cover, we shouldn't mention it. However, if the RS said Man didn't kick Dog and the video clearly shows it we can argue that the source isn't reliable for that claim and exclude it from our article. Another way of looking at it is we violate wp:OR when we look at the primary source and decide what to cover. However, we can engage in OR to argue the RS is wrong about a specific fact.
As for FormalDude, it's best to assume good faith. The nature of the internet is sometimes we don't always get the full understanding of the other editor vs if we were in the same room together. FormalDude isn't acting in bad faith even if some additional dialog would help. Springee (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the various policy/guideline articles it seems clear that a statement of a fact that is verifiable in a video is not OR, nor would it violate RS.
I assume good faith. But when a revert makes the article worse, and it seems that the individual did not view the specific issue in context; then assuming good faith of that editor is difficult. One of the edits I made added 'the' between "dock boat"; such that I made the sentence grammatically correct. Formaldude reverted the edit article from "dock the boat" to "dock boat". Also, sources can be reliable in the given context, so when someone claims a source is not reliable in any context - despite the consensus otherwise - it becomes difficult to assume good faith, especially when that same individual seemingly lectures others about what is permitted. So just as a source can be situationally reliable, so to can editors be reliable and unreliable, or in other words biased and unbiased. Thank you for your guidance AgntOtrth (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Videos of the fight are not permitted to be used to support the content in this article, that is a blatant WP:OR violation. You have to use reliable secondary sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quote the WP:OP reference, you are the one making a claim, so show it specifically. AgntOtrth (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OR Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge AgntOtrth (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit of mine was reverted. The editors reason for the edit was "Removing source that is just a video, has no secondary commentary which is required. Also has no consensus that it is reliable per WP:FOXNEWS."
There are three separate issues. The first two are intertwined.
The source removed was to an entire article - which means there was secondary commentary and not just a video; which is easily observed when the link is followed.
The last issue is the tacit assertion that there is no acceptable of foxnews. From WP:RSP
"No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable... and may be usable depending on context.
The WP:RSP informs foxnews talk shows, politics, science are regarded as unreliable for statements of fact. I have not used foxnews for any of those subjects.
The context of my use of foxnews as a source is well within the spirit and literal application of WP:RSP; that is to say, in context of the article use of foxnews as a source is acceptable in my opinion.
I thank you for your guidance - which lead me to BLP to include consideration of individual merely accused or charged. AgntOtrth (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to use a source that's reliability is contested when you have greenlit sources available. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be your personal opinion; unless you can show WP policy/guideline etc otherwise. I am willing to learn. And it does not explain inaccurate claims about a source used as the basis of removal. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fox should be fine for general, factual statements about what happened here. But, given all the other sources what fact can't be sourced to one of the existing citations? Springee (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response.
A fact is a fact, so the source would only matter in reference to permissible use on wikipedia. I can see that two questions would be asked about a source 1.) In context, is the source acceptable to use as a reference? 2.) Is the source utilized to support a fact? AgntOtrth (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor is removing content , that does not violate wiki policies, because of personal opinions of the editor, wouldn't that be disruptive editing and/or in violation of wiki guidelines, policies, etc? AgntOtrth (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive interview

[edit]

Assuming no one objects, please change In an exclusive interview with CNN to In an interview with CNN. The exclusive part doesn't matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race of the various people mentioned

[edit]

In the section "Background and incident", "white" is over-mentioned (13 times in that section). I suggest reducing this to like 1 or 2 mentions.

The article also appears to omit that the co-captain is black. If we're mentioning race, this should probably be mentioned.

May also want to switch to the higher register, more respectful terms Caucasian and African American.

Another problem: This article fails to concisely summarize that the initial brawl is between the African American co-captain from the big boat, who is jumped (attacked in a many-vs-few situation) by a large group of Caucasians that are probably from the small boat. This is critical to why this incident attracted press attention, but does not appear to be clearly stated.

Finally, I'd suggest removing the full protection as soon as possible, so that interested editors can start improving this article. It is not in a good state. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The indicates that the co-captain was attacked by a white male, then another white male and a white female get involved. And that white and black people act to break up the initial fight. Other than adding the apparent race of the co-captain, what additional details would you add?


As for "This is critical to why this incident attracted press attention,..." I am not sure anyone could answer that. It seems speculative to try and answer "why". (just for sake of a counterpoint, many new agencies are "for profit", how would we know if the decision to cover the story was not motivated by revenue.)


A possible neutral inclusion: "The confrontation attracted/garnered national attention from news agencies and on social media platforms." AgntOtrth (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic designation

[edit]

I see this article is under contentious topics designation for American politics. Is this correct? This article seems more racial than political. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure that this has risen to the level of a contentious topic. That said, since the media/social media focused on race I would put it in that bucket, not AP2. Springee (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything political about it either. I support the designation as the better of the options available. AgntOtrth (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Daniel Case placed the restriction? Pinging them for their opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in there because we are consistently getting protection requests at RFPP for this, and just recently I full-protected the article for three days because of edit warring.
There is no CTOPS designation for racial matters as there hasn't been an ArbCom case on it. AP is probably the closest thing to it; most racial controversies in this country usually have or wind up having a political dimension anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
US + race + violence = close enough, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current

[edit]

Would fit the article, but I can't add it atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

[edit]

Which source supports "A black man used a folding chair to hit a white male, and a white female who had been punched and knocked down by multiple black females."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the points of contention.
ABC News has a new segment on its youtube, in the segment the news anchor says "police have confirmed this video is part of their investigation." This video shows an apparent female dressed in white clothing hitting another apparent female wearing a red dress. It is straightforward, descriptive statement of fact, that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source without further, specialized knowledge; as a verifiable statement of fact, it does not appear to be OR. AgntOtrth (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, does the video support that the white female had been punched and knocked down by multiple black females? More importantly, since there is so much reliable secondary coverage, I don't think we should be emphasizing primary source details that the secondary sources don't mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video starts with the white woman in red being hit by the black woman in white. A correction though the woman in red falls, prior to being hit by a second person. Later in the video the woman in red is hit with the chair, then moments later is hit by a different black female.
As a straightforward fact that can be verified without special knowledge would a secondary source need to cover it? It shows the "racial" lines of how things happened. AgntOtrth (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we definitely need secondary sources for stuff like this since it's far from straight forward. I'd note that even stuff like 'white woman', 'black female' and especially 'different black female' should not be considered simple but instead clear OR. And I'd further emphasise Firefangledfeathers point. When there are a multitude of secondary sources, there's even less reason to test the boundaries of OR like this since if it's really true that not a single secondary source has noticed whatever you want to include it cannot be very important. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on how "white woman", 'black female' and especially 'different black female' are far from straight forward? Does this mean gender nor race should be mentioned unless a secondary source has published they verified gender identity and/or race?
Perhaps the WP OR page needs to be re-written to be more specific, if following what is written means a violation of OR.
As for "not a single secondary source has noticed whatever you want to include it cannot be very important." This is akin to claiming "No true Scotsman."
As for the inclusion of those straightforward verifiable details, it strengthens that the fighting broke down predominantly on racial lines. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting from the primary source that these people are 'black female', white woman' and 'different black woman'. The different black woman thing is particularly problematic since the only way you can know it's a different black woman is by analysing details like where this person came from or what they looked like to decide they are different from some other black woman. And you're not allowed to intepret primary sources on Wikipedia. Reliable sources are allowed to do that so the fact that they have verified these details is irrelevant. We trust them to decide what they can see from the video and come to conclusions about it, seeking clarification or indicating uncertainty where needed and publish details that are accurate. We do not trust editors to do so. And your no true Scotmans thing makes no sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written based on what others have said about something. That is how we decide if something is worthy of inclusion. If no one else thought it important, then we don't either (on Wikipedia). You personally are free to think it's important, that's up to you. However when editing Wikipedia, you have to remember that Wikipedia is not on what you think is important but what reliable secondary sources think is. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have proven the point that OR / Primary source article must be re-written. It is permissible to included statement of fact that are verifiable. In my opinion you abusing the term analysis. If analysis means what you suggest then verifiable statements of fact would not be permitted because verifiable statements of fact would require analysis.
Does it make a difference that all three females involved are next to each other?
"We do not trust editors to do so." OR / Primary sources allows for straightforward verifiable statement of fact. So yes, wikipedia trusts editors to make straightforward verifiable statements of fact.
Just because a secondary source does not specifically mention something, does not reasonably mean the thing not mentioned was unimportant; so yes "No true Scotsman" applies. If a Scotsman does not mention something, the unmentioned thing is unimportant; because no true Scotsman mentions unimportant things.
"However when editing Wikipedia, you have to remember that Wikipedia is not on what you think is important but what reliable secondary sources think is."
See the WP:5P5 and about being bold. I have edited within a reasonable application of wiki rules/guidelines/policies/ etc.
But again, if a editor violates some standard of wp, even when following that standard to the letter; that means the standard is not written so that it is understandable. Until it is re-written the absent blatant violation, it is the opinion of the individual whether someone has violated something. AgntOtrth (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point discussing this further. If you're not willing to accept that Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources thinks is important rather than what editors thinks is important than please refrain from editing Wikipedia. You're free to start a blog or whatever, but refusing to accept our policies and guidelines is simply not acceptable if you want to continue to edit here. If you refuse to refrain from editing voluntarily, we will have no choice but to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am refusing to be beholden to what amounts to your personal opinions. I have edited in good faith and have referenced applicable WP standards. Where I have edited in contradiction to wp standards I have accepted correction and moved forward. I referenced a primary source for a straightforward verifiable fact which is within WP standards. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) For further clarity on the white/black issue, you are undoubtedly making a lot of assessments to make these decisions that you don't seem to appreciate. For starters, the quality of the video actually matters a lot for this. For example, you're much more likely to be able to make accurate assessments of these details in a 4k 60 FPS daytime video than you would in something from an ancient low resolution CCTV recorded on tapes that have been recorded over thousands of times, at night and in black and white and with about 5 FPS. Likewise you're much more likely to be able to make an accurate assessment if the person is wearing skimpy clothing and a lot of their head, and face and skin is visible for several minutes than you would if you only saw them for about 3 frames and they were wearing a large jacket, long pants or a long dress, and a mask. Likewise if someone fits the infamous "light-skinned black wo/man or dark-skinned white wo/man" profile [1] [2], you're going to be less confident in your assessment than if they look like either Idris Elba or Rupert Grint. Yet you making all these assessments from this video and coming to the decision you can conclude that this is a black or white woman is precisely the thing we don't want editors doing. We're fine with reliable secondary sources making such assessments and deciding what they can and cannot say based on the video, just not with editors doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one apparent female is wearing red "mo mo".
another apparent female is wearing solid white pants and a solid white top, her skin is apparent.
the other apparent female has two tone hair yellow and black. She is wearing a blue shirt.
It is a straightforward verifiable fact that the apparent females mentioned are not the same person.
Also, by bringing in resolution and frame-rate, you are demonstrating my point about your personal opinion AgntOtrth (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either OR or lacks WP:WEIGHT. Rely on RS for (a) relevance of details, and (b) verifiability of details. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As nearly all secondary sources address the predominant racial lines - it is relevance of details, and as it is a verifiable statement of fact - verifiable and in context within OR Primary source acceptability; would you be willing to explain your claim about weight? AgntOtrth (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Montgomery Brawl into Montgomery Riverfront brawl

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was do no merge. The majority of commentators cited WP:NSINGLE as their rationale to not merge. If others disagree, this can be nomianted to WP:AfD Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has not received sufficient coverage beyond the event itself (no evidence of lasting significance, and per WP:NOPAGE). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the song meets NOTE standards. I've argued it's not DUE here so I guess that means I oppose merging. However, if the feeling is the song is NOTABLE then I guess here is better than stand alone. Springee (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The single meets the criteria of WP:NSINGLE of being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not support merging the of both articles. I agree with CJ Moki that is meets the criteria of WP:NSINGLE; also, be bold, WP:5P5 AgntOtrth (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Removal of Montgomery Brawl from this article

[edit]

I disagree with this removal of Montgomery Brawl from this article. As long as Montgomery Brawl has its own article, it needs to be mentioned in this one. There's really not anywhere else in Wikipedia it fits. This article is the obvious place for it.

Now, whether the article Montgomery Brawl is notable is a different question. If that ends up deleted at AFD, then yes, we can definitely remove it from this one. But as long as it has an article I think it should stay. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a due sentence. There are more sources available than the ones currently cited (e.g. BBC. I think it would be worth including even if we deleted the song article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable art linked in article

[edit]

Editors and Springee should be aware that I've reinstated the reference to the song related to the topic of this article. Given that the song was significant enough to merit its own article, it's appropriate to include it here. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content is UNDUE in this article. First, the sourcing is very weak, to the point that I would support removing the article about the song. Of the sources the only one that has any weight is the Detroit Free Press. It's a local paper talking about a local artist. The other sources don't establish weight. The artist doesn't appear to be notable and the coverage of the song is well into fleeting. That's just the issues with noting the song in any context. Looking at this article, the content here should be about the event and a summary of the responses. The other material in the reactions section talks about the generalized response (went viral, the mayor commented, was viewed in context of racial issues). None of those are a specific comments/reactions from otherwise minor people. For that reason it is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Springee. We're at a 3 to 1 consensus to restore it now (see section above this one). Please self revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Leigh Chappell" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Leigh Chappell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 24 § Leigh Chappell until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Chase Shipman" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Chase Shipman has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Chase Shipman until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whitewash of the racial underpinnings in the article

[edit]

Can they be made more neutral? Feels like I’m reading a klan press release. 2600:1700:6A60:BE0:480C:9F52:5171:8E2F (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

folding chair

[edit]

Could someone add some info about the folding chair in the public reaction section? (I'm not informed enough to take it up.)

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/montgomery-brawl-alabama-meme-folding-chair-riverboat-1234804740/

Inktaap (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montgomery_Riverfront_brawl&oldid=1230081847"