Jump to content

Talk:Bowling Green massacre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Spelling: "Bowling Green massacre" or "Bowling Green Massacre"

Should the article be called "Bowling Green Massacre" with a capital M instead of "Bowling Green massacre"? Some other massacres on Wikipedia have the word with a capital M. What is your view? Lechthaler (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current capitalization just because making it a full proper noun would imply that there is some reality-based antecedent to which it refers--and here there clearly is no such antecedent. That being said, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The article was originally titled "Bowling Green Massacre" but was moved to the current "Bowling Green massacre" which I support. The capital letter would imply that this is some kind of proper name, like the title of a play or something, which it is not. The capitalized version remains as a redirect.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Page title misleading and semantically disruptive

Closer to the truth would be Bowling Green massacre hoax or Bowling Green "massacre".

I noticed a comment here about the lead being changed from The Bowling Green massacre is to The Bowling Green massacre refers to.

I intensely dislike these both. Of course, the verb should be, per convention, "is". But the subject of the copula verb "is" can not be "massacre", a non-thing in this context.

The subject of "is" can certainly be "massacre hoax" or "massacre spin" or "massacre falsehood" and that's probably where this page title should go. Now that I've came up with it, "falsehood" strikes me as the best of the bunch.

So Bowling Green massacre falsehood it should be then. That's my final answer. — MaxEnt 16:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Change to Bowling Green "massacre" This article is a confusing mess. There were terrorist-related arrests in Bowling Green, but Ms. Conway mistakenly described the incident as a massacre. The article should be about the misstatement of the nature of the event. A sub theme of the articles is whether the misstatement was intentional. This is speculation only. The goal of the Wikipedia article should be to clarify. WSDavitt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Andy Dingley's reasoning. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting opposition and I wasn't planning to return. I was just making a point FWIW, because it seemed right.

Last night I watched a documentary which presented the actual Sand Creek massacre and I was reading up on it further in Wikipedia, quite independently of current politics. Then I discover, by complete happenstance, that I actually understated my position.

There's a page called list of events named massacres. Under the current page title, one would necessarily think that this page must perforce be listed there. It is named "massacre".

In linguistic terms, "massacre" is the head noun of the phrase "Bowling Green massacre", with "Bowling Green" functioning as (in this case) an indirect modifier. The parse works out to "massacre, the one associated with Bowling Green". We can make this associated extremely abstract, such as "falsely linked to" or "mistakenly portrayed as linked to". But this still doesn't get us out of the linguistic soup because there was no massacre. We can even take this a step further in abstracting the phrase, all the way to "the putatively planned massacre associated with Bowling Green" (at this point, I think you're asking the unwary reader to supply far too much, far too soon). Except this: there was no planned massacre. And, in fact, there was not even a tenuous imputation of a planned massacre by any authority involved. So we've now come all the way to "the anti-terrorist FBI sting misleadingly portrayed as having any link at all to some kind of massacre; that being associated with Bowling Green". Nice parse.

If falsehood is too strong (false is appropriate, because there's no truth to terming this a massacre whatsoever, however short it falls of deliberate falsehood), we still have Bowling Green massacre misrepresentation to split the different. Now the head noun of the phrase is "misrepresentation" and we're cooking with gas. This page title self-evidently does not belong in the list of events named massacres as the object under discussion is a misrepresentation, not a massacre. And our parse is now reduced to a conscionable "event at Bowling Green misrepresented as a massacre".

There should be no debate whatever that the parallel formation of "Bowling Green massacre" in parallel to Columbine massacre, Virginia Tech massacre, and Orlando massacre (the link as found in the massacre list) is misleading on its face, and is unworthy of encyclopedic treatment as stand-alone page title.

If the determination is to name the page after a phrase spoken—exactly as spoken—then the page title should be quoted at both ends, because that is the commonly accepted standard for discussing a speech extract as a speech extract. What the quotations marks mean is this: don't try to parse this as a real thing, because it just might be word salad that briefly passed somebody's lips. I could certainly live with a page title of [["Bowling Green massacre"]].

I've now said my piece in full, and I'm not returning to this discussion again. I do hope, however, that saner heads ultimately prevail. — MaxEnt 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is Wikipedia; saner heads avoid the place entirely, in my experience. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Saner heads edit the <sarcasm>TOTALLY FAILING</sarcasm> Encyclopædia Britannica. But with all due respect, "[[Bowling Green massacre]]" also works. epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above: it is a silly title.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS for one. We don't use quote marks in titles unless "they are part of the proper title (e.g. "A" Is for Alibi) or required by orthography ("Weird Al" Yankovic)". Andy Dingley's assessment is correct as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


If we can't use quotation marks in the page title, we can still use them in the lede. Example: The Murders in the Rue Morgue. Like the BGM, the Rue Morgue murders are fictional. The URL for Murders in the Rue Morgue doesn't contain quotation marks. But the introductory sentence does:

"The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is a short story by Edgar Allan Poe published in Graham's Magazine in 1841.

In just the same way, this article about a fictional massacre should use quotation marks in the lede:

The "Bowling Green massacre" is a nonexistent incident referred to by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway....

— Lawrence King (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The first example you give is a publication title, so we put quote marks to denote its title (MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:TITLEQUOTES). The latter is more WP:SCAREQUOTES. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Good analogies. And of the four "previous examples" you mentioned, two use quotation marks, and all four specify that the topic is a "term" or a "phrase". Thus, the four articles you cited each begin as follows, respectively:
The term "axis of evil" was used by U.S. President George W. Bush in his ....
Mama grizzly is a term that former U.S. vice presidential candidate ....
"A series of tubes" is a phrase coined originally as an analogy ....
The phrase expletive deleted refers to profanity which has been censored ....
In exactly the same way, the BGM article's first sentence must make it clear that this is a fictional incident which has become an oft-circulated phrase in media and politics today. Which it does. Problem solved. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


This is nothing other than the manufacturing of fake news. Nobs01 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think adding quotation marks to the title is fine. Calling it a hoax is inaccurate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SNL appearance

Apparently, SNL has now spoofed this massacre (but to be fair, it also spoofed the Horror at Six Flags, the slaughter at Fraggle Rock, and the night they drove Old Dixie down.) In addition to being in NPR, this was also covered by the Washington Post and the Independent Should this be included in the "reactions" section of the article? epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was actually surprised when I saw how much pickup this had in reliable sources. My initial reaction was "no," but I think there's plenty of support. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it doesn't deserve a brief mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Seeing as there's unanimous support for this, I'll add it. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I will always remember this as the Saturday Night Live Massacre.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the SNL massacres a new character every week. Last week it was Betsy DeVos. This week it was that gym teacher. epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal (February 2017)

I'm closing this per SNOW--there is no chance that this is going to pass, with all due respect to MelanieN. I can expand on NOTNEWS and all kinds of other things, and add that we'll have articles on every other presidential tweets, but editorial consensus for keeping this article is overwhelming. Perhaps, Melanie, you want to revisit this in a year...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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. —МандичкаYO 😜 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). Neutralitytalk 22:52, 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 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 - 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.
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.

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" is. 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)
Well, by this logic, it would seem it is almost never necessary to name the perpetrators of a crime in a crime article.--Petzl (talk) 03:48, 19 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)
Yes, it's weird not to mention them. How are they not relevant???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that it's now semi-protected, but don't think it's important enough for me to make a special request (this comment is still visible afterall). In any case, thanks for your work on the article. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

BOTH

i think there is a BOTH too much here (under Other possible misstatements)

>> but both were both carried out by domestic terrorists.<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.25.40 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Conway image

I don't know why the Kellyanne Conway image is the lead image. As the lead image, it doesn't help introduce the topic readers more. Rather the lead section itself (despite possible issues) can help them introduce the topic better than the image. I nearly got distracted by the lead image but almost ignored the lead until I read the intro. Putting it to one of the sections, like Background or Misstatements by Conway, may make more sense. Maybe someone else here can explain why using Conway image as lead image is justified. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

She's the one who invented the whole thing... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hang on — you're saying there wasn't a massacre???!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The image was moved down to one of the sections. Thank goodness... Well, the Conway image and the landscape image were swapped, but the landscape one was pushed back down. So far, no lead image, which is better than a distracting lead image. Props to Epicgenius and Keiiri for doing that. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Historical antecedent

As mentioned in, among other sources, Scientific American and Gothamist, there was a "Bowling Green Massacre": specifically, in the 1640s, Dutch soldiers massacred 30 Lenape at the Bowling Green in New Amsterdam, triggering Kieft's War. Is it worth including a mention of this? DS (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the "bowling green" in the actual historical event is not a proper noun, but a reference to an actual place for a game of bowls, I think bringing it in here probably introduces more confusion than elucidation, but I am not of a terribly strong opinion either way! Thanks for pointing this out at any rate, I for one was not aware. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Could be a footnote? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Historically interesting, but not a factor in the current situation and probably completely unfamiliar to all the participants. I think we should leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
So the actual event is a footnote, and the fake news an artcle. Is this what Wikipedia has become? Nobs01 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The Kieft's War article certainly could be expanded and improved, and if you are able to help with that, please do. It has nothing to do with this article, however, beyond a coincidence of placenames. Jonathunder (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The actual event is a separate article which is connected with a footnote. The fake news is a separate article because it is itself notable. And yes, that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bowling Green Massacre Victims Fund

Will this be included, too, since Wikipedia had been tireless in its efforts in publicizing the tragedy? Nobs01 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It already is; "A website was set up anonymously for the purpose of collecting donations for victims of the imaginary massacre; the donation link on the website goes to the ACLU's donation page." Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
So the Bowling Green massacre is being used to promote fraud? Nobs01 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of rich considering that as it never actually happened, the entire Bowling Green Massacre claim is fraudulent. Recognising a thing does not mean that we promote a thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to recognize if it never happened. At best, what you have here is a leak of FISA wiretapping information [2], similiar to the AP reporting on another foiled terrorist plot. Only in this case, I don't think you can blame Kellyanne Conway for the leak. And whatever, Wikipedia should not be giving credence to defrauding the public of fraudulent charitable contributions. Nobs01 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia don't care about whether it's right or wrong. It's covered in the sources, so it's covered in the article. This is also not a forum for general discussion about your opinions on the subject of the article. 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Temple Bombing

The article states that the temple bombing was "carried out by American terrorists". If you go to the Wikipeda for the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing, it states " As a result of Bright's acquittal the other suspects were not tried, and no one was ever convicted of the bombing.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.202.180.36 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE

and yields nothing of informative value other than disdain of that person. Nobs01 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In what specific way or ways does this article violate WP:ATTACK? Examples from the article could be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the entire article is about an incorrect statement made by Conway.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
She lied about and attack. If she wouldn't have lied, the article wouldn't be here. Gooballsam (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"She lied about and attack. If she wouldn't have lied, the article wouldn't be here." That's true... but that still isn't a good excuse for the existence of this page. This is Wikipedia treading into dangerous, politicized, territory - I think that's fairly obvious. I'm very worried that this page still exists. Bzzzing (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? It has been discussed in detail in reliable sources, which is our primary guideline for inclusion. Following that guideline doesn't make an article automatically "politicized". Compare with Gulf of Tonkin incident. VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
A 'lie' requires intent. There is no evidence she intended to decieve. She made a simple mistake. The claim she 'lied' is no different than her claim of a 'massacre', unless the speaker's intent is to decieve. Nobs01 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't seem to be a lie, more like a stupid, ignorant comment, ironically made when she was complaining about the media's shortcomings. Of course, this is going to get coverage, but it doesn't mean it deserves a page.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What relevance does that have on whether we should have an article? VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We can't have an article every time an American political figure says something stupid. The universe isn't big enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The way I interpret Wikipedia policies, we will cover such sayings every time they get a critical mass of coverage in the reliable sources. Just as I see it! Dumuzid (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Dan Quayle "Potato" comment is a subhead in his bio, and even there it may lack NPOV. There are no references to the "57 states", "Austrian language", "Polish death camps", or uncle liberating Auschwitz in the Barack Obama article, nor spinoff pages. And a question of notability; Conway doesn't hold a constitutional office as Quayle & Obama did. Neither is Conway's statement made up out of whole cloth, as some of the examples given above do, rather she implied "prevented a Bowling Green massacre", or there was at least a factual basis for her misstatement no matter how clumisly it was phrased.
WP BLP is pretty clear, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented..." This article fails entirely to document an incident called, the Bowling Green massacre ever occurred, no matter what rhetorical contortions Kellyanne Conway or Wikipedia editors wrap themselves into. At best, a sentence or two in her bio, or a whole paragraph with a subhead as in the Quayle case, if Wikipedia feels expressing its disdain for certain people's human foibles is necessary. Nobs01 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Show me the "pick up" in reliable sources for the Obama claims, and perhaps they deserve pages. To me, this unquestionably meets notability. Perhaps you're better off arguing for inclusion of things you think overlooked? Dumuzid (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the problem is with the title of the article. Nobs01 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I would disagree--it's the least bad of all choices--but I believe reasonable minds can and do differ on such things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Even this one, Sweden incident, while it references a non-existent "incident", does not imply a non-existent "massacre" or "terrorist attack". The only way the title of this page with its full contents should be preserved is as a Wikipedia:Coatrack entitled, Misstatements of Trump administration officials. Nobs01 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am fully aware that my contributions aren't worth very much, but I would appreciate it if you didn't unilaterally remove them, Nobs01. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm working with a new tablet here, and having nothing but problems with it. Again, my apology. Thank you. Nobs01 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I know that feeling all too well. Good luck! Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: not sure why my comment was removed. Here it is:
For people concerned about the existence of the article, the appropriate venue would be WP:AFD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Please also see WP:NOTAFORUM. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it is the title that is problematic, not the contents. Nobs01 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Then please see: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves.
BTW, an article on the "Polish death camps" exists; please see "Polish death camp" controversy. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is all very helpful. Before such a formal request is made, I would invite editors to list various proposed re-titled names below. Again, thank you. Nobs01 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I would go to AfD, but emotions are running too high at the moment. People think they are fighting to save the Republic or reliving Kristallnacht. When people have moved on to the next outrage, then maybe we can have a sensible discussion about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I kinda see arguments for both sides. Should we really add a full article for any stupid remark a politician makes? Then again, this did happen? I really don't know. Gooballsam (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The stupid remark did happen, not the incident. Wikipedia is now in the place of giving life to the myth that a ficticious event is real. And the only argument that justifies the deliberate manufacture of fake history is to highlight the incompetence of people who manufacture (either deliberately or in error) fake history. Nobs01 (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Nonexistent" is currently the 7th word in this article. What makes you think that WP is "giving life" to a myth? VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Look at the title. The title conveys deliberate disinformation, not about an historical or newsworthy event that never happened, but about Kellyanne Conway being an idiot, which is the sole purpose of information in this article. Nobs01 (talk)

Section heading

The longstanding section heading in this article has been "Misstatements by Conway". Somebody changed it to "False statements by Conway". Then somebody restored "Misstatements", then somebody else said "Supposed misstatements". I have reverted to "Misstatements" as it was before all the changes. Discussion can take place here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Misstatements seems the most appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I had to look up the definition of misstatement, and others may too. What about 'incorrect statement'? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Referred to?"

Tell me, how does one "refer" to an incident which did not occur? Refer is a success term. Conway invented or fabricated the Massacre; she did not "refer" to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.54.2 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semantically, you are partially correct. The verb "refer" demands an existing referent, but the referent can be fictional: "The name 'Hermione Granger' refers to a fictional character in the Harry Potter books" is perfectly correct. If we assume that when Conway used the term in her Cosmopolitan interview on January 29 she was inventing this fiction at that moment, then the term "refer" would be incorrect. However, we know that Ron Paul referred to some kind of Bowling Green incident before Conway's interviews were public (see the article for details). This strongly suggests that belief in a fictional Bowling Green incident existed in the minds of multiple people before Conway's first interview. In that case, she was "referring" to that pre-existing fictional incident -- and the verb "refer" is properly used. — Lawrence King (talk)
This fictional "alternate fact" was referred to as a real fact. She misused Fake news. That is the crux of the misrepresentation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
An event does not have to occur for it to be given a name, the Gunpowder Plot, for example being one of the more famous. Nowhere does Conway make the claim the event occurred in reviewing the actual context of all the underlying sources. "Bowling Green massacre plot" or "Bowling Green plot" should be an acceptable title without adding to the confusion this title engenders. Nobs01 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, do you have a source that refers to it as that? TimothyJosephWood 21:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
CBS News refers to it as a "Foiled plot"; you also have the context of the FBI & DOJ press releases of plotting terrorist activity. Nobs01 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, see...the problem is that that source seems to reference actual events, where this article references events which are notable because they didn't happen. It's a bit like saying we should redirect Unicorn to Narwhal since it may have been an inspiration. Problem is, they're actually distinct topics. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The "actual event" is a "distinct topic"? That's ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
CNN calls it a plot; all the local media refer to it as a plot [3][4]; the Bowling Green Daily News in dozens of articles over seven years calls it a plot. [5] Reviewing the Hardball tape, unquestionably Matthews and Conway are discussing preventative measures.
Our readers are sober, the woman made a mistake, and Wikipedia as a reliable source is being done a disservice with a bogus article title. Nobs01 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, according to Wikipedia itself: Reliability of Wikipedia One could argue that if it's unreliable, does that mean that the claim it's unreliable is unreliable - and it is in fact reliable? Anyhow, it's all well and good saying "the woman made a mistake", but this is not a woman on the bus talking to her friends, but this is Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, a position that should not make mistakes of such magnitude, and if she does, they are worthy of calling attention to - and she didn't make a single mistake, but she referenced it at least twice. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me just clear a few things up here:
  1. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
  2. Wikipedia doesn't care whether it was fair or morally just to take this "mistake" and turn it into something notable. We just care if it's notable. We don't make an ethical judgement, and we don't try to correct injustices.
  3. The article is about the 2017 statement, not about the 2011 arrests. If you'll notice, it's been six years and no one has made an article about the arrests. The arrests themselves did not garner widespread news coverage until the statement was made. To quote an editor a few threads above,the actual event is a footnote.
  4. After a month of trying to get the article title changed, there is clearly no consensus for it, and it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and go do something else. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to add one more thing to Timothyjosephwood's excellent summary: Conway herself made it clear in her statements that she was not talking about a "plot" or a potential (but averted) event; she was describing an actual attack, something that had actually happened: "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away," "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers." --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
So Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but it is a guide to notability???--Jack Upland (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The guideline for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
So the argument is since its an internet meme it's an event regardless of context. Nobs01 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The article is about the 2017 statement, not about the 2011 arrests. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is about an internet meme and pays scant attention to any meaningful context. Nobs01 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@TimothyJosephWood, " The arrests themselves did not garner widespread news coverage"; you are quoting Kellyanne Conway now, "it didn't receive much coverage". @Melanie, "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away," "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers." That is exactly what the Department of Justice press release [6] and the actual indictments say.[7]. Nobs01 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. It says the men had killed soldiers in IRAQ. There was no "Bowling Green massacre." There was no "Bowling Green attack". In fact the press release specifically says "Neither was charged with plotting attacks within the United States."--MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"plotting attacks against soldiers" says as much. Why then are they referred to as the "Bowling Green terrorists" in virtually every reputable, reliable source (save Wikipedia at this point) if they weren't planning attacks? And again, nowhere did Kellyanne Conway say the massacre occurred. That is an invention of critics. Nobs01 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This (meaning this article, entitled Bowling Green massacre) is about (see Wikt:about, meaning "with regard to; on account of; on the subject of") the statements made in 2017 (in the year of our Lord, see also Anno Domini) not (see Wikt:not, meaning "To no degree") about events that occurred in 2011. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence, in any context, Kellyanne Conway alleged the Bowling Green massacre occurred. That is a total fiction, which this article attempts to pass off as fact. Nobs01 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Where, in this statement, does Kellyanne Conway say the Bowling Green massacre occurred? Remember, an event does not have to occur to be a notable event.
"I bet, there was very little coverage‍—‌I bet it's brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized‍—‌and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. I mean, most people don't know that because it didn't get covered."
The meme Kellyanne Conway said it occurred is an extrapolation. Nobs01 (talk)
Ok. And there is, as of today, about 70,000 news stories that have been written on it. So are we about done here? TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well than good. Rewrite the opening sentence to read, "The Bowling Green massacre is an internet meme that took life after White House councelor Kellyanne Conway made statements....." Nobs01 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm... No. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowling_Green_massacre/Archive_2&oldid=1090475718"