Talk:Central Park birdwatching incident

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. Black Lives Matter Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's June 2020 edit-a-thon. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance). Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Is "racially-charged" considered a contentious or value-laden label?(Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch) Marcinus PhD (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with editorializing/impartial language in the larger ramifications section that needs correcting as well as additional citations. Specific locations for improvement have been noted. Marcinus PhD (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racially charged -- wtf does that mean? Racist or not. White people policing this too? Ketlag (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist" is a considered a contentious/value-laden word, which should be avoided on Wikipedia, unless there is a reference to support that view. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch I didn't want to delete it completely before initiating conversation here. Marcinus PhD (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is some bullsh*t. "Racist," is considered "contentious/value-laded" to white people — DUH. Freaking hell, I thought this place was supposed to be above that? The incident was racist. Racially charged? GTFO with your PhD. Ketlag (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my opinion or rule. My personal opinion is irrelevant. This is a Wikipedia standard, in keeping with the tone of being an encyclopedia. Edits are being done in good faith according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch Marcinus PhD (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I respectfully disagree. "Wiki standard," or whatever you folk call it is precedent set by... I'm not going to complete that, but hope you understand. Wikipedia must ever evolve with the times and refuse to stick to convention, esp. when it comes to the use of the word "racist," to describe, wait for it, racist encounters. Anyway, I've shouted in this void far too long to realize how super editors and bureaucrats on this site refuse to change and continue in their blinded ways. Ketlag (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider moving the legislation section to its own article and then linking or including in related links. While related, it is not directly part of the topic of the article, which is the incident in Central Park. Marcinus PhD (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not yet notable enough for its own article, unless we're talking about a specific law that has been discussed for years. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. Perhaps incorporating in Larger social ramifications section is then more appropriate.Marcinus PhD (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may work. epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated into social ramifications section. Updated with additional details and 2 more references, but reference needed for link to George Floyd protests. A link to the bill language may also be useful.Marcinus PhD (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In subsequent references to the two main folks in this article, should we be referring to them as "Amy" and "Christian", as opposed to "Amy Cooper" and "Christian Cooper" or "Ms Cooper" and "Mr. Cooper"? Is there any sort of wikipedia standard when it comes to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisspurgeon (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisspurgeon: It's fairly normal to use surnames and first names only when multiple people share the same surname. It's just not very often we have two individuals who share a surname but aren't related, so it's intuitively a little awkward here. But we normally do not use honorific references like "Mr." GMG^talk 22:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Gotcha. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisspurgeon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it is really necessary to use the full name of Mrs. Cooper. As she is not a public person, I don't think that her name matters. It feels like public shaming... Is there a Wikipedia policy about privacy of non-public persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:578F:8000:0:0:3F (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP does have exactly such a privacy policy. Unfortunately for Amy Cooper, her name is synonymous with the incident; so if the incident is notable, so is she. To be honest, I'm not sure there should even be a page for this. However, it has certainly received adequate press coverage to justify it. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There indeed should not be an article for this. It's ridiculous. We don't create Wikipedia articles for all incidents, "just" because there's coverage. Tallard (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there should be a page for this. It's one of the most notable examples of a racist Karen trying to get a black man in trouble with police when he did nothing wrong--and her lies were recorded, so it's a matter of public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

saying, as he did, "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it", could be taken as a threat. and then trying to feed something to her dog, could be threatening as well. may have been reasonable as a woman on her own to call police. wikipedia should improve this article. 122.148.8.208 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the individual fact supported in one sentence, tag it. Don't delete the entire paragraph. Especially when the rest is supported. And the fact is easily found by any editor seeking to improve the article. Let's work together logicially to build a better article. Not go around doing needless damage, like this. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "needless damage". It is a potentially libelous claim about a living person that can and should be removed on sight. Such claims are not supposed to be added to Wikipedia in the first place without proper citations, and it is the job of the person who added the material to cite it. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What in tarnation are you referring to. What is potentially libelous? That "her dog" was her dog? Are you serious? THAT is a blp violation? On what planet? That's unsupportable. Plus - you have not given any reason whatsoever ... none ... zero ... for your improper deletion of the rest of the para. That was cited. And by your editing - you KNOW it was her dog. It is in countless articles. You are not sloppy. So this is difficult to understand. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions are also odd. Fix it. Add to it. Don't mess up what you know how to improve. You are a good editor. Leverage your skills. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself at least slightly with Wikipedia policy before you comment further: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." [1] Removal of poorly sourced material about living persons is Wikipedia policy. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this was not all redundant. Perhaps you were working too fact and confused. But here, also, you deleted material that was properly referenced. With an edit summary that was not accurate as to part of what you deleted. I acquainted myself as you suggested slightly with Wikipedia policy. It says that's a "no-no." I think that was the technical term. Both for the improper deletion. And for the misleading incorrect edit summary. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all redundant? The paragraph removed starts with "Christian Cooper's video begins with...", as does THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH THAT WAS KEPT. Dear lord. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also odd. You are SERIOUSLY concerned that WP will be sued for

libel for the statement ... supported in numbers of RSs ... that the woman owned the dog? You really think that? You really think that statement "a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime." And you thought that good reason to delete the entire rest of the paragraph??? With lots of RS support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Here the above editor makes a number of more odd deletions. No good reason. None.

1. . He without reason deletes the RS supported fact that she was pointing her finger in his face.
2. . He deletes the RS supported fact that the man said please.
3. . He deletes the all-important fact (can we continue to assume good faith - he has done this before) that she says to Christian: "I’m calling the cops … I’m gonna tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life.” RS-supported.
4. . He, without any logic or effort at explanation, once again undoes the inlining of 9-1-1. What is he thinking? His edit summaries never let us know.
5. . He deletes "There is an African American man—I am in Central Park— he is recording me and threatening myself and my dog. Please send the cops immediately!" And replaces it with a less fulsome summary description. Leaving out her language "threatening myself" and leaving out the last sentence. Why? No good reason. Given the above, this is especially concerning. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only explanation is that the person making these deletions supports Amy Cooper. These deletions are clearly intended to minimize her racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The NY Times has reported that Amy Cooper called the police a second time, and that should be added to the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She did not call a second

time even the New York times corrected themselves on this. The dispatcher called her back because she was having trouble hearing her.I have not been able to find a complete transcript or recording of the second call however I suspect that 1 must take into account the difficulty that they were having hearing each other since reception is very bad and the ramble this may have caused your comments late. This needs to be fully investigated 100.2.238.26 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Bari Weiss podcast diligently puts the whole birdwatching incident into a completely new context.

It should be considered for updating this page. Gadly Circus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Gadly Circus (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This. Ms. Cooper herself gives a more complete explanation than any journalist has. Huckfinne (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source [3]. Sizeofint (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of article is almost incomprehensible to read, as of this moment:

"On May 25, 2021, Amy Cooper filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Franklin Templeton, alleging race discrimination under federal law, race and gender discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence arising out of its statements and actions about her and the Central Park incident when it suspended her the day of the incident, fired her the next day, and subsequently made statements to media; and characterizing Christian Cooper as "a birdwatcher with a history of aggressively confronting dog owners in Central Park who walked their dogs without a leash. It was Christian Cooper's practice and intent to cause dog owners to be fearful for their safety and the safety of their dogs..."[36] Franklin Templeton said "We believe ... the company responded appropriately. We will defend against these baseless claims."[37][38]"

The paragraph should be rewritten, with the new details added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotalottastuff (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by A.J. on 9/11/21: I also heard the Bari Weiss podcast with reporter Kmele Foster, an objective black man. This Wikipedia article is presenting the early, presumptive version of the story and dismissing her claims as lies. It's far too subjective in hindsight (automatic theme of black as innocent victim of white). Very telling is the way his voice got meek once he started recording her, and he was unwilling to press charges because he knew he was the real aggressor. It comes down to a series of contextual details that were omitted in early reporting. Also, the close timing of the Floyd case worked against her in the court of public opinion, which is the problem with so many stories these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.113.182 (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing that a guy 1) walks up to strange woman who's alone in the park; 2) starts with her over something minor; 3) says "I'm going to do what I want to do, but you won't like it," and 4) tries to lure her dog away. And SHE'S the bad one for feeling threatened. Carlo (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Needs to be addressed in the article. It is skipping over a lot of important details to say he quote offered her dog a treat unquote. He did a lot more than that. And we don't really know that it was just a treat actually he says he pulled out his bag of treat.See his own comments on his page about the incident 100.2.238.26 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he stirred her up first, then pulled out the take-away phone 122.148.8.208 (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important sources that add context: https://www.westsiderag.com/2020/06/10/the-tension-between-birdwatchers-and-dogwalkers-was-simmering-even-before-the-amycooper-incident https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/manhattancb7/downloads/pdf/minutes/2020/min05_20.pdf (page 18) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.211.210.207 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tension between birdwatchers and dogwalkers and Christian Cooper's controversial activism against dogwalkers was also key part of the Bari Weiss podcast mentioned in the article. I think this background should absolutely be discussed in the article. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bari Weiss podcast probably isn't going to be considered

reliable on Wikipedia. West Side Rag might, and could be used to add context, but it doesn't use this "controversial activism" framing as far as I can see. As an aside, I don't think anyone's saying there are activists against dogwalkers -- it's just people who let their dog off-leash in areas where it's illegal to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice scare quotes around 'controversial activism'. Biased much? Peter G Werner (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I... quoted what you said. That other people don't treat your choice of framing as Objective Truth, but as ... a frame ... doesn't mean other people are biased. It means any frame implies a bit of bias (just like "he was just out birdwatching" while omitting the interaction with the dog is a choice of frame that has some bias to it). The takeaway is that we need to reflect what reliable sources say. If they don't call it "controversial activism", then neither should Wikipedia. If they do, so should we. If only one or two reliable sources do, we might include it but attribute it, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence

"The following day the company fired her from her job as head of the firm's insurance investment."

is awkwardly written. Perhaps she was head of the firm's insurance investment department? 2601:200:C000:1A0:B008:BB33:FE3:C147 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

It was proposed in this section that Central Park birdwatching incident be renamed and moved to Central Park dogwalking incident. result: ed. put'r there 03:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply ] Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

result:

ed. ^put'r there 03:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

---

Central Park birdwatching incident → Central Park dogwalking incident – The dog is a far more central focus of this event than birds. That is the animal both Coopers were interacting with. HearthHOTS (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to
  Central Park racial incident, which is more relevant than birds or dogs here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  Central Park racial incident per 162 etc. The incident was mainly based on race. Only one person involved was walking a dog, and only one person involved was watching birds, but both were involved in the controversy because of their race. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Disagree This blew up on social media because of the birdwatcher. Dogwalking incidents are more common. The birdwatcher made this a story. Yes, only one person was watching birds, but there was also only one dog walker. And whether the incident was mainly based on race is debatable. Roger (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The state of New York literally passed a hate crime law (the "Amy Cooper" bill^[1]) in response to this incident. It's not about birds. 162 etc. (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And C. Cooper got a birdwatching tv show in response to this incident. [4] Nobody got any dogwalking contracts. Roger (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And whether the incident was mainly based on race is debatable - No, this is clearly based on race. Amy Cooper said, and this is quoted in the article, "There is an African American man—I am in Central Park—he is recording me and threatening myself and my dog. Please send the cops immediately!" There is extensive discussion of the controversy over Amy Cooper's comments in the "Reaction" section, particularly as it relates to race. The fact that Christian Cooper was watching birds is only tangential to the incident itself; that's just what he happened to be doing when the incident happened. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She described the man who was threatening her, told the location, said what he was doing, and asked for help. She might have done regardless of the man's race. Maybe you think that the man only confronted her because she was white? It is true that a lot of others did not know the full story and jumped to some racial conclusions. Trevor Noah managed to be racially inflammatory, as usual. But the original incident was a simple conflict between a birdwatcher and a dogwalker. Roger (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ https://www.syracuse.com/state/2020/06/cuomo-pushes-for-ny-to-pass-amy-cooper-bill-against-false-911-accusations-among-police-reform.html

• Relist comment: I originally closed move request 11:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC) as: moved to
  reliable sources cited. #Post-move has made me aware of info not in the original discussion above, so I have reopened and relisted the move. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose initial proposal as neither common name nor more specific. Oppose "Central Park racial incident" for the reasons I mentioned below. Neutral between keeping as is and moving to something like "Central Park birdwatching racial incident". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do something: The incident was about a dog not being leashed or it was about racism or alleged racism. It was not about birdwatching. Birdwatching just happened to be the easily forgotten reason that one of the involved people was there (and perhaps why he was especially concerned about the leashing requirement in that area). Consider 2020 Central Park unleashed dog incident or 2020 Central Park alleged racism incident. I suggest the latter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The perspective that this is somehow primarily about dogwalking/off-leash dogs doesn't jibe with my reading of the sources. Yes, there was someone walking a dog, and yes there was conflict about the dog being off-leash. That's the backstory for the conflict, but the main story as the sources reported it was someone calling the police on a man as though he were dangerous when he was just out birdwatching. Anyone's free to disagree with that framing, but that's generally how it was reported, in part because of the cultural moment in which the event happened. There was (and continues to be) a huge amount of emphasis placed on the fact that he was "birdwatching while black" (or otherwise doing something very much nonviolent but treated as though here were menacing). That he was birdwatching of all things -- something which connotes tranquility, nature, and [to some] boredom -- is part of what made this the story it was. I've written enough about this at this point, though. Suffice to say, I oppose any name which centers the dogwalking (and certainly prefer "racial incident" to "alleged racism incident"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said this incident was primarily about dogwalking, but the police were not called while he was birdwatching. They were called when he rebuked the woman for having her dog off-leash, said "'Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it,' and beckoned the dog toward him with a dog treat." That's not birdwatching – that's something else. If some unfriendly stranger beckoned my dog and offered some unknown treat to it without my permission, after scolding me and telling me that I wasn't going to like what they were going to do, I venture to say that I would be rather worried about what they might be trying to do (even if I knew I was in the wrong about having my dog off-leash). I'm not saying that what she did was fully justified, but this is more complicated than calling the police on someone who was birdwatching. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relisting comment what about something like Central Park Cooper conflict ? I think we all agree both people involved have the surname Cooper and they they were having some kind of conflict with one another. This avoids needing to characterize the issue as being bird/dog/race/helmet/bicycle related. HearthHOTS (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To me that doesn't seem like a very natural choice. You would need to already know a lot of irrelevant detail about the incident in order to know that it was a Cooper-vs.-Cooper encounter. I have the same problem with the "Ramble" suggestion – relatively few people would know what that means. My preference would still be "alleged racism" or "unleashed dog". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposed. The dog was the central point of conflict. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close

I missed this, but would've opposed. Every time I've seen this, it highlighted the activity he was engaged in. Just searching/highlighting the source list for "bird" shows it's one of the most common words in the headline. The fact that he was engaged in a peaceful activity and its contrast with the tenor of her complaints jibed with the race-related discussions of the moment. Many publications framed it in that context as "birdwatching while black" ([5] [6] for example). It even inspired

Central Park Five comes to mind. There were the Central Park be-ins (granted, about racism), there were incidents of anti-Asian hate there in the last few years, and countless stories involving race that didn't cohere into a major story. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that, if there is genuinely any ambiguity, the page could be moved again to 2020 Central Park racial incident. However, in regards to the other articles:

• Seneca Village was less of a single incident and more of a long-simmering pattern of discrimination.
• The Central Park Five were involved in a single incident, but it was based primarily on a rape, not a racially tinged confrontation.
• The be-ins were about racism, like you said.
• While it's disappointing that there were numerous racial incidents in the park over the last few years, I don't think they merit their own article, at least not yet. Perhaps this could be covered in another article about racism in NYC, though.

– Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they don't need their own article. My point (beyond the connection to birdwatching being a defining feature -- and I don't think I'm biased by being an occasional Central Park birdwatcher :) ) is that everyone who has heard of this incident will know what you're talking about if you say "Central Park birdwatching incident", but I don't think "Central Park racial incident" will be nearly as

recognizable. Maybe adding 2020 would help that, but so would just moving it back to focus on the thing which so frequently framed it (or e.g. "Central Park birdwatching racial incident" or something). That more sources framed it using more general terms is true, of course, just as it's true that even more sources called it just an "incident" (with various modifiers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You have a good point. I still think the incident was mostly racial in nature, but the name "Central Park birdwatching racial incident" may be descriptive enough if the "Central Park racial incident" title is vague. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closer here. Given this post-move discussion, what is the least disruptive, most policy compliant way to proceed? I am open to overturning my close to "not move as proposed", specifying that the close does not preclude RMs for other proposed article titles, and moving back to the original "Central Park birdwatching incident". This would allow a more focused RM on "Central Park racial incident" to be opened. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it also. The absurdity is seen in the first sentence, which starts, "The Central Park birdwatching incident was a confrontation on May 25, 2020". Yes, the birdwatching incident. You could change it the racial incident, but there are lots of racial incidents in Central Park. No one would call this the racial incident. It was more of a conflict between birdwatchers and dogwalkers, than whites and blacks. Roger (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the first sentence probably shouldn't be phrased like that per

birdwatching, in a section of New York City's Central Park known as the Ramble. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

more of a conflict between birdwatchers and dogwalkers, than whites and black - While I agree with the rest, the initial conflict may have started as a typical conflict between birders and off-leash dogwalkers, but escalated to a racial place. I don't think any of the coverage didn't mention race. But we do need something better to contextualize it, and that initial conflict (with a focus on the birdwatcher because it fits into a trend of black men put in threatening/deadly situations while doing something relatively mundane) provided the secondary framing that makes the incident easy to identify. As for what to do at this point, Rotideypoc41352, maybe the simplest way would be to let the RM run another week or so? You're also within your closer's prerogative to say "anyone is welcome to start a new move discussion whenever they want" and leave it as is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the moves, and reopened and relisted the discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the very least "birdwatching" should be changed to "birdwatcher". The incident did not occur while birdwatching, after all - the man obviously stopped watching birds (assuming that's what he was doing earlier as he stated - are there videos from minutes earlier?) to approach this woman and speak to her. So while he is a birdwatcher and the incident involves a person who has birdwatched, birdwatching did not occur during the incident itself.

Central Park birder incident would be even more concise and I believe I recall the man referring to his hobby as "birding" rather than "birdwatching" so it would be respecting his semantics. HearthHOTS (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

assuming that's what he was doing earlier [!?]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about 2020 Central Park Ramble incident? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move, there are good arguments above in favor of a move (although there isn't a single agreed-upon alternative title), but the current title best meets the
  basic criteria for article titles. The number of times that "birdwatcher" or "birdwatching" occurs in the References section goes to show that the most recognizable and natural title should include either "birdwatcher" or "birdwatching". User:Rhododendrites laid out how referring to it as simply a "racial" incident would be imprecise. Concision isn't an issue here, and the current title is consistent with naming conventions on events. The best option is to keep the current title. Surachit (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2022 (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.