This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The silent reversal of Herrold's edit taking this complex phraseology seems improper. I performed uncontroversial edits, to improve the page into a more neutral editorial 'voice'. This consisted of a break of the the complex compound sentence, into two sentences (increasing readability). I also reworded into a 'non-inflammatory' (or at less biased) form. The edits seem straightforward and to improve the net quality of the article. I summarized the edit in the initial post. Given that that 'did not stick', I expand an explanation of the rationale of the edit in this Talk page addition per Resolving content disputes
As reverted (links are all in the second excerpt):
As Herrold modified:
'Nativist' is clearly intended as pejorative in this page's prior usage, in a form as noted in the Nativism page cited
I note the absence of citation to a formal study of 'deadly' NYC' civic disturbances --- probably an unprovable assertion, but leave that defect for later
... and so, removing the potentially offensive and conclusionary characterization as 'Nativist' into a more neutral form of: pro vs anti
Note that pro and anti are recognized as also 'framing' in nature, as in:
... but I leave word-smithing this for another day. I request here that the reversion be voluntarily reverted by: User:Beyond My Ken
herrold@owlriver.com ( talk) 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Why multiple indents (second and third level) for no reason beyond paragraph breaks? -- This breaks threading. I have seen this before in wikis generally, and that was in part why I converted from the first person to the posting userid, of which you complain. Double CR's is a proper way to make a new para -- adding more ":" prefixing is not appropriate when you are self-responding with no intervening posts, as it breaks authorship threading change indications
As to the substance of your remarks -- and as noted in the top of the talk, I added new out-links to the relevant Wikipedia articles. They were NOT unsourced, but rather defined with some care. There is NO footnote indication that the proposed restatement is some prior work's literal words -- just the opposite (there is none)
As to your reading of the names policy, perhaps you skimmed looking for some 'ammunition' and excuse to criticize', and missed or glossed over those sections as to:
To the replies:
If you find something 'creepy' or 'pedantic', I am sorry, The first I cannot help you with -- there is no explaining taste; as to the second, to suggest that invoking 'insider knowledge' Wikipedia rules, by you yourself partially known applied pedantically, is to of course avoid facing addressing the substantive issue raised, and is of course itself the exercise of a pedant
The use of 'name calling': "post-modern deconstructionist POV" is simply out of line and unworthy in polite rhetoric and discourse. I ask that you withdraw it. Also, I again call upon you to revert your removal of my content
herrold@owlriver.com ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, Factsoverfeelings ( talk) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Xover seems to make a good point. The handbill's quote is spread on five lines with three different fonts and it reads "RULE!" with an exclamation point directly following the verb. Both formattings in the article (Factsoverfeeling's and Beyond My Ken's) are alterations of the original. Provided we keep the handbill's picture in the paragraph, a regularly capitalized sentence (meaning non-all-caps) works better. 87.1.122.76 ( talk) 12:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Unless, of course, the quote is inserted in a <blockquote></blockquote> set and each line has its appropriate font tags. Which is, in my opinion, uselessly complicated, given the triviality of the question. 87.1.122.76 ( talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
In the intro, the article says "The riot marked the first time a state militia had been called out and had shot into a crowd of citizens, and it led to the creation of the first police force armed with deadly weapons" (referencing The Shakespeare Riots by Nigel Cliff).
Cliff's book mentions prior civilian deaths at the hands of militias, including Providence in 1831 and Philadelphia in 1844 (see also: Philadelphia nativist riots). The actual text says, "Never in the nation's history had soldiers fired volley after volley at point-blank range into a civilian crowd" (Cliff, p. 241, emphasis mine). I do not think this justifies the claim made in the intro.
Also, after reading about a militia firing guns into a crowd, the reader may assume that arming a police force with deadly weapons implies firearms. That was not the case: "...the authorization of the first lethal police weapon, a heavy twenty-two-inch club to be used in self-defense" (Cliff, p. 245). Previously the book mentions that "the police ... were equipped only with short clubs" (Cliff, p. 214). It seems that the introduction of lethal weapons means a larger club. I believe the text as written is misleading.
Suggested edit: "The riot resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties due to military action in the United States since the American Revolutionary War, and led to increased police militarization (riot control training and larger, heavier batons)." Those statements are directly supported by the source text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherdt ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The silent reversal of Herrold's edit taking this complex phraseology seems improper. I performed uncontroversial edits, to improve the page into a more neutral editorial 'voice'. This consisted of a break of the the complex compound sentence, into two sentences (increasing readability). I also reworded into a 'non-inflammatory' (or at less biased) form. The edits seem straightforward and to improve the net quality of the article. I summarized the edit in the initial post. Given that that 'did not stick', I expand an explanation of the rationale of the edit in this Talk page addition per Resolving content disputes
As reverted (links are all in the second excerpt):
As Herrold modified:
'Nativist' is clearly intended as pejorative in this page's prior usage, in a form as noted in the Nativism page cited
I note the absence of citation to a formal study of 'deadly' NYC' civic disturbances --- probably an unprovable assertion, but leave that defect for later
... and so, removing the potentially offensive and conclusionary characterization as 'Nativist' into a more neutral form of: pro vs anti
Note that pro and anti are recognized as also 'framing' in nature, as in:
... but I leave word-smithing this for another day. I request here that the reversion be voluntarily reverted by: User:Beyond My Ken
herrold@owlriver.com ( talk) 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Why multiple indents (second and third level) for no reason beyond paragraph breaks? -- This breaks threading. I have seen this before in wikis generally, and that was in part why I converted from the first person to the posting userid, of which you complain. Double CR's is a proper way to make a new para -- adding more ":" prefixing is not appropriate when you are self-responding with no intervening posts, as it breaks authorship threading change indications
As to the substance of your remarks -- and as noted in the top of the talk, I added new out-links to the relevant Wikipedia articles. They were NOT unsourced, but rather defined with some care. There is NO footnote indication that the proposed restatement is some prior work's literal words -- just the opposite (there is none)
As to your reading of the names policy, perhaps you skimmed looking for some 'ammunition' and excuse to criticize', and missed or glossed over those sections as to:
To the replies:
If you find something 'creepy' or 'pedantic', I am sorry, The first I cannot help you with -- there is no explaining taste; as to the second, to suggest that invoking 'insider knowledge' Wikipedia rules, by you yourself partially known applied pedantically, is to of course avoid facing addressing the substantive issue raised, and is of course itself the exercise of a pedant
The use of 'name calling': "post-modern deconstructionist POV" is simply out of line and unworthy in polite rhetoric and discourse. I ask that you withdraw it. Also, I again call upon you to revert your removal of my content
herrold@owlriver.com ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, Factsoverfeelings ( talk) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Xover seems to make a good point. The handbill's quote is spread on five lines with three different fonts and it reads "RULE!" with an exclamation point directly following the verb. Both formattings in the article (Factsoverfeeling's and Beyond My Ken's) are alterations of the original. Provided we keep the handbill's picture in the paragraph, a regularly capitalized sentence (meaning non-all-caps) works better. 87.1.122.76 ( talk) 12:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Unless, of course, the quote is inserted in a <blockquote></blockquote> set and each line has its appropriate font tags. Which is, in my opinion, uselessly complicated, given the triviality of the question. 87.1.122.76 ( talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
In the intro, the article says "The riot marked the first time a state militia had been called out and had shot into a crowd of citizens, and it led to the creation of the first police force armed with deadly weapons" (referencing The Shakespeare Riots by Nigel Cliff).
Cliff's book mentions prior civilian deaths at the hands of militias, including Providence in 1831 and Philadelphia in 1844 (see also: Philadelphia nativist riots). The actual text says, "Never in the nation's history had soldiers fired volley after volley at point-blank range into a civilian crowd" (Cliff, p. 241, emphasis mine). I do not think this justifies the claim made in the intro.
Also, after reading about a militia firing guns into a crowd, the reader may assume that arming a police force with deadly weapons implies firearms. That was not the case: "...the authorization of the first lethal police weapon, a heavy twenty-two-inch club to be used in self-defense" (Cliff, p. 245). Previously the book mentions that "the police ... were equipped only with short clubs" (Cliff, p. 214). It seems that the introduction of lethal weapons means a larger club. I believe the text as written is misleading.
Suggested edit: "The riot resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties due to military action in the United States since the American Revolutionary War, and led to increased police militarization (riot control training and larger, heavier batons)." Those statements are directly supported by the source text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherdt ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)