This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a good article, but I noticed that it didn't include any Charleston sources. While pulling some of those up, I saw the editorial from one of Charleston's big papers the next day. The editorial is, by any modern view, an insanely self-congratulatory excuse for the incidents. I think it is important to include to show what the City's position was. On the one hand, I don't want the quote to read like a current excuse for the incident, but I also don't want to intro it with any editorializing about its position. Any thoughts on how to handle it?-- ProfReader ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a good article, but I noticed that it didn't include any Charleston sources. While pulling some of those up, I saw the editorial from one of Charleston's big papers the next day. The editorial is, by any modern view, an insanely self-congratulatory excuse for the incidents. I think it is important to include to show what the City's position was. On the one hand, I don't want the quote to read like a current excuse for the incident, but I also don't want to intro it with any editorializing about its position. Any thoughts on how to handle it?-- ProfReader ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)