The Hill We Climb has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Hill We Climb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The Hill We Climb appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 February 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZqA0z61jY. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Edge3 ( talk) 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
i took the liberty to add the above mentioned words since this is a pivotal part of the sentence (& the poem). 96.44.73.61 ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Joofjoof (
talk)
01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Created by Eddie891 ( talk), Beccaynr ( talk) and Dominic ( talk). Nominated by Eddie891 ( talk) at 16:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC).
I'm not a priority expert but a couple of people have asked me what kind of poem this is.
Can someone add that information 6the article? Rmanke ( talk) 18:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to those who have worked on this article. I hope there are plans for a Good article nomination? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Conan The Librarian and others, I'm not convinced inclusion of the article in
The American Conservative is proper
due coverage. See
WP:CRIT, particularly Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive
. The American Conservative is considered a "biased or opinionated" source per
WP:RSP, and when considering that the person expressing a negative opinion is a "farmer from New Jersey", I think including it here with opinions published in highly reliable sources by well known/respected figures is giving unnecessary weight to an extremely minority opinion. The fact that he is a farmer absolutely does matter because it's one opinion expressed by someone who is, for lack of a better term, a nobody. In my edit summary, I equated it to a
Letter to the editor, because that's essentially what it is. Why should we care what this person thinks over all the other thousands of nobody's who have tweeted or written letters to editors about what they think on the poem? This seems to me to be a case of Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all
(from
WP:DUE). So what I'm asking is basically: should we include an opinion piece published in a biased source of marginal reliability by a farmer (i.e. person with no relevant expertise) as due weight with works published in reliable sources by reputable critics? Thoughts? Of course, if reliable mainstream criticism emerges, we can include it...
Eddie891
Talk
Work
16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I only just saw your note here after making the change - I've given my reasons in the edit. I agree that The American Conservative (TAC) has a bias - as do most of those publications already referenced, though they are generally from the left, so I don't see a problem in that regard. I get the impression TAC takes pride in the "real world" vocations of its writers (possibly with trolling intent) so I don't think we need to read too much into that. The fact is we are going to get rose-tinted acclaim from the left and grumpy dismissals from the right in a situation like this, I'm not sure how we can avoid that - in either case it doesn't mean that the individual criticism is without merit. Conan The Librarian ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I found this discussion in doing some research about The American Conservative. I've asked on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources about rules and guidelines on the reliability of sources which publish hate speech (using TAC as an example). Thanks
John Cummings (
talk)
23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we have the full transcript of the poem on this page? Avishai11 ( talk) 21:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Avi
I noticed in the Reception section that there are only positive reviews (overwhelmingly left-wing too), but not a single criticism of it. This does not seem neutral, but then again, neither does anything political here. However, that is an unrelated problem which really is a problem with the policy itself. True neutrality means it is impossible to tell the viewpoint. (Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is badly biased) My suggestion is to find some criticism of it to include too, so more than one side (the left) is represented. Wilhelm von Hindenburger ( talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 10:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio check: There are quite a few high matches on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, but I reviewed those above 10% and none are a concern. There's a backwards copy on one site, and common phrases and attributed quotes account for the other matches.
Images - one CC2.0 and two public domain. "Rear sight" (rather than "Rear view") seems an odd phrase but that may be an ENGVAR thing. Otherwise captions and image placement are fine.
Stability - No edit wars. (There has been some past vandalism / addition of unsourced content but nothing onging)
Background and writing section
Content section
Reception
Outfit
Publication
See also
References
External links
Infobox and lead
Breadth, depth and neutrality
Note - I made a cople of very minor changes, please discuss/revert any that you aren't happy with.
Thanks for your work on the article, Eddie891. No major issues, but I've made some suggestions above. The geographical location of Gorman's performance of the poem isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. Is this because it being in Washington falls under WP:SKYBLUE? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 13:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the 2023 news story that the poem was challenged in a Florida school: Chicagosoccerdad has a couple of times removed the statement that the the story was broken by the Miami Herald, and has instead inserted a quote from USA Today. I don't understand the objection. Is there some reason to prefer that newspaper? Also, per WP:OQ this quotation can be paraphrased. Is there some reason for insisting on the verbatim USA Today quotation? Jno.skinner ( talk) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The Hill We Climb has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Hill We Climb article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The Hill We Climb appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 February 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZqA0z61jY. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Edge3 ( talk) 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
i took the liberty to add the above mentioned words since this is a pivotal part of the sentence (& the poem). 96.44.73.61 ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Joofjoof (
talk)
01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Created by Eddie891 ( talk), Beccaynr ( talk) and Dominic ( talk). Nominated by Eddie891 ( talk) at 16:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC).
I'm not a priority expert but a couple of people have asked me what kind of poem this is.
Can someone add that information 6the article? Rmanke ( talk) 18:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to those who have worked on this article. I hope there are plans for a Good article nomination? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Conan The Librarian and others, I'm not convinced inclusion of the article in
The American Conservative is proper
due coverage. See
WP:CRIT, particularly Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive
. The American Conservative is considered a "biased or opinionated" source per
WP:RSP, and when considering that the person expressing a negative opinion is a "farmer from New Jersey", I think including it here with opinions published in highly reliable sources by well known/respected figures is giving unnecessary weight to an extremely minority opinion. The fact that he is a farmer absolutely does matter because it's one opinion expressed by someone who is, for lack of a better term, a nobody. In my edit summary, I equated it to a
Letter to the editor, because that's essentially what it is. Why should we care what this person thinks over all the other thousands of nobody's who have tweeted or written letters to editors about what they think on the poem? This seems to me to be a case of Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all
(from
WP:DUE). So what I'm asking is basically: should we include an opinion piece published in a biased source of marginal reliability by a farmer (i.e. person with no relevant expertise) as due weight with works published in reliable sources by reputable critics? Thoughts? Of course, if reliable mainstream criticism emerges, we can include it...
Eddie891
Talk
Work
16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I only just saw your note here after making the change - I've given my reasons in the edit. I agree that The American Conservative (TAC) has a bias - as do most of those publications already referenced, though they are generally from the left, so I don't see a problem in that regard. I get the impression TAC takes pride in the "real world" vocations of its writers (possibly with trolling intent) so I don't think we need to read too much into that. The fact is we are going to get rose-tinted acclaim from the left and grumpy dismissals from the right in a situation like this, I'm not sure how we can avoid that - in either case it doesn't mean that the individual criticism is without merit. Conan The Librarian ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I found this discussion in doing some research about The American Conservative. I've asked on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources about rules and guidelines on the reliability of sources which publish hate speech (using TAC as an example). Thanks
John Cummings (
talk)
23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we have the full transcript of the poem on this page? Avishai11 ( talk) 21:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Avi
I noticed in the Reception section that there are only positive reviews (overwhelmingly left-wing too), but not a single criticism of it. This does not seem neutral, but then again, neither does anything political here. However, that is an unrelated problem which really is a problem with the policy itself. True neutrality means it is impossible to tell the viewpoint. (Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is badly biased) My suggestion is to find some criticism of it to include too, so more than one side (the left) is represented. Wilhelm von Hindenburger ( talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 10:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio check: There are quite a few high matches on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, but I reviewed those above 10% and none are a concern. There's a backwards copy on one site, and common phrases and attributed quotes account for the other matches.
Images - one CC2.0 and two public domain. "Rear sight" (rather than "Rear view") seems an odd phrase but that may be an ENGVAR thing. Otherwise captions and image placement are fine.
Stability - No edit wars. (There has been some past vandalism / addition of unsourced content but nothing onging)
Background and writing section
Content section
Reception
Outfit
Publication
See also
References
External links
Infobox and lead
Breadth, depth and neutrality
Note - I made a cople of very minor changes, please discuss/revert any that you aren't happy with.
Thanks for your work on the article, Eddie891. No major issues, but I've made some suggestions above. The geographical location of Gorman's performance of the poem isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. Is this because it being in Washington falls under WP:SKYBLUE? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 13:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the 2023 news story that the poem was challenged in a Florida school: Chicagosoccerdad has a couple of times removed the statement that the the story was broken by the Miami Herald, and has instead inserted a quote from USA Today. I don't understand the objection. Is there some reason to prefer that newspaper? Also, per WP:OQ this quotation can be paraphrased. Is there some reason for insisting on the verbatim USA Today quotation? Jno.skinner ( talk) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)