Wikipedia talk:Coatrack articles

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

All about George

In the All about George section, the essay states "perhaps George Washington did own slaves at the time, nonetheless, it presents it in a negative, non-neutral point-of-view". This suggests that slavery shouldn't be presented in a negative way, which I don't think is supported by WP:NPOV. Perhaps we can reword the section? Pburka (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about “perhaps George Washington did own slaves at the time: nonetheless, the presentation encourages the reader to miss the fact that (though now universally abhorred) it was the norm at the time”? SquisherDa (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SquisherDa:, @Pburka: Discussions on whether a crime against humanity (slavery) can be excused by its historical context have a tendency to become very long and emotional. So the expression that slavery "was the norm at the time" causes just another POV-problem. It also distracts the reader from the subject of the article, causing him to think about all the implications of slavery. So I'd suggest something like "George Washington did own slaves, but that fact is presented in a way intended to evoke a strong emotional reaction in the reader". Rsk6400 (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to it, or move it to?

At the very end of the The Flea example as on 03 Jan 2019 it says

it may be appropriate move to it a more relevant article

Shouldn't “to” and “it” be swapped? --CiaPan (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (but "to move it to"), please edit the essay. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Special:Diff/876702696. Thank you, Johnuniq. :) --CiaPan (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on content concerning illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Natemup: 1. I can't see what this Wikipedia talk has to do with the linked controversy article. 2. The link seems broken. Did you mean the article itself (Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy) or its talk page (Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy) or may be some specific section of one of those? --CiaPan (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing

I think this section needs to be clarified. Sometimes a person may be notable for propagating an outrageous conspiracy, and then the conspiracy theory will be described in the article. For example, Léon de Poncins and Renaud Camus. I think the point is that it has to be relevant to their article, but there is no text describing this.2601:640:4000:3170:85DF:1B78:7BA6:1B2C (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clarify, but even then I am not sure how to clarify further. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]