Talk:Silver Legion of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry Turtledove[edit]

I've given my reasons in edit summaries for removing the Harry Turtledove example. Those reverting the change have not. I'm waiting. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simply that it is relevant and appropriate. Standards for what is and isn't appropriate for popcult sections can differ between editors, but, looking at your talk page, you seem to believe that anything which you consider to be inappropriate is ipso fact deletable. That's not the case. When editors disagree, a discussion is mandated to reach a consensus. Right now, two editors have reverted your edits, so the de facto situation is that current consensus is against you.
Revert back to your preferred version again without conses to do so, and you will be reported to the Edit Warring Noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only one arbitrarily pronouncing it to be relevant or not is you. The subject of this article is a historical American organization (refer at the article title). The fictional organization is located in Britain, exclusively. What is the relevance? (and especially, what sources if any attest the relevance?) Reporting me might not be quite the slam-dunk that you expect if administrators see that you've stonewalled. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's relevant because I say so" is not persuasive. Do you have something more? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harry Turtledoce's fiction is primarily in the genre of alternate history, so it is entirely relevant that he referenced "Silver Shirts" -- the informal name for the real Silver Legion -- for the name of a British Fascist group, considering that the Sliver Legion was an American Fascist group. The connections are clear, as is the relevance. It is a disservice to our readers not to present the connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source, that's speculation and original research on your part. Turtledove himself references only the BUF by name. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no OR in realize that Silver Shirts-Silver Shirts and fascist=fascist. The item does not say that it was Turtledove's intent, it simply points out that the thing exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support removing all unreferenced statements from the "In popular culture" section in this and all other articles. This material fails Verifiability, a core content policy. Without references, these entries are not improvements to any article. I disagree with Beyond My Ken on this matter. Unless a reliable source makes an explicit connection between the historic group and the Turtledove novels, then this Wikipedia article should not either. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the case if the entry in question was making that claim, but it is not. It is merely saying that X exists, and the reader can take that for what it's worth. That X exists is not in question, and can be verified by anyone picking up one of the books in question and reading it. It's a "Sky is blue" fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placing the example in a section headed "(Silver Legion) in popular culture" does indeed make that claim. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it does, but let me think about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not accept your argument. And Cullen, of course thy're verifiable. Anyone can picup the books in question and verify that the content is there. That's the essence of verifiability. Yes, a secondary source would be better, but primary sources are not forbidden, simply discouraged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, would you mind restoring some of my other edits that you rolled back along with the example under dispute? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vif12vf now says he has "no interest" in editing this article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is notification to influence a content discussion. Cullen previously gave his opinion in this discussion without being asked. I suggested that he act on what he said then, which is perfectly legitimate. "Consensus" to keep the passage does not exist. It doesn't exist on this talk page, where Vif12vf refused to express a view, or in the editor community more broadly. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlookers should note that User:Vif12vf sent me a "thank you" notice for this edit, restoring the material that the "IP" improperly removed. This, as well as Vif12vf's own edit to the article here, in which they also restored the same material, is a clear indication that the consensus of involved editors is to keep the disputed material in the article. It should also be noted that the "IP" has now attempted to remove this material 6 times in the past 26 days, and is the only editor to remove the material, while 2 different editors have restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And where is this "thank you" notice recorded? Not that it necessarily matters. Your appeals to "consensus" ring hollow when you choose to ignore an openly discussed consensus about the sourcing of pop culture examples. Indeed, I now see that soon (3 months) after that discussion, you were involved in yet another dispute where, like now, you declared the consensus of the discussion to be irrelevant. WP:V is not the only Wikipedia content policy, and you do not get to interpret any policy in a vacuum. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "thank you" is a matter of record, but I don;t know specifically how to make it available to others except by taking a screen shot and posting the image. I have seen other editors post their "thank yous" for various reasons, so I can ask around about how to do it. As for your other comments, I don't "interpret" Wikipedia policy, I read and understand it, just like everyone else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you're clearly spending quite a bit of time gathering opposition research against me -- be careful, that's another indication of your clear battlefield mentality, which can get you blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I am researching you, but rather that you have a reputation. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, a reputation for diligence, being indefatigable, honesty, editing both deeply and gnomishly, standing up for what I believe to be right, not taking any shit from bullies, believing that improving Wikipedia is important, and that Wikipedia must not pretend that it's a 19th century print encyclopedia with limits to what it can present, but should not shy away from engaging in our vibrant popular culture and should represent it fully and without embarrassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Lewis[edit]

Why is there no mention of Leon Lewis, the work of the likes of Steven J Ross (Hitler in Los Angeles) and Laura D Rosenzweig Hollywood’s Spies, and so on? And of the sabotage of a number of ammunition plants, and so on? Earnulf Gery (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silver_Legion_of_America&oldid=1216366816"