Talk:Disco Demolition Night: Difference between revisions
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
== cites regarding homophobia of DDN == |
== cites regarding homophobia of DDN == |
||
Are there any sources before 2007 suggesting a homophobic aspect to DDN? Is it not worth mentioning such a recent provenance for this interpretation, when no material new facts about DDN |
Are there any sources before 2007 suggesting a homophobic aspect to DDN? Is it not worth mentioning such a recent provenance for this interpretation, when no material new facts about DDN have come to light in ~35 years? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.69|68.65.169.69]] ([[User talk:68.65.169.69|talk]]) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:I think it has to be mentioned, and as you can see from discussions on this page, what I put originally was shorter than what we have now. But I respect the outcome of discussions.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC) |
:I think it has to be mentioned, and as you can see from discussions on this page, what I put originally was shorter than what we have now. But I respect the outcome of discussions.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:24, 1 April 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disco Demolition Night 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Disco Demolition Night is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2014. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 12, 2012. |
Unplayable grounds
The article says "The remaining games in the series were played, but for the rest of the season fielders and managers complained about the poor condition of the field." As I recall, the notation "Postponed, unplayable grounds" appeared in the baseball results for three days. About a month later, the Angels were playing there, and Don Drysdale said the field was not good enough for class A. Randall Bart Talk 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not correct, the remainder of the series was played as scheduled, see for example here (July 13). Apparently they also had some rock concerts on the field in August, which contributed to a very bad field condition according to the bio of Veeck which is a source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead?
There is a clear consensus against including these claims in the lead. Armbrust The Homonculus 07:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead? Please see the current discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Homophobia additions
The latest additions are cited, however I believe the inclusion of ever more opinions that DDN was homophobic is now violating WP:UNDUE. The article succeeded at FA, and I would not like to see the featured status revoked because the article has ceased to conform to NPOV. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but I have to admit I was a bit shocked when I came across this article when doing some research and saw that the primary sources were given such weight when everything I was reading in academic journals was saying something else. I will not add any more references, but I do think the article is more balanced now than it was. --Michelledavison (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I saw no need for the recent additions (post-FA) and am happy to see them removed. The point is to let the reader know of the various points of view on DDN. We don't have to beat the point into the ground. I propose they be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I second the motion. They appear undue to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- In light of the above discussion with trying to cast the homophobia claim as "fringe," I would argue that these are well-sourced edits that deserved to stay. Particularly since people were complaining about the quality of the original citation. The fact is that most academics see the anti-disco movement, including this event, as homophobic and racist. Having primary sources make up the vast majority of the opposing view is really misleading, and isn't it Wikipedia's policy to favor secondary, peer-reviewed sources over primary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship --Michelledavison (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody said the homophobia claim is fringe, we're saying the balance of the content in that section is now heavily weighted towards the homophobia angle. The article already covered that viewpoint with scholarly sources and your addition of one more didn't really hurt anything, but adding even more and more after that makes the article appear biased/weighted towards one analysis. It's not really a matter of sources, but a matter of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of academics saying they think the Anti-Disco movement was racist and homophobic, it doesn't mean this article should become a WP:COATRACK for that viewpoint and that the opinion of every academic should be added, particularly when the article already covers the homophobia/racism viewpoint. All articles are supposed to conform to NPOV. (EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then.) - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, the point is to make the reader aware of the homophobia theory. That many people in certain disciplines busily agree with each other does not mean that we must quote every one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- "EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then." I didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing that out. And again, I will not add any more references.--Michelledavison (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- THanks for that, still, I think a couple of the ones you added should be deleted. The Echols one, for example, seems to add nothing, it just agrees with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- As a compromise, how about deleting Echols (which I agree adds really nothing new or spectacular to the article) and keeping the Lawrence quote (which at least references DDN directly)? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody said the homophobia claim is fringe, we're saying the balance of the content in that section is now heavily weighted towards the homophobia angle. The article already covered that viewpoint with scholarly sources and your addition of one more didn't really hurt anything, but adding even more and more after that makes the article appear biased/weighted towards one analysis. It's not really a matter of sources, but a matter of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of academics saying they think the Anti-Disco movement was racist and homophobic, it doesn't mean this article should become a WP:COATRACK for that viewpoint and that the opinion of every academic should be added, particularly when the article already covers the homophobia/racism viewpoint. All articles are supposed to conform to NPOV. (EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then.) - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- In light of the above discussion with trying to cast the homophobia claim as "fringe," I would argue that these are well-sourced edits that deserved to stay. Particularly since people were complaining about the quality of the original citation. The fact is that most academics see the anti-disco movement, including this event, as homophobic and racist. Having primary sources make up the vast majority of the opposing view is really misleading, and isn't it Wikipedia's policy to favor secondary, peer-reviewed sources over primary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship --Michelledavison (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I second the motion. They appear undue to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
cites regarding homophobia of DDN
Are there any sources before 2007 suggesting a homophobic aspect to DDN? Is it not worth mentioning such a recent provenance for this interpretation, when no material new facts about DDN have come to light in ~35 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.69 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think it has to be mentioned, and as you can see from discussions on this page, what I put originally was shorter than what we have now. But I respect the outcome of discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Joke?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why was this article chosen for April Fool's Day? As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly unusual about the subject or the Main Page lead — nothing like last year's ? (film) or my favorite, George Washington (inventor). Unless I'm missing something, this article could have been run equally well any other day, with precisely the same Main Page lead. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was a discussion at TFA/R, but I suspect you might want to discuss it with Bencherlite.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is the link to the TFAR discussion and my decision based on the discussion. If you would like to help select next year's April Fool TFA - or indeed any TFAs between now and then - please come along to WP:TFAR and join in - all welcome! BencherliteTalk 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I was vaguely wondering if it was supposed to be "unusual" or not as well, but there's only a limited store of Featured Articles out there so it's a tricky task to keep coming up with unusual ones. Certainly it's no fault of the TFAR team who do a fantastic job working to keep the feature in place day in day out. I guess the best way for to get a good one up there for next year is to start work now on something weird and whacky with a view to having it featured before next April! — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Year (1969) is wrong - happened in 1979
The first sentence has the wrong year : 1969. This happened in 1979. Not sure if the month and day are correct. Also - the little gray summary box on the right has the wrong year.
Later references to the year in this article are correct 1979.
I mean - come on, disco wasn't even around in 1969. At least not enough to be hated so much that an event like this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.72.232 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I have no idea who did that, but I'll look. It's been fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, it was changed again, but I reverted to what I think was the last clean version. Please correct if I made a mistake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't even noticed the other vandalism. Thanks Gerda. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you too. I try to watch the article but I'm fairly busy today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't even noticed the other vandalism. Thanks Gerda. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Coho lips?
Cohos have no lips; they're salmon! - Neonorange (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Baseball articles
- Low-importance Baseball articles
- WikiProject Baseball articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Mid-importance Chicago articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Chicago
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Cook County, Illinois
- FA-Class Radio articles
- Low-importance Radio articles
- WikiProject Radio articles
- Selected anniversaries (July 2012)