User talk:SNUGGUMS/Archive 1

JFK's religion and its relevance

Hello, I noticed your edits where you removed the information about JFK's being the first Catholic President from his article's lead. Your reasoning was that it is a "minor detail". I am shocked by this decision, and I am even more shocked by your reasoning, which I find it a bit callous.

This might be a problem of presentism - Kennedy's faith is incredibly important in the context of his election as well as the American history. Anti-Catholic prejudice was extremely widespread in the United States, and it was an important issue for both 1928 and 1960 presidential elections, as in both cases the Democratic candidate was a Catholic and had to battle claims of Catholicism being "corrupt, superstitious, undemocratic, or un-American". Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. stated that this prejudice was even stronger than anti-Semitism for example, calling it "the deepest bias in the history of the American people". Robert Kennedy also called it the "anti-Semitism of the intellectuals".

And indeed, this anti-Catholic prejudice was so extreme that Catholics faced discrimination on par with African-Americans, and Ku Klux Klan did persecute both groups in the same vein. To this end, Catholic immigrants were often not considered white (since, after all, they did not fit the WASP category), and African-American were even sometimes called "smoked Irish". That Al Smith lost the 1928 presidential election, and lost it in such a landslide, is in fact attributed mainly to his religion and the resulting anti-Catholic prejudice: "It was Smith’s religion that generated the most controversy, and the “Catholic issue” is now considered determinative among historians for explaining his crushing defeat. For both Republicans and Democrats looking for organizational networks to oppose Smith, the Klan appeared as a godsend."

That Kennedy was able to narrowly win the 1960 election is very significant in that it signifies the ability of a Catholic to get elected despite the prejudice. It was a complete reversal of 1928. And yet, Kennedy's religion was an important national issue in this election. As anti-Catholic prejudice was still very present, many voters changed their vote against Kennedy once they found out about his religion. To quote one of my sources here: "When Kennedy asked why he was declining in the polls, his staff told him frankly, “But no one in West Virginia knew you were a Catholic in December. Now they know.”"

So once Kennedy's victory became clear, it was also a victory for religious tolerance in this regard. Incredibly relevant, I would say: "John Kennedy’s election restored faith in religious freedom and the First Amendment. American Catholics especially felt their acceptance as equal citizens with the election of a coreligionist to the White House. Patricia O’Brien recounted the sentiments felt around her native Boston after the election. Spirits reawakened and people believed something great had happened. Her own family celebrated Kennedy’s election as a symbol of Catholics’ attaining a level of full citizenship."

As such, I really find it unreasonable to call this information irrelevant. Kennedy's religion was incredibly important, was an important issue during the 1960 election, and his victory as a Catholic had tremendous implications for the American culture and society as a whole. Thank you. Brat Forelli (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

At no point do I deny his Catholicism or how Catholics have endured prejudice, I just don't believe it was among the guy's most prominent aspects. Furthermore, I know of Catholic whites who emigrated to the US and their race was never counted as something else based on not being WASP. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and thank you for explaining your reasoning. Are you talking of Catholic whites of the 21st century? In this case, I don't doubt that excluding someone from the "white" label on the basis of their religion is absurd today.

But this was the case for groups such as Italians and the Irish in the 19th century, and for the first half of the 20th century. In case of Italians, they were indeed considered a separate race compared with the "African" one: "Italians, involved in a spectacular international Diaspora in the early twentieth century, were racialized as the ‘Chinese of Europe’ in many lands. But in the U. S. their racialization was pronounced, as ‘guinea’s’ evolution suggests, more likely to connect Italians with Africans."

Same applied to the Irish immigrants in the USA, as the "Irish were frequently referred to as "niggers turned inside out"; the Negroes, for their part, were sometimes called "smoked Irish," an appellation they must have found no more flattering than it was intended to be."

So it was a long way from such attitudes to 1960, when the first Catholic president was elected despite entrenched anti-Catholic prejudice. The election of Kennedy, especially in contrast to the landslide defeat of Smith from 1928, signifies an ultimate decay and rejection of such attitudes. Brat Forelli (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

More than just 21st century: I also meant Catholics from Europe who moved to America long before 1960, including those with Irish/Italian ancestry. Can't say for sure whether those particular individuals just got lucky to avoid such discrimination, but regardless, the pre-1960 sentiments you've brought up are quite disturbing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

POV wording

Just letting you know I reverted an edit you made at Love Story (Taylor Swift song), (Tragic" [along with "tragedy"] is an inherently subjective description that implies something is sad, and we shouldn't treat opinions as facts). Tragedy is an established literary genre and describing Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy is not POV. Ippantekina (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have done so as that ignores how it contains a connotation of something being sad, Ippantekina, and whether we Wikipedians find things to be sad doesn't belong within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is an established literary genre it is not personal opinion. Indeed Shakespeare has his own genre of tragedy, and I see no problem with describing Romeo and Juliet as such, as it highlights how specifically Swift's lyrics deviate from Shakespearean prose. Ippantekina (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, inserting our stances on whether something ends on a fortunate or unfortunate note makes it slanted, regardless of what she or Shakespeare intended. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Italic Removals

Hey, I've seen you remove italics from image captions on several FAs now. Given the amount of editors writing and reviewing these, that's a lot of people who seem to disagree the usage is incorrect. Have you considered starting a discussion at some forum, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting? Image captions are not mentioned at MOS:NOITAL so it does not seem to be obvious. Also, I've left replies at the FAC page.--NØ 23:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the double comment, but upon further research MOS:CAPFRAG seems to have left it up to individual editors, only emphasizing that a consistent approach be used throughout the article. It would be a good idea not to refer to this as "incorrect use" in edit summaries since this seems to be a matter of personal preference. Regards.--NØ 23:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That page is one I admittedly hadn't seen before, MaranoFan, but something about using italics for parentheticals comes across as dubious. Those more often are used for names of works. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Alicia

So apparently, this is fairly common phrasing or use of the word. Perhaps if you can come up with a replacement for that point of critical reception we can discuss doing so. But to remove it with nothing to fill the hole doesn't seem constructive, especially given it's stood this way since the article's promotion. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the first type that link mentions appears to be the closest match, Teflon Peter Christ, I'd say we could use something less vague like "melody" or "music's sound". Maybe even "orchestration" or "composition" would be better options. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Beyonce

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I added back the quotes that were removed. It shows how she feels about her church and also how she sang her first solo there from a young age. The citation is used twice on her Wiki page. The second time is about singing her first solo there so the quote is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowroads (talk • contribs) 05:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

My qualm with that is how it edited out a big chunk of article text in between sentences, Mellowroads. Assuming the quote field gets used, I wanted to have it more accurately represent the first one without giving an impression that they followed in closer succession. I didn't initially notice the ref got re-used later on and apologize for not factoring this in before. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits)

@SNUGGUMS: The quote is already so long so I removed the irrelevant part about the pastor. If you feel this is necessary to include, then it's fine. Mellowroads (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I saw your recent adjustments. The apostrophes you added aren't needed since an ellipsis (...) is used to show that they aren't consecutive sentences. This website shows how to use them. I also suggest removing the pastor part since it's irrelevant to the article. Mellowroads (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"GA Cup" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect GA Cup has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § GA Cup until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote Refactoring

Hello once again. I was having a look at WP:QUOTE recently and it states: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text to avoid interrupting the pace, flow and organization of the article". It says this is completely okay and encourages indicating this clearly using square brackets. I think some of my quotations you have changed might not flow as well. For example, "Adele's friends were unimpressed by an initial snippet of it but 'they loved [her] patience in it'" forms a more coherent sentence for someone reading through the article compared to "Adele's friends were unimpressed by an initial snippet of it but 'they loved my patience in it'". The latter phrasing might raise the question of who "me" is. Let me know what you think!--NØ 10:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that the "my" or "me" in that case would refer to Adele herself, MaranoFan, especially when right before the quote there's a "she" within the "she claimed that" bit. Altering this into a bracketed word unhelpfully lessens the faithfulness of source representation. It can look like one is trying to hide something (take for example the 2001 censoring of Kevin Spacey's name when Anthony Rapp spoke of him making inappropriate advances) and either way feels best to refrain from such refactoring as much as possible. Such brackets tend to make me grow suspicious when I see them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label

Hi SNUGGUMS. Therehere is a discussion on the talk page about label in the infobox of The Storm Before the Calm. Any contributions would be helpful. 183.171.121.219 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing to say on this matter, IP, and thus decline to join the thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Audience reception

Hi Snuggums. I saw an edit summary of yours wondering why an "Audience reception" was added to Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour. I feel obliged to answer you as it was me who split the prose about the audience away from the critical reception section. Wikipedia's guidelines for the standard structure of a film article suggests an "Audience reception" section if necessary. I am aware not a lot of film articles have this section, but that's because they're just films, not pop culture events per se. Films that are preceded by intense fan buzz often generate commentary from critics reporting on audience behaviour at the theaters. Plus, this section can also contain the audience ratings as per the guidelines. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 04:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Ronherry, and it did at first stick out as an unusual sight for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)