Talk:The Loyal Opposition
In "Some Excerpts from Boondoggle" there's the phrase "age 1J". Is this a typo from the original zine or a typo from copying it to fanlore? -- Error cascade (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I looked at the scan itself, link on this page. "age 1J" was a typo. I corrected it: "13." --MPH (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The Original "Breendoggle"
I believe that the text is here. It is part of this main page. --MPH (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Content Warning
I propose that "Content Warning: This article contains extensive discussion of childhood sexual abuse." be rephrased as "Content Warning: This article contains extensive discussion regarding the sexual abuse of minors." --MPH (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- No objections here. -- Error cascade (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In Which Walter Has a Right to His Eccentricities...
It's not made altogether clear on the page at the moment that this section is actually an excerpt from The Great Breen Boondoggle and not The Loyal Opposition. I only realised that when I was browsing the Breendoggle wikia. I realise that it was quoted in TLO, but the "has a right to his eccentricities" wording is a quote from the little girl's father's response that was printed in the zine, and it's not clear where that comes from unless you read the reference, which I initially didn't, since I assumed it was just a citation and not a note. On my initial reading of the page I thought this was a balancing account that had been included in The Loyal Opposition, instead of something that was included for the purposes of refuting it, which gave me an incorrect impression of the zine as having been more balanced than it actually was.
I think the response should be the focus of that section, with a note for context - also, I couldn't help noticing that in the Breendoggle wikia, the names of children referenced in the zine are redacted. I think it is right for us to do the same; even though they aren't censored in the original, by including them in the text of the page of a Google-crawlable wiki we're giving more visibility to their identities than is done by the original zine scans, which require clicking through to and don't show up as Google results.
--enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, that should be made very clear with a note at the top of that section (I'm unsure of how to word that, tho). Either that or removed. Which should we do?
- On redacting? Yes, certainly. I'll redact for that reason. --MPH (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing those redactions, MPH! <3 I was thinking of something more like this - I've cut down the amount quoted from the excerpt from Boondoggle (but left some in for context) and then moved the father's response up from a footnote to a quotation. I also added a couple of lines of explanation at the beginning. What do you think? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all your edits. Its a huge improvement to the page. I'm wondering, would it be possible to redact the child's name from the edit history of this page? --Auntags (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- The reason I didn't propose taking that step is because the child's name is visible anyway in the zine scan that is linked to on the page, which takes arguably less clicking and wiki know-how to get to. I was mainly concerned with not having it on the page, where it is most visible and also will be surfaced in search engine results. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Added Link
I added a link to the introduction. Issue 12; archive link to a pdf (February 8, 1964)
If it should be in another place on this page, feel free to move it. But I'd like it to be in some sort of prominent spot somewhere on the page. Note: read at your own risk; I find it enraging... --MPH (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)