Talk:Blank paper protest
(Redirected from Talk:Blank piece of paper)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by SilverLocust in topic Requested move 27 August 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blank paper protest 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 27 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Blank paper protest. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
Rewrite the lede?
editIt doesn't make much sense to put in events dating back to 1965 and 1970 (according to the United States section) in an article whose lede only mentions the use of blank pieces of paper as a form of protest in the 2020s. The lede should probably be rewritten; otherwise the US content will look out of place. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so should have a historical perspective. As the concept has appeared in various places over time, we can expect further expansion and the lead just needs to follow this. See also WP:RECENTISM. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 27 August 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Blank piece of paper → Blank paper protest – The current title doesn't mention protesting, and could easily be confused with just paper. I guess not all of the examples in the page are explicitly protest, some are more performance art, but even those pieces are clearly parodying protests. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The entire point of the symbol is that it is ambiguous and uncertain -- any meaning is in the eye of the beholder. So, we should be consistent and not attribute any definite meaning to such usage. As the OP says, perhaps it is performance art or a joke or a puzzle. If we ascribe a definite meaning then we might give repressive authorities further leverage in censoring this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Albeit procedurally because I think this article is clearly WP:SYNTH, a classic case of it in fact. The fact that there's no clear title for such a concept should demonstrate as much. It should simply be deleted rather than moved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a classic case of What SYNTH is not. There's no synthetic proposition here that I can see; just a lot of parallels. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The article opens with
have been used as a form of protest
, and the current title is ambiguous. The proposed title would provide more clarity for the reader. Svampesky (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC) - Support, the current title is clearly ambiguous. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The title now is too literal, and ambiguity and uncertainty is a great concept for the protest but not for the title of an encyclopedia article. Shotgunheist 💬 04:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Clearly ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support per all. Imagine someone writing "Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation on a blank piece of paper"
Red Slash 19:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.