Talk:Salus-Grady libel law

Content removal

Regarding my recent removal of content, I will explain. I think it is irrelevant what Pennypacker, or anyone else, did afterwards or tangentially to the focal subject (the law). I don't think Child Labor or sterilization legislation is relevant to a libel law article, the purpose of which should be to explain the background and context of the law and notable events. People centrally involved should certainly be mentioned, and their roles described proportionately, but neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to positive and negative aspects. I admit I know barely anything of this particular issue, but if this widely regarded as an embarrassment (or however history has judged it), then so be it. Pennypicker's own article is the best place to discuss his legacy and notable hits and misses in context, not this one. Perhaps the tone of the existing content can be reworded if it paints an inaccurate perception. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the article creator I disagree. To revise and extend my prior remarks on Animalparty's talk page (you've already seen this, but I'm adding this here for the benefit of anyone watching the discussion), I believe the paragraph was necessary for balance. Animalparty argues that mentioning events of Pennypacker's administration after the libel law is irrelevant to the focal subject. First, I disagree with characterizing the focal subject of this article as being only the law. More than half the current article is about how Pennypacker pushed this measure through the government. Readers of this article are likely to conclude from this one event that Pennypacker was an authoritarian, and I would like just a few sentences to show the opposing viewpoint. To say that the focal subject is just the law misses Pennypacker's impact upon it.

Furthermore, we should consider what best serves our readers. The division of this article into the "focal subject", the law, as opposed to the people involved is completely artificial because the law and the people involved are so entangled. History is about putting events in context, and we best serve our readers by giving them that context instead of restricting what they see on the basis of maintaining a tight focus on the article. I don't want the reader to conclude from the article that Pennypacker was an authoritarian from this one event. They might conclude otherwise if there was more context. Since much of the article casts a judgement Pennypacker's temperament, I don't think a brief paragraph showing his better side is irrelevant. A brief paragraph is hardly equal weight, but would instead suggest that historical evaluations of Pennypacker are hardly one-sided, and would encourage readers to read his full biography on Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The content I removed was uncited, and reads like editorializing or cherry-picking to create a false balance or synthesis: "thus, the historical record shows instances where Pennypacker did act to protect individual rights, in contrast to his dim view of freedom of press." How many instances? What does the historical record really show? All politicians have hits and misses. I think only if reliable sources directly place this event in the context of Pennypacker's career should it be discussed here, e.g. if sources make a clear statement like "while the Salus-Grady incident was an (embarrassment/low point/whatever) in his career, history generally regards him as X", the content would be more relevant and appear less cherry-picked, and more faithfully tracking to sources, while keeping the perspective centered on this law's legacy to Pennypacker (and others), rather than Pennypacker himself (who, long-deceased, needs no defense). If reliable, independent sources don't put this event into context (and I'm sure some do), neither should Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)