Misplaced Pages

This is an archive of past discussions about Ralph Northam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Incredibly long footnote quoting Northam interview

• This discussion is a fork from Northam comments on abortion/non-viable births/Repeal Act + Kathy Tran in this article, plus there is also an RFC on this talk page related to the discussion. Please discuss the issue at the original thread. Thank you. (see WP:DISCUSSFORK). Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sparkie82: This is the second time in as many days that you have violated Talk page protocol. The first was deleting discussion content you did not author and now by inserting comments ahead of all other content. The guidelines are very clear - we are not to move other editor's comments when doing so changes the meaning. By inserting your comment ahead of all others, you are essentially hijacking this discussion - I see this as very disruptive.

Next, please search the entire Talk page and you will find the that the first use of the word "footnote" is in the RfC. Furthermore, my question posed here was not initially about content - it is about proper use of footnotes and referenced the FN in the article as an example This is a completely different question than what you pose in the RfC - you are asking specifically about content - not using FNs in general. So if you have a comment about using FNs in this manner, then please reel free to participate. If not, then please allow the other editors to work toward achieving consensus. Thanks. --- airuditious (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This FN was properly removed and reverted - can someone please describe the relevance of that FN to Northam's article? I fail to see it conforming to anything in WP:CITE. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure quoting interviews and semi-transcription are not proper uses of FNs. airuditious (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Aleding, I was just about to inquire about that myself. MPS, this seems to be an odd use of footnotes and the content appears to be contested (as it refers to Kathy Tran, and there's discussion above about whether or not to include it at all). Why did you reinsert it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The transcription was not done by a wikipedia editor, it was sourced to snopes.com, which I would argue is a reliable and independent secondary source. Snopes's intent in quoting is to evaluate what Northam really said or did not say about "infanticide" versus "execution" versus other ways that Northam's position has been interpreted. The actual words Northam used are extremely relevany IMHO, and would be of interest to a wikipedia reader, as this Northam's actual opinion is a point of contention. Rather than us niggle over what is the best neutral source to interpret Northam, I find it pretty neutral to include Northam's actual words in the article and let people judge for themselves. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

edit to add... the "shorter quote" (which I think is what people are picking up on) is "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. " ... now if you only read that part of the interview, it does sound like the governor is advocating for infanticide. (i.e., talk to the mother about whether to care for an infant that has been delivered)... but we don't want the quote to be taken out of context, how much of the quote do we include? Peace, MPS (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

MPS, Muboshgu: "...how much of the quote do we include?" - that has been the debate. So prior to obtaining consensus, the editor decided to remove the quote from the body of the article and moved it as an "expository" FN which is now the subject of this discussion. I have asked elsewhere - and do so again here: (A) how is this content eligible for inclusion in the Northam article?; (B) how does this long FN conform to WP policy most notably WP:CITE? As an aside, transcripts are available for literally any citable work yet those transcripts are not, for reasons passing understanding, included within the article itself. airuditious (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

having been around wikipedia for a long, long time, I have seen a lot of creative/novel uses of things that later became standard practice (for example, using tables to frame images). I agree that use of footnotes to house long quotes is non-standard, but I do not think it is inappropriate in this case. Is there a WP:FN policy that bans putting long quotes into footnotes? What is the policy for maximum length of blockquotes. I think the quote is incredibly relevant, and it is up to editorial judgement (WP:BRAIN, anyone?) to figure out the best way to provide the reader the information. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no explicit policy about length - but there is policy about what is proper use of WP's tools with FNs being one such tool. And for guidance with FNs and refs, we do have, among other things, WP:CITE. As to the quote being relevant - the content is relevant to a degree which is why those relevant points remain in the article and sourced properly. This isn't a situation of the key elements of that interview being absent - this is a case of some wanting, at any cost, to make sure that quote is in the article somewhere. Again, not seeing the justification to include a quote in addition to prose that does present the relevant elements from the same interview. As to WP:BRAIN...while I will AGF here...do you really see that as an issue in this particular case here is it? airuditious (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I just realized that taking a direct quote from the radio interview - even though quoting Northam - might likely be a copyright violation as well as against WP:Non-free_content_criteria. I know that some see a fuzzy line between quoting a mere "snippet" and a bonafide infringement but we are talking about a lot of directly quoted verbiage. And because I have not yet found a release on the Hubbard Radio site (owners of WTOP radio), I would think it might make sense to remove if only on that basis. airuditious (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Aleding, please discuss this issue in the original thread rather than starting a new thread. (see WP:DISCUSSFORK) Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sparkie82: First, as I mention above, the word "footnote" first appears in your RfC - not elsewhere in this Talk page. Second, we are are not discussing the same topic WRT footnotes. Yours is content related - mine usage related. Third, please read the fork policy you mention and you will find it references having the same discussion on multiple Talk pages so it really doesn't apply to anything that has happened on this Talk page. --- airuditious (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that any policy has been violated in creating a separate discussion about the use of footnotes - but in Sparkie's defense, it's going to be extremely confusing if we have three separate ongoing talk page discussions about Northam's WTOP statement (even if those three discussions aren't about exactly the same thing). It seems to me that the simplest approach would be to remove the footnote for now, and then if someone feels strongly about re-including it, I suppose that they could add an "Option E" to the Rfc above. --Jpcase (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'all, I don't know what you are trying to achieve with respect to "options" but I hope that you hear my comment loud and clear: the Governor's verbatim remarks are 100% relevant to this article IMHO, and should be included as much as possible (in footnotes or in cites or blockquotes) to establish the context in a NPOV way, Now I will let y'all continue to rehash the the "process" of defining all these options that, quite frankly, confuse me. Opinion hereby registered. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, which is why I'm not opposed to going with Option A in the Rfc; option A would include in this article's "Abortion" section a substantial portion of Northam's statement as a block quote. Even if we go with Option D though, (Option D would omit all mention of the WTOP interview from the "Abortion" section) a small portion of Northam's statement would still be quoted in this article's "Governor of Virginia" section. I agree that Northam's statement should be discussed in at least some capacity, and I agree that the best way of communicating his statement in an NPOV way is by using his own words. I also agree with airuditious that including such a long footnote is probably not the best way to go. So if we decide to quote Northam extensively, I'd prefer to see it as a block quote.--Jpcase (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been around these parts for over 12 years and I've never seen anything like it. It's waaaay too long. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove it. If anyone feels strongly about re-adding it, then they can include it as an option in the above rfc. --Jpcase (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's already there in the initial part of the RfC: "...two sentences including a footnote ...". But agreed - it should be removed as the relevant content and context can easily be delivered via prose in the article. Otherwise, one could argue block quotes as the #1 goto in order to convey context in all BLPs. --- VeritasS (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hand shake incident

Our article presently contains this information:

The yearbook photo also brought renewed attention to a 2013 video clip in which Northam appeared unwilling to shake hands with his African-American opponent for lieutenant governor, E. W. Jackson, after a debate, though it was unclear whether Northam saw Jackson extending his hand.

Watching the video one sees that the discussion had nothing to with race. If there was an element of race in the discussion or even if it vaguely related to racial issues it might be reasonable to assume that Northam refused to shake the hand of an African American man. As I watch the video it is my impression he would have refused to shake hands regardless of race, if even it was his intention to refuse since we already state that it is unclear if he even was aware of the hand shake offer. Furthermore, this issue was not picked up by the major news sources but rather more tabloid type outlets. We need to be very careful about what we include in our BLPs. I have removed it while it is discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, it should be noted that this supposed 2013 racist incident with Republican nominee E.W. Jackson " past statements denouncing Democrats as “anti-God,” gays as “perverted” and non-Christians as following a “false religion.” occurred after a rather passionate argument during the final minutes of a 90 minute debate. At that time there were no news reports about racial incidents. That was suggested only recently. Gandydancer (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal justice section

The article contains the following:

In June 2018, six months into Northam's governorship, a class action lawsuit was publicly disclosed, which had been filed the previous October, claiming that teenage detainees at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center had been physically abused by staff members there. Several of the plaintiffs were being held at the facility on immigration charges. The abuse described in the lawsuit was alleged to have occurred from 2015 through 2018. The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center denied all claims in the lawsuit, while Northam called the allegations "disturbing" and directed state agencies to conduct an investigation. Around two months later, the investigation concluded with no findings of ongoing abuse. Allegations of past abuse were not included within the scope of the investigation and the lawsuit is still pending.

I can't see where this has anything to do with Northam's views on criminal justice. Most of the claimed abuse went on previous to his time as governor and he responded as, one would assume anyone would, by asking for an investigation. I think it should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who added the content, I'd like to see it remain in the article. You make a valid point that the investigation isn't particularly relevant to Northam's views on criminal justice. But I do think that the investigation is relevant to Northam's term as governor. As far as I know, Northam hasn't ordered any other investigations during his time in office - and even if he has, this one certainly seems to have received the most news coverage. Perhaps it would be better to include the information in the "Tenure" section of this article, similar to how I've suggested we handle the WTOP abortion comments. But I've expanded the paragraph that you quoted above to include more information on how Northam's administration responded to the Shenandoah Valley incident. Northam has authority over the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and so anything done by that department while Northam is in office should be considered a representation of Northam's views. I added a couple of sentences about how the department revised its practices in response to this incident, and hopefully, that should make the information more relevant to the "Criminal Justice" section of this article. --Jpcase (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would agree that the Tenure section would be better and I can see that broader coverage in that section seems reasonable. I'll move it, OK? Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to that! I'd slightly prefer leaving it in the "Criminal justice" section, since all of Northam's other actions as governor (expanding Medicaid, raising the felony threshold, implementing a new family leave policy for state employees) are discussed under "Political positions". So it seems like leaving the information where it is would be the most consistent approach with how the rest of the article is written. And as noted in my previous comment, I think that any actions taken by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice while Northam is in office could be considered a representation of Northam's views, so I'm not sure that this information is totally out of place under "Political positions". Having said that, I don't feel very strongly about which section of the article includes this information. Moving it to the "Tenure" section makes sense. So whatever you want to do is fine with me! --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it. Actually that thought came to me, to move it to Tenure, when I first read the section, though at that time I was not as aware of the full facts of the situation which your posts and especially the latest information/refs that you have posted provided. At this point, due to your information, I have come to believe that it does belong in the article. I can also see your reasoning for including it in the Justice section. However since you do not feel strongly about that and I do, I will move it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on Northam and Juvenile Justice Reform... Virginia is currently changing its Juvenile Justice system to be less like a prison and more rehabilitative. While the previous governor began this trend by instituting reforms and closing Beaumont Juvenile prison in Powhatan, Northam has continued to prioritize this, even visiting the Bon Air Juvenile Correctional Center within the first month in office. Whereever you ultimately decide to put it, I think Juvenile Justice Reform should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of Northam's recent comments on third-trimester abortion/non-viable births

The issues and options were more complex than anticipated in the initial RFC posting, and later additions were not handled smoothly enough for others to respond easily. If I had commented in the RFC I would have been third respondent raising this concern. That equals or exceeds any other clear position, preventing any other outcome.

If the involved parties can reach agreement on how to resolve the issues here then they may do so. Anyone is free to open a new RFC if it is still needed. If a new RFC is to be opened then an effort should be made to better address the viable options. The RFC might work better as a list of various options (with an explicit place to add new options), or it might work better in the form of multiple questions. It is suggested that any new RFC be first posted in draft form, allowing time for other interested parties to suggest additions or improvements before sending the RFC live.

The links to the two versions were also less than ideal. It was difficult for new arrivals to identify what portion of article-text was being discussed. It would have been better to either use diffs showing the exact content at issue, or to copy the content into the RFC.

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.

Should Northam's recent comments on third-trimester abortion and non-viable births given during an interview with WTOP be explained in the article using four paragraphs and including an edited quote, or should they be explained with two sentences including a footnote link to a complete quotation/explanation?

• A - version with four paragraphs
• B - version with two sentences

(the subject section of the article is Ralph_Northam#Abortion) - Extension. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Extension.Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC), originally raised by Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(I just added Biographies to the topic areas for this rfc). Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• B is better - This was discussed at length at Talk:Ralph_Northam#Northam_comments_on_abortion/non-viable_births/Repeal_Act_+_Kathy_Tran_in_this_article but no consensus could be reached there. This is clearly an example of WP:RECENTISM when there is a tendency to give too much weight to recent events. Version B provides all information with appropriate weight and fair treatment. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• There is a third version that should be part of this RfC - I have posted it below. I vote for version "C".
  • Version "A" - Previous version recently replaced and what gave rise to this debate. As noted in the discussion elsewhere in this Talk page, I oppose "A" for the reasons therein.
  • Version "B" - Current version which replaced version "A". Some of the claims are not found in the refs - for example, "Northam opposes abortion after labor has begun..." - I do not see that in any of the articles provided as refs for that sentence. Please provide vectors for that statement if it was actually made. airuditious (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• In between A and B, closer to B. Version A seems to devote a whole lot of screen space to a single Jan 2019 controversy (an interview, walking it back, criticism). I think the controversy should be mentioned, but not with a long primary quote, and with 1-2 sentences. Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Version D2 - same as version D but with a fuller quote in the controversy section above. I also support renaming the section "Yearbook controversies" to "Yearbook and abortion controversies" because abortion ≠ yearbook and my proposed section title does not seem too long. My argument is that Northam's comments are not his political positions (take BLP into account) so they don't belong in the political positions section. However, I oppose censoring most of what he said, and I also oppose any inclusion of a statement by Northam's spokesperson. The current quote (in the controversy section) has most of the context, including the "in this example" thing, but I'd support adding just 11 more commonly-cited words from it - "the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable". That would make the text read better (and is broadly an improvement to the currently provided context of late-term abortions). Version B is my 2nd preference because it contains at least something about his comments, and is also not too WP:UNDUE. wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• B is better - Think I'm with User:Sparkie82 here. B seems like due weight. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Version "C" for consideration

Updated version w/ references found here.

Northam supports abortion rights and has argued for reducing abortion rates through education and expanding access to contraceptives. When in the state Assembly, Northam opposed a bill to mandate ultrasounds (vaginal and abdominal) for women seeking abortions. He opposes banning abortions after 20 weeks through a state version of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. He was endorsed in the 2017 Democratic gubernatorial primary by the abortion rights group NARAL and its Virginia affiliate. In addition, Planned Parenthood pledged to spend $3 million supporting Northam in his 2017 general election campaign for governor.

In January 2019, Northam faced criticism over comments made during an interview about the Repeal Act (sponsored by Kathy Tran (D), Virginia House of Delegates) specifically concerning the consent of the mother and multiple physicians prior to the performing third-trimester abortions. Northam expanded on these remarks by adding that Virginia requires three physicians to determine that continued pregnancy would be "substantially and irremediably" harmful to a woman's health - a policy Northam continues to support.

In response to intense criticism from various Republicans, including at least one who accused him of condoning infanticide, a spokesman for Northam released a statement where the governar said "No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances" and that the governor's remarks were "...limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor."

Option D: Omit it from the "Abortion" section of the article entirely

I proposed in our earlier discussion that the vast majority of what Northam has said about the Repeal Act seems irrelevant to the "Abortion" section of this article. That section of this article is supposed to deal specifically with Northam's political "positions", and Northam has never taken a public position on the Repeal Act. During the WTOP interview, when Northam discussed this topic, all he did was explain how third-trimester abortions are handled under current medical practice. And the "Abortion" section of the article already states in an earlier paragraph that Northam supports the current law allowing for third-trimester abortions in Virginia. So any discussion of the WTOP interview would simply be re-iterating what's already been said.

Northam's statement from the WTOP interview certainly got quite a bit of news coverage, and so I absolutely think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. But the statement is already mentioned in the "Governor of Virginia" section, which seems like a more appropriate place for it.

So my feelings on this depend on what we want the "Abortion" section of this article to be. If we want it to be a depository for any notable statements that Northam has ever made about abortion (and I'm not necessarily opposed to going that route), then I strongly support Option A, because I think using Northam's own words is the best way to go when dealing with a statement that has caused significant controversy. On the other hand, if we want the "Abortion" section to exclusively deal with Northam's positions, then I don't think that we need to discuss the WTOP interview in that section at all.

I should also note that both "Option B" and "Option C" appear to contain factual inaccuracies, as both suggest that Northam supports the current law in Virginia requiring that third-trimester abortions only be performed when continued pregnancy is deemed "substantially and irremediably" dangerous to a woman's health. As far as I know, Northam has never taken a public position on that particular policy, although if I'm mistaken, then my apologies. --Jpcase (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Option "C" - correct. That is my fault as I was consolidating what was already in the article coupled with my arguments. I am in the process of adding refs to Version "C" and will make that correction - Thanks airuditious (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

But the statement is already mentioned in the "Governor of Virginia" section Not the whole statement. In fact, it only contains 26 out of the 113 words in Northam's quote in Version A. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I'm open to using a shorter version of the quote than what's contained in Version A. I just feel that it's important to use Northam's own words. Whether we use a lot of his words or a few of his words isn't super important to me, but I do think that we should at least use some of his words. I like version A, because the portions of Northam's statement contained in that version are the portions that have received the most news coverage - but at this point, I'm leaning more or less in favor of going with Option D. --Jpcase (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Version C" implies that the intense criticism was focused on Northam's comments about maternal and physician consent. The intense criticism was actually focused on his comments about non-viable births.

• The general question posed in this RFC is whether the description of his recent comments/positions should be covered in two sentences or four paragraphs. I think two sentences is better given WP:DUE. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  As mentioned on my Talk page, removing editor content from a Talk page is a huge no-no. That said, this RfC fails to include all of the suggestions from all editors primarily involved in this topic. As such, I urge that this RfC be amended to properly include all key discussion elements or we will need to initiate another RfC that is more inclusive all pertinent editor feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleding (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue with the footnote content

Anyone have any concern about the FN content being covered under copyright and therefore subject to WP's non-free policy? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure radio broadcasts are copyrighted works and even though this is a public official being interviewed, it will likely still be the broadcaster who holds the copyright. So, if this is non-free content, the FN quote may violate:

• Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Policy
  • element 1 - isn't the free version available by just linking to the actual interview?
  • element 3b - is the whole quote required when inline refs are more than sufficient?
  • element 8 - does the full quote significantly increase reader understanding?
• Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Text_2 - item #2 "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts."

Thanks. --- airuditious (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a little bit of researching. According to this transcript from an NPR program, "because a politician's words are in the public domain, anyone can quote them. But any broadcast footage belongs to the networks." The example offered is a speech by a president, carried by various news networks. The news networks own the tape of the speech, but no one owns the actual quotes from the speech. That might not be a perfectly analogous situation, but I think that we're probably okay quoting Northam extensively. As for anything said by Julie Carey (the interviewer), I'm not sure - her quotes might be copyrighted. --Jpcase (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jpcase: Great job here...and it does make sense re: the dissection between the words and the actual broadcast. While I'm inclined at this point to agree with you, I still wanted to just bring it up because it looked like it might be an issue and something to consider. Again, great research. --- airuditious (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Version B as short is better. The topic is not DUE as much space as A. I’m not even sure a 1 time flap is DUE as much version B. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: Well, if you think that Version B could potentially be assigning the controversy more weight than it's due, then keep in mind, that there's also Option D, in which the issue isn't mentioned in the Abortion section at all (it would still be mentioned briefly in the "Tenure" section). --Jpcase (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As Aleding mentioned somewhere earlier in this conversation, it might be helpful to either amend the proposal at the top of this RfC, so as to include all options, or to just start a new RfC altogether. Also, it's worth noting that there's yet another option to consider - Option E would be that we leave the article as it currently is, which is pretty similar to Option B, but corrects the aforementioned factual inaccuracy present in Option B, removes the extremely long footnote present in Option B, and includes the response issued by Northam's spokesperson. --Jpcase (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC, "Keep the RfC statement short and simple." Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the wording as it currently is, that change was made after this RfC was initiated. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Jpcase, this RfC was started to get more comments from the community, let's let others provide their comments. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that the RfC statement doesn't include all options. The statement should be concise, but it shouldn't be incomplete. --Jpcase (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My $.02: The RfC question needs to include all versions under consideration. Please update and ping those who've responded here. petrarchan47คุก 16:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It is impossible to come to a conclusion at this point. A new RfC should be set up. I agree that we've got is too long but in difficult cases such as this it can be extremely hard if not impossible to say it all in a couple of sentences. It is my impression that Northam believes that the decision in cases of severe deformities should be between the parents and the physician. I'd like to see that in whatever we come up with. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Gandydancer, thank you for your comment. This is why Northam's full quote is included in a footnote, to keep the article's expository to a couple of sentences while still including the details in the footnote. Because his comments were so ambiguous, we simply quote them rather than try to characterize what they meant. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Gandydancer here. Although I want to participate, most of the comments above are in reference to versions not (officially) available. Northam's quotation should not be relegated to a footnote, in my opinion. However the four paragraph version seems excessive. I would prefer a new RfC offering more than the two present options (this would not violate the RfC rules). petrarchan47คุก 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  I don't understand. Do you think Northam's comments should be explained in about two sentences or about four paragraphs? Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)