Talk:Kanawha County Textbook War

Orphaned ?
The orphaned tag means that there are few or no links to an article (I randomly accessed it.)

For this one, first I wonder why it was written, then why it was tagged :
 * Written because the event mentioned is notable in a WP sense. Such things do not happen frequently and tell more, about our world, than plenty of standard news.
 * Tagged, yes, but the unfrequency conveys a lack of links! The event was quite unpreceded and came in an obscure (if I won't sadden someones) county. What to say ?

The candidate links are :
 * The county itself
 * Schoolbooks politics
 * Category:surprising events (!!!)
 * Closed communities (?), &c. Your advice ? -- DLL .. T 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it isn't part of the overarching theme of U.S. history or related to anything else particularly, I would want to see it linked in "See also" sections of relevant articles. Ashi b aka tock 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance
This event is often cited as one, among many, which mobilized the religious/christian right movement in the US. This should be added to the article and also links to this article could be added to pages about the religious right.Bpot 01:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, I only know about this one Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the violence, etc. made it into the national news at the time and it was much discussed in academic journals thereafter. 71.236.93.51 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain NPOV tag
Adding a NPOV tag without any explanation, and even leaving the comment blank, leads one to wonder about the point of view of the person adding the tag. An explanation would be helpful. WVhybrid (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the anon, but this fella Kincheloe seems to have promoted himself all over Wikipedia, so someone will have to decide if his analysis is notable. Shii (tock) 13:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several days after a request for an explanation of the NPOV tag that was added, no explanation has been provided.  As 1) I lived in Kanawha County during the time period and am familiar with the controversy and 2) there is no clear POV in the article that I am aware of, and 3) no explanation has been provided, I deleted the NPOV tag.
 * Please do not add the tag back without providing a clear explanation of the action.  WVhybrid (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I too lived in Kanawha County and was a participant in the protest. The Kincheloe comments are the only objective part of this Wiki page. Whoever did the page has a biased POV against the protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcpriest (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote this page based on a single source, which was "anti-censorship". It would be great if West Virginia residents could contribute their own sources. Shii (tock) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I added a Clarification needed notice to the sentence "An elementary school and a school board building were bombed." It doesn't state whether the schools were fire bombed or bombed from the air.--Auric (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there were bombs planted at the schools. Shii (tock) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in context most people can assume that the schools were NOT bombed from the air. 71.236.93.51 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugement
Why is there no mentio of the jugement, i.e. "The court has concluded that the committee's rejection of Mississippi: Conflict and Change, while not constituting censorship per se, was certainly an impermissible rejection because the procedure violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The court concludes that the rejection of the book for the reasons given evidences a racially discriminatory purpose on the part of the defendants. The court has found that the textbook was not rejected for any justifiable reason. The lack of a justifiable reason is not in and of itself a constitutional violation. However, the court has also found that the racial issues substantially influenced the committee in its decision. That finding, coupled with the finding that the legislative history suggests an intent to perpetuate ideas of segregation and discrimination, leads this court to conclude that the requisite "discriminatory intent" has been demonstrated. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S. Ct. 555, 50 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1977)."? Veverve (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2021

 * 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: not moved Per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kanawha County textbook controversy → ? – 'Controversy' is very much a euphemism when bombs are involved... the Oklahoma incident isn't called a controversy... there were other incidents here as detailed, but surely having 'terrorism' in the title, or maybe 'terroristic controversy' should be adequate (as the categories themselves indicate)... it's violence made for political reasons, and even if it was successful it's still terrorism... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ? The current article title doesn't seem so bad to me. I suggest not to use "terrorism" in the title, as Wikipedia strives to be descriptive rather than to express judgments or opinions in its titles, and most of the people involved in the protests were not engaging in terrorism or supporting terrorist activities. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The West Virginia Department of Art, Culture and History call it "The Great Kanawha County Textbook War" Perhaps "Protest" or "Boycott" is more fitting. Controversy makes it seems smaller than actually it was. --Asr1014 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But there are perfectly peaceful protests without bomb threats being made... while 'terrorism' might have implications, surely the definition of 'protests' doesn't include "bomb threats". So, even if it changes from 'controversy', which is understating it, 'protests' would do the same, it seems to me... also, that link seems to indicate that only applies to BLPs, and this is an event, but in any case there sources like this one which describe it as terrorism (if sourced it can be described as such). 92.0.5.48 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a point there. This involves all of the above. Which portion had the most impact? To be objective we have to look at the result. Nothing I have read implies that the violence was intended however should a title represent the intent or the actual outcome of an event. In addition how will other easily be able to find it? War is a bit much in my opinion but is used frequently. --Asr1014 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are perfectly peaceful protests and there are protests with threats of violence and there are protests with actual violence causing injury and there are protests with actual violence causing multiple deaths. For example, the George Floyd protests have included some violence and property damage. But we don't need to describe all the characteristics of the topic in the article title. We especially don't need to express opinions or draw conclusions or call people names in the article title. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We use the names used by reliable sources, even if we think those names are technically inaccurate. Doing a Google Scholar search for "Kanawha County Textbook" shows that "Kanawha County Textbook controversy" is the standard name for this event in the relevant scholarly literature, see e.g. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/57/1/265/2230825 – a JSTOR search demonstrates the same. I can see from JSTOR that scholarly sources sometimes call it a "dispute" or "battle" or "protests" instead of "controversy" (or even as well as "controversy"), but there is no doubt that "controversy" is the most popular title for the event in the scholarly literature. Hence I think the current title ought to be maintained. Mr248 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2021 (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.