Talk:The Hill We Climb

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZqA0z61jY. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Edge3 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, just wanted to add additional context beyond the template message above. The transcript of the poem is copyrighted, because the poet herself created the work. Amanda Gorman is not an employee of the federal government; therefore her works are not in the public domain. Edge3 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this. While I appreciate your attentiveness, I just want to say that, applying a bit of common sense, we should not be templating newbies or raising the specter of blocks at this time. This is an article subject that is currently in the news and likely to attract new editors. The transcript is widely available from many sources and used in many places without the author's permission, as it is now a public record, so while you are correct that this is not compatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy, it is also not a major offense to post it, as it's a very reasonable think to think it would be helpful to add. Dominic·t 02:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's fair; thank you for your feedback. The poem's transcript was added to the article three times in a short time period (twice by the same user), and I was more interested in ensuring that the edits were quickly reversed. I followed the process specified in Copyright violations, but I agree that the templates are strongly worded for the present situation. Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

... rather than share it...
i took the liberty to add the above mentioned words since this is a pivotal part of the sentence (& the poem).96.44.73.61 (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone add what "type" of poem or poetry this is?
I'm not a priority expert but a couple of people have asked me what kind of poem this is.

Can someone add that information 6the article? Rmanke (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not seen it placed into a specific type or genre yet. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Good article?
Thanks to those who have worked on this article. I hope there are plans for a Good article nomination? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I for one intend to nominate it eventually— but IMO it’s too soon given that the poem was just read two days ago— analyses are still being written and I suspect we will see more scholarly items coming out in the following months. I’d imagine it could be ga-able in a month or two at the very earliest, maybe more like 6-12 months from now. I’ll follow the news in the next few weeks closely and reassess. . . Eddie891 Talk Work 22:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wonderful, glad to hear. Thank you. Keep in mind, updates can continue to be made to Good articles. 'Good' status just means the current entry is generally complete, accurate, neutral, and well-written, so don't feel you must wait any specific length of time before taking the plunge. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The American Conservative article
Hi, and others, I'm not convinced inclusion of the article in The American Conservative is proper due coverage. See WP:CRIT, particularly Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. The American Conservative is considered a "biased or opinionated" source per WP:RSP, and when considering that the person expressing a negative opinion is a "farmer from New Jersey", I think including it here with opinions published in highly reliable sources by well known/respected figures is giving unnecessary weight to an extremely minority opinion. The fact that he is a farmer absolutely does matter because it's one opinion expressed by someone who is, for lack of a better term, a nobody. In my edit summary, I equated it to a Letter to the editor, because that's essentially what it is. Why should we care what this person thinks over all the other thousands of nobody's who have tweeted or written letters to editors about what they think on the poem? This seems to me to be a case of Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all (from WP:DUE). So what I'm asking is basically: should we include an opinion piece published in a biased source of marginal reliability by a farmer (i.e. person with no relevant expertise) as due weight with works published in reliable sources by reputable critics? Thoughts? Of course, if reliable mainstream criticism emerges, we can include it... Eddie891 Talk Work 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just saw your note here after making the change - I've given my reasons in the edit. I agree that The American Conservative (TAC) has a bias - as do most of those publications already referenced, though they are generally from the left, so I don't see a problem in that regard. I get the impression TAC takes pride in the "real world" vocations of its writers (possibly with trolling intent) so I don't think we need to read too much into that. The fact is we are going to get rose-tinted acclaim from the left and grumpy dismissals from the right in a situation like this, I'm not sure how we can avoid that - in either case it doesn't mean that the individual criticism is without merit. Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, just seeing your response here too :). I get what you’re saying and I’ll weigh in in more detail soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I still think it should probably be cut but I'm fine with it staying in if others feel strongly-- it is admittedly a valid point of view. How about "a commentator" as a compromise between "a farmer" and no description? Hopefully some 'grumpy dismissals' will come from more established conservative sources/commentators that we can replace it with soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's fine by me, and I agree the overall weight and spread of the criticism over time should firm up with more reviews. Conan The Librarian (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns about this. The author of this piece is neither a literary critic or established political commentator. It is his only publication in The American Conservative, and it's not clear if he is a regular contributor to any publication. In fact, it appears Salovaara's main claim to fame is his involvement in the St. Paul's School rape trial . Further, I don't see any evidence that this opinion piece has gained much traction or been cited much in the literature on the subject. I understand the impulse to try to represent any additional perspectives that are critical of the poem or not yet included in the article, but I don't know if we should do that by artificially elevating the prominence of lesser-known pieces not from established experts, because then Wikipedia is amplifying rather than passively documenting. Dominic·t 18:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Better phrased than I could have phrased it, but I agree with you. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a double standard here: The lead names quoted are celebrities, not literary critics. The Guardians "critic" appears to be a political reporter, as is the WSJ author. The first who appears to have some relevance by your criteria is the Boston Globe author who is a Cultural Critic. I didn't look further - I'm sure there are others reviewing positively also qualified by job title to comment on literary worth, but just removing the negative reviewer as unqualified doesn't look good at all, so I've reinstated it until a consistent policy is agreed on. Conan The Librarian (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted my edit temporarily as I missed the "political commentator" justification for the previous edit. There still seems a double standard which appears to be disfavouring the perspective of somebody on grounds that seem more to do with their political leanings and the conclusion they reached than anything else. Conan The Librarian (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a double standard, as no other source has been debated here (or brought up for discussion). But, of the examples you mentioned, they appear to meet the standard, since they are either well-known figures or experts. What I actually trying to say was not all sources must be recognized experts, but that if they are not coming from a reputable or prominent source (as has been pointed out with TAC), then it would mitigate that concern if they were a known expert on what they are speaking on. Instead, this seems to be a source that is less prominent, less reputable, and also less qualified than any other example. If you feel this perspective being offered in that piece is an important part of the discourse, then you would presumably be able to find that opinion expressed in other sources as well. And if you feel any of the other sources fail this standard, you can raise those issues. Accusations of bias have the feeling of the pot calling the kettle black in this case, since you are the one arguing here so vociferously for inclusion of this particular dubious source. Dominic·t 15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Pot/Kettle analogy is weak; I restored somebody else's contribution as I felt it was unfairly removed, and haven't pushed the point particularly as two editors disagree. I note however that while going out of your way to remove the only negative assessment, you haven't added other dismissive references like the Spectator review. I haven't because I don't want to be just adding critical reviews because I don't have much interest in this performance and simply adding two negative assessments of an overall well-received recital would look like bias. Given the clear interest and efforts other editors here have, the lack of an easily findable negative review that ticks the suitability boxes you've conjured up to justify removal of the TAC piece would indicate that the bias and double standards are at the very least, a distinct possibility. I look forward to you proving me wrong by adding it or others to give a more rounded picture. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just got around to adding the spectator review, which is by a reasonably respectable critic on par with the others included. I'm now personally happy with the balance-- sorry for letting it slip, it's been on my to-do list for several weeks now. I genuinely cannot find any other negative criticism that merits inclusion. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving me wrong, and apologies - I've perhaps become a little too jaded/cynical after similar (and less productive) exchanges elsewhere. Conan The Librarian (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I found this discussion in doing some research about The American Conservative. I've asked on Wikipedia:Reliable sources about rules and guidelines on the reliability of sources which publish hate speech (using TAC as an example). Thanks John Cummings (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Unless you are also going to be removing platforms for the opposing viewpoints like The Guardian. It's a terrible idea; and in the context of a discussion that has pointed out the seeming politically one-sided nature of the reviews allowed for this piece of work (which bias has been adamantly denied), an utterly tone-deaf attempt to corral support for suppression of voices you don't agree with. Conan The Librarian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Full transcript
Should we have the full transcript of the poem on this page? Avishai11 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Avi
 * It's copyrighted, unfortunately. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No criticism of poem mentioned anywhere
I noticed in the Reception section that there are only positive reviews (overwhelmingly left-wing too), but not a single criticism of it. This does not seem neutral, but then again, neither does anything political here. However, that is an unrelated problem which really is a problem with the policy itself. True neutrality means it is impossible to tell the viewpoint. (Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is badly biased) My suggestion is to find some criticism of it to include too, so more than one side (the left) is represented. Wilhelm von Hindenburger (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , then, please, fix it yourself. The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. You are welcome to find criticism and add it to the article. I've only found The Spectator article, and added it. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Restriction news source
Regarding the 2023 news story that the poem was challenged in a Florida school: has a couple of times removed the statement that the the story was broken by the Miami Herald, and has instead inserted a quote from USA Today. I don't understand the objection. Is there some reason to prefer that newspaper? Also, per WP:OQ this quotation can be paraphrased. Is there some reason for insisting on the verbatim USA Today quotation? Jno.skinner (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The Miami Herald mention is irreverent and has no significance other than being one of the many media organizations covering the situation. My update provides an unbias and balance point of view instead of the inflammatory/biased language on Ms. Salinas link to so-called alt-right organizations. Ms. Salinas has denied such a link, and the only evidence of her association with reference organizations is her attendance at rallies in which they were present. The USA Today article provides a non-inflammatory quote and is the reference point fo Ms. Salinas' denial of her involvement. Without the inclusion of that information, the entire purpose of your paragraph is to defame this person. That is not how Wikipedia should be used. Wikipedia should provide a balanced perspective. Chicagosoccerdad (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So, your objection is to phrase "Salinas is active with the Proud Boys and Moms For Liberty" specifically? To me, attending rallies seems "active" but I'm open to how would you might prefer to re-phrase it. It should be brief, because this is an article about a poem, not Ms. Salinas herself. The current quote is too long, and per WP:OQ, should be paraphrased. Jno.skinner (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Seeing no engagement here, I'm rolling back the changes to accord with WP:OQ policy. Jno.skinner (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)