Primarily directed at Tagishsimon, but very willing to hear other's opinions if willing. In my edit I thought I made clear that I didn't agree that with the suggestion that the 1776 Commission was 'tangentially related' (as is the purpose of the 'See also' section) to the Commission's report. I don't believe that an opinion piece by somewhat prominent individual should inform the contents of a page's 'See also' section. Not only do we not seem to do it anywhere else, it also comes across as an acceptance of that person's opinion as objective fact (which ofc goes against WP:NPOV). If you want to put David Olusoga's comparison to the 1776 Commission in the main body of the page, I take no issue with that; but putting in the 'See also' just seems silly. For the record, David Goodhart, who is probably just as (or at least comparably) prominent as David Olusoga, has compared the report to the Macpherson report of 1999 (the review into the conduct of the Police in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence); I think including that in the 'See also' section would be just as wrong. Alssa1 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
- David Olusoga sets out the tangential relation of the 1776 Commission and this Commission. It's evident there are a plurality of striking commonalities between the two. Readers interested in either Commission may well be interested in the other Commission. Until someone takes the time to add 1776 and Macpherson to the main text of the article, my view is that we serve our readers better by providing links to tangential objects, than we would do if we omitted the links. That's what See also is all about. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
- So allow me to understand your position, instead of adding the same link into the article yourself, you instead choose to revert my edit? Alssa1 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
