Talk:Welfare queen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Steve Kangas
Isn't this the guy who shot himself in a bathroom with a copy of Mein Kampf in his backpack? I don't think he's a credible source... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.68.36 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
- Kangas isn't offered as a credible source, but rather as a critic -- one POV, among others. And your objection is ad hominem. -- 71.102.136.107 23:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Kangas criticism problematic
The circumstances surrounding Kangas's death are hotly debated. Although it was widely reported as cited above, the facts are far from settled. Please take that into account when considering his reliability as a source. The citations in Kangas's article appear to be sound, and even if he were a suicidal Hitler admirer, the facts are the facts. Reagan's disingenousness in circulating the "Welfare Queen" story has been documented by many people other than Kangas. Lastly, sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously. 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Propaganda and race elements ignored
This article is laughable in its failure to address the purpose and actual usage of this term. See, e.g., The “Welfare Queen” Experiment: How Viewers React to Images of African-American Mothers on Welfare; the abstract accurately characterizes "welfare queen" as "Reagan’s iconic representation of the African-American welfare experience".
As the article stands, one would never know that someone who uses the term is far more likely to be a white conservative than black or liberal, or why, or that the term is primarily used to apply to areas where poor blacks live, such as "all those New Orleans welfare queens -- it wasn't enough for them to loot during a disaster, now they're trying to get ahold of FEMA funds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.136.107 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is one of the most misguided entries on Wikipedia. Just uninformative in every way. 66.80.144.5 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is a large amount of discourse discussing the gendered and racial connotations of the term (Gillian's experiment being one of them). I will be adding a section on associated stereotypes. Any ideas? Njfuller (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reagan and the phrase
Reagan is regularly cited as the originator of the phrase. Do the cited NYT articles or any other source show that he ever actually uttered it? I wish I had time to check... Ellsworth (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing
I appreciate Ariel Gold's comments. But if you don't consider the Associated Press a "verifiable source," then why does this "Welfare Queen" article even exist? Or if you don't consider LEXIS a "verifiable source," then how are you verifying the NY Times article from 1976?
Moreover, the AP articles aren't being used here to prove that these individuals did, in fact, commit welfare fraud. Even if those individuals were innocent, the AP articles are useful: 1) to demonstrate that the "welfare queen" idea had some currency in public debate in the 1970s, and 2) to demonstrate that Reagan didn't just wholesale invent the idea (as some people have accused him of doing).
Bottom line: If you don't think old news stories are verifiable, then delete the entire article. Indeed, if you don't like negative information about a living person, then you need to delete the entire article as well (the article as written already contains lots of accusations about living persons; my addition of AP articles only serves to add more details.)
UPDATE: OK, another user has accused me of vandalism. That just a bogus accusation. If you're going to have an article on "Welfare Queen" at all, it's anti-intellectual to throw out quotations from news articles at the time that put the concept in perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.239.153 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.70.239.153 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The information you added had potentially damaging information about individuals, and it was not all sourced. (For example, the paragraph: "The Chicago new media are now referring to Miss Otis as the "new Welfare Queen." The old Welfare Queen, Linda Taylor, was convicted of cheating the state out of more than $9,000, but investigators said her schemes aliases and disguises were so numerous there was no telling how much she actually received." had no source. Quotes were not sourced, such as: ""Apparently they met in a welfare office, and Queen Johnson was surprised at how easy fraud is," said Cosper. "Now they will both be in the same prison."") I understand your intentions are good, and I have not anywhere said that AP is not a reliable source, but when you are making changes like this, all that information must be attributed to a source, to avoid legal issues. Neutrality, verifiability, etc., are all part of the core pillars of Wikipedia. I hope that explains why the section was removed, perhaps you could re-write it a bit, and use the Help:Edit summary when editing? Ariel♥Gold 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge tag
I've been working on the welfare queen article and noticed that the merge tag was added nearly a year ago by a "Retired user". There's been little discussion since that time, and unless people object, I plan on taking the tag down. I'll give it a couple weeks, so voice any concerns if there are any out there. Njfuller (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge tag removed. Njfuller (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
