Talk:Peter Stuyvesant

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Stuyvesant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213204130/http://constructedenvironment.com/the-latest-news/apartment-buildings-the-latest-in-french-ideas to http://constructedenvironment.com/the-latest-news/apartment-buildings-the-latest-in-french-ideas
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704190649/http://nos.nl/video/43403-rufus-wainwright-bij-het-standbeeld-van-peter-stuyvesant.html to http://nos.nl/video/43403-rufus-wainwright-bij-het-standbeeld-van-peter-stuyvesant.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article to read about Stuyvesant's antisemitism. While I was here, I reviewed the the IPC section. This is the passage of "Women" in which Stuyvesant is mentioned:
:Marshall walked me around and showed me the inscriptions. I always got nervous before a reading, very tense and unhappy. I almost always vomited. Then I did. I vomited on one of the graves.
:"You just vomited on Peter Stuyvesant," Marshall said.
:I walked back into the dressing room.
That's it, one occurrence of his name. He never comes up again. I can't find any secondary source that draws any conclusion about the book or about Stuyvesant from that passage. Anyone who insists on including the example has an obligation, under a relevant RFC, of finding such a source. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you familiar with the concept of symbolism? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the relevance of the question. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: That's interesting. My recent interactions with you indicate to me that you are a blocked or banned user editing with an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: In any case, the conclusion of that RfC violated WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:Primary sources, so it is null and void. A fact has been sourced, so it is verifiable and appropriate for inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very novel. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, Women is a novel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention in Charles Bukowski's "Women"

message: *The "IP" requested a WP:Third opinion.  I did not join in that request, and I object to it.  The grounds are in a comment I left there that was reverted (apparently one is not supposed to comment there, even if the comment is about the request itself, which seems rather odd).  In any case, here is the comment: There is no need for a third opinion.  The "IP" is removing sourced material without a consensus to do so, a clear cut violation of policy.  Since a third opinion is neither mandatory nor binding, it cannot create a consensus, only discussion by editors on the talk page can do that.  Third opinions are only useful when both parties agree to ask for it, not as a unilateral request from a single party.  Therefore, this request is essentially an attempt to circumvent the WP:CONSENSUS process.   The IP has already canvassed another editor at  concerning a dispute at another article, and this is simply an extension of that WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion