Talk:Allison Krause

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

This could use a few source citations. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Allison Krause who said "flowers are better than bullets," or is that just a line misattributed to her? Oneismany 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Barry said that Allison said that then it's true!!!! 3:11 pm 5 June 2006 Who thinks Allison would have done somthing for the world if she hadn't died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.60.3 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 June 2006.

• Allison Krause page from May 4 Archive

This link appears not to be of use as it is now just a referral page. --DRoll 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allison Krause. 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/20070421105756/http://www.kudzumonthly.com/kudzu/may02/Bullets.html to http://www.kudzumonthly.com/kudzu/may02/Bullets.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her family did not move to Churchill before she went toKent State, they moved to a small Township next to that called Wilkins Township, and that was also in the Churchill School District...This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5305:FB00:C13E:B3C9:846B:C3AB (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever edit Wikipedia, but a user named Kieronoldham is going absolutely hog wild on this article and is adding justifications for the actions that led to the Kent State tragedy. For example, "This anarchistic behavior forced Mayor Leroy Statrum to impose..."

This is not at all neutral language. I think this entire article needs to be re-checked by someone less interested in writing apologia for the massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.52 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham (talk · contribs) recently partially reverted my prior edit, undoing what I believe to be productive changes. This partial reversion:

• restored the redundant wording "being almost inseparable, were almost always together"
• moved the student protest wikilink out of the article body (where that phrase still appears) and into the "See also" section
• restored excess verbiage "She is known to have attended": if some action is known (and backed up by proper sources), the article can simply state it
• restored the misplaced modifier "Directed by Daniel Miller, several students present upon campus...": it is the film that Miller directed, not just a few of its participants

Kieronoldham's edit undid a number of other of my changes, any of which I can justify if needed, but hopefully the above sampling gets the point across. My temptation is to outright revert this edit, but if Kieronoldham (or anyone else) can justify any of its changes, I'll preserve those. 2605:A601:A0A4:2700:207D:9B66:9AE7:CC08 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Regarding the modifications, in my opinion the article reads better as it was per the edits I made. For example, do you think a layman link such as "student protest" is worthy? Everyone knows what a student protest is. (reinserted it though.) As for the tear gas link you added, the wikilink already existed earlier in the article. Allison and Levine were known on campus as being practically "inseparable" (pretty sure I could add a reference for that). It was only by around 1968 or 1969 that the younger generation in America "began" making their sentiments re: the war known on the streets and across campuses, so that section is worthy of inclusion even if slightly meandering? Consensus governs, but we'll see. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Kieronoldham. What you say above is not in line with the content of your edit:

• "Student protest" was already a link in "See also", and also a term used in the article. If it's going to be linked, it should be linked within the text, so that's what I did. Your reversion not only removed this link—which I agree doesn't add a lot—but also reinstated the "See also" entry. If you think the term shouldn't be linked at all, the latter part of your edit doesn't jibe with that.
• I didn't add a "tear gas" link; I moved it to an earlier usage of the term. If you objection was that it was already linked even earlier than this, why did you re-add the link in the later usage?
• The word "inseparable" remained before and after both of our edits, so it's unclear why you're defending that, since neither of us objects to it. At issue is the following phrase "were almost always together", which is just a longer-winded way of saying they were inseparable. Your comment does not address why you feel that saying the same thing twice in the same sentence "reads better".

And so forth. I've redone many of my changes, since your reply is not responsive to the content of the edits. If anyone else feels my changes do not add value, I'm happy to discuss further. Thanks! 2605:A601:A0A4:2700:207D:9B66:9AE7:CC08 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The duplicate link in the body text to tear gas exists in your revision within the history of the article "as of (early hours of), June 4, 2024." The addition "student protest" was only added "into the 'See also' section" as per your own talk page edit description previously here for reasons mentioned. Does not add, or clarify, or describe a lot as you rightly say, but maybe it is better included within the body text as opposed to the see also section.

Maybe the "inseparable" sentence was meandering, but it was within the ref. (How they were known - monogamy in the "free love era" and Allison's parents were hardly Orthodox if mem. serves me correct, but wanted her to date a Jewish guy who'd commit to her.) Still see no violation or deviation, but hey - improvement is the Wiki. goal--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. Re your 1st sentence: Correct, and I acknowledged this. Re your 2nd sentence: I cannot follow what you're trying to say. Re your 4th sentence: Sources are not required to be concise. As an encyclopedia, we should avoid redundant wording even if sources we cite use it. Re your 5th sentence: That's fine, but has no bearing on "inseparable" and "were almost always together" being redundant. Neither of those phrases means "monogamous"—if you think that's worthy of mention in the article (I don't, personally), the wording needs to state that directly (and source it of course). 2605:A601:A0A4:2700:207D:9B66:9AE7:CC08 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence and the mention of monogamy may have been too in-depth but it is in reference to the first sentence regarding the commitment they demonstrated to each other and the youth climate of the era. Needless to say, it would add little value to mention in the article, but it is what I have read about her. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]