Talk:Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead expanded

I have expanded the lead and thus removed the 'lead too short' tag added by User:The Rambling Man. I hope it is long enough now. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, it doesn't summarise the article, it doesn't really mention the donors etc. I won't replace the tag in the good faith that you'll continue to fix the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It says, "It was entirely funded by private donors." What more would you like?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It should summarise the whole article. If that's the best you have, then no worries, it's better than it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons category

I don't see the point in having a link to the Commons category if the only two pictures on Wikimedia Commons are already on this article...It would only make sense if many more picture were present there, and no gallery here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the second picture, which shows the list of donors ON the monument. I don't see why it was removed. It is a picture of the monument. The list of donors on the monument forms part of the monument. It is not a random picture. Please don't delete it again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough: I should have retained that photo. It's standard practice to link to article-specific Commons categories - over time people will add more photos/videos, and having a prominent link also encourages this (a daytime photo would be good, for example, though obviously the current photos are much better than none!). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I took them on September 11, 2013, after the philharmonic concert. Another reason for my list of donors btw is that it makes it easier to decipher what's on the monument/this picture. I did wonder if that was why you removed the picture, as you seem to be against listing donors, for reasons unknown.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Donors

This list of people, most of whom do not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, lacks reliable secondary sourcing or any indication why including the entire list is necessary. If there is some reason why the identity of every donor is significant, let's explain that; if there isn't, it is sufficient to say that the garden was privately funded, and perhaps include just a few of the largest donations. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote below, but I did not add the entire list. I only added the main donors, in other words those who made a significant donation. The website includes many more donors, who made minor donations, and I agree with you that they are not necessarily relevant--that's why I didn't include them.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted a very bold edit by User:Nikkimaria, who removed the list of main donors. First of all, the secondary source is on the monument, and you can see some of it on the picture I posted. The monument is entirely privately funded, so a list of the main donors seems relevant to me. Moreover, many of those donors are well-known and have a Wikipedia page, with a wikilink here.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The monument is not a secondary source, and few of the donors listed have a Wikipedia page. As mentioned above, it would be sufficient to say that the monument is privately funded; there seems to be no reason why the identity of individual donors is significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Most of the biggest donors should have their own page, but I chose not to wikify them all to avoid too many red links. However, overtime, there will be more wikilinks. Now, I don't think you will find a list of the biggest donors elsewhere, but if it is on the monument...are you suggesting the monument is not a reliable source, i.e. lies? That doesn't make sense to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it is not a secondary or independent source. Per WP:NOT, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". The list is true, but that doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that it does, insofar as the monument is entirely privately funded and many of the donors are prominent. So it is relevant, not random.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant that the monument is privately funded, but that does not make the donors significant enough for inclusion. Have any independent sources commented on the identity of the donors? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is important to name donor for a privately funded monument and with quite a few significant people.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course why? Have any independent sources commented on the identity of the donors? Why is it significant that these particular people contributed? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Without being aware of this discussion, I also removed the list. It is not common practice to include lists of donors to memorials in comparable articles on the grounds that this has little encyclopaedic value and will not be of much interest to readers. As Nikki notes, the text could describe the fundraising effort in more detail and note particularly significant donations, but a large list serves no sensible purpose. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just remove referenced info without discussing it here first. I have reverted your edits. There should be a clear agreement here first. Please don't remove info again before discussing it here. Now, the list of donors is significant because of the context. Those are not random people who donated. They are mostly prominent donors in Beverly Hills. For example, Meehan owned the Beverly Hills Courier until recently. Chagoury has an entire history regarding 9/11 (google it). Lili Bosse became the Mayor. Fred Hayman is known as "Mr Beverly Hills." Even Les Bronte is a former Mayor and Zarnegin is a developer, both of which should have a page, but I haven't wikified them to avoid too many red links. The entire list is ON the monument. I think it makes sense to say what's on the monument, especially when it is so significant. Now, we may want to improve the list by adding a short description of each donor for reader who are clueless about BH...but wikilinks should do the trick overtime as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I can remove that list, and have just re-done so given that your position here has attracted no support. Please see WP:OWN: you cannot set conditions for other editors to edit articles. Why did you revert my other changes? (including obviously non-controversial changes such as simplifying references and adding a link to the relevant Commons category) - how do you justify including those unnecessary details and overly-wordy statements? Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, McCoy is significant because the company is based in BH, and as you can see, he is married to a Doheny descendant. See Edward L. Doheny, who had one of the first, largest estates in BH. Again, McCoy Construction may be significant to have its own article, but I haven't looked at how much they've built yet, so we'll have to wait and see. But it does provide some context to say it is based in BH. This page is only a start and could very well become a GA, but NOT if you remove referenced info instead of expanding it...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like a list, I could add a section about the donors, with sentences. But that will take longer and make it less easy to read.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding additional prose on how the memorial was funded, and note people who played a significant role (as attested to by independent reliable sources) as part of this. People interested about learning about this memorial aren't going to want to see biographies of donors or the like, and as you note Wikilinks to people mentioned would do the trick if they are interested about learning about them. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. What do you mean by an independent, reliable source? The monument isn't reliable enough, is it? Would it be a reliable source if I published an article about the donors in an academic journal? This makes no sense. A primary source, i.e. on the monument itself, is more reliable, as the author of a journal article could write all kinds of nonsense. By the way, in the mean time, anybody looking at the article will not know at all where the money came from. Yet it didn't fall from the sky, and an encyclopedic article should explain where it comes from. In short, I'd like to know if you are opposed to the layout of a list as opposed to a text, or to the referenced content simply. Or, if you believe the monument is not a reliable source because somehow, the names were added on it as a lie.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The memorial and its website can be presumed to be reliable sources, but obviously are not independent of the memorial. To assess the significance of different individuals'/firms/associations/etc contributions independent sources are needed. For instance, news reports which note the roles various people and organisations played. My concern is that a list of donors is not encyclopaedic and provides little of value to readers, and from my reading of her comments Nikki has similar views. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There will not be newspaper articles about each donor, even if they are prominent people. There were other things happening around the world that day, so newspapers can't cover everything. Besides, another editor may accuse those newspaper article to be PR pieces for specific donors. Right now anyone looking at the article doesn't that Larry King or the late Meehan or Mayor Bosse donated towards the monument. I intend to create a page on the Kobors and Hazan as well. Having a list would encourage more editors to work on their pages btw. Why do you think this provides no value to readers? This seems extremely subjective to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So, given that your removal of referenced info appears to be utterly subjective, I think it should be added back, possibly until the section is turned into a paragraph with sentences.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not. Not everything that can be referenced warrants inclusion. Whether as a list or a paragraph with sentences, if there is no indication of significance as indicated by independent secondary sources (which, if reliable, will not contain "all kinds of nonsense"), these factoids should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand what your criteria for suggesting it is not significant are. Except that maybe you don't like it. But I guess I could try to submit an article to an academic journal about it... Seriously though, why is not relevant to add that the Mayor and Larry King for example donated towards it, and both of their names are on the monument?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, why do you call it a Factoid when the list is on the monument and thus not made up?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If it were significant, there would be secondary sources about it without you needing to invent any. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There aren't secondary sources about every piece of information, because other things happen every day in the world. Newspapers don't cover everything. Please tell me why you don't think it is relevant that Larry King was a major donor to this monument and his name is on it for example?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on those wanting to include the information to justify its significance. Per WP:NOT, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". Without such sources, there is not indication that this warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you have eschewed the question.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The wrong question was asked: the burden to justify is for inclusion, not exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Let's delete all of Wikipedia then. The burden will be on whoever decides to re-create all of it. I don't think you understand how research works--this is terrifying.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Much of Wikipedia includes or could include secondary sourcing indicating the significance of the content. We routinely delete material that does not - see WP:N, WP:V, et al. Do you have any independent, secondary sources supporting this particular content? In other words, can you prove that it is significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)