Talk:Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act

Untitled

Is the fact that the bill contains text sourced from Wikipedia actually notable?

I doubt that Wikipedia mentions the specific sources of background information for most other bills, and I doubt that any other encyclopedia would include the fact that text for this bill was sourced from Wikipedia.

This seems to me to be unnecessary self-promotion of Wikipedia. Jibjibjib 12:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that a bill, which is now law, contains an artcle from Wikipedia is notable because it is a "first" for our pedia. The article is based on verifiable sources as is required by our policies. Wikipedia does not promote itself however, to exclude a proven "fact" from an article is unexcusable. The simple fact that the article was included in the bill gives the pedia some degree of credibility, an aspect which has always been lamblasted by those who are anti-wikipedia. Let us rejoice this accomplishment. Tony the Marine 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article is significant, and the mention of Wikipedia should be left in. Lots of people are discussing the validity of Wikipedia, and whether or not it should be referenced for papers/articles, etc.; if this is indeed the first bill to reference Wikipedia, that's notable. By the way, I find this reference disturbing; Wikipedia is a great place to learn, but a terrible place to cite. CalebNoble 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope

Was this article created specifically to incorporate the self reference to WP in the Congressional Record? The whole premise seems rather contrived. I think this article could be improved by refocusing it on the building itself, i.e. renaming it "Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building" or even "Barbosa Post Office" and including info on the building itself (picture, history, architect, etc.). Then the act can be a subhead, and the self-ref a sub-sub-head. This would put things in better context, I think. The complete text of the act should be transwikied to Wikisource, and only the relevant portions paraphrased. I'm going to add the clean-up tag to the article. Dhaluza 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good call, will add addition info. in the near future. Tony the Marine 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The concept was a good idea and I went to work on it, but here is the situation.

1. The Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building is not a significant building in itself and there are absolutely no references or sources as to its history or importance. 2. There no images of the building. 3. An Act designating a Postal office building with the name of a historical figure in itself is not considered a significant event since there are thousands of those. 4. However, the Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act is deemed significant since it maybe the first time that material from Wikipedia has been deemed important enough to have been included in a U.S. bill signed by the President of the United States. (there is no evidence that any other Wikipedia article has had this distinction.) 5. The article is about the Bill and about the fact mentioned in #4 and not about the building. All available information has been placed and sourced as required by required by Wikipedia policy. Tony the Marine 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

wrong edition of José Celso Barbosa

I have copied the text over to s:Page:H.R.3440.jpg. The article says that the text was obtained from the 2005-07-30 revision, however it is plain to see that it was taken from a much later revision because it includes text added afterwards, and it was taken from a revision which says he died in "September" rather than "December". This is important, because it was an anon who adding September[1] and Tony the Marine removed it[2] but later restored it to September.[3]. This is empirical evidence that this paragraph is wrong, assuming that the image of the Bill is accurate - it was uploaded by Tony the Marine. I am removing mention of Tony the Marine until we have identified which revisions are candidates, which one is likely given the time of publication, and preferably provides a source to support this being the first instance of Wikipedia being used in a bill. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've walked through the revision history, and Tony the Marine appears to be the primary contributor. Other contributors added formatting, and "September". The anon appears to be the winner of the honour of writing the revision which was used.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography was on Congressional Record not on the bill

I just noticed that the biography they used from Wikipedia was mentioned on the Congressional Record but not on the bill. Here is the Congressional Record: [4] which shows clearly a verbatim copy of Wikipedia's biography. However, here's the bill per se: [5] which does not contain Wikipedia's biography. I assume this was an honest mistake from an editor per WP:AGF, which, I assume is unfamiliar between the difference of a Congressional Record and a bill. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirected

The recent AfD for this page was closed as merge. I've redirected it to José Celso Barbosa#Recognition, where the post office, its naming, and Wikipedia's role are all described. It doesn't appear that there's anything to merge in this case, but of course the page history remains accessible for anyone who is interested in performing a proper merge. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• A few days ago, I merged the most outsatnding facts of this article to that of Jose Celso Barbosa. Your idea of redirecting this page with it's history is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)