Talk:Ybor City/Archives/2007/December

Optimal Example

I feel this article focuses too much on the history of Ybor City, neglecting the present-day city. Check out the article on Eugene, Oregon for what I feel is an excellent example of a City Wikipedia page, combining information on history, demographics, transportation, industry, and more. BrickMcLargeHuge 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See, nothing personal, but this is exactly what I mean by uninformed. Ybor City is an historic neighborhood in the larger city of Tampa, which has its own main article that includes everything a whole-city entry should include. You did actually read and understand this entire article before editing, right? Zeng8r 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What I was implying is that you should talk about how Ybor utilizes the resources of the "parent" city then, as well as how its culture (which is covered somewhat) is part of the city at large. As it stands, this is mostly a 'history' article. Demographics and Government don't even have a section, even though as a neighborhood important enough to have its own article, surely it should have a context within the Demographic and Political impact on the city. Some of these current day 'facts' are sprinkled about the 'history' section. BrickMcLargeHuge 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are stub-class articles about almost every neighborhood in Tampa. Surely you should get to work ruining all of those as well. Zeng8r 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide me with some concrete examples how I have "ruined" "your" article. I'm just here to help Wikipedia. BrickMcLargeHuge 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I've gone through and doen some 'trimming' of 'fluff'. I actually like a lot of this content, it's interesting and useful to know for the history of the city. I have

• Condensed the summary of the idea for Ybor's cigar factory
• Slight condensation and language work on the living standards of the cigar worker community
• Spelling and grammar changes for the aid societies section
• Removed some 'extra' information in the Boleta section
• Condensed the decline section

BrickMcLargeHuge (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As already stated, I’ve never claimed that the article was perfect. However, the current edit leaves it looking like an over-pruned tree.

What exactly do you know about Ybor City? (And by “you”, I’m referring to anyone who’s blindly taken up the pruning shears this week.) Important facts are gone, others have been altered out of ignorance as to be incorrect. I find it pretentious when editors slap their resume on a talk page to prove why they are highly qualified to edit a wikipedia entry, so I will refrain from doing so here. Suffice to say, the history of my community is a subject I know very well. And I’m not the only one who shaped this article, tho; several local wikipedians worked to expand it considerably since the beginning of last summer. Now, much of that work as been undone.

How did you (once again, a general “you”) possibly decide what’s important and what’s not, what needed “condensing” and what didn’t, etc., when you don’t know what you’re writing about? For example, the “decline” section needed more explanation, not less, as the period from the 1960s – 1980s was covered with only a sentence or two and some key events weren’t even mentioned. But you didn’t know that, did you?

I’m busy with other projects at the moment and don’t have the (considerable) time it will take to put this article back into to acceptable condition. But I will get back to it soon enough. Zeng8r (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that the edits that have been made, in my opinion, haven't adversely effected the article, and may even be an improvement. I've only made minor grammatical corrections to the "pruning" done by other editors, as you call it. As such, I'd like to think that I'm a bit less biased and not take your response above as a personal attack.

No one here is personally attacking you, and I think it is entirely possible to have a friendly, open discussion without turning this into an "you" vs "us" argument. Again, I'd like to remind you that no one owns articles on Wikipedia. No one individual decides what is right and what is wrong. And, again, like I mentioned previously, it would seem that after reviewing the previous discussions in the talk page, there seems to be a consensus that the article, in its previous state, needed to be edited. As such, I think it'd be appropriate if you would refrain from polarizing this issue. Please do not pit yourself against the other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

Please stop suggesting that the other editors are somehow "ignorant" or less knowledgeable than you. Do you know this for a fact? Maybe these editors live or have lived there before, just like you. If there is information in the article that is factually incorrect, please remove it immediately, but seeing as the edit history would suggest that the article was merely condensed, I don't think this is the case.

You seem to a history of hostility toward users who disagree with anything about this article. There's a lot of unneeded sarcasm and snark. Please tone down your rhetoric. Just look at the rest of the talk page:

• See the edit button at the top? Click and type away. When you're done, be sure to hunt down all the other articles on the site that are in desperate need of help; you know, the ones that are coherent, well organized, and actually interesting. We eagerly await your "improvements", what with you being a writing expert and all. Zeng8r 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• (BTW, I realize that I'm coming across as somewhat of an pompous ass in this discussion, even though I'm really not. But WP is not always a nurturing place, you know.) Zeng8r 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are more alterations that I'll leave for others to find. I hope this satisfies the visiting writing experts who have so recently graced this article with their presence. If it is still above their standards, I encourage them to continue the process of removing anything that makes this entry in any way enlightening or interesting to read. Zeng8r 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in its previous form was beautiful and well written. However, it's been mentioned several times now on this talk page by several editors that the article, in its previous state, didn't seem to fit quite as well with Wikipedia. That's all we're saying. It'd make a lovely book about the history of the area, I'm sure. Eulerskunk ♫ 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

1) Every one of the comments quoted above was in direct response to a comment in kind, either here or on a user page. I'm actually pretty easy going, but will usually respond in the same manner in which I'm addressed. Of course, wikipedia is about collaboration. That's why it becomes frustrating when other editors would rather throw out accusations of plagiarism, blindly hack away at the article, etc. than explain their opinions thoughtfully.

2) There was more discussion on this page about another "tone" banner that was placed on here back in September. The result was that the banner was removed by another editor weeks ago. (Unfortunately, that editor also removed the "call for comments" section from this talk page, but it's in the page history somewhere.) The issue seemed closed until the same user who slapped on that first banner returned to restate the same (unfounded, imo) arguments about the tone.

3) I know that the other users currently editing this article don't know anything about the topic because several of them have freely admitted as such. The user who restarted the dispute is from Australia and has repeatedly stated that he doesn't know anything about Ybor City at all.

4) To return to the dispute itself, I'll repeat myself for the millionth time: I have still not seen anyone explain how the article violated the official wikipedia policy on tone. If it was so "well written", shouldn't someone who felt the need to completely rewrite it because of some perceived policy violation be able to explain that violation? All I hear is ultra-subjective stuff like "it seems touristy" and "it just doesn't feel right" without any connection made to the wikipolicy they seem to think is the problem (again, quoted above).

5) It seems obvious, but I guess I have to say this again, too: It should be up to those who have actual knowledge of a topic to decide what is important about that topic. You won’t see me storming into the clog dancing article, for example, demanding that a passage about clogging shoes be removed because it “doesn’t add anything to the article” – how would I know???

But that’s exactly what another editor did, and you just defended it. The local transportation revolution of the late 1800s was the single most important event in the history of Tampa. Ybor City would not have been built if the railroad was not concurrently under construction. That is not a debatable issue of "tone"; that is an issue of fact, and omittting it leaves out a huge piece of the historical picture. Anyone who knows Tampa/Ybor history would know that, but not someone who's just looking for something to chop from the entry.

I’ve already wasted far too much time arguing about this. If some users feel that wikipedia has no room for articles that do not meet their own (not wikipedia’s) vague but apparently wholly inflexible opinion that all entries must be written in exactly the same way, so be it. I’ll be back later to put all the facts back in. I’ll try to make them as uninteresting as possible, of course.

Zeng8r (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeng8r ... "Anyone who knows Tampa/Ybor history would know that" lies at the heart of your problem inmho. Editing is not best done by people who "know" things, but by people who can substantiate their "facts" with citations, which so far you have avoided completely. Not unaturally you feel an ownership of this article because you are close to the subject and have put in a lot of effort to get it the way you think it should be. Then along comes a bunch of editors who all make much the same criticism and that must have been hard for you to take ... but has it occured to you that these editors can't all be wrong? The article has many good points but it has some major failings not least the complete absence of citations (I am trying to avoid repeating the thoughts about flowery language and asides and other non-encyclopedic material). I have been in the position of fighting the majority (on another artcle) and it is simply not worth it ... and on mature reflection I now concede that they were probably right and I was wrong. My advice is take a month break from this article (maybe longer) and, when you return, try to build on the article as it then is without striving to make the point that you were right afterall. Let the article have a life of its own and you will see it improve over time ... oh and if you could use your undoubted well-read knowledge of the subject to sprinkle some citations throughout the article that would be a considerable bonus. Don't take offence, I am trying to be helpful. :) Abtract (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeng8r - I think that your argument that other editors aren't as much of an expert about Ybor City would have more merit if... they were adding factually incorrect information to the article, which I don't believe is the case. As you called it, the article has been "pruned". The major facts that were in the article originally are still there, they haven't been changed to be wrong. It's just that material that other editors feel is either unnecessary or irrelevant has been removed. Other editors are not removing information and maliciously replacing it with information that they think is "right", they're just removing irrelevant information.

You say that someone who isn't a subject matter expert has no right to edit an article. However, I think this is a grave misjudgment. Do I have to be a subject matter expert to make grammatical corrections to this article, which is all I have done to this point? Do I really need to know anything about Ybor City to know that "Insead" should be replaced with "Instead"? Nope. Not at all.

Similarly, it is not necessary to be a subject matter expert in order to decide when some facts are and are not relevant. I think you'd have more of a point of the editors went in and removed entire blocks of information, like any information on the cigar industry or any information about Vincente Ybor. Looking at the edit history, it'd seem to me that the important information has remained. In fact, looking at the edit summary, I'm having a hard time finding any idea that's been completely removed. Let me go through the Mr. Ybor Comes to Town section, just as an example, since that seems to be where most of the pruning took place:

• Original - The origins of Ybor City can be traced to a New York businessman's failed search for guava trees: Gavino Gutierrez, a native of Spain, was a civil engineer, by training, working for a New York fruit packing and canning firm. He had heard that there were many guava trees growing wild in the Tampa Bay area and, looking to add to his company's fruit products, set out to find them.

What's important here? That one the first people to come to the region did so in search of guava trees. Has that been conserved? Yes:

• Current - The origin of Ybor City can be traced to a New York businessman's failed search for guava trees. Gavino Gutierrez, a native of Spain (and civil engineer) working for a New York fruit packing and canning firm in the early 1880s, came to Tampa Bay area looking for guava trees but found none.

• Original - His trip to Florida was long and difficult. The railroad ended in Sanford (near present-day Orlando), and the rest of the trip was across the state by stagecoach, over poor country roads.

Again, like I stated above, we all know that it'd be a difficult journey. It was around the turn of the 20th century, so there were no automobiles and Florida is a mainly swampy area, anyhow.

• Original - Gutierrez had more problems when he finally arrived in Tampa: he couldn't find any guavas. What he did find was a small village with a decent port and lots of room to grow. He also heard that Henry Plant was extending his railroad line across the state and would soon connect Tampa with the rest of the U.S. rail system. Gutierrez left, but made plans that the town of Tampa had some potential.

• Current - [...] came to Tampa Bay area looking for guava trees but found none. Instead, he found a small village with an adequate seaport, with room to grow. He also heard rumors that Henry Plant was extending his railroad line across the state and would soon connect Tampa with the rest of the U.S. rail system.

Looks like all the major ideas are there, no? Guava trees weren't found, and the area may soon be graced by a rail line.

• Original - To avoid problems, Gutierrez decided to return to New York by boat. Along the way, he stopped to visit his friend Don Vicente Martinez Ybor at his home in Key West, where Ybor owned several cigar factories. Ybor was a fellow Spaniard who had moved to Cuba and built a thriving cigar company. However, Vicente Ybor had gotten in trouble with the authorities for supporting the idea of a Cuba free from Spanish colonial rule. Threatened with imprisonment or even execution, Ybor had fled with his family from Cuba to Key West.

• Current - He returned to New York by boat, stopping along the way to visit Don Vicente Martinez Ybor at his home in Key West, where Ybor owned several cigar factories. Ybor was a fellow Spaniard who had moved to Cuba and built a thriving cigar company. However, Vicente Ybor had gotten in trouble with the authorities for supporting the idea of a Cuba free from Spanish colonial rule. Threatened with imprisonment or even execution, Ybor had fled with his family from Cuba to Key West but had not found a suitable home in the island city.

Important ideas? Gutierrez met Mr. Ybor, who was a cigar factory owner who came to Key West to flee the Spanish government in Cuba. Idea preserved? Yup!

• Original - Vicente Ybor had not found a suitable home in the island city; labor strife and transportation issues (overseas land links were still decades away) already had Ybor thinking about starting over, somewhere else.
• When Gutierrez arrived, he mentioned his recent trip to Tampa. Vicente Ybor agreed that Tampa and its new rail line had potential, and he immediately took Gutierrez to see Ignacio Haya, another cigar factory owner having problems in Key West. Haya and Ybor soon boarded the next available ship leaving for Tampa, and they arrived at dawn the very next day.
• A quick trip around the area was enough to convince Haya and Ybor that Gutierrez has been right. Tampa was well-suited for cigar production; it was near enough to Cuba that importing Cuban tobacco by boat would be quick and cheap. The climate was warm and humid, so the tobacco leaves would stay fresh. And the soon-to-be completed railroad line would make it easy to send the finished cigars all over the United States.

• Current - Vicente Ybor and Ignacio Haya (another cigar factory owner) visited Tampa and determined that its climate, combined with growing transportation potential, would be an optimal location for cigar production.

What was important here? Mr. Ybor and his partner, Mr. Haya, visited Tampa and determined that, because of its climate and possibility for transportation (rail), it may be a good place to build a cigar factory. Preserved? Yes. What was lost? The fact that labor strife and the lack of a rail system going to Key West may have additionally motivated Mr. Ybor and Mr. Haya to relocate. I would argue that this is not important, because they decided to settle in Tampa anyway on its own merits. They wouldn't have moved to Tampa if it had poor soil or lacked any way for them to transport their goods, even given the labor strife and transportation issues in Key West.

Do we need to know that the climate was "warm and humid, so the tobacco leaves would be fresh"? Nope. All we need to know was that the climate was right for making cigars. If someone was really interested in knowing what sort of climate tobacco grows in, they can see tobacco, but given that the area is Florida, after all, one could easily guess that the heat and humidity would definitely have something to do with it.

• Original - Cigar making is an art that takes practice to do well, yet there were no cigar workers in Tampa. However, Ybor and Haya decided that they could lure experienced cigar workers (tabaqueros) from Key West and Cuba, if they offered good jobs for good pay.

• Current - At that stage, there were no experienced cigar workers in Tampa, so Ybor and Haya decided to lure experienced cigar workers (tabaqueros) from Key West and Cuba with the promise of gainful employment.

The important idea here is that Tampa lacked anyone who was experienced enough to make cigars. Where did they get the workers from? Cuba and Key West. Idea preserved? Yup!

• Original - But perhaps the strongest lure was the opportunity to own a home. Land in Tampa was cheap: Vicente Ybor worked with the Tampa Board of Trade to acquire 40+ acres of land northeast of Tampa for $5000. Because Tampa was too small at the time to support all the cigar factories, cigar workers, and the accompanying infrastructure, Ybor hired his friend Gavino Gutierrez to lay out a street grid for a new town on the newly cleared land. Vicente Ybor then constructed dozens of small, well-built homes (nicknamed casitas), which he offered to his workers at a reasonable price. Cigar workers in Key West had traveled back and forth between Florida and Cuba looking for the best pay and conditions. By offering the anchor of home ownership, Ybor encouraged his employees to stick around.

• Current - But perhaps the strongest lure was the opportunity to own a home. Land in Tampa was cheap: Vicente Ybor worked with the Tampa Board of Trade to acquire 40+ acres of land northeast of Tampa for $5000. Because Tampa was too small at the time to support all the cigar factories, cigar workers, and the accompanying infrastructure, Ybor hired Gavino Gutierrez to lay out a street grid for a town on the newly cleared land. Vicente Ybor constructed dozens of small homes, nicknamed casitas, which he offered to his workers at a reasonable price. Cigar workers in Key West had traveled back and forth between Florida and Cuba looking for the best pay and conditions. By offering the anchor of home ownership, Ybor encouraged his employees to live locally.

This is barely changed. All the important ideas have been preserved. The land was bought cheaply by Mr. Ybor and the low cost of living attracted skilled workers to stay in Ybor.

Anyhow, this demonstration is already longer than it needs to be. As you can see, these "ignorant" editors who "know nothing about Ybor" haven't destroyed the article at all! There is no misinformation here or maliciously misleading information. All of the major ideas have been preserved. I should get going anyway, I have a clog dancing class in a few. :) - Eulerskunk ♫ 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Euler's one-sentence summaries are much more succinct than I wrote, perhaps I was too "deep" in the article to condense that much. I think I will follow his lead in the future and see how I can further improve readability. BrickMcLargeHuge (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Editing is not best done by people who "know" things"...

And that attitude, in a nutshell, is the problem. Editors who know nothing about a topic are just as qualified to rewrite an article as someone who has studied it for years? What a ridiculous statement.

Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is supposed to be a knowledge resource. How are the ignorant (in the "I don't know nuthin' about that" sense) supposed to provide to others what they don't have themselves? Making small wording adjustments, fixing the formatting, and adding or removing a word or two - that's one thing. But condensing and/or removing information as part of a major rewrite is a task that only someone who's familiar with the subject should undertake.

Honestly, I would have gone right in and dutifully rewritten the article myself if anyone would have pointed out a specific violation of wikipolicy. But no one has been able to do so. This is probably due to the fact that no violation actually exists. That simple truth isn't sufficient to keep anyone from hacking away at the text, I guess.

The lack in-text citations is a valid concern. However, there are references. I'll put in citations when this termite attack is complete (if there are any facts left to cite). The editors currently chewing on the crossbeams probably shouldn't read any of the books listed in the bibliography, tho, as apparently the knowledge gained would immediately make them unqualified to work on this article.

As for the edits; some are decent, others cut too much. Of course, none of them were actually necessary.

Like I said, I'll be back to clean up y'all's mess when I have more time. Zeng8r 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me just quote something:

• I would have gone right in and dutifully rewritten the article myself

That attitude, in a nutshell, is the problem. Why are you and you alone the only one that can edit this article, hmm? Again, you do not own the article so don't get upset when someone else touches it. Wikipedia does not have a "master editor" to which all other editors must submit suggestions. I'm sorry if you feel like all the other editors should tell you what they think about the article and have you and you alone be the arbiter of what gets changed and what doesn't. That's not how it works. In fact, you've consistently dismissed anyone's opinion who differs from your own as either ignorant or malicious, which is exactly why Wikipedia doesn't operate this way.

Point out to me in my analysis above where exactly things were cut too much. Where were the other editors overzealous? What is the problem with the edits? Show me! List edits and cite some sources and prove where some information that existed before has been changed to something incorrect, because I sure don't see it! In fact, that was my point above. All of the major ideas that existed before, exist now.

And what's this about:

• It'd be best not read the books listed in the bibliography, tho, as apparently the knowledge gained would immediately make someone unqualified to work on this article.

No one here is saying you are unqualified to work on the article, you are the one who is saying the other editors are. - Eulerskunk ♫ 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was done, but I have to respond to a few things:

1) I didn't say that I was the only qualified editor of this article; I said that the editors currently rewriting it are not qualified to completely rewrite it. I've already explained why ignorance does not equal wikipedia strength, so I won't do so again.

2) I've never claimed ownership. As stated already, the text was shaped by several editors, all with a knowledge of the area's history - unlike the current crop.

3) Except in the case of one particular editor who returned to restart a closed discussion (you are aware that the same "tone" banner was placed, discussed, and removed just last month, right?), I've never accused anyone of being anything more than uninformed on Ybor City and/or misguided about wikipolicies. Seems like you're pretty comfortable passing judgment on others, tho, so you'll excuse me if use extreme sarcasm to make one last point...

Have you seen the History of Lithuania featured article on the main page? Don't know a durn thing about it, but just look at this sentence: "This revival spearheaded the independence movement, with various organizations opposing Russian influence."

"Spearheaded"??? Used in a wikipedia article??? The nerve! And why mention Russia; is this a survey of the history of the whole Eurasian area? Is Russia even nearby? I don't know, and I'm not going to bother to look it up, either.

And then there's this: "For the good of Christianity, Jadwiga consented and married Jogaila three days after he was baptized." Wait, we don't need to know why somebody did something, whoever he or she was! There's not even a citation at the end of that sentence!

The article is full of such tripe, and it's unacceptable, I say. Why, upon reading it, I get the impression that Lithuania might be an interesting place to visit! Everyone knows that "touristy" feeling is scandalous!

I'm going in to condense, chop up, and otherwise wikify the whole thing. If anyone cries foul, I'll tell them that they don't own the text and to stop being acting like they're the arbiter of what gets changed and what doesn't. Wikipedia is all about everybody editing everything without regard to knowledge, right?

Exaggerated, yes, but only to make the point obvious. The same situation is playing out here. The only difference is that since it's such a localized and obscure topic, I'm the only knowledgeable editor here to protest. Zeng8r 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First, just to point out something. To quote:

Have you seen the History of Lithuania featured article on the main page? Don't know a durn thing about it, but just look at this sentence: "This revival spearheaded the independence movement, with various organizations opposing Russian influence."

"Spearheaded"??? Used in a wikipedia article??? The nerve! And why mention Russia; is this a survey of the history of the whole Eurasian area? Is Russia even nearby? I don't know, and I'm not going to bother to look it up, either.

Pointing out that there are "problems" in other articles, or that other articles use words like "spearheaded" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as Ignoratio elenchi, or "irrelevant thesis". It is, specifically, a "red herring". Let me quote an example from the Ignoratio elenchi page:

• I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are actual dangerous criminals on the street, and the police should be chasing them instead of harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.

The existence of worse criminals is a secondary issue which has no bearing on whether the driver deserves a fine for recklessness. If the speaker were deliberately attempting to divert the issue, this would be an example of a red herring. While the argument about how the police should spend their time may have merit, the question of whom the police should prioritize pursuing and the question of what should be done with those the police have caught are separate questions.

Similarly, the fact that there are other articles out there that have problems isn't relevant to the discussion about this article and the "pruning" that has taken place. :)

In 1) you again say that the other editors are completely ignorant on the subject. Being ignorant and not being as knowledgeable as you are very different things. If they are ignorant, don't you think that I would be able to find numerous examples of where they replaced factually correct information with completely incorrect information? In fact, none of the facts in the article were changed. Just look at my partial analysis above. You make it sound like some editors with a load of bogus information went through and replaced the entire article with completely wrong and misleading facts. Has that been done? No!

What's wrong with being less knowledgeable? The problem with being less knowledgeable is the risk of adding erroneous material to the article. Has that occurred? Again I say no, it hasn't. If it has, please correct the misinformation immediately.

You don't need to be a subject matter expert to correct grammar or remove unnecessary material like "[the climate was] warm and humid, so the tobacco leaves would be fresh". What is important is that the climate in the area was great for growing tobacco, which was the main industry. This important idea is still in the article. One can infer that the climate was warm and humid, since it is Florida after all. If someone was really interested in knowing exactly what sort of climate tobacco grows in, they'd see the tobacco article, not Ybor City.

I really think that's what the edits have been trying to accomplish. No one is claiming they have more information about Ybor than you do, or that the information that was previously included in the article was wrong. To me it seems that other editors removed excess information from the article, like the bit about tobacco.

In 2) you assert that you've never claimed ownership. Sure, you've never said verbatim that "I own this article." However, you've tried to belittle other editors in an attempt to get them to just leave the article alone so you can do what you will with it (or as you say, "rewrite it myself"). You've claimed other editors are sockpuppets, claimed that other editors are so ignorant that they've maliciously "hacked" the article to bits, and, again, asserted that you, to this point, are the only editor who's learned enough to edit the article. How is that not tantamount to ownership?

Yes, in 3) the editor who put the tag on the article should have checked the talk page first. But, you called him a newbie yourself (you suggested he was either a newbie or a sockpuppet), and we're not supposed to bite the newbies. The fact that the editor made that mistake is, again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Eulerskunk ♫ 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I wonder what the purpose of wikipedia is. Judging from what I am reading here, it is to provide cold, detached information that is edited and critiqued by people who have little to no familiarity with the topic. I've lived in Tampa my whole life. My great-grandfather was one of La Columbia's first waiters. My parents used to take me to the Blue Ship for "music appreciation class." I spent my teenage years reading poetry at the (then still) smokey Silver Ring Cafe. I know Ybor City. If you want people to actually access the meaning of Ybor through a website (and, truly, media like this might be the only way to truly access Ybor because a lot of the spirit of the place lies in its past) then you'll leave some soul in the article. If you want to mislead people into believing Ybor is something it is not - a souless kitch alcove of Tampa described in monotone voice, then please make it more like your (terribly drab) encyclopedia. For what its worth, I never really read those types of articles on wiki - - or anywhere else for that matter. If someone didn't invest enough into the writing to let a piece of themselves and the character of the topic show through, why would their subject be of interest to me? Sarahjayn1980 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC) -sarahjayn1980

Woah woah WOAH, there, pardner! "Soul" in a wikipedia article??? Don't you know? It's all about lists, and perhaps very simple sentences - as long as you don’t use many of those evil adjectives or (gasp!) adverbs. Any sign of life in the text is punishable by a swarm of scissor-wielding zealots who will chop the article to bits.

And the best thing is - they don't even have to justify it! All they have to do is repeat the magic words "It's not encyclopedic" over and over again. Ask them to point to a specific wikipolicy that they're trying to enforce, and they'll just say that special phrase over and over.

When you get down to it, tho, what they're really saying over and over is this: "I'm gutting this article because I feel like it, so nyah nyah nyah. And you have no right to complain, because you don't own it. :sticks out tongue:" Because why stick to wikipedia policy when making up your own is so much fun!

Yep, the main strength and main weakness of wikipedia are on display right here: anyone can edit anything, so people knowledgeable on a topic can come together to share their expertise with the world. But, since anyone can edit anything, ignorant and/or misguided users can barge right into a pretty-much complete article and reduce that knowledge to a shell of what it was, with nuance and deeper meaning and even basic facts removed or made inaccurate.

It'll take careful rereading of the article to fix all the problems (factual and otherwise) introduced during the recent unjustified and completely unnecessary edits. I'll do so only when I have the time to properly do so, as I know enough about this topic to treat it with the respect it deserves. And if any (knowledgeable) editors want to assist in picking up the pieces, please join in. Zeng8r 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote:

• And the best thing is - they don't even have to justify it!

*sigh* I haven't justified anything, hmm? As I recall, I listed a nice, long analysis of why I feel the edits that were made haven't changed the factual information in the article. As of yet, no one has shown me why the edits are detrimental. All I've heard is that "I'm an expert on Ybor City so I'm the only one qualified to determined what is and is not important." Well, okay, if you're an expert, why don't you list reasons, examples, evidence of why the edits that have been made are so catastrophically bad? That should be easy enough for a subject matter expert, shouldn't it? To this point, all I've heard was that the edits are somehow bad, and not why they're bad or so erroneous. I've done my part. I've shown why I think that they are fine. I'd appreciate something more than "The edits are bad because the editors who made them aren't experts, so :sticks tongue out:".

In regards to the article being "boring". This is an encyclopedia. When I want to know cut and dry facts, I read an encyclopedia. That's where people generally get unbiased information, divorced from personal interest. Why is this important? Because if you're doing research, you need verifiable facts that haven't been tinted by someone's personal lens. If I want to be entertained, I read a book. I find history books and lots of other non-fiction very engaging and interesting. But I read them primarily for entertainment. If I learn something along the way, that's wonderful, too. Wikipedia is not a book. No one reads an encyclopedia for entertainment. We use encyclopedias for unbiased facts that can be independently verified, not for amusement. Not for someone's personal thoughts and feelings on a particular subject. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are all fundamental pillars of Wikipedia for this reason.

Personal opinions, like the city having soul and spirit, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Why? Because everyone has a different definition of what spirit and soul is. Someone going to Ybor City and thinking that it has soul and spirit is... original research and someone's personal opinion, which, again, is not allowed in Wikipedia. This is for good reason. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for advancing someone's personal feelings or personal views about how wonderfully full of spirit and soul and culture a particular place is. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts and not personal feelings. Wikipedia is not a personal essay. If you want to write about how great and full of "soul" and "culture" Ybor City is, write a book or an essay and publish it elsewhere on the Internet.

Interestingly, all the attacks against the edits that have been made are... hmm... also personal opinions, lacking any cited evidence. They've been ad hominem attacks against the individual editors, and not against the work that the editors have done. Where are the facts that prove the edits are so bad? Again, I wrote a nice, lengthy explanation of my feelings, with citations from the article on exactly why the factual information contained in the article hasn't been "gutted" by mindless, malicious, "ignorant" editors. Is it too much to expect some facts and evidence from those who disagree, instead of this "you're not experts so you're ignorant and have no right to touch this article" rhetoric. - Eulerskunk ♫ 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that the rational for butchering the article has changed after the fact. First it was "tone". When no one could back that claim up with an actual wikipolicy, it has suddenly changed to "personal opinion" and a supposed lack of citations. Hmmm.

Perhaps you did not notice the reference section at the bottom. All info, inferences, and everything else came from those sources. There were no "personal opinions" in the article at all. But, of course, you wouldn't know that all statements were non-controversial basic facts because you don't know the first thing about the topic.

As for the method of citing sources, let's go to an actual wikipedia policy yet again, shall we?

Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.

The article used the first option. If anyone wanted to challenge a particular statement, I could have easily provided an in-line citation or even a direct quote from a source as I own or have easy access to all the books listed. How many books have you read on this topic, by the way? (Sorry, I forgot that actual knowledge of a subject is not important to writing good encyclopedia articles about said subject. Better call Britanica, tho, because I hear they waste wads of money hiring actual experts...)

As for the repeated "ownership" comments, let me say this. Last year, a neighbor down the street tried to get permission to cut down a protected grand live oak tree in his yard. Wasn't my tree. But because I felt that it added to the neighborhood and was worth protecting on its own merits, I went down to the hearing and spoke against the request. (It was denied.)

Now if somebody was to try to tear down a historic building in Ybor City - lets' say the Centro Asturiano de Tampa building, which I'm sure you're intimately familiar with. (No? Oh well...) I'd be protesting as loudly as possible to as many people as possible. And if I had helped to build it, I'd be even more vehement about it. I don't own it, but it's worth saving, and I'd campaign on its behalf even if I was the only one around to do so, just because it's the right thing to do.

I have similar feelings about this article. It was shaped by several who knew what they are doing, and was gutted by several who don't. I don't "own" it, but its demolition was completely unwarranted, especially since the edits came at a furious pace before any other local editors even noticed what was going on.

Anyway, this is getting tiresome. Got any other attempted justifications, or are you done trying to rationalize the "just because I felt like it" hacking of this (formerly) perfectly good article? I'd like to go ahead and start repairing the mess soon. Zeng8r 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument about "personal opinion" was regarding your statement:

• Woah woah WOAH, there, pardner! "Soul" in a wikipedia article??? Don't you know? It's all about lists, and perhaps very simple sentences - as long as you don’t use many of those evil adjectives or (gasp!) adverbs. Any sign of life in the text is punishable by a swarm of scissor-wielding zealots who will chop the article to bits.

Your sarcasm aside, the entire reason why there shouldn't be any "soul" in the article is that personal feelings like:

• If you want people to actually access the meaning of Ybor through a website (and, truly, media like this might be the only way to truly access Ybor because a lot of the spirit of the place lies in its past) then you'll leave some soul in the article. If you want to mislead people into believing Ybor is something it is not - a souless kitch alcove of Tampa described in monotone voice, then please make it more like your (terribly drab) encyclopedia.

It is not Wikipedia's job to express whether a city has a soul or not, or to make it appear so grand and wonderful that anyone reading the article would want to fly out immediately and experience it ASAP. That's not Wikipedia's job, and I do think that that is what this debate (or the "tone" as you call it) was originally about. If you want to sell the city by adding "fluffy" language and "soulful" imagery, go make your own website about it or write a book about it.

This is what my initial comment about the article sounding "overly promotional" was all about. You don't have to be selling anything in the sense of transferring goods or rendering services or receive monetary compensation to sound promotional. It seems to me that there was a lot of irrelevant information placed in the article in its previous form in an effort to try to spice up the appearance of the city for whatever reason. Let me list a few examples from what you call the "(formerly) perfect" article:

• At first, Ybor City life was primitive. The new town was built beside a swamp, and it wasn't unusual for a stray alligator to come wandering over. By around the turn of the 20th century, though, many of Ybor's streets were paved with bricks, a streetcar line connected Ybor with downtown Tampa, and life was relatively comfortable.

Does anyone reading an encyclopedia article about a city in Florida need to know that a stray alligator wanders into town on occasion? That still happens today in many, many places in Florida. It's no more relevant to Ybor City than a moose wandering into a town in Canada. Furthermore, we can assume that life was primitive in a newly founded town, especially for a town that was founded before the 20th century. This isn't special or unique to Ybor City. Also, why is it important to know that a streetcar linked Ybor to downtown Tampa? Is knowing that there was a streetcar significant? It's not like San Francisco, which is renowned for its historic streetcars.

The street car has recently been revived as a part of a mission to revive the history of Tampa. Local historians, and experts on the area see it as an important symbol. Surely, they know what they are talking about or the uni system here is owed some serious dollar back from them. Also, as I stated before, I've lived here my whole life - in Tampa. The banishment of alligators from our streets and into our zoos is what marks the spread of civilization. If someone where writing an article on London, Canada, and put in it, "In 1845, moose could still be seen wandering the streets." I'd think to myself, "Oh, so it was incorporated but not well-populated and still inhabited by wildlife." Alligators don't still wander the streets of Tampa, Florida. No one is going to get chased by the giant reptile in the parking lot of Busch Gardens. You watch too much television or have a good imagination. Sarahjayn1980 18:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) sarahjayn1980

• But starting in the late 1980s, an influx of artists looking for interesting and low-rent studio quarters started a slow recovery. Ybor became a hip place to be, and a form of commercial gentrification began to change things further. By the early 1990s, many of the old long-empty brick buildings on 7th Avenue were converted into bars, restaurants, or nightclubs, and Ybor City became a popular nightlife attraction.

Who got to decide that Ybor is "a hip place to be"? That seems like a WP:NPOV violation, no? I don't think there would be a great loss in striking that from the article, would there? Or am I too ignorant to make that decision? Also, who determines that "Ybor City became a popular nightlife attraction"? How popular is popular? Is it just popular compared to other places in Tampa? Florida? The US? It's unsubstantiated. This is what I mean by "overly promotional": adding terms like "a hip place to be" or calling a place "popular" without any sort of figures to quantify the number of visitors and show that it is more popular than any other average neighborhood in any other average mid-sized town in America. Is Paris a popular tourist destination? Yes! It even says so in the article. Ybor City is not Paris, however. Paris is renowned for being an international tourist destination, and, much more importantly, there are even citations with actual... facts and figures on the number of tourists who go to Paris compared to other major world cities. Therefore, it is justifiable to call Paris popular.

These are the sort of issues I see. There seems to be a lot of "opinion" and promotional point of views in the article, previously. You may call it "tone", if you will. Or maybe "point of view". Or maybe "overly promotional". But whatever you call it, it has no place in an encyclopedia. - Eulerskunk ♫ 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge does not need to be cited. The examples you give as "POV" are indeed common knowledge for anyone who knows this area - my area - as you do not.

You are not promoting wikipedia policies; they are your own. Of course, they could never be put into practice, because if evenly enforced, there could be no statement made in any article on any topic without a citation. "Water is wet?" Cite it! I invite you to try to bring all 2-million+ entries up to those impossible standards.

Obviously, you enjoy pointless arguing more than I do. Congratulations. If I was as childish as some, I'd follow you around wikipedia putting warning notices on every article you’ve worked on, every single edit you’ve made that does not follow the decrees you've invented on this talk page to the exact letter.

But I'm done wasting my time. Let me know when you and your compatriots in mindless uniformity are done here so that more mature editors can get back to the business of helping to create an encyclopedia. In the meantime, I am done with this discussion. Zeng8r 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My concerns with this article

I really hope this doesn't sound way too formal or too long, but my attempts to address this issue in a rational fashion have, as of yet, fallen on deaf ears. Let me list exactly why I feel the way I do about this article, along with examples. I hope I'm not coming off too serious, but I want to avoid any perception that I'm childish. :)

1) Content of article Ybor City

1.1) Failure to acknowledge WP:NPOV issues. User:Zeng8r asserts that WP:PEACOCK terms such as suggesting that Ybor City is a "hip place to be" and is "popular" do not violate WP:NPOV because they:

• are indeed common knowledge for anyone who knows this area - my area - as you do not.[1]

1.2) Unsubstantiated accusations that edits that have been made to Ybor City in an attempt to remove WP:PEACOCK terms (see 1.1) and unnecessary material have been maliciously done by "ignorant" editors. I have provide a detailed list of examples in an attempt to illustrate that the edits are not malicious and have been made in good faith. User:Zeng8r has maintained that the edits are indeed malicious and "incorrect" without responding to the evidence provided and without providing any evidence to support the user's own position. (See this thread.)

1.3) Ignoring numerous other editors' comments over the unecyclopedic "tone" of the Ybor City article:

• After seeing your edits to a few South Florida related articles, I saw that you are a great writer (to be expected of an English teacher). However, the tone you are utilizing in writing does not really fit in with the proper tone of an encyclopedia. Brittanica, World Book, and Encarta do not use terms like "heydey" or phrases such as "Sometimes, big things grow from unlikely beginnings." While this is expected of prose, it is not expected of encyclopedia articles..Ry.ló(..) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Looking though wikipedia, I have yet to find any policy, guideline, or rule which my writing violates. I have found plenty of poorly organized collections of garbled information posing as coherent articles. Those are the entries that need the attention of editors, not articles that are written "too well" (an actual quote from an email I received).

  Honestly, I wouldn't want to be part of a project that is devoted to foisting more mind-numbingly dull prose on the world. But, nonwithstanding the opinions of some, I don't think that's the objective of wikipedia at all. Zeng8r 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [2]

• This article is not consistent with the tone of wikipedia articles. I hope someone tries to change its style. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles . Llamabr 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  See the edit button at the top? Click and type away. When you're done, be sure to hunt down all the other articles on the site that are in desperate need of help; you know, the ones that are coherent, well organized, and actually interesting. We eagerly await your "improvements", what with you being a writing expert and all. Zeng8r 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [3]

• The article, from a pure literary perspective, is brilliant, and I've no doubt it's accurate, but I don't think it has the appropriate tone for a Wikipedia article - it needs to be cold and encyclopedic. While the writing style you put it in is quirky and interesting, it is in sharp contrast to other articles in a similar vein, and Wikipedia needs to be consistent in this regard. You're a great writer, so much so that I initially thought you'd plagiarised most of it, but then I changed my mind when I went to your userpage and found out you were a teacher. I've put the article up for cleanup, though, not because I think it is horrible but because I want more experienced editors than me to have a look at this and judge it for themselves. Deus Ex Machina 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  First time I've ever been told my writing was too good... Seriously, tho, "encyclopedic" doesn't have to equal boring, cold, or poorly written. Many wikipedia articles are put together piecemeal, with one line here written by one person, another paragraph there repeating similar information by somebody else, a random fact tossed into the middle of nowhere, etc., with no central focus or flow. The Ybor article used to be like that, but was shaped and expanded for better flow. If interesting writing doesn't fit wikipedia's "style", then hack away. Zeng8r 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [4]

2) Personal attacks against other editors while dealing with valid concerns as listed in 1):

2.1) Unsubstantiated claims that User:BrickMcLargeHuge is Deus Ex Machina's sockpuppet:

• Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I find it very odd that a "new" user somehow found this obscure article about the history of a neighborhood in a random medium-sized city and:

  1) Already thinks he understands wiki-policies well enough to judge the article's tone, 2) knows that WP banners exist, 3) knows how to use them (there were no formatting fixes involved), and most interestingly 4) adds the very same banner which had been previously added, discussed, and removed. And then Deus Ex Machina, the user who placed the original banner but who did not participate in the subsequent discussion after his opinion lost support, amazingly reappears on the very same day to agree with the "newcomer". Wow, what a small world it is... [5]

This is followed later by:

• By the way, I am rolling my eyes at the "coincidence" of random non-local users suddenly stumbling upon this out-of-the-way article and "independently" coming up with the "touristy" comment. Anybody want to discuss it rationally, or have snarky edit summaries and every-two-months drive-by banner-placings become part of some new wikipedia dispute policy? Zeng8r (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [6]

And has continued with:

• Oh, almost forgot to mention... a "tone" banner was placed on the article back in early October and was removed after discussion. But the same editor put it back on a few weeks later, restarting the debate and quickly editing the text before any knowledgable users besides myself noticed what was going on. Zeng8r 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [7]

The "same editor" did not add the tone banner. User:Deus Ex Machina did originally, while User:BrickMcLargeHuge did afterward. User:Zeng8r still maintains that these users are engaging in sockpuppetry without filing for a checkuser.[8][9]

2.2) Continued belief that all other editors are not qualified to edit Ybor City due to being either "ignorant" or "less of an export" on the topic in an attempt to assert ownership over the article:

• See, nothing personal, but this is exactly what I mean by uninformed. Ybor City is an historic neighborhood in the larger city of Tampa, which has its own main article that includes everything a whole-city entry should include. You did actually read and understand this entire article before editing, right? Zeng8r 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [10]

• What exactly do you know about Ybor City? (And by .you., I.m referring to anyone who.s blindly taken up the pruning shears this week.) Important facts are gone, others have been altered out of ignorance as to be incorrect. I find it pretentious when editors slap their resume on a talk page to prove why they are highly qualified to edit a wikipedia entry, so I will refrain from doing so here. Suffice to say, the history of my community is a subject I know very well. And I.m not the only one who shaped this article, tho; several local wikipedians worked to expand it considerably since the beginning of last summer. Now, much of that work as been undone.

  How did you (once again, a general .you.) possibly decide what.s important and what.s not, what needed .condensing. and what didn.t, etc., when you don.t know what you.re writing about? For example, the .decline. section needed more explanation, not less, as the period from the 1960s . 1980s was covered with only a sentence or two and some key events weren.t even mentioned. But you didn.t know that, did you?

  I.m busy with other projects at the moment and don.t have the (considerable) time it will take to put this article back into to acceptable condition. But I will get back to it soon enough. Zeng8r (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) [11]

• 3) I know that the other users currently editing this article don't know anything about the topic because several of them have freely admitted as such. The user who restarted the dispute is from Australia and has repeatedly stated that he doesn't know anything about Ybor City at all. [12]

The above argument would have more weight if User:Zeng8r would provide examples of how other editors' inexperience has adversely effected the content of the Ybor City article. However, User:Zeng8r has failed to produce any examples of this and has ignored and failed to respond to examples by me to the contrary.

2.3) Other various personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and belief of ownership:

• Immediate revert of a good faith edit by another user without discussion. [13]

• Obviously, you enjoy pointless arguing more than I do. Congratulations. If I was as childish as some, I'd follow you around wikipedia putting warning notices on every article you.ve worked on, every single edit you.ve made that does not follow the decrees you've invented on this talk page to the exact letter.

  But I'm done wasting my time. Let me know when you and your compatriots in mindless uniformity are done here so that more mature editors can get back to the business of helping to create an encyclopedia. In the meantime, I am done with this discussion. Zeng8r 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [14]

• Yep, the main strength and main weakness of wikipedia are on display right here: anyone can edit anything, so people knowledgeable on a topic can come together to share their expertise with the world. But, since anyone can edit anything, ignorant and/or misguided users can barge right into a pretty-much complete article and reduce that knowledge to a shell of what it was, with nuance and deeper meaning and even basic facts removed or made inaccurate.

  It'll take careful rereading of the article to fix all the problems (factual and otherwise) introduced during the recent unjustified and completely unnecessary edits. I'll do so only when I have the time to properly do so, as I know enough about this topic to treat it with the respect it deserves. And if any (knowledgeable) editors want to assist in picking up the pieces, please join in. Zeng8r 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [15]

Also see above. User:Zeng8r has failed to provide any evidence that the edits are factually incorrect while maintaining that they are.

• (BTW, I realize that I'm coming across as somewhat of an pompous ass in this discussion, even though I'm really not. But WP is not always a nurturing place, you know.) Zeng8r 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC) [16]

Thank you. Rational and open discussion on my concerns would be appreciated. :) - Eulerskunk ♫ 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do Despair ... then relax.

Hello Zeng8tr .

The original article was just fine. I am sorry that I drew attention to it by complimenting you on it. As Wikid77 wrote "the Wikipedia process is fatally flawed". Not as in "about to die" but as in "bound to fail because of inherent design faults". There are too many dogmatic opionated busybodies who interfere with articles for trivial reasons.

I recently removed two ugly unjustified tag boxes from the article, drank a coffee with my wife, and there they were back again. Words like petty, meddling and bigot come to mind. I am not supposed to be rude but they can't stop me thinking.

Even fairly elementary articles, on engineering or mathematics for example, are never completely trustworthy. Those on contentious matters such as Israel/Palestine, Intelligent Design or ,strangely,George Galloway are completely useless although they are quite amusing. The trouble is that you can never assess how reliable an article is.

I stopped creating articles some years ago but I still edit occasionally. I find that if you don't want information to dissappear is is best to put on a discussion page.

If you want information from Wikipedia be careful. If you want examples of the more unhappy aspects of human nature you will find many examples among the contributors

With kind regards from mikeL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and it's not your fault. I honestly don’t understand the mindset needed to start disputes like this…

Let’s say a wikipedia user somehow stumbles upon an article about a place that he’s never even heard of before. It’s part of two wikiprojects and is relatively long, so the topic is relevant to quite a few people and may be complicated. It’s also been rated a B-class article, so obviously the consensus among involved editors is that the entry is at least OK.

As our hypothetical user reads through the text, tho, he notices that while it’s objective and informative, there is more description and detail included that in other articles he’s seen. There aren’t any clear violations of any wikipolicy, but it just feels “different”.

If it were me, I’d store away the new info on the odd chance that I’d ever need it and move on. Perhaps I’d change a word or two, but only if I was absolutely positive that the change would not alter meaning. I've only done real work on articles within my frame of expertise - mainly entries about my hometown and related topics. I certainly wouldn't go mucking around in the history of Cornwall entry, for example, because I would have no idea what I was talking about. And if I did come across serious issues in a random article, I’d trust that a comment on the talk page or, in extreme cases, a banner on the talk page would be sufficient to get the attention of editors who knew the topic enough to fix it.

But apparently, some users believe that the proper response to any article that just feels "different" (in their opinion) is to slap a “tone” label onto the top of the main article and start an immediate rewrite. And if anyone objects, label them as “obstructionist” and “irrational” and gather a bunch of wiki-friends to create a false consensus supporting the rewrite before editors more knowledgeable on the topic can react.

I guess it was naive to think that wikipedia is about collaboratively sharing knowledge within broad encyclopedic guidelines, not needless nitpicking and wikilawyering that wastes everybody’s time and effort. Zeng8r (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

what is this

What in holy hell is all this? Lots of drama in this place.

I am from Tampa, and the bottom line is that this article is not as good as it was when I read it before. Somebody else besides the ones arguing should write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmanteiga (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was with ya right until that last comment... But if you'd like to start cleaning up the mess, feel free. Zeng8r (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any demographic data on this article like on West Tampa. I could look that up if it won't get erased.

Please provide examples. BrickMcLargeHuge 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember all the details. You'll understand when you get old. It was longer and felt more real before.

"popular"

One example of a misunderstanding of wikipolicy is the "peacock" term issue. Here's an interesting quote:

"The Raven" is a narrative poem by American writer and poet Edgar Allan Poe first published in January 1845. Noted for its musicality, stylized language and supernatural atmosphere, it tells of a talking raven's mysterious visit to a distraught lover, tracing his slow descent into madness. The lover, often identified as a student, is lamenting the loss of his love, Lenore. The raven, sitting on a bust of Pallas, seems to further instigate his distress with its repeated word, "Nevermore." Throughout, Poe makes allusions to folklore and various classical works. Poe claimed to have written the poem very logically and methodically. His intention was to create a poem that would appeal to both critical and popular tastes, as he explains in a follow-up essay, "The Philosophy of Composition". The poem was inspired in part by a talking raven in the novel Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty by Charles Dickens. The first publication of "The Raven" on 29 January 1845 in the New York Evening Mirror made Poe widely popular in his day.

By some people's estimation, all of the bolded terms would probably violate WP:peacock. Evidently, others would disagree, since the quote comes directly from the part of today's featured article currently displayed on the front page of wikipedia.

I'm reverting the last edit and adding a reference. However, demanding a citation for every basic statement of fact (as I've already said, this is common knowledge to anyone with even a crumb of experience with this topic) is clearly neither required nor practical. Zeng8r (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, quoting other articles is not a suitable defense, as I've stated previously. Whether another article uses words like "popular" or "a hip place to be" (or in the case of Poe, calling "The Raven" stylized or mysterious) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please see Ignoratio elenchi for an explanation of why such reasoning is logically erroneous (this thinking is a derivative of the old "well, you/they do it too!" style of argumentation). I'm sure we can find hundreds of cases where people have posted their personal opinion on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and remove non-neutral opinions when we find them.

Calling somewhere a "hip place to be" is needless and blatant propaganda, in lack of a better term. If I went to any place and thought it was a "hip place to be" that'd be great, but it represents my personal opinion (and is original research). I'm sure you and I both have different opinions on what hip is. By removing the phrase I'm not claiming that I don't find Ybor City a hip place to be. What I am doing, however, is leaving it up to the reader, traveler, resident, or tourist to determine if it meets his or her individual criteria for what being a "hip" place is, rather than impressing my point of view and personal opinion on the unsuspecting, gentle reader. This is what neutrality is about. If Ybor City truly is a wonderful and "hip" place, it should be found so because it meets the individual's personal view of what he or she thinks being "hip" is, not because some article/reference said so. The city should speak for itself and be judged on its own merits, not by the wonderfully positive or horribly negative language inserted by people who hold certain opinions.

This really is the crux of the argument. We are to be neutral. If a subject is popular or hip or great or "good" or "evil", the individual reader should form these opinions or feelings him or herself, based on factual evidence presented in an unbiased fashion. Or, to quote the WP:PEACOCK page:

• If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it should come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing.

Even if you can cite a source that claims that it is a "hip place to be", such a claim is tinted through someone's personal lens and represents a non-neutral point of view. It also represents someone's original research and personal opinion. Nearly everything on the planet has fanboys. Just because something or someone or some place has a group of people with websites/books/pamphlets/articles stating that subject X is "totally awesome" or "so hip and great" doesn't mean we should just cite those things and put their opinion into an encyclopedia.

As such, I really don't see the justification for adding these peacock terms back into the article. I also took the time to read the article you referenced. I did a word search for "hip" and "popular" and couldn't find either in the reference (even if it did contain these terms, I still don't think "a hip place to be" is justified do to the argument I made in the previous two paragraphs. Just because you can cite a group of people who hold a certain opinion, it is still an opinion nonetheless, despite being published). As such, I am going to remove the peacock terms from the section again. I will not totally revert your edit, as you made other changes that I respectfully do not wish to effect. - Eulerskunk ♫ 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough

-skunk keeps challenging anyone to detail the errors (and errors of omission) introduced in the recent flurry of cuts and condensations made by users woefully uninformed about the topic of this article. Instead of wasting my time making a long list, I began fixing them in the text three times yesterday. Each edit was indefensibly reverted within an hour by two of those uninformed users, the last one with a claim (in the edit summary) that the edits were a reintroduction of an older version and that any edits needed prior consensus.

First of all, the text is new, as was the additional reference added at the same time. Calling for consensus on new edits that nobody had a chance to see is quite disingenuous, imo.

Second, the sudden call for prior consensus is pretty ironic, seeing that it comes from a user (Abstract) whose first action in this article was to inexplicably cut the lead to a single sentence w/o consensus, throwing in an accusation of plagiarism in the edit summary for extra fun. And when told that there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, his next action was to start cutting random chunks out of the article, again w/o consensus or even a token attempt to explain his edits on the talk page.

But since wikipedia is about collaboration and consensus, let's go along with the request. A glance of the comments on this talk page reveals that more editors have stated their opposition to the recent edits than have voiced their support, including every editor who actually knows the topic. Looks like a consensus for additional adjustments to me.

As for the "no references" tag that keeps reappearing - again, the wikipedia citation policy has been quoted above for some time and is also quoted below. Ignorance is no excuse for repeatedly and improperly putting it back.

Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.

And as I've repeatedly stated, though they are not required, in-line citations will be added once the text is stable. Zeng8r (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you listen to anyone but your own inner voice? Have you learned anything from the exchanges in these pages? It is becasue you clearly don't and haven't that so many editors have accused you of thinking you own this article. If you could just change that particular attitude and believe that others are actually trying to improve the article (albeit in a direction somewhat against your personal liking), then we could all move on and cooperate in that aim. Search your heart and see that I am right. Abtract (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read every word on this talk page, much to my eyes' distress, and disagree with large portions of it. So do a majority of those that have commented, by the way. Perhaps my "inner voice" is podcasting?

As explained at length and ad naseum, the rationale for chopping up the article is based on 1) over-narrow interpretation of wikipedia policy not based in a spirit of collaboration (or common sense, imo) and 2) obvious misunderstanding of the topic due to a total lack of knowledge. Nothing I've read has changed my mind on either point.

Also, editors blindly cutting out chunks of important information on an unfamiliar topic is probably not a good way to "improve" an article. Zeng8r (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you really mean that and are beyond redemption ... an attitude like that will undoubtedly lead you to being blocked before very long but, in the meantime, I wish you well with your article. Abtract (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Merge nomination History of Ybor City seems to be an older copy of the current heading Ybor City, Tampa, Florida#History; same pictures, almost word for word. I don't believe the current length of this article warrants a split. Does anybody want a split article now? Either way, we need help in merging the two together or condensing this article's history section and adding a "Main Article" link. Filpaul (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• merge The length makes a merger appropritate. If something changes then it can always be split back out. CJ (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep 'em separate I can't believe I'm saying this after all the blah blah blah-ing I've done on this page, but... this article could be condensed in the history section and expanded in the other sections until it looks more like the West Tampa, Florida entry, letting the History of Ybor article tell the full story. I've been meaning to expand and improve the History of Ybor entry for some time, but limited wiki-time and unlimited wiki-arguing has kept me from getting it done. If others can take over the arguing here, I could probably have the new "History of" article finished in the next few days for general perusal. Zeng8r (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem I see with separating them is that size isn't an issue for this article. It's easier for people to find information if it's all together and the only reason you do a split like this is when size becomes an issue. Now, by the time this merge proposal gets resolved, that may not be the case. And it's not like the article can't get split back out again if it's merged. It's not like the content is going to be destroyed, just moved into one location. CJ (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In any case, the rewrite of the History of Ybor City article is about 1/3 finished and posted for your examination (the "Ybor City as boom town" section and beyond are still being renovated). A complete and thorough history of this unique community is going to end up being quite long for a single section of an article about a city neighborhood (compare to others in Neighborhoods in Tampa, Florida). I think a well-done condensation of this article by knowledgeable editors along with the expansion of the "History of" entry is the best course. However, I'd be OK with a merger as long as the better version of the history is used. Zeng8r (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Per nom. Lots of duplicate information. Same pictures. Identical colloquial headings (Mr. Ybor Comes to Town... how can you come to a town that didn't exist yet and you founded yourself? Sounds like marketing lingo). Same issues that we're having here... peacock terms (again with the 'hip place to be', 'popular', 'famously read' (how can you famously read something?)) that we're discussing in this article exist in that one as well. Potential content/POV fork, would almost seem like a safe haven for everything that we've been debating here... - Eulerskunk ♫ 06:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I agree... merge. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just to expand my merge comment a little. The information provided in History of Ybor City is so similar, and in some cases identical, to this article, it seems silly to me to maintain two separate articles. Many of the paragraphs are exactly the same, word-for-word. Many of the headings are the same, word-for-word. The discussion we've had here about "tone" and about NPOV and about peacock terms are completely applicable to History of Ybor City precisely because of how incredibly similar the two articles are. It just seems to me that it is in everyone's interest to take the similar content of both articles, along with the suggestions and comments made here and on Talk:History of Ybor City (many of which are identical, again due to the incredibly similar nature of the two articles), and merge them. We can build upon all these suggestions and collaboratively build a better article, rather than just rehashing the same open discussions on two very similar articles. - Eulerskunk ♫ 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as above. Abtract (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge There is no reason for two articles on one section of a city. We shouldn't be writting books here. Encyclopedia articles should be a general summary. There seems to be few references and maybe a lot of OR or POV --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It may seem like I'm beating the proverbial dead horse here, but editors who know this subject should have much more say in deciding whether to merge or not to merge. As every student of Tampa history knows, this isn't a quaint story about an interesting but ultimately unimportant collection of old buildings. To put it simply, if there wasn't an Ybor City 100+ years ago, there most likely would not be a Tampa today. Zeng8r (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Result A clear concensus to merge (with one objection); I have simply redirected the history article to here because the existing section is more up to date ... any lost info can be included by the original editor or anyone else. Abtract (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the merge

I cannot fathom why users from other continents are so concerned about Tampa-related articles. I also cannot fathom why they feel the need to take urgent action to alter/merge/delete them when local and knowledgeable editors are already working on them. Tampa and Florida wikigroups? What's that?

The History of Ybor City article had been expanded and changed significantly by more than one editor since the merge discussion began, including a complete reworking of the reference codes and templates which must have taken a long time (I didn't do it). But who cares? 'tis much easier to destroy than create... so that's what Abstract just did, deleting the updated "History of" article instead of transfering it over.

Nice. Editing or vandalism? More like the latter, imo, and it's going to be fixed. I saved a working copy of the History of article offline and will cut and paste it here. It may not be the latest version, tho.

BTW, I am not complaining about the merge - I don't really mind either way. I'm complaining about text-destroying carelessness with which the action was carried out by (again) a user who has zero experience with the topic. Zeng8r (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for the owner of the article to make the merge once a conclusion had been reached but then I read Zeng's comments and realised it would be a long wait so I did the best I could. Anyone who can do a better job should do so. In the absense of that, I editors will no doubt perform edits to combine the best of the two or simply to improve the article generally. Abtract (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, it's like talking to a rock here. Did you not read the comments above? Or take even a passing glance at the revision that you (once again) deleted? Once again, the transferred text is NOT THE SAME as the original history section in this article. It is much more detailed, is chock full of in-line references, and has a reformatted citation format, among many other improvements. Funny you didn't notice.

I'm putting it back again, leaving Kevin Murray's edits in place as much as possible. Hopefully this time it's left alone long enough that other knowledgeable editors will have an opportunity to actually see it and continue working on improving it.

Now will you please leave this job to the editors in the 2 (two) wikigroups that list this as important article and go mess with an entry on some other topic you don't understand? You're just wasting people's time playing these games. Zeng8r (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

z8 I reverted your edits and then added back your history section, so that all of your changes today to the history section are intact, but other changes are reverted. You are trying to do too much at one time, and the lead section became too long. Let things sit for a minute and let's discuss what other changes we need. Perhaps we should discuss this a section at a time. PS We don't need to live in Tampa to write a good encyclopedia article about it. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)