Jump to content

User talk:Bayshorebabydoll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Bayshorebabydoll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Houston Press

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bayshore!

I understand you removed information from Bacliff, Texas that is unflattering towards Bacliff itself. In your edit summary you said that the source article was "an opinion piece and not based on fact". Unfortunately there is no evidence of either case. The article is not labeled as an "opinion" piece (yes, there are Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle "opinion" columns as newspapers) and it was published by a newspaper, so it is not treated as an opinion piece. The Houston Press did not make any retractions towards comments, and any internet discussion board comments do not count as reliable sources. Therefore I have restored the information removed in your edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also started this thread on the Houston Wikiproject Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Houston#User_removing_unflattering_information_from_Bacliff.2C_Texas and I started a discussion at the Good Article page at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#User_removing_content_and_disputing_source_in_article_marked_as_.22good_article.22. I also made a further post to the NPOV noticeboard and contacted three longtime Houston area editors (User talk:RJN, User talk:Nsaum75, and User talk:Postoak) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'll take a look at it and post my reply on the Talk:Bacliff, Texas talk page, and I'll show you the specific section. From this point it will be best to keep it on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I posted my reply at Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232 - I have a few questions, but I also have several things to clarify, especially regarding the verifiability policy (WP:V) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a user posted information about Gator Miller on the talk page. Please take a look. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please go participate in the talk page. I haven't yet modified your edits because I am waiting until the discussion ends before reverting any changes, so there is no Wikipedia:Edit war. But if you do not participate in the discussion after some time (5-7 days) I will revert whatever edits that I feel should be reverted (in other words, restoring all content sourced from the Houston Press). Several assertions you added to the article are either unsourced, or not sourced to good sources, and because Bacliff is marked as a "Wikipedia:Good article" I will have to remove them in order to maintain the "Good article" marking. Again, please participate in the talk page. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore the previous version in five days if you do not participate in the edit discussion that has been set up. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find more articles about Bacliff when I get the chance. Please tune into the discussion at Bacliff, Texas as I am still not convinced that the HP articles shouldn't be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still active on Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Yes, I am still here[reply]

Okay :) - Did you make responses to my latest comments on the talk page? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)No, I didn't. It didn't seem to require one, but I did read it[reply]

I want to still use the Houston Press source, I do want to add more sources to the article in general. If I add more sources, the "weight" of any existing source would decrease by default. What I could do is head off to the library and see if I can get archives of any old articles about Bacliff. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found some new ones :) - I'll add them too. Again, while I still believe in using the Houston Press article I want to use them with other sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Houston Press article referred to a shooting in a game room. I found the Chronicle article: Staff. "Officers seek witnesses in Bacliff robbery" (Houston Chronicle, Tuesday July 8, 2008 - On NewsBank (I can send you the article if you like). It's a "news event" story so I won't add info about it to the article, but I this is referred to in the Houston Press article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)There's a big difference between the Houston Chronicle article on that event and the Houston Press article. The Houston Chronicle artcle reports about it without any of the author's bias that runs throughout the Houston Press article. I have no problem with factual information being included in the Wikipedia entry. It was based mostly on opinion and non factual information before which is not what something that strives to emulate an encyclopedia should be.[reply]

Bayshore, I work with articles from the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Business Journal, and the Houston Press regularly. There are Chronicle articles which also include the opinions of the writer. For instance Lisa Falkenberg said "The Lee of today, with its crumbling façade and graffiti on nearby buildings, is far from the glistening school on the prairie that opened in 1962" - See this article
And, as I've said before, it's perfectly okay including opinions in Wikipedia articles as long as they are attributed to the journalist. Think of it this way. It is a fact that this journalist, Lisa Falkenberg, has this opinion/impression of Lee High School, right? To make it clear that Wikipedia is not stating opinion as fact, just say "Lisa Falkenberg says...."
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)That's a poor example. Lisa Falkenberg is an op ed reporter. Her opinions don't belong in Wikipedia articles either. None of the other nearby cities Wikipedia articles contain reporter's opinions, not even the Wikipedia article on Houston, so then why should Bacliff? Why is it so difficult to stick to the facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - the Houston Press article definitely does not follow this guideline.[reply]

Firstly, Op/Eds would be classified under the "Opinions/Editorials" page. Several of Falkenberg's articles are under "News." In particular the Lee High School article is under "News > Lisa Falkenberg". Editorials are at http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/ and they are under "Editorials"
Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources states "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..." " - So Wikipedia does include viewpoints on subjects, as long as there is attribution. It makes it clear that it is okay to use biased sources (many publications do have biases). "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."
" None of the other nearby cities Wikipedia articles contain reporter's opinions, not even the Wikipedia article on Houston, so then why should Bacliff?" Those city articles are not developed enough. They have a lack of development. A Wikipedian can say "they don't have viewpoints/opinions from journalists on the town's culture/life/affairs and are incomplete"
If need be I can start a post at Wikipedia:NPOV_noticeboard and we can resolve it here.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

98.198.217.61 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)I do not believe that the other city pages "lack development". If that is the case, why has there been no major effort to fix them? Especially Houston, as it ranks much higher in importance than Bacliff. If you truly believe that the other city articles are incomplete, why are you focusing only on Bacliff? You've made no effort to edit any of the others, even Dickinson, which is in desperate need of citations. That one is my next project after I'm satisified with the Bacliff article. I'm puzzled that you are so insistent on attempting to keep information you yourself stated could be outdated. From my POV, it looks like you are attempting to control the Bacliff article, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.[reply]

Nobody has done it because apparently people haven't found the time yet, that's all. Usually the best practices on Wikipedia are in articles certified as "featured articles" and then as "good articles" - It also seems like many Houston-related editors are busy or inactive. Also Bacliff was certified as a good article back in 2008 and it may be in danger of losing the certification if other editors feel it's too imbalanced and it's not remedied, so I took special attention on Bacliff
"If you truly believe that the other city articles are incomplete, why are you focusing only on Bacliff?" - Well, the article content of Bacliff is being disputed right now, so therefore I'm focusing on it and making sure the article is the best it can be. It motivated me to do more research and find new information.
"I'm puzzled that you are so insistent on attempting to keep information you yourself stated could be outdated." As I have stated before, Wikipedia articles cover the whole history of an area, not only the current information. On city articles I make note of schools/libraries/etc that have closed. Also, as I have stated before it's about verifiable information so sometimes the latest verifiable data is a bit dated. The "current" information would be unpublished, and therefore unverifiable. About Lou's, even if it improved product selection, that detail can't be included unless it's published in a newspaper article. Therefore unless a newspaper article says "Lou's has improved product selection!" comes out, the 2008 info on Lou's having sub-par merchandise according to the Houston Press should remain.
  • I don't mean to come off as controlling (Wikipedia does say at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles that no one editor owns the article) - The page says "In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy." and since I was the primary contributor, I have an interest in making sure the article quality is stable.
    • The page also says: "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find unconstructive in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly."
  • The reason why I acted in stewardship is because I perceived the removal of the Houston Press info as "whitewashing" (removal of negative information that makes something look bad) - I understand that Wikipedia is to cover the good, bad, and ugly of any subject.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)You may have been the primary contributor of the article, but I have every right to edit it. Expecting an article to stay static is not reasonable. There was no whitewashing intended by the removal of the information from the Houston Press. As it was before, the Houston Press information was given undue weight. There were few other sources and a lot of factual history and information were missing.[reply]

  • Well, you have a right to edit it too. However we disagree over the content of the article. Hence, we have Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes. The first step is to talk to the other editor. The second step is to use a noticeboard to get third party opinions.
  • I want the article's integrity to stay intact, but I do expect it to grow and change, as more people write more about Bacliff and/or as people find microfilm archives of Bacliff's past. An editor interested in the stewardship of the article would do well to pursue proper dispute resolution, and that is what I am doing at the moment. :)
  • Undue weight can also be rectified by reducing content from a given source, not just removing everything from that source (as previous edits of yours have done) as it is about getting the "weight" right. I was taking another step to rectify undue weight: trying to find more sources about Bacliff to expand the article. I had used an academic database that I hadn't used before and I found some things. So far I haven't found an in-depth analysis of Bacliff like I did in the Houston Press (remember that Bacliff is a town of 8,000) but I hope to find some valuable stuff about it.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) An article about a town of 8,000 doesn't merit pages of quotes by reporters. It should be fairly short and concise, and contain only the most relevant information[reply]

  • From experience, how "concise" it should be depends upon the reporting on the topic. There were quite a few things in the Houston Press source that I didn't include in the Bacliff article. Also, one point made is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we don't have the quite need to be concise that paper encyclopedias have. There are cases where one is putting too much information in an article (in a "big" topic like Barack Obama) so typically sub-articles are formed to get excess information. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia says that if an article becomes too long it can be split into new articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)There are guidelines on article size. If it gets too big it becomes difficult to read, among other issues Wikipedia:Article_size[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article does say "Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." - But it also states "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. If the discussion makes no progress consider adding one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors." - It has a guide on whether an article should be split here: Wikipedia:Article_size#A rule of thumb - It only counts readable prose as counted by this tool - Currently Bacliff, Texas (without much of the Houston Press content) is at "Prose size (text only): 14477 characters (2373 words) "readable prose size"" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)This is not a high profile article[reply]

If it's a less high profile article the sources can be stretched further (you can put more info from the sources in, since there are fewer of them). Typically limits are seen with, say, Barack Obama. Any topic can theoretically be covered in depth. If it gets too big you can split it up into pieces. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)So split the article, if you feel it warrants it. Also, I'd like to bring up this [[Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper]. With all the direct quotes from reporters, the article begins to look like a newspaper report. This needs to be fixed.[reply]

It's not at the level needing to be split yet. There's a certain size before the article can be split; it can grow more Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper doesn't have to do with over-quoting. NOT newspaper means the article shouldn't "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source." and "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." (don't write an article on news just because it happens; consider the enduring legacy) and don't write an article about a person unless the person has notability and don't include trivial events (it's not a diary) - Having said that, I do have a problem of over-quoting (I want to keep all details of a passage and am afraid to lose the meaning, so I quote), but it means converting quotes into prose when possible, not merely removing the content. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cloest thing to another in-depth source on Bacliff is a Houston Press article from 1997 that talks about rising property values in Bacliff and San Leon: http://www.houstonpress.com/1997-06-26/news/besieged-by-the-bay/2/ - No mention of gangs (the Houston Press article on the gangs in 2008 said that the Bacliff gang started out small) - It does talk about an economic decline in the shrimping industry WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Have you checked The Galveston County Daily News? The newspaper dates back to[reply] 

 1842. I have not made it to the library yet to review their archives but its on my list.

I could do a site search and see. It would be cool if the Galveston County Daily News had an in-depth article about Bacliff WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bayshorebabydoll&oldid=554973159"