WhisperToMe (talk | contribs) |
Showwould40q (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::You said: "There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas." - Actually, Ritcheson testified in front of Congress regarding hate crimes. So, yeah, it's notable. Also remember that smaller communities have things of relative importance. A single crime may not be listed in [[New York City]], but a crime that notably affected a town of 3,000 would make it there (provided there are references to prove the effect and/or significance) |
::You said: "There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas." - Actually, Ritcheson testified in front of Congress regarding hate crimes. So, yeah, it's notable. Also remember that smaller communities have things of relative importance. A single crime may not be listed in [[New York City]], but a crime that notably affected a town of 3,000 would make it there (provided there are references to prove the effect and/or significance) |
||
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
{{uw-3rr}}-[[User:Showwould40q|Showwould40q]] ([[User talk:Showwould40q|talk]]) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:00, 2 February 2009
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Houston, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the Greater Houston area. |
Spring, Texas
Hello, Inamaka. How does this [1] violate BLP and RS? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The manner in which the information is presented clearly violates BLP because there is only ONE citation and it does not support the allegations listed. However, after reviewing the other article is becomes clear that there are other articles out there to support the allegations. However, just because the allegations can be supported does NOT mean that the information is relevant or needed in an article about Spring, Texas. The information is NOT relevant or needed and as such it should remain out of the article. There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas. The topic MIGHT appropriate for its own article (which apparently exists already) but it is NOT appropriate for the Spring, Texas article. It is not encyclopedic.--InaMaka (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you are saying. Not all of the points were supported by that one cite. But there is a main article, 2006 Harris County, Texas hate crime assault, which has a lot of citations that could be used.
- The only reason why BLP applies is because of Tuck and Turner. Those details are verifiable, so I am adding a cites. Ritcheson is dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him.
- You said: "There is NO precedent to list, in great detail, all of the horrendous crimes committed over the many, many years of the existence of New York City in the article about New York City and there is NO reason to outline a series of crimes in Spring, Texas." - Actually, Ritcheson testified in front of Congress regarding hate crimes. So, yeah, it's notable. Also remember that smaller communities have things of relative importance. A single crime may not be listed in New York City, but a crime that notably affected a town of 3,000 would make it there (provided there are references to prove the effect and/or significance)
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-Showwould40q (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)