Talk:CC Slaughters/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Mercury source
The following discussion 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.
@Graywalls: I'm not understanding the 2014 timestamp. Are you basing this on the date in which the source was archived? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wasn't actually written for you, but here. Graywalls (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Right, where are you getting 2014? From the archive URL date? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously when that source was originally placed.Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, If there's no date on the page apart from the archived URL, I don't think the timestamp is necessary. Let's just say the paper has described the venue as... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously when that source was originally placed.Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Right, where are you getting 2014? From the archive URL date? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 3 May 2019 (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.
Sources
http://www.out.com/entertainment/popnography/2013/06/27/200-greatest-gay-bars-world---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Revert
@Graywalls: Can you please share why you think "In 2013, Out included the Portland location in its list of the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World" is problematic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kbabej and Jonesey95: I'm looking for some additional opinions here. An editor and I disagree on the appropriateness of the aforementioned claim. Do either of you have thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Lord Bolingbroke: Pinging you as well, since you've weighed in on similar discussions lately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I feel it's inappropriate that you're inviting comments from a set of users whom you personally selected. Why didn't you invite @Deb: to comment, Another Believer seeing that she's been engaged in a debate that you and I were both part of as well? It would be more appropriate for you to utilize the RfC system so that you can't shop for favorable consensus. I think what this essay explains supports my reasoning. WP:ORGAWARDS for removal. Graywalls (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Feel free to invite whomever you'd like to this discussion. I've reached out to active editors who have participated in similar discussions recently, not because they may or may not have agreed with me. But, I understand your point and don't want to be seen as targeting sympathetic editors. Per WP:RfC, RfCs should only be started when editors cannot come to a decision on their own. Another option is for you to post an invite for editor feedback at a relevant WikiProject. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have reasonable causes to have concerns about impending WP:CANVASS both on and off the Wiki platform when there are disagreements with you. On the causes for which I have the diff handy are: the attitude you have exhibited here[1]. Pointing out that you're acquainted with editors on and off Wiki[2], general observations of back-and-forth exchange in this. When these are factored, use of RfC and other feedback system in which neither of us are selecting the forum or participant would help achieve more objective and fair input. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Re: this comment: My understanding for restoring speedy deleted content is to ask the deleting admin before submitting a request elsewhere. This was just me letting them know I'd start with them, but if unwilling to restore, would go elsewhere. This was not meant to be a threat. Yes, I know many Wikipedia editors in real life. This happens when you go to local, national, and international meet ups over the span of a decade. I'm not exactly sure what you're implying about the Elephants Deli discussion, sorry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have reasonable causes to have concerns about impending WP:CANVASS both on and off the Wiki platform when there are disagreements with you. On the causes for which I have the diff handy are: the attitude you have exhibited here[1]. Pointing out that you're acquainted with editors on and off Wiki[2], general observations of back-and-forth exchange in this. When these are factored, use of RfC and other feedback system in which neither of us are selecting the forum or participant would help achieve more objective and fair input. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Feel free to invite whomever you'd like to this discussion. I've reached out to active editors who have participated in similar discussions recently, not because they may or may not have agreed with me. But, I understand your point and don't want to be seen as targeting sympathetic editors. Per WP:RfC, RfCs should only be started when editors cannot come to a decision on their own. Another option is for you to post an invite for editor feedback at a relevant WikiProject. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I feel it's inappropriate that you're inviting comments from a set of users whom you personally selected. Why didn't you invite @Deb: to comment, Another Believer seeing that she's been engaged in a debate that you and I were both part of as well? It would be more appropriate for you to utilize the RfC system so that you can't shop for favorable consensus. I think what this essay explains supports my reasoning. WP:ORGAWARDS for removal. Graywalls (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I'd be okay with "In 2013, Out included the Portland location in its list of the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World" ". I don't know how notable Out really is - the article on that topic looks a bit of a mess - but it's valid to say that it happened, although I think it would be better to use the reference to back up notability (e.g. "CC Slaughters is a well-known gay bar...").
- However, I would be concerned by a statement like "It is popular among young people", which is clearly POV. Deb (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Thanks for weighing in. I expect other editors would agree re: the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World" claim. Graywalls, I'd like for you to please add back the claim until there's support for you to remove. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I've removed "popular among young people". My goal here was really to describe demographics (some establishments cater to specific clienteles), but I'm fine removing. BTW, Out is a national LGBT publication, definitely notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb:They're both from travel guides. 1st one is from Frommers The second one is also from a travel guide. Just a mention in a long list. Out.com source. Yeah, so things that routinely compile these sort of things which is more or less "primary source". When Wiki editors are selecting what to include by choosing sources of this sort, I feel it's a promotional hazard since they can easily cherry pick sources to present what they want presented. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So does that mean you're not willing to return the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World" claim? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Like in the past, you're pressuring for action now and I don't feel the discussion is quite complete. I'm not seeing urgency to act now. So, why didn't you also invite @Trillfendi: who's engaged in notable/not notable comments? Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Keep inviting whomever you'd like. Deb disagreed with you. You're not helping yourself by refusing to acknowledge consensus in several ongoing discussions. I'll revert your revert to keep status quo. If you get support to remove the claim, then great. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Like in the past, you're pressuring for action now and I don't feel the discussion is quite complete. I'm not seeing urgency to act now. So, why didn't you also invite @Trillfendi: who's engaged in notable/not notable comments? Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So does that mean you're not willing to return the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World" claim? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb:They're both from travel guides. 1st one is from Frommers The second one is also from a travel guide. Just a mention in a long list. Out.com source. Yeah, so things that routinely compile these sort of things which is more or less "primary source". When Wiki editors are selecting what to include by choosing sources of this sort, I feel it's a promotional hazard since they can easily cherry pick sources to present what they want presented. Thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that the "Out" mention is okay as long as it's made clear it's an article written by an individual (whose name should be included) and not the result of a poll or vote. The Frommers quote was clearly not acceptable as it appears to be from a review which could have been written by anyone - either of you (or I) could have written it, and the person reading the Wikipedia article would be none the wiser. Deb (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I normally add the names of article authors, but in this case no specific names are provided, so the general Out claim seems fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Try putting the decision method in as well: "We've taken nominations, suggestions, polled friends and experts around the world, and even done a bit of on-the-ground research." Doesn't sound very impressive, but it puts the statement into context. Deb (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say that's definitely unnecessary detail, but I'm open to revisions. I'm not open to removing altogether. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb:,
I'm a little confused with your wording but maybe you're inferring the same thing I am thinking.. Ah never mind. I believe it's a good idea. Actually I remember reading something on one of the WP sources page over how to place descriptive comments around possibly iffy sources. So Here's my edit he's reverted this edit. I don't see the reason he wants it that way, because simply leaving it as "The Portland Mercury describes" sends an impression that it was covered in depth by a journalist in an article to a casual reader and none the wiser. I think my version is more descriptive and precise, because it conveys that it was merely in the business listing section of the newspaper, and the descriptions were attributes as observed... in 2014. In five years, those can change. and my version informs the audience the exact information. Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Try putting the decision method in as well: "We've taken nominations, suggestions, polled friends and experts around the world, and even done a bit of on-the-ground research." Doesn't sound very impressive, but it puts the statement into context. Deb (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I normally add the names of article authors, but in this case no specific names are provided, so the general Out claim seems fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm fine with leaving the statement as is for now: "In 2013, Out included the Portland location in its list of the "200 of the Greatest Gay Bars in the World."" As there is no author listed for the article, I don't think we need any particular attribution other than what is already stated. --Kbabej (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Since the story in Out is linked and on the web, WP readers with questions about the source's methodology can click through to find out what it says and even see comments from Out readers. I suggest a pre-emptive archive-url so that the source will be available even if Out removes it from the web. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There is clearly consensus to keep the Out claim. Graywalls, please do not delete again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Situational Consensus.. when an involved declarant personally agrees with it and unilaterally asserts it as a fact. But when he does not agree with it, consensus is interpreted differently. Suggested by a third opinion, which I agree with, but you revert. ahhh hypocrisy. Graywalls (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: Ah, I definitely did not see User:Deb's comment. I strongly oppose adding this unnecessary detail, however. User:Kbabej and User:Jonesey95 also seem fine leaving this out, if I'm interpreting their comments correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- You assert that you did not see the message to which you have replied and left a contextual cue with a reasonable evidence to suppose it has been read. diff. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I do apologize. I don't know if there was an edit conflict, or if I was confused by this diff, which was about the Mercury article and not the Out piece. Regardless, when I saw your addition from my watchlist, I did not make the connection this was the text proposed by Deb. Again, sorry for the confusion on my part. That being said, I am still opposed to adding a quote about the decision method. I see you've reverted my revert, so I'll ask User:Kbabej and/or User:Jonesey95 to weigh in as well. Should this text be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't been following this, but isn't a listing just the same as an advertisement? Deb (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Can you share a guideline or policy? For the record, I am still tempted to remove the decision method because 3 editors were fine with the existing simple claim, and 2 editors have sought to add mention of the decision method. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Deb (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Can you be more specific? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Deb (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer:You keep comparing agree vs disagree counts numerically, but apparently refusing to see what we should be applying for talk page consensus process. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." which comes from our guideline on consensus and the supplement supplement. You're presenting yourself in a way that refuse to recognize this.Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Can you share a guideline or policy? For the record, I am still tempted to remove the decision method because 3 editors were fine with the existing simple claim, and 2 editors have sought to add mention of the decision method. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't been following this, but isn't a listing just the same as an advertisement? Deb (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I do apologize. I don't know if there was an edit conflict, or if I was confused by this diff, which was about the Mercury article and not the Out piece. Regardless, when I saw your addition from my watchlist, I did not make the connection this was the text proposed by Deb. Again, sorry for the confusion on my part. That being said, I am still opposed to adding a quote about the decision method. I see you've reverted my revert, so I'll ask User:Kbabej and/or User:Jonesey95 to weigh in as well. Should this text be included? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- You assert that you did not see the message to which you have replied and left a contextual cue with a reasonable evidence to suppose it has been read. diff. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: Ah, I definitely did not see User:Deb's comment. I strongly oppose adding this unnecessary detail, however. User:Kbabej and User:Jonesey95 also seem fine leaving this out, if I'm interpreting their comments correctly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I think adding the decision method is an unnecessary amount of detail. It's a ranking by editors from a notable publication. If anything, we could write "Out editors ranked blah blah blah.." --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Kbabej, Thanks for weighing in (again...) Are you comfortable reverting/removing the quote for now, until there's consensus to change the text? I'd do so myself but I'm trying to avoid edit warring as possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Graywalls, please do not add this text back unless there's consensus to do so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you'd stop issuing directions in this manner and you need to understand that its improper for any party engaged in the dispute to self appoint himself as the arbitrator that decides consensus has been reached as you have done in the past. Graywalls (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Graywalls, please do not add this text back unless there's consensus to do so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Kbabej, Thanks for weighing in (again...) Are you comfortable reverting/removing the quote for now, until there's consensus to change the text? I'd do so myself but I'm trying to avoid edit warring as possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Content restoration disputed
I nominate the content "After West Hollywood bar The Abbey announced its ban on bachelorette parties in the name of marriage equality," restored into prose in this edit unjustified. I have checked the sources. Although the source talks about California matter, no causation or correlation is presented by the source or the source consulted by the source. Graywalls (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I believe the content provides some historical and industry context, but I will let others weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "Willamette Week" can be considered a reliable source. Deb (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Why? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's basically a blog. Deb (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Says who? WW is a Pulitzer-winning publication. I've posed the question here, and see related discussion started by Graywalls here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It says on the quoted page that it's a blog. What's its status in relation to the magazine? Who is allowed to contribute to the blog? Deb (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I don't see "blog", except within the URL. Is this what you mean? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It says on the quoted page that it's a blog. What's its status in relation to the magazine? Who is allowed to contribute to the blog? Deb (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Says who? WW is a Pulitzer-winning publication. I've posed the question here, and see related discussion started by Graywalls here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's basically a blog. Deb (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Why? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "Willamette Week" can be considered a reliable source. Deb (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- When you say "After this happened, that happened" it implicates there is a correlation between the events rather than a coincidence. If the source says two things but do not specifically indicate the connection, it should not be phrased in the prose the way you did. The policy that would apply is WP:SYN. If you want to reinsert it, but phrase it like the third example with the check mark in the policy page, that would be fine. If they actually did so because of the change at another bar, your other option is to find a reliable source that expressly states CC Slaughters acted because another bar did. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
marketing director Steven Fosnaugh's press statement
Since he's talking about subject that is entirely connected and he's in control of how it's said, it gives undue weight to his voice. I believe it would be better to summarize it and trim it down rather than express it his way down to exact words. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be perfectly ok with omitting that quotation, or summarizing it. "Another potential problem arises when a contributor copies or closely paraphrases a biased source either purposefully or without understanding the bias. This can make the article appear to directly espouse the bias of the source, which violates our neutral point of view policy.",which is from WP:FACTSONLY. I think it applies here, because, it is the subject's representative that is speaking on the subject in their own expression. Graywalls (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Care to share your proposed summary here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)