Talk:Vinegar Hill, New Zealand

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

LGBT history of Vinegar Hill[edit]

I had written a significant part of the history of Vinegar Hill campsite here for the LGBT portal, but this has been deleted, bit by bit.

The table of queens in this was deleted by Daniel J. Leivick because he believed it to be a violation of a biography of a living person, and was unsourced. This is false. The source is, of course, the trophy, but it is likely Daniel J. Leivick was not worried about this. He is welcome to inspect the trophy at any time, just ask the current queen. We are often asked who previous queens of Vinegar Hill are, and it is easier to point people here than to tell them to find the current queen and look at the trophy. It is, therefore, necessary to have the list here. The name, James Parker, should not, however, be there (and given it is claiming he was elected in 2011 for the 2012 year, and the camp hasn't been held, even the Wikipedia editors should have been able to pick that up).

Similarly, the bulk of the historical and accurate material was deleted by GiantSnowman, claiming it was unable to be verified. The reason it cannot be verified is because much of the material does not exist on the web, and what media reports have covered the camp are often no longer on the web, despite Daniel J. Leivick claiming "rm prod appears to be plenty of sources available if you take a look". Furthermore, those articles that continue to exist are not historical, but are along the lines of "oh, look, the queers are having a camp!", and there is no history of the campsite on the internet. Would you really want an article that was referenced to such badly written material?

Yet what they left behind requires citation in each paragraph. This indicates a high degree of inconsistency, and of hypocrisy. Are you supposed to reference a map as the citation to prove a place actually exists? Despite it being known to all the locals, and the hundreds of people who pass by there every day? If I were to apply the same standards to that written by GiantSnowman as the standards they applied to me, all that would be left would be "Vinegal Hill is a camping ground, located on the banks of the Rangitikei River in New Zealand. It is notable due to hosting an annual LGBT celebration." (Note that Vinegar is misspelt as "Vinegal"). But hang on, that can't be verified, can it, no sources to "prove" the place exists, that there is a Rangitikei River, that it is a camp ground, or that it is attended by LGBT people since 1977.

Furthermore, one of the references I had put in has been deleted at some stage, relating to the etymology of the place. It is information from the Manawatu District Council, the leaflet they put out about 8 years ago on Vinegar Hill. Perhaps that reference was deleted because it isn't available on the web. Does this mean that only web based references can be used?

Why were images, that prove what was in the text, removed? They were all open for free and fair use. Is it because someone doesn't like them? Or because they do provide the sources for the text (coronation of the queen, the view over the campsite from the west that showed rainbow flags)?

When I replaced the missing material, Mtking again deleted it because "your attending it or not is not relevent, it still needs sources". Then what about what is left, with all the "citation needed" comments? Surely that should be deleted as well.

I know of other pages where material is self referenced remains, and where material that proves the inaccuracy of that self referenced material has been deleted. If those at Wikipedia claim that self referenced material should not appear, then they are rather lackadaisical in that respect, choosing some things to edit (yet still retain the lack of references), and choosing to allow some articles to continue. If they claim that material that is not sourced should be deleted, then the rest of the article on Vinegar Hill should also be deleted as that lacks sources. Just to be consistent, you know. Talorc (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of articles, and the amount of edits, means that it is nearly impossible to have 100% of content referenced - but that is no reason that unreferenced information, when discovered, should not be deleted. Giant Snowman 13:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, the material left is also unreferenced, yet you have left it there. By leaving it there, it contradicts the statement you just made. Talorc (talk)

I left the meaterial that seemed least controversial/easiest to source. If you want me to remove all of the unreferenced material, there would be nothing left whatsoever! Giant Snowman 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shows your hypocrisy then. Either everything should have been left as it was, or everything unreferenced should have been taken down. You took out everything that I wrote, claiming it was unreferenced (despite there being an image there that proved one of the things in the text), yet left material that remains unreferenced. In doing so you have shown yourself to be rather hypocritical. Or perhaps it was because what I wrote was about LGBT activities that made you take it down, including the photographic evidence. BTW, the photo I had placed there of the camp from the far bank is far better, and more representative of the campsite than the one you left. This seems to indicate that it is most probably the latter reason why the material I put up was taken down.

And if you want to be true to the "no referencing, off it comes" dogma, then fix this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogravure. How do we "know" that is the method used? How do we "know" the certain types of photogravure are called the Talbot-Klič process? (No mention on the Karel Klič page to which it is apparently referenced). There are other things there that could also be referenced that aren't as well. Talorc (talk)

Firstly, I certainly hope you're not claiming I'm homophobic, I'd advise you to promptly remove your suggestion that I've removed this info because it relates to LGBT (FYI, I'm a straight ally), per WP:CIVIL. Secondly, I'm not a hypocrite - as I've already said, had I removed all unreferenced information, the article would be blank. You are more than welcome to add your information back as long as it is verified by reliable sources. Thirdly, interpreting a photograph in order to 'source' claims in an article is original research, which is prohibited. Fourthly, re:Photogravure, there are many, many articles (far too many) that are unreferenced on Wikipedia, but this does not mean that when an editor discovers one, he should leave it be. With that mentality we'll never get anywhere! Giant Snowman 10:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]