Jump to content

Talk:Edina, Minnesota: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notification of altered sources needing review (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,325,477 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject Minnesota
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Minnesota|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Cities|class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Cities}}
}}
{{Press
{{Press
| subject = article
| subject = article
Line 26: Line 27:
}}
}}


== External links modified ==
== Are we facing a significant Conflict of Interest with the Loewen editors? ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
(I consider this discussion to be outside of the above discussions of other sources and proposed texts, I wanted to feel this out here)


I have just modified {{plural:6|one external link|6 external links}} on [[Edina, Minnesota]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=755801690 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
It sounds like Loewen is giving his students credit to alter Wikipedia articles to:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034521/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table
:A - conform to his theories of history (some of which, seem sketchy)
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
:B - use his book(s) as reference material
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
:C - mention him
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082905/http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504031405/http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/citycouncil/HistoricContextsStudy.htm to http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/citycouncil/HistoricContextsStudy.htm
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/97126244.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/sports/wolves/31813654.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
*Did this author just turn U of I into a massive meatpuppet farm?
*How long has this been going on? It seems like this has been a problem on this page since 2009.
*Should this page be protected? [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 08:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:: The answer to the question in the section title is "no, obviously not." Ditto the three questions in the body. In fact to ask them suggests you haven't bothered to read this discussion above, which is a clear example of the collaborative editing process working very well. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::If the question is: "Is there a conflict of interest in having one's students edit Wikipedia articles to add specific things that you teach about?" The answer is murky. Any Wikipedia-based assignment will have teachers guiding students to the kinds of materials and subjects they could or should cover. However, if we're asking "Is there a conflict of interest in having students cite their professor or his work?" then the answer is definitely yes, as is made clear by [[WP:COI]]. That said, I don't get a [[WP:NOTHERE]] impression from the class but rather one of many cases where an expert in a given field has done a lot of research and wants to "set the record straight" on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually go so well.
:::On the other hand, if the question is more practical concerning the present article, I would point to the sections above. In noting the conflict of interest and issues surrounding this article visible in the edit history and in the StarTribune piece, I did a bunch of additional research and completely rewrote the section. It now doesn't call Edina a "sundown town" and while it cites Loewen (because he ''is'' a very reliable source on the subject), it would be very hard to see that section as all about his work. In particular it didn't make sense to include him prominently for ''this''article because from what I can tell, most of his coverage of Edina in the ''Sundown Towns'' book in turn relies heavily on Deborah Morse-Kahn (and the relevant parts of her book are available via Google Books). --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 14:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I once attended a public lecture by Loewen and bought a copy of his book, which, I must confess, I haven't gotten around to reading. He is a source of knowledge about the topic and his students are always welcome to edit here. If they make mistakes, as students will, engage with them and correct them. If you are concerned about over-using Loewen as a source, please find others. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 15:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:: '''No'''. (And no, no, and no.) It's quite routine here on Wikipedia these days for faculty to supervise students in updating Wikipedia articles. Most of the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on Wikipedia badly need this kind of loving care, and we should be grateful when people familiar with the norms of the scholarly community join in the scrum of Wikipedia editing culture. It would plainly be a conflict of interest if the article about Professor Loewen himself was what we are discussing here, but we are not. We are discussing an article about a city in Minnesota, a city about which there are many [[WP:RS | reliable sources]], and we should be able to resolve all the content disputes here by referring to reliable sources. By the way, do you have any reliable sources on the topic of this article to suggest to us to use? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::First I'll sort of disagree on the level of principle and policy and then sort of agree on the practical implications for this case:
::::{{tq|It would plainly be a conflict of interest if the article about Professor Loewen himself was what we are discussing here}} that's a narrower definition of COI than is supported by [[WP:COI]]. {{tq|We are discussing an article about a city in Minnesota, a city about which there are many reliable sources}} - Exactly, and yet here we have students who only cite one secondary source: their teacher, whose name also appears prominently in the article text of their contribution (they cite others, but they're either primary or still entirely about Loewen). That doesn't mean he told his students to do any of that, necessarily, but ''because they are his students they're not going to be able to carry out this assignment in a neutral way''. That's what COI ''means''. It's not limited to articles about the people it concerns. Imagine if this were a higher-profile article a psychological concept, and imagine if the professor were a grad student with one publication to his name about that concept. Still not a COI, even engaging the the same practice? What about a CEO teaching a university class about business in which she has students write about her company. What if I take out an elance ad telling people to add content from my book to some article? COI is about the external conditions of an edit/editor and isn't tied to the subjective value of the contribution.
:::Now then, to be clear, I'm not under the impression James Loewen, a well known, respected, and successful writer/scholar, was looking to promote himself or his book in an article about a small town in America's midwest. This doesn't at all seem like a case of bad intentions. But that's not the point. By having one's students write about a subject using your sources, a COI is inherent. But here's where I sort of agree:
::::While I'm calling it COI, I also supported restoring the material and worked on it/expanded it myself. That's because COI doesn't automatically mean a contribution is a detriment to the article or to Wikipedia and doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed. COI is, in general, best avoided, but yes, sometimes it contributes to a better article. He is a source of knowledge and in the long-run his students editing Wikipedia benefited this article. If we, as Wikipedians, decide that it's valuable content (as I and others did in this case), we should work with the material and correct any issues that arise. We should also try to work with him or with the students (to whatever extent possible) to figure out how to minimize COI. One example is to make sure to use a variety of sources. Another way is to make more use of the talk page, even having the assignment end at proposing additions here. There's no way for him to have thought to do that, of course, but it's an example of how we can work with this kind of thing. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
To be clear: some of Loewen's claims about Edina are demonstrably false. Loewen has been criticized for sloppy research, the book referenced has been particularly criticized for inaccuracies (see the Washington Post write-up, among others)
After facing critical reviews his work Loewen assigns a student, for academic credit, to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect the claims made in his book (which again, at least in the case of Edina, are demonstrably false) and to cite him. He may have been doing this for more than 6 years.
Were other students tasked (again, for academic credit) by Loewen to edit other Wikipedia articles? They most likely were. Are Loewen's writings about those other cities similarly flawed? [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:Lots of historians/sociologists/critics receive criticism. He's still a reliable source, though, and he's received an awful lot of positive attention for his work in this area, too. But I agree that if his claims are false (and that they're false is addressed in reliable sources), we certainly should not be including them here. Did any of his false claims make it into the current version of the article? Could you be more specific as to which were false? Again, I'm not disputing COI; just looking for the best way forward. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 14:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I'm troubled by the use of the term Sundown Town in this article, and that leads me to be troubled with Loewen. A Sundown Town has been understood by generations over decades to be a town where black people were threatened with physical violence if caught after sundown. It doesn't just mean a town where there's a clause in a real estate covenant. But in trying to substantiate that definition, I find that Google returns Dr. Loewen first, second, third, and fourth. He's turned this thing into a cottage industry, and by virtue of his self-promotion he is changing the meaning of the term. I don't know Juno, but I agree there is a conflict of interest here. [[User:Brain Rodeo|Brain Rodeo]] ([[User talk:Brain Rodeo|talk]]) 15:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::We have an article on [[Sundown town]] which uses the term somewhat broadly. If you disagree, please participate there. We also have a policy on [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] which you should read to understand how we use the term. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 15:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Obviously the COI charges are spurious; it would be nice if the people making them would instead engage in the constructive discussion above where people are actually trying to improve the article. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you, JBL. That's a really first class example of assuming bad faith.[[User:Brain Rodeo|Brain Rodeo]] ([[User talk:Brain Rodeo|talk]]) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Let's focus on the article, please, not on other editors. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 17:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jonathunder}} <s>The only sources at [[sundown town]] which define it broadly are again Loewen's. That article needs work, clearly, but changing that article is not a prerequisite for addressing the subject here. In both cases only one person (yes a widely respected and cited one) is defining the term so broadly.</s> See comments in section above. No need to have parallel threads. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 17:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Loewen's claim that Edina was a "sundown town" is demonstrably false. Loewen's book was so shoddily researched that it was written up in the Washington Post, not just the usual academic criticism. I don't think that it can be counted as a Reliable Source and I am now suspicious of any other Wikipedia article that quotes him. He himself appears to have edited Wikipedia to conform with his opinions (citing himself, naturally) and no has student, for academic credit, editing articles to advance his suspect claims. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
:Just for the moment, let's forget Loewen and all his works. Are you saying, Juno, that Edina does not have a racist past? Because the city, on its own website, documents its history of exactly that. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::I'm saying that Edina wasn't a "sundown town". [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 00:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The article currently says "[[James W. Loewen]] described the suburb as a sundown town." You do not describe it that way. Anything else in that section you object to? [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 01:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Jonathunder, you seem to be taking this criticism personally, and that is out of character, from what I've seen. Juno's criticisms aren't off base. What do you do when someone tells you that blue is red? Loewen is redefining what a Sundown Town is and he's doing it by having his students do it, and they have to cite him because no one else defines the term his way.[[User:Brain Rodeo|Brain Rodeo]] ([[User talk:Brain Rodeo|talk]]) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you have a published, reliable source for your opinion that Edina is not a sundown town, I'm sure it could find a place in the article. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 16:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Brain, you misunderstand the purpose of my questions. I am trying to find out what, specifically, is wrong with the article. I get that Juno doesn't call this a Sundown town and Loewen does. What else needs attention, or is the rest of the section fine? [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 17:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Do you have a published, reliable source to cite that tells the world that? I am clear about what your opinion on this issue is, but not yet clear what you suggest I could do to '''look up''' the issue to check what reliable sources say about it. Do you have any sources to suggest? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tq|If you have a published, reliable source for your opinion that Edina is not a sundown town, I'm sure it could find a place in the article}} You're asking him to [[prove a negative]]. The [[WP:BURDEN]] is one the one who wants to include a statement like this. There are no sources saying that most towns are ''not'' sundown towns. My conclusion, after doing quite a bit of research, is that Loewen is indeed alone in defining sundown towns this way and thus his work alone is not sufficient to include it. ''However'', his book and essays are widely discussed in other reliable sources, which to me, as I explained above, means it makes sense to include the term as long as it's attributed to him. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} You seem to think you are quoting me, when you are quoting someone else who has commented in this section. I have lived in the same county as Edina most of my life, and have spend a lot of time in Edina, and am old enough that I remember when inner-ring suburbs of Minneapolis were most definitely sundown towns for black inhabitants of Minnesota. The article statement currently under dispute has face-value plausibility for anyone with relevant life experience on the issue, so I am '''genuinely''' asking if there is a reliable source that '''demonstrates''' that a contrary statement is more true, that in the period discussed any inhabitant of Minnesota of any "race" could freely travel to Edina for entertainment or recreation without undue police contact? There has been enough civil rights activism and journalistic reports on these issues for long enough here in Minnesota that I have little doubt that there are multiple reliable, published sources on the issue, and all I ask is that editors who have a strong opinion on the issue cite as many of those sources as they can identify, so that each of us can '''look them up'''. Once we have a '''sourced''' statement that is by no means incredible on the relevant issue, as we do here, let's look for additional sources to clarify what [[WP:DUE | due weight]] and the historical context might be. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 18:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} I quoted in order to respond to that text in particular. If you feel it was confusing because of my indenting, I apologize. {{u|Joel B. Lewis}} is the person I was quoting.
::::::The issue is not whether there is a history of racism -- that's well documented. The issue being disputed is only the application of the term "sundown town". It is a term defined in different ways, and although Loewen looks to be the only one defining it as he does, his work is widely cited and quoted such than use of the term with attribution makes sense. It doesn't make sense to simply say "Edina was a sundown town" because, again, we're applying one person's definition. If we find other sources which call Edina a "sundown town" independent of Loewen that would be another story, but until then I don't think it makes sense to include without in-text attribution (i.e. it looks ok the way it is). --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 19:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::::As far a balancing the view of a single source, let's address that in the section below. This thread is getting a bit too long. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
*So I am pretty happy with the Edina article as it stands (huge thanks to the community of users, particularly [[Rhododendrites]] who did the Lords' Good Work in plowing through fresh primary and secondary sources) we were faced with strange claims about the history of Edina, did some digging, dismissed them and did a good job covering what actually happened.
*What I am very much concerned about is other towns. Perhaps places with smaller, older, or less-technologically of civically-minded populations. How many other town's out there has Loewen tasked his students (again, for academic credit) to edits their pages with this historically-fictional smear? [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on [[Edina, Minnesota]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792594414 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:* You have characterized a living person's writings as a "smear". Do you have sources to back that up? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
::This man wrote a very ugly thing about a town that I love. And it was a lie. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 06:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718122320/http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/PDFs/L3-05_Map%20Edina_01.pdf to http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/PDFs/L3-05_Map%20Edina_01.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==Objections to the article==
===Sundown town===
Loewen has called this a [[sundown town]]. The article currently says that and cites his use of the term.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Others do not call it that, and some editors object to calling it that. The views of other writers should be added and cited, for balance. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
:Including the term with attribution, as is done currently, seems to me like a good compromise -- for now at very least -- given the discussions above. For my part, I would prefer to wait to see what the edit-a-thon turns up rather than continue to debate an issue that will be specifically addressed there in just a couple weeks. (Unfortunately I am quite far away so cannot attend). --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::Could we get something like "Controversial author" or "Controversial professor". The man was written up in news papers for how emotional/poorly researched his writing are. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::: What newspapers? What citations do you have at hand? How do I know that his critics were not farther off base than he is? I suppose anyone who is subject to controversy is "controversial", but that's just a weasel word for article text unless we can better source what the controversy is about. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I have just modified 4 external links on [[Edina, Minnesota]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801049665 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::If you're talking about the Washington Post piece, a newspaper book review is generally not considered a reliable source. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170108033053/http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=heritagelandmarks_countryclub to http://edinamn.gov/index.php?section=heritagelandmarks_countryclub
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527155125/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/2718188.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/2718188.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017153729/http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26920023374 to http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26920023374
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408084739/http://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/locations/ to http://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/locations/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::{{reply|Juno}} I agree that providing some of the sources that characterize him this way would be helpful in figuring out what the best wording is. When I was researching, I found many sources citing, talking about, and even interviewing him, but I didn't notice any that were particularly critical let alone a trend indicating as much. That said, it wasn't something I was really looking for. If his work is widely disputed, we should say so, but if we're talking about a few critical reviews amid many that are neutral-to-positive then his name doesn't need to be qualified. The critical sources may be worth using at the article about the book or about him, but unless they're specifically critical of the way he talks about Edina, I don't see them being relevant enough here (unless, again, the criticism runs through a serious portion of the available sources). --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::There are a lot of reviews that bring up the shoddy nature of his research, but as a representative sample of the effect of that criticism has been that when Universities invite him to speak, they describe him as "controversial author James Loewen";http://www4.wittenberg.edu/news/2005/02_16.html 1], [http://wkqsfm.com/featured/the-sunny-morning-show/32706/controversial-historian-and-author-dr-james-loewen-coming-to-marquette/ 2]. On the second one, Loewen even shared the "controversial author" description of himself on his own facebook page. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 06:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Since he seems to be onboard with describing himself as "controversial", I'd like to add that descriptor. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 22:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
: But what benefit to readers of this article on Wikipedia comes from describing him as "controversial"? By the way, a source that exists in several copies in the local public library system (I have one checked out, but there are other copies) is {{cite book |author=Frederick L. Johnson |title=Suburban Dawn: The Emergence of Richfield, Edina and Bloomington |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1dAgQwAACAAJ |year=2009 |publisher=Richfield Historical Society |isbn=978-0-578-03917-6 }} That book has a lot of good information in it, cited to good sources, for the history of Edina, not all of which was used up during yesterday's Edit-a-Thon. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 23:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::As a sort of thought experiment: what benefit is it to readers when he describes himself as controversial? The reader knows that the work is been controversial and is not widely accepted at face value. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 08:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


== Presidential election table ==
::: There you are asking Wikipedia's readers to make an inference that is not supported by the sources, so I would have to object to that description being in the article. How about actually reading and citing some [[WP:RS | reliable sources]] about the substance of the issue (Edina and its history) rather than engaging in name-calling about a living person? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 14:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Is it really name-calling if it is a name that he calls himself? [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 09:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


{{ping|Lakeperson|Sbmeirow}} The presidential election table adds [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. The table features only one level of government, and avoids state and local leaders. The table is out-of-scope and overly detailed, and is not suggested at [[WP:USCITIES]]. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::: Have you had a chance to read that book {{cite book |author=Frederick L. Johnson |title=Suburban Dawn: The Emergence of Richfield, Edina and Bloomington |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1dAgQwAACAAJ |year=2009 |publisher=Richfield Historical Society |isbn=978-0-578-03917-6 }} yet? It's really well researched and informative on the history of Edina, and it's just one of several good sources that are widely available in Twin Cities libraries that would help make this article better. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 12:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
: I agree with Magnolia677. The table as presented is ugly, it is a data-dump with no accompanying text to put it in appropriate context (presumably because no secondary sources exist), and the idea that the politics of a town are best best discussed in terms of presidential election results are highly dubious at best. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 13:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:I disagree. To parrot what I said on another discussion, I think displaying election results has encyclopedic value and can provide insight into the demographics of the town and how the party politics of an area have changed over time. While I have no problem with adding additional lists for state and local leaders, I think at the very least showing historic presidential election results as an umbrella for the political leanings of a settlement is valuable and worth keeping. I don't think we should disregard the data because it is "ugly", simply make the tables collapsible but available for those who want it. [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:: It can provide insight ''in the presence of proper sources that provide analysis and interpretation of the raw data''. Find those sources and the objections go away. Without those sources, this is an unencyclopedic data-dump. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|JayBeeEll}} I guess I just don't understand why we need secondary interpretations of this data. We don't ask that of historical population numbers, do we? AFAIK just citing the census is considered fine. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Demographics|WP:USCITIES#Demographics]] doesn't state the need for secondary sources, just a description of the data. [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] does address "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but also just states the need for accompanying text (I wouldn't call the present listing "excessive" anyway). I guess the question that remains in my mind is; is it possible to include explanatory text providing context to this information using only primary sources? [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 21:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: This is raw data. Insight (your word) is provided by ''analysis'' of raw data. Analysis requires a secondary source, which is missing here. Without analysis, this is exactly the kind of unexplained statistical data dump that [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] is talking about. There are an infinite variety of raw data sources available about Edina (or any other place): dozens of kinds of weather data, dozens of kinds of demographic data, electoral data at all levels, economic data, .... Each of these could potentially provide insight into Edina, ''with an appropriate analysis''. Secondary sources are where you find the analysis that turns this from raw data into encyclopedic coverage; they also provide guidance as to which parts of which data are actually significant, as in [[WP:DUE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 15:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Again, I disagree. Insight can be achieved by just providing the data with a written explanation. I'm going to use the example of historic population figures again. Having a table with population data provides insight into the size and growth rate of a settlement. No secondary sources needed, just plain, easy to understand data. ''Why is this any different?'' An election results table is not complex, and with accompanying text (all that's required of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]), I fail to see where in the guidelines it says that this information should be excluded. Reiterating my question from above, if an explanation using primary and reliable sources can be written without falling under [[WP:OR]], then why shouldn't it be included? "...dozens of kinds of weather data, dozens of kinds of demographic data, electoral data at all levels, economic data, ..." Ok, if it's properly sourced, formatted appropriately, and explained in the text, then sure! We already have templates for weather data, etc, why deprecate the use of them? These aren't opinions or concepts that can be skewed, so I don't understand why you invoked [[WP:DUE]] - would you mind elaborating on what part of that page is relevant here? [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Magnolia677|JayBeeEll}}, I'm just requesting a response to my questions above. I'd love to come to a consensus on this. [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::: You asked <s>three</s><u>four</u> questions. To your first question, my answers are: it is incredibly easy to find secondary sources about populated places with longstanding census data that discuss and analyze the data, so provide something encyclopedic to say about it. To your <s>second</s><u>third</u> question, my answer is: see the answer to my first question. These are data sets that get discussed ''all the time'' in all sorts of sources, so they do not suffer from the same problem. With respect to your <s>third</s><u>fourth</u> question, here is a quotation from [[WP:DUE]]: {{tq|Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, ....}} The prominence of this information in published, reliable sources appears to be 0, and the coverage in the article should be proportional to that. ("Someone has written at least once about a topic in a reliable secondary source" is an extremely low bar to jump over!) --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::: I see on re-reading that I missed one, but my response to it is covered by my response to the other three. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::: Election results are as important, if not more, than demographics of a community. [[User:Lakeperson|Lakeperson]] ([[User talk:Lakeperson|talk]]) 16:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


Election results, particularly for more than one election, provides valuable insight to a community, its values, and is certainly as important, probably even more, than racial demographics of a community, which is already included. Counties on Wikipedia have their election results shown and an entire county is incredibly vague on what that signifies for values. Secondary sources are literally in my posts directly from the Secretary of State Office. You can not get any more direct sourcing than that. The table is collapsible and if a person does not care to see it they do not have to. Recent political leanings are certainly more important than a historical event that occurred in a community 100 year ago. [[User:Lakeperson|Lakeperson]] ([[User talk:Lakeperson|talk]]) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
===Other concerns===
??? Please detail what those are so we can address them here. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

== Edit-a-thon ==

{| style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="400px"
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="2" align="center"|&nbsp;&nbsp;''In the area? You're invited to the''
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="2" align="center"|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<big>'''[[Wikipedia:Meetup/Minnesota#2015|Edina edit-a-thon]]'''</big>
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|rowspan="4" width="100px"|[[File:Southdale Library, August 2014.jpg|100px]]
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="1"|&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Date''': {{{date|''Sunday, March 1, 2015''}}}
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="1"|&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Time''': {{{time|''2 to 5 PM''}}}
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="1"|&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Place''': {{{place|''Ethel Berry Room<br/>[http://www.hclib.org/southdale Southdale Library]<br/>7001 York Avenue South<br/>{{coord|44.8755|N|93.3198|W|region:US-MN}}''}}}
|- style="background:#99ccff"
|colspan="2" align=center|&nbsp;&nbsp;
|}

: There are some helpful published, reliable sources on the history of Edina available at that library, which I use for research from time to time. I'll be delighted to see other Wikipedians at the Edit-a-thon. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 16:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:: Thanks to the Wikpedians who joined in on the Edit-a-Thon. I was glad to see you there and to exchange tips about editing Wikipedia. I guess I'll see some of you at next week's meet-up. I'm always happy to look for books in advance and to bring them along to meet-ups, and I'm glad you helped identify which sources were newly useful for editing this article. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 23:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

== Merger with empty page? ==

Why would an editor, who I guess is {{ping|Gronk_Oz}}, propose merging this article with an empty page? What is the point of doing that? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Don't know, but as the target is now a redlink I removed the mergeto tag. &mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 19:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{U|Rhododendrites}} and {{U|WeijiBaikeBianji}} - That merge proposal is no longer relevant, and it was correct to remove it. The situation was that the other article was a new one which had a small amount of information about the six elementary schools in Edina. It did not have enough information to stand alone as an article, so I proposed merging it into this artile. Subsequently, overnight (my time) another editor proposed that new article for Speedy Deletion, since it adds nothing substantial to this existing article. So the merge proposal is now moot. Sorry that this has left a confusing merge tag on the Edina article. I hope that makes sense; please get in touch if you have any questions.--[[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::: Thank you. I was wondering if something like that was the back story. See you on the wiki. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 11:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Edina, Minnesota]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678468570 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513050805/http://www.missamerica.org/our-miss-americas/1970/1977.asp to http://www.missamerica.org/our-miss-americas/1970/1977.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


Magnolia677 has yet again engaged in an edit war after him and I literally just got through with one on similar matter (See, New Fairfield, CT) about the election table and his removal of it there. (Finally reached an end agreement of being collapsible suggested by @Mbdfar . before the article was protected by an admin because of our edit war ) I have learned from my mistake to not engage in this and yet Magnolia677 has once again gone back and fourth deleting this. I feel before it is deleted he should need to start a talk beforehand. Right now with his most recent severe action the whole Politics section has been wiped. It certainly does add encyclopedic value. Hopefully this will be reverted & Magnolia677 will be talked to about his actions on the site. [[User:Elvisisalive95|Elvisisalive95]] ([[User talk:Elvisisalive95|talk]]) 22:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 15:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Elvisisalive95}}, Magnolia677 is not your enemy. They just have a different vision for what a quality article looks like. If Wikipedia policy is on their side, their edits will prevail. That's what we are figuring out now. Please don't [[WP:HOUND]]. [[User:Mbdfar|Mbdfar]] ([[User talk:Mbdfar|talk]]) 22:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::Fair enough & understood. [[User:Elvisisalive95|Elvisisalive95]] ([[User talk:Elvisisalive95|talk]]) 22:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:37, 5 March 2024


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Edina, Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edina, Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edina, Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential election table

[edit]

@Lakeperson and Sbmeirow: The presidential election table adds undue weight. The table features only one level of government, and avoids state and local leaders. The table is out-of-scope and overly detailed, and is not suggested at WP:USCITIES. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Magnolia677. The table as presented is ugly, it is a data-dump with no accompanying text to put it in appropriate context (presumably because no secondary sources exist), and the idea that the politics of a town are best best discussed in terms of presidential election results are highly dubious at best. --JBL (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. To parrot what I said on another discussion, I think displaying election results has encyclopedic value and can provide insight into the demographics of the town and how the party politics of an area have changed over time. While I have no problem with adding additional lists for state and local leaders, I think at the very least showing historic presidential election results as an umbrella for the political leanings of a settlement is valuable and worth keeping. I don't think we should disregard the data because it is "ugly", simply make the tables collapsible but available for those who want it. Mbdfar (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can provide insight in the presence of proper sources that provide analysis and interpretation of the raw data. Find those sources and the objections go away. Without those sources, this is an unencyclopedic data-dump. --JBL (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: I guess I just don't understand why we need secondary interpretations of this data. We don't ask that of historical population numbers, do we? AFAIK just citing the census is considered fine. WP:USCITIES#Demographics doesn't state the need for secondary sources, just a description of the data. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does address "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but also just states the need for accompanying text (I wouldn't call the present listing "excessive" anyway). I guess the question that remains in my mind is; is it possible to include explanatory text providing context to this information using only primary sources? Mbdfar (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is raw data. Insight (your word) is provided by analysis of raw data. Analysis requires a secondary source, which is missing here. Without analysis, this is exactly the kind of unexplained statistical data dump that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. There are an infinite variety of raw data sources available about Edina (or any other place): dozens of kinds of weather data, dozens of kinds of demographic data, electoral data at all levels, economic data, .... Each of these could potentially provide insight into Edina, with an appropriate analysis. Secondary sources are where you find the analysis that turns this from raw data into encyclopedic coverage; they also provide guidance as to which parts of which data are actually significant, as in WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. Insight can be achieved by just providing the data with a written explanation. I'm going to use the example of historic population figures again. Having a table with population data provides insight into the size and growth rate of a settlement. No secondary sources needed, just plain, easy to understand data. Why is this any different? An election results table is not complex, and with accompanying text (all that's required of WP:INDISCRIMINATE), I fail to see where in the guidelines it says that this information should be excluded. Reiterating my question from above, if an explanation using primary and reliable sources can be written without falling under WP:OR, then why shouldn't it be included? "...dozens of kinds of weather data, dozens of kinds of demographic data, electoral data at all levels, economic data, ..." Ok, if it's properly sourced, formatted appropriately, and explained in the text, then sure! We already have templates for weather data, etc, why deprecate the use of them? These aren't opinions or concepts that can be skewed, so I don't understand why you invoked WP:DUE - would you mind elaborating on what part of that page is relevant here? Mbdfar (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 and JayBeeEll:, I'm just requesting a response to my questions above. I'd love to come to a consensus on this. Mbdfar (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked threefour questions. To your first question, my answers are: it is incredibly easy to find secondary sources about populated places with longstanding census data that discuss and analyze the data, so provide something encyclopedic to say about it. To your secondthird question, my answer is: see the answer to my first question. These are data sets that get discussed all the time in all sorts of sources, so they do not suffer from the same problem. With respect to your thirdfourth question, here is a quotation from WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, .... The prominence of this information in published, reliable sources appears to be 0, and the coverage in the article should be proportional to that. ("Someone has written at least once about a topic in a reliable secondary source" is an extremely low bar to jump over!) --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see on re-reading that I missed one, but my response to it is covered by my response to the other three. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Election results are as important, if not more, than demographics of a community. Lakeperson (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Election results, particularly for more than one election, provides valuable insight to a community, its values, and is certainly as important, probably even more, than racial demographics of a community, which is already included. Counties on Wikipedia have their election results shown and an entire county is incredibly vague on what that signifies for values. Secondary sources are literally in my posts directly from the Secretary of State Office. You can not get any more direct sourcing than that. The table is collapsible and if a person does not care to see it they do not have to. Recent political leanings are certainly more important than a historical event that occurred in a community 100 year ago. Lakeperson (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 has yet again engaged in an edit war after him and I literally just got through with one on similar matter (See, New Fairfield, CT) about the election table and his removal of it there. (Finally reached an end agreement of being collapsible suggested by @Mbdfar . before the article was protected by an admin because of our edit war ) I have learned from my mistake to not engage in this and yet Magnolia677 has once again gone back and fourth deleting this. I feel before it is deleted he should need to start a talk beforehand. Right now with his most recent severe action the whole Politics section has been wiped. It certainly does add encyclopedic value. Hopefully this will be reverted & Magnolia677 will be talked to about his actions on the site. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvisisalive95:, Magnolia677 is not your enemy. They just have a different vision for what a quality article looks like. If Wikipedia policy is on their side, their edits will prevail. That's what we are figuring out now. Please don't WP:HOUND. Mbdfar (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough & understood. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edina,_Minnesota&oldid=1212009908"