Talk:Edina, Minnesota: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:37, 5 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edina, Minnesota article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

John Reinan (4 February 2015). "Edina's racist history is focus of Wikipedia 'edit war'". Star Tribune. Retrieved 4 February 2015. Edina's history of racial discrimination is the focus of an "edit war" on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that's become the world's go-to research site. Eight times last summer and autumn, a university student added information to Edina's Wikipedia page about the city's history of racial exclusion. And each time, the same anonymous Wikipedia editor removed the information.

External links modified

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]

External links modified

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
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.

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]

External links modified

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

@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 ~~three~~four 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 ~~second~~third 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 ~~third~~fourth 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]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{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
  | subject     = article
@@ Line 25: / Line 26: @@
 | format= %%i
 }}
-== 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=true}}
-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)
-:Archive works, but I also fixed the dead link to the original. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 20:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 == External links modified ==
@@ Line 103: / Line 60: @@
 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)
+== External links modified ==
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+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:
+*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.
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+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)
+== Presidential election table ==
+{{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)
+: 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)
+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)
+:{{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)