Talk:Fairport Harbor, Ohio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeffrey Alan Taipale content[edit]

Content was not added for advetizing it was added because these are some of the published reference materials and websites that inform about fairport harbor. Do you have to be new york city to have books and films written about you? There's other media published which we're adding. jeff's film was first and you guys started picking on it right away.

I hope you'll lighten up and see that sarah and I and others (who aren't too computer literate) are trying to use your resource as a documentation tool and not an advertizing vehicle, although we'd like tourists in the summer to visit. -ted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted henry (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC{{{3}}})

That edit summary was more in reference to her other edits, of which the common connection was Jeff. The contribution to Letchworth State Park seemed particularly inappropriate, as it did not seem very relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source of information. Wikipedia is not a directory or a guide entry; just because something is somewhat related to a topic does not automatically warrant its mention in a Wikipedia article. Dancter 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your formatting changes, I get it (until next time) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted henry (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC{{{3}}})

2011 natural gas incident[edit]

I reverted because the incident is notable in that it has significantly altered the village which only has 3,000 residents, and therefore is not an isolated incident that will be forgotten. I would agree that it is not notable enough for its own article, but as a mention within the larger article, I see no problem. Should a history section be created, it could be moved there. Mapsax (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it will not be forgotten? Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and including something simply because you believe it will not be forgotten is not in accordance with standard practice. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but no one knows if it will be either. I just reviewed WP:CRYSTAL and those two sentences don't seem to disagree with it, and, again, that policy, as with the other (WP:N), focuses on article creation, not just a small section on an already extant page.
Ten structures were rendered uninhabitable out of 20 or so affected overall (per latest sources) due to a single event in a town just over 3,000, so it seems to me to be notable; the statements are NPOV; and the section's well-sourced – I made a point to add an Associated Press source to show the scope. I don't see how it isn't encyclopedic and therefore permissible. Again, I'll bring up a possible history section, even thinking of putting that plus an expansion request template in the section for now until someone can do research and add more history, as there is no other history there now. Mapsax (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the history section(s) is a really good idea, and one that I have been wanting to work on and would be happy to collaborate. While I believe this village has a rich history, especially surrounding its ethnic inhabitants in the early 20th century, as well as the part it played in the industrial development of the region, I think this recent incident, as horrific as it has been for its current residents, is really just a small footnote at best, amongst the village's 200-plus years of existence. I will ask a couple of other editors that I have worked with in the past to weigh in on this issue.Yunchie (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of past events doesn't by itself violate WP:CRYSTAL, but arguing (without proof) that an event should be included because it will become important enough not to be forgotten is going against that section of the policy. Sorry for not being specific enough. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[To Yunchie] I agree that the event is a small footnote, but it is a footnote. I liken it to a tornado hitting a town (not anything like Greensburg, Kansas, but enough to spread significant damage throughout the respective area); it seems reasonable that that would be mentioned somewhere in an article about a small town. Combining the equivalent damage with the fact that the damage was caused by a freak accident that rarely happens anywhere, plus the fact that all residents were affected in some way (the evacuation was village-wide), make it seem to me to be notable.
[To Nyttend] My "not forgotten" comment was in reference to the ten-year test (and, yes, I see the link to WP:CRYSTAL there). Mapsax (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it doesn't blatantly violate any Wikipedia policy, but it doesn't belong in the article. From the references that were used, the incident did not get coverage beyond local news, and it won't be considered a significant event in the town's history in the future. If one of these things changes, then it can be added back later, but as it stands now, I agree with its removal. --Mysdaao talk 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept removing it temporarily; however, the story did receive national news coverage – see my reference above that said that I added an AP article to the sources, plus I just did a Google News search on "Fairport Harbor" and found articles hosted at the Washington Post, Reuters, and CNN websites. As for future memory, I disagree because I can see people ten years from now saying "Where were you ten years ago when the houses blew up"? For better or worse, WP:CRYSTAL works both ways. Mapsax (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "WP:CRYSTAL works both ways." What the policy means is that articles should not have unverifiable speculation. You might be right that people will be talking about it in ten years, but without a reliable source for that belief, it's your own opinion and it doesn't belong in the article. --Mysdaao talk 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply mean that saying "It won't be remembered" is as speculative as saying "It will be remembered". Mapsax (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I have been asked (as an impartial 3rd party) to review this debate, and I have to say this is a classic example of a grey area in interpreting Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. My conculsion (which I will come to in a moment) is not binding, and I would suggest that if you disagree, you take it to somewhere like WP:RFC for wider thoughts. However, I like to think that my reasoning is balanced (whether or not you agree with me is entirely up to you, and you are welcome to disagree) and would hope that you follow them.

First off, I would like to thank everyone for keeping this a sensible discussion - everyone has made valid comments, and given a well reasoned argument, and no one has entered the realm of edit warring. If only other editors would be as sane as you!

Ok - the way I see it is that depending on your point of view when interpreting WP policies and guidelines is that you can make a case for deletion and inclusion. Take, for example, the policy on notability (WP:N#TEMP): Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.. However, the same section states that Wikipedia is not a news source, and the linked section further lings to WP:EVENT, which goes into great detail about whether or not a news item is notable enough.

Now we come to the point that determines whether or not a news event is notable or not. WP:RECENTISM is discussed in the notability guidelines as something to be careful of. Also, is the event itself notable? From WP:EVENT:

  • Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
  • Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

At this point, it is too soon to tell if it is classed as probably notable. On a local level, I would say it is, but without my crystal ball, it is not easy to tell if it is nationally. Is it very likely to be notable? Well, it did receive a lot of media interest, including a spot in the Washington Post. But that could be argued as routine reporting. According to the guidance on may or may not be notable, it is again too early to tell. As for being not notable - what exactly is meant by an "accident"? A car crash, certainly. But did they mean the evacuation of an entire village when "accident" was included? Possibly not.

Anyway, all that above is for determining whether or not the event requires an entire article, and that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not a paragraph can be included in the article. So here I am going to apply WP:EVENT#Alternatives to deletion, where they talk about merging the article to a pre-existing article. And this has already been done. The section does not seem to be applying undue weight, it is sourced, and it is brief (although a bit too brief - it has missed out the bit on there being no injuries).

So my conclusion is based on both WP:ATD and one of the pillars of Wikipedia: WP:IAR. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So I ask myself "If we delete that section, have we improved Wikipedia?". And I would have to say "no", as there is a potentially significant event in the history of the village that is not included, so I am restoring the section.

Ideally, this should be included in a section of History, split into a few different events about the place. But as there is currently nothing else in the article that can be described as historical events, this section will have to remain a stand-alone.

Anyway, as I said at the start, this is only my opinion, and not to be taken as final. If you disagree with my conclusion, then by all means take it to WP:RFC. My gut feeling is (going by the proper way you have discussed things so far) that it will lead to an effective compromise. Hopefully everyone is in agreement though... it would be nice to have my first 3rd party review to be a success! (Grin). Stephen! Coming... 17:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm happy about it, since you agreed with me...however, trying to stay NPOV, I wholeheartedly agree, as stated above, with adding a history section – FH does have extensive history that can flesh out the section when it's created – in which case the event will be minimized because it will no longer be identified in a section title. I probably should have waited a couple more days to add something (although ironically, unknown to me until I scanned the article history only after adding my bit, I was the second person to add something). This might have made the section more substantial; for example, I've been sitting on more info to add while this discussion played out that I'm about to add, which will further distinguish the situation as not routine. Thanks from me also to all for keeping the discussion civil. Mapsax (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the two editors that I asked to review this edit have differing opinions. It is easy for me to agree with Mysdaao as it is in line with my original determination. However, I think Stephen! makes a valid argument about the difference between a stand-alone article and content within an article.

From my experience as a newspaper editor, I suspect that this story will not have much lasting power, unless there is some additional drama beyond the failure of a mechanical part. It is simply an 'accident'.

As I said earlier, I think this is a suitable contribution to a 'History' section in this article. I guess the biggest problem that I have with that, is that it is there alone. Is there more 'history' of this magnitude in this village? There might be, but it perhaps nothing comes to mind because it turned out to not have any 'lasting effect'?

In any event, I am willing to agree to leave this edit in place, for now, and will work on at least, an outline expansion of the 'History' section. Perhaps then we can better see how this piece fits in.Yunchie (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland's The Plain Dealer had a lengthy front-page feature article this past Sunday on the events of January 24. Of course since it only focuses on victims it may be viewed as a bit skewed – talking to those marginally affected wouldn't make a good story, of course – but it should illustrate the widespread effects of the event on the village as a whole, and back up my justification of the inclusion of the event in the WP article. Mapsax (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fairport Harbor, Ohio. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fairport Harbor, Ohio. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairport_Harbor,_Ohio&oldid=1201900177"