User talk:Pather2340

Todd County, Kentucky

In the interest of respecting WP:3RR, I have not reverted your removal of cited material again. I'm also pleased to see that you have registered a user name, which will make conversation easier. Let me first point you to our policy on assuming good faith. Your latest edit summary ("Editor has desire to impose union sentiment relying on undocumented opinion as source material.") violates this principle by assuming that I am pushing an non-neutral point of view instead of trying to approach the topic from the standpoint of what the published, reliable sources say about the topic. As a sidebar, I created the article on the Confederate government of Kentucky from scratch, then shepherded it through the featured article and featured topic processes; kind of odd behavior for someone whose alleged agenda is "imposing Union sentiment", don't you think?

The bottom line is that Wikipedia articles have to be based on what is published in reliable sources (see WP:RS for what counts and what doesn't). Your characterization of the source cited in the Todd County, Kentucky, article as "undocumented opinion" suggests that you question the source's ability to meet the requirements of the reliable source policy. If that's the case, please state your reasoning here, or better yet, in a new section on the article's talk page, so that the community may evaluate your argument and make a decision accordingly. Also, I'm well aware that the prevailing sentiments of Kentuckians in general before, during, and after the war are the subject of some debate. If you wish to balance the findings of the published source that has been cited by citing an equally reliable source that disagrees with those findings, that's fine. Actually, unless you can prove that the original source is unreliable, it's really the only acceptable course of action. Removing cited material that is germane to the article isn't an accepted practice on Wikipedia, as it usually smacks of point-of-view pushing and/or censorship.

I encourage you to engage the community along one of these two lines. My refusal to revert your edit at this point should not be seen as agreement or an indication that the material you object to will not be re-added absent further dialogue. If we cannot reach an agreement between the two of us, I will seek community consensus on the proper course of action, and that consensus will be considered binding. If that consensus is to include the material you object to and you continue to try to remove it, you can be blocked from editing. The page can also be protected to prevent such edits from being made anonymously. The proper course here is for you to engage in discussion of your objection to the material, ensuring that your objections are based on Wikipedia policies, not your own opinions or original research. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning. Your work is not the "Editor" implied in that comment. It's my opinion that the individual that made the original post likely inserted this information for reasons related to a personal agenda. I'm not arguing their personal agenda as the reason for removing their content, but rather the source material and its relevancy to the topic. Tony Horwitz's book "Confederates In The Attic" has run into multiple inaccuracies including a substantial one that led to a lawsuit because the author had incorrectly accused a Confederate solider of being a deserter due to his improper research. As a member of the Todd County community with direct access to records from the time period, including cited local histories that aren't available nationwide, I can say with confidence that Horwitz's assumption of the general consensus regarding local majority support for the Union is incorrect. The inserted information, "In his book Confederates in the Attic, journalist Tony Horwitz alleges that Todd County was predominantly pro-Union during the Civil War...etc." is also irrelevant to the history section on Civil War history in the county, especially since it is a modern day work that has little inclusion of solid evidence of how the public sided with the Union or Confederacy, but instead concentrates on promoting an agenda related to a tragic event that took place in our county during the 1990s. This section should be reserved only for factual information that is cited by solid sources, such as the letters we possess from the era, voting records, slave schedules, and muster rolls from 1861-5. If anything, a new section labeled, "Modern Day Perception of the Civil War Era by 21st Century Agenda Driven Authors" could be included on the county's page, but you would conclude, as do I, what really is the need of a section such as that on the wikipedia page of a geographical place?

If I should need to retrieve the historical information required to further dispute this claim, I don't mind making the effort. The most telling letter than I can paraphrase for the purposes of ending this confusion are the words of Francis Marion Bristow, a liberal whig, who was one of the very few supporters of the Union in Todd County, who lived in Edward Hall in Elkton during the time period, "We at times desire to relocate from this area. All of the inhabitants idiotically support the Confederacy." Also, again paraphrasing from Marion William's "The Story of Todd County, Kentucky" which is written from sourced content, "The only man that voted for Lincoln that year in Todd County lived on Allender's Hill." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pather2340‎ (talk • contribs)

While I do not dispute the accuracy of your assessment of the primary sources – I lack both access to the sources and the expertise to properly assess them – Wikipedia does have a strong preference for secondary and tertiary sources; see WP:PRIMARY. The problem is that using primary sources typically leads the editor citing them to perform original research in interpreting them. Much better would be the information in the secondary source "The Story of Todd County, Kentucky", provided that source meets the reliable source guidelines.

I don't agree that the information you seek to remove is irrelevant to the article. The prevailing sentiment of the county's citizens during the war seems an important part of its history. What we have here is a quotation from a work published by a Pulitzer Prize winner and commended by the New York Times. It's pretty tough to argue against including information from a source like that. Now, I realize that a lawsuit was filed (and won?) regarding the account of a Confederate deserter, but I don't think that would be enough, by itself, for the Wikipedia community as a whole to discount the entire work as unreliable. I could be wrong. Also, your contention that the author is "agenda driven" would have to be backed up by some really solid evidence to sway the community.

Basically, I still see a few ways for moving forward. First, you could challenge the reliability of the source and/or the alleged prejudices of the author on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If the community agrees that the source is unreliable, or at least unreliable for citing this particular information, so be it. The second course would be to allow Horwitz's information in the article, then present the contrary contention(s) from other reliable sources for balance. The third would be to open an article-level request for comment on the relevance of the information presented (and presently excluded) from the article, since you have made a contention that it is irrelevant. The community could then assess your contention and act appropriately. I still haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that simply removing this cited information without a community consensus to do so is an appropriate action.

Whichever alternative you choose, I suspect I will be relegated to interested observer status. I don't really have a dog in this fight (other than the maintenance of Wikipedia guidelines), and the birth of my second child is imminent, which will cut down on my editing significantly in the short-term, anyway. That said, I'm happy to facilitate the initiation of any of these processes you choose. I say that not because I think you are intellectually incapable of doing so, but because navigating the plethora of Wikipedia discussion facilities can be daunting for a new editor. Proceed however you wish; I'm just here to help. I do think, though, that a community consensus of some kind is required in order to remove this cited material. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: O'Dell Martin (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Dell Martin.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Dell Martin

Hello Pather2340. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "O'Dell Martin".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/O'Dell Martin}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)