Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)

redirected

The redirection of this topic to List of lakes of Minnesota#Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) was discussed in the AFD. I implemented it just now, with careful consideration of what content should be merged over. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There were five Keep !votes and 2 redirect. Your redirect is not appropriate at all. This was closed as Keep. Please follow the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. I am reverting your redirect, you are welcome to place another AfD however WP:DELAFD is a relevant policy and it can be disruptive to renominate hoping for a different result. For reference here is the AfD with a very strong Keep consensus. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

promotional content and source duplication

I removed a purely promotional, advertising link, and I removed duplication of sourcing which I believe was put in for padding purposes, towards trying to make it look like there are multiple independent sources with information about this lake. Discuss here if you must. --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your belief was not upheld at AfD. Your redirect was totally wrong, and now you are depreciating the article after it survived an AfD in that format. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy not a guideline and you do not have consensus for any of your actions here. I am going to ping the participants and the closer from the AfD here since your actions are unilaterally cancelling consensus. @Spinningspark, RFD, Kablammo, Reywas92, MB, Gilliam, Hog Farm, and Andrew Base:Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why the source for the name should be duplicated, and Lakeplace.com does not appear to be a particularly authoritative source. The lake is not notable and a redirect of something about which literally nothing of substance has been written – all statistical facts about which are already in the main table – is reasonable. Reywas92^Talk 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally supported a redirect during the deletion, but since the consensus at the AfD turned to keep, I see no basis for a redirect anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't opened a formal merger/redirect proposal, but perhaps that should be done. Or the AFD decision could/should be appealed because it was incorrect, apparently giving weight to "votes" supported only by false reasoning that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about everything (simply, absolutely a false idea). But this discussion section is not intended to be about that. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

To Lightburst, I see you restored the duplicative reference, with edit summary suggesting to me that you misunderstand how it is duplicative. I have removed it again. What this is currently about is two references to one author's so-called work:

References

I happen to feel a lot of disrespect for Upham as a source, because it strikes me that Upham probably just made up stuff, partly because he provides no sourcing himself for his assertions and I see no reason why he would not have made up stuff. And he is not saying anything beyond what any normal person could naturally assume is meant by the given name of the lake, that it is named for a bachelor, though I don't agree we have to further assume that the bachelor lived anywhere near there rather than ate dinner on its shore once, or something else. There are no precise facts asserted which could be proven true or false. Also, it is extremely doubtful that Upham wrote the same stuff in 1920 and again 81 years later. Whatever about that. However, his same stuff, true or not, was repeated in 2 or more versions of publication. We don't need to cite two sources to know what his assertion is, and it seems bad and wrong to cite both versions, as if to imply that the repetition makes it more valid, as if they are independent sources. Okay, Lightburst, do you understand now why I deleted it? And, in this discussion, I expressed my opinion that the duplication should be removed, and another editor above has agreed. So currently I think that is the consensus. You are mistaken if you think that an AFD outcome "Keep" means that the article is frozen. It is still appropriate to remove the padding that you or others added in your fight (why?) to keep the article. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the duplicate sources. As I said in the AFD, the same info reprinted in multiple places need only be cited once. Furthermore, I don't agree with the closure as it seems to have been mostly based on a numerical count of the NOT-votes without regard to the weight of the arguments. There is no basis here for an article - there is are just a few short sentences which is not enough for an encyclopedic article. This should be redirected. Lightburst said in the AFD "There [are] more [sources] out there. But I believe I spent enough time on it. I improved the article; if it is kept I will improve it further. But for now it’s best to for me to move on." I see no new sources. I would support a deletion review, or we could wait a few months and try another AFD. MB 03:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eh, we can impugn Upham but most other lakes have more concrete names that aren't as obviously conjecture. Even if it's agreed on that Asp Lake (22 acres) is named after Aspen trees or Bohall Lake (23 acres) is named after a Henry Bohall, knowing the origin of a name is not substance, is not coverage, is not sources and is not notability. Sadly, Gilliam (among other users) has mass-created tens of thousands of perma-microstubs on tiny lakes, short streams, small hills, etc. based solely on a variety of these books on name origins without any significant coverage or evidence of their passing GEOLAND. These ignore "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." These ignore "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, though it has features of one, and should not have entries for every entity merely for existing. Reywas92^Talk 04:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Another Bachelor Lake

I am not understanding this section. There is a disambiguation page for Bachelor Lake. Why is this required? How does this in any way relate to the lake in Brown County?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And, if there should be an article about Bachelor Lake in Brown County, per the current AfD discussion, then it would seem that the information for Aitkin County, Minnesota should go in a separate article Bachelor Lake (Aitkin County, Minnesota).–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done by another user here–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The removal was done, thankfully. However any information about the lake in Aitkin County is already included in its row in List of lakes of Minnesota and/or should perhaps be added there. It should not be split out to be a separate article unless the article would meet Wikipedia's standards for articles, like having substantial stuff to create a decent encyclopedic article from reliable sources. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

History section

The history section has more than historical information. Perhaps this section could be renamed "Overview" or the content could be rolled into the lede info (i.e., no separate section(s)) It would likely allow it to be a little more readable and less choppy. Just a thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and made the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird changes

I am not sure 7&6=thirteen why you removed my changes to make the content flow a bit better as WP:Prose and identified a change to the AfD. I didn't make a change to the Afd. Basically... I'm confused with what you are doing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed, 7&6=thirteen, that you thank you for my edits to the History section. That said, do you have any problem with me making the same types of change again (i.e., not copying from my previous edits since I have seen you have worked on ref formats)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson Not only do I not object, I thought I had restored your edits. I had been in the process of reformatting all the books references, and we got into an edit conflict. If I didn't do that successfully, I apologize. SORRY! So have at it. PLEASE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh.... the dreaded edit conflict! (I hate it when I do that.) That explains it. Ok, thanks, 7&6=thirteen.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

After making the changes, I checked this diff to ensure that I didn't remove any information. Thanks so much!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson Edit conflicts happen. Unless one posts a notice that the article is 'under revision.' Neither of us did that.

No harm, no foul. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, 7&6=thirteen, I have been on a long break and forgot about adding the tag that edits are in progress. I feel the same.

I removed the section heading for the "other lake"... but I am still confused why it's needed if it's covered on the disambig and List of lakes pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources I added include this lake, too. WP:Not paper. Provides readers with context, IMO. It is actually a strange name. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your points. I am not seeing how Not paper applies, why duplicate information on a disambiguation page, and why we would put all the info we find in a source into a Wikipedia article (regardless of whether or not is about the subject of the article). It would make more sense to create its own article if it's decided this one is a "keep".

In any event, I am leaving it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from The Land of Ten Thousand Lakes and List of lakes in Minnesota to Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) to The Land of Ten Thousand Lakes and List of lakes in Minnesota. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) to Bachelor Lake. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Doncram, Hi there! I see that you made edits to this version of the article. And, I get where you are coming from in terms of citations and content that may not be notable. So, I get scaling back the citations and perhaps some of the content.

I am not quite understanding the current state of the article. It seems like it has been rewritten a little tongue in cheek...and no longer in prose, but in choppy "It..." statements. And, then the "the lake contains water" statement.

Some of the reworded sentences have lost their meaning. Would you mind terribly if I 1) reverted to the earlier version, 2) reduce the stack of unnecessary citations, and 3) sort out the acreage difference from the sources?

I did not vote to "keep" on the AfD page, by the way. I just think it's better to have a good stab at what a "keep" might look like. "the lake contains water" probably wouldn't make a final cut for me - but it give me a good laugh tonight. :) ––CaroleHenson (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy if you would edit it in the same spirit. --Doncram (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I will work on it shortly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I finished the review and editing of the article and removed the poor or outdated sources (e.g., we don't need to use multiple editions of the same source, just the most recent one.)

I have found this link from the Minnesota River Basin Data Center | Minnesota State University that states that there are 79.80 acres, according to the USGS 24,000 series quadrangle maps. It doesn't say the date of the maps.

The List of Lakes of Minnesota table states that the lake is 92 acres. I removed the source that said it was 97 acres, it's a Real Estate local information page and doesn't state where it got the data.

Any idea where to find a reliable source for the acreage? Perhaps from the USGS 24,000 series quadrangle maps? I will look around, but if anyone knows, that would help a lot. Thanks–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This link seemed to be the easiest to use on the USGS site, but I still couldn't figure out how to determine the acreage. More than a little lost.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Trimming and editing the article is one thing. Gutting it (and the sources) while the AFD is pending is quite another. I will be posting a more extensive reply later in the day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I returned the version I worked on last night. You did not in any way address the issue of unreliable sources, failed verification, and use of most recent editions of books.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why 7&6=thirteen that you needed to take this to the AfD discussion and not engage in thoughtful converation here, but I am not making any more changes. I made the changes I did last night with only the best of intentions. I changed my vote to Delete if the current version remains that has failed verification, use of multiple and older versions of the same content/books, and use of unreliable sources. I am greatly hurt that the changes I made, with the addition of content, was not seen as what it was... only the best of intentions. I am seeing that I should have let the Doncram version (minus the lake has water line) should have remained.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And you have zero right to tell me not to make thoughtful edits to the article. I just choose not to engage in an edit war with you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AFD ethics

A question of ethics and AFD

User: Doncram and User: CaroleHenson I write to STOP your conduct and make an accusation. I had hoped that we could work through this in WP:AGF. But your conduct requires a response.

We have a twice pending AFD. Some of the editors who want to delete or merge this article have removed a lot of text and references. For a lot of claimed reasons. In a score of edits you have systematically gutted both the content and the cited sources of the article. While some of these could fairly be said to be arguable at the Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article talk page – where they can and should be discussed – and I will join the discussion there.

But the whole pattern and timing suggests you are going beyond that.

Here are some of the pertinent edits I am talking about. The reader needs to look at their content:

High water mark

• No. 1
• here No. 2
• here No. 3 including this edit summary: “Please stop destroying the article so that it suits your desire to delete. Several editors are building and you are undoing their work. Wait until the AfD ends. Your opinion is one, and you are undoing the work of several.”

Low water mark

• here No. 4 and

Present state

• here No. 5

You are creating a self fulfilling prophecy to assure a result at this AFD.

Removing the sources from the article does not make them cease to exist. To the extent that WP: Notability is involved in your claims at AFD, you are simply trying to obscure the facts. See WP:Before, which mandates looking at notability in the broadest sense.

All of these books cite to this Lake.

• Fritsche, Louis Albert (December 31, 1916). History of Brown County, Minnesota: Its People, Industries and Institutions. Vol. I. Indianapolis, Indiana: B.F. Bowen & Co. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• United States Geological Survey. Branch of Geographic Names. Minnesota Geographic Names Information System: Alphabetical List. p. 12. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Upham, Warren (May 1, 2001). Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. St. Paul, Minnensota. p. 76. ISBN 9780873513968. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Upham, Warren (1920). Minnesota Geographic Names: Their Origin and Historic Significance. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society. p. 72. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Winchel, N.H.; Upham, Warren (1884). Geology of Minnesota. Vol. 1. John Smith and Harrison State Printers, Pioneer Press Company, Printers. p. 560. Retrieved 9 December 2019. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I understad that WP:ANI has parallel matters. I have avoided going there.

The fate of the article should be fairly evaluated. And not based on the Bowdlerized version the deletionists now proffer.

The nominator’s opinion has been made clear by many comments, and the nomination. Now it is up to the community to evaluate and the nominator should take a step back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

To User:7&6=thirteen, I appreciate your point, and your expressing it here. Your labelling of what you consider to be a "high water mark" version is helpful. I don't think the "AFD ethics" are entirely clear, but I do want to acknowledge that it can be confusing and can sometimes seem unhelpful if, before or during an AFD, an editor is removing substantial stuff from an article as if to "win" the AFD, because newly arriving prospective "voters" in the AFD might be misled about what the best possible version of the article might be.

In this case, I think Carole Henson and my edits together (perhaps hers better than mine) have moved the article towards being acceptable, towards showing the best the article could be. You may disagree and it is helpful for discussion in the AFD if you point to what you deem to be the best version.

This AFD has been full of unethical behavior, however, including repeated addition of false statements (see next discussion section) and lousy references (to stupid commercial / real estate / advertising sites) and duplicative references (multiple citations to different versions of Upham's one sentence). These actions seem clearly intended to mislead prospective AFD voters. Honestly I am not completely sure how to deal with those unethical actions. It might be reasonable to use wp:ANI to secure a block or a topic ban of one or more editors who have been, arguably, disrupting the article's development and/or the AFD in these ways. User:7&6=thirteen, I would like for you to specifically answer about what you think should be done with false and misleading statements being added to an article at AFD, in general, and then separately about whether you agree about my and others' specific allegations about your and Lightburst's statements being false and misleading.

Another way that behavior in the AFD and here has been unethical, arguably, is that some parties appear to have been fighting, wp:battleground-style, for one outcome regardless of facts. On my side, in the AFD and here, I have acknowledged others' views and modified my own, including recognizing explicitly in the AFD that there were more valid items of information than I had perceived at first. And I took steps to accommodate a compromise outcome, a redirect to the county article or to the Minnesota lakes list-article, by my developing both of those possible redirect targets. On the other hand, one or a few editors have not admitted any fault, have not apologized where they should have, have not compromised at all. For example I think that Lightburst(?) should have acknowledged the complete falseness/invalidity of the fake source fish-finding websites that were explained/shown to be false in discussion in the AFD and above. User:7&6=thirteen, I think you should acknowledge and apologize for your editing in, repeatedly, what amounts to false statement about the farmland and "these lakes", as covered in a section below.

It is fundamentally deeply uncivil, arguably unethical, for editors to be lying deliberately or for them to be willfully ignoring valid questioning/comments about the quality of stuff they are responsible for. This clearly undermines any potential for respect among editors and for any mutual agreement/compromises. --Doncram (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not write this lightly. You folks have done what you have done. Eliminating the books? While arguing about notability. WTH? 15:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The above screed is one of three identical copies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) and here at Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). There is different discussion following each one. I label this a "screed" now because it seems more that way, the more I see misplaced defensiveness to keep duplicative/triplicative discussion going on. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

False statement repeatedly added

I object to the repeated addition of the following false statement:

Within Brown County, it is one of three named lakes located in Stark Township. Most of the area's wetlands were drained, leaving only these lakes. It is in the area of rich farm land. (citation to reference named "Stark")

It is a false statement. The source asserts that there is rich farm land in the county, not specifically in Stark township, and likewise about wetlands being drained. It does NOT say that in Stark township there were more water bodies but now only these 3 lakes remain. It is false and misleading, if not outright lying, to make the above statement. I have removed it and I believe Carole Henson has also removed it. I did actually add the source and what I think is an appropriately worded statement about the geography of the county, in the Brown County, Minnesota article.

It has been repeatedly added back, I think exclusively by User:7&6=thirteen. 7&6=thirteen, would you please now remove it yourself. And/or I welcome anyone else removing it again. --Doncram (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I interpret the source as I wrote using it. I stand by that reading. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, "False" Huh? I guess we could in good faith disagree about which sylAble to acCent, too. Turn down the Klieg lights. I suggest you WP:AGF, as I do. You are using a shotgun to kill flies. Speaking of flies ...

I think you are picking fly dung out of pepper. Parsing this finely ground fact ad infinitum doesn't create value to the readers, nor does it mislead anyone. We have six million other articles that need more editing than this factoid. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Give it a break Doncram. Let the AfD play out without all this rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it is a false and misleading statement, apparently written to create a false impression that geography specifically local to this lake has been written about in a reliable source, towards padding the article. The rubbish is the knee-jerk opposition to sensible article-writing that has been going on. I have no idea why you two are determined to pad this article in particular. --Doncram (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your speculation about my motives are ill-advised. I could say about your incessant and unconstructive opposition that "The rubbish is the knee-jerk opposition to sensible article-writing that has been going on." But that too would be a bridge too far. And it doesn't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding your comments, 7&6=thirteen, and find it ironic after the furor you caused calling Doncram and I for being unethical for making edits that follow Wikipedia guidelines. It would help, generally, if discussion about this article maintains greater civility and ability to listen to understand regarding helpful comments from a number of editors. You do not own this page and you seem to think that any content (whether is pertains to this particular island article or not) from any source is valid to be in the article. It would also help if you sought to understand why edits were made by looking at the history and edit summaries rather than rejecting edits to clean up sources and content. And, you deleted content that I added by a mass "revert".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I added a template:disputed tag to the article at the point of the false / deliberately misleading assertion. The assertion now reads "In Brown County, it is one of three named lakes located in Stark Township, where most of the area's wetlands were drained, leaving only these lakes. The proximate area was described in 1916 as rich farm land." with reference to a source about Brown County. This is repetitious. It is NOT true that the Brown County source says that there was any drainage of wetlands proximate to lakes in Stark Township. Nor does it say the farmland in Stark Township or proximate to this lake is rich. I already cited the source in developing the Brown County article, where general statements about Brown County are appropriate. Do not remove the "Disputed" tag; the assertions are indeed disputed. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst The addition of the {{disputed}} tag seemed appropriate to me and was described here in by Doncram. I thought that if someone adds a tag, mentions in the edit summary that there is a discussion on the talk page, and thoroughly addresses the issue on the talk page that people do not remove the tag without addressing the issue.

@Doncram: I wish you could let us all move on. The article has received all the heat Wikipedia can offer and it was closed three separate times. It has been kicked around like a football - still being discussed in other areas of the project. Your own efforts at circumventing procedure led to all of this drama and hand wringing. And even now we cannot collect ourselves for a few days because you insist on dramatic templates which diminish the article. FYI: It is very odd behavior for a person who claims that they want to be an administrator. You have the support of Serial Number 5 (something) who seems to be openly hostile to me and the WP:ARS efforts. But perhaps take a step back. I took two days off Wikipedia so that I would not be tempted to edit here. There are 6 million articles on Wikipedia, and so much to do, and yet you keep coming back here to refactor this Lake article. I will not lose my self over the lake. I hope we all get some perspective and let this thing breathe. CaroleHenson is proposing an RFC soon. Until then... Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Please desist from casting further aspersions; I note that Girth Summit has previously had to advise you to retract your personal attacks (something you have not yet done).

Incidentally, to the matter in hand: the "disputed facts" tag is there because—err—some facts are disputed, and as a result, it stays there until the facts are no longer disputed on this page. Hope that clarifies. ——SN54129 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message here. If it really was a PA anyone could remove it including Girth Summit (who you really did not need to ping). So no, it was not. I left you a kinder message on your talk page. I will not edit war here - you reverted my edit, and that is the end of it. I was just asking us all to get some perspective. That fact that the AfD nominator continues to mess with the article is puzzling. Anyway, I hope we all get perspective and move on to other important business. I wish you all the best. Lightburst (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, FWIW, I really do believe it was a personal attack - you called someone a name. That it wasn't profane, and that it's not an especially offensive name, doesn't make it somehow not a PA - you were very much commenting on the editor, not the edit. I didn't (and still don't) want to escalate matters by censoring your comment, and I understand that we don't all choose our words carefully in the heat of the moment, but I'm disappointed you haven't gone back to strike it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that because they opened the AfD, they don't have a right to be involved in improving the article? Is that in guidelines somewhere that I have missed. I am being serious. I have been on break for awhile.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not realize that the tag was made at the article level. I can add it inline where it will be clearer what is happening.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not seeing any assumption of bad faith in the OP comment by Doncram. 13 chose to escalate this dispute which Doncram had made all about content and sourcing by focusing on attacking Doncram personally, something he also did further down this page to me. I honestly think that if this disruption continues (the article includes unapologetic WP:SYNTH, so I wouldn't be surprised if it also includes completely untrue statements with no relation to their cited sources) a new AFD will need to be opened, with a focus on how most of the keep !votes in the previous AFD were either bad-faith claims that HEY was met or good-faith assumptions that HEY was met without taking a close-enough look at the content that had been added. I think a serious case could be argued that anyone who repeatedly insists that the bad content is not there should have their contribs investigated to check for other such instances of such problematic content being posted to the mainspace. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope that we don't go to a third AfD, and instead focus on cleaning this article up a bit and focus on the work to come to clearer guidelines about what makes a lake notable. The Wikipedia encyclopedia will not be the worse for having an article about this lake, but I think it will be better off by having a clearer line about what makes a lake notable for future discussions about the many lakes in the world.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia encyclopedia ... will be better off by having a clearer line about what makes a lake notable We already do: a topic (lake or otherwise) needs to be notable enough that we can write an article sufficiently long that our readers wouldn't be better served by an entry in a tabulated list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you, CaroleHenson, and at the top of WP:NGEO in This page in a nutshell: it clearly states (my bold underline): Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. WP is loaded with stubs that will probably always be stubs. I simply wanted to help make this article something more than a stub because it passes N and V. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Has agreement has been reached on that and it is published somewhere? And, you don't think it's necessary to work on an RFC based upon the discussions at this page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GNG, specifically the first bullet point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88 - see WP:NEXIST - the arguments presented to (1) remove sourced material that one may have misunderstood, and to (2) remove material that is not sourced, especially while in the process of expanding an article after an AfD, bring non sequitur to mind. Please focus all that wonderful energy into collaborating with us to improve the article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments here. I will fold them with the question at WP:Notability (geographic features) and whether an RFC is the way to go, or perhaps an essay, or something else. I think that there are conflicting thoughts like WP:GNG bullet 1 and the concept of protected status. So, it might be helpful to be clear about the extent to when WP:GNG applies if it's protected. Then, there's the "if it fits in a table" without more meaningful, notable info then it shouldn't be an article (with zero discussion about whether it's protected or not... a lot of lakes are protected).–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• I looked over this source and I agree with Doncram's interpretation. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up, and removal A. About consensus in this discussion, it seems to me that my original charges have been supported by others in general, except for comments that did not address the content at all. I interpret comments/attacks vs. myself to be acknowledgements that the content is bogus. If it were not bogus, those persons would have defended the content instead. I see that the disputed tag was removed, restored, removed, although the consensus in this discussion section appears to be that false statements should be either tagged or removed. I see the statements were edited, too. However, I just removed the following statement (call this Removal A:

The proximate area has been described as “fertile, wonderfully productive of crops common to this latitude.”

References

because a) it is not about the lake, and b) it is implying/asserting that the proximate area of this lake in particular is what was being described, while the source was discussing the land in the town in general. It is misleading, and I have to assume deliberately in the context of the running dispute about this article, to assert that there is specific discussion about this specific lake's shores. It would be factual to state that the soil in the township in general has been said to be fertile, with that source, but I suppose that would be opposed because it would make it clearly not an item going towards notability of this lake. Well, it does not go towards notability of this lake. And since also it has been repeatedly misconstrued, I think it is best to remove the statement from the article. A statement along those lines was added to the article about the county and/or township, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Also I just removed the following (call this Removal B):

In Brown County, it is one of three named lakes located in Stark Township, where most of the area's wetlands were drained, leaving only these lakes.

for several reasons:

1. that it is unsourced ... it may be the case that sourcing was removed previously, but sourcing was not removed by me, and this is not sourced by the next source given in the article (which is about which lakes are included in a watershed, instead).

2. that it is confusing, perhaps deliberately I don't know, and likely false/misleading. What is meant by "In Brown County"? What area specifically is referred to, in statement that "most of the area's wetlands were drained, leaving only these lakes"? I recall previously reviewing this statement and determining that the source given at the time was talking about the area of Brown County in general, not specifically Stark Township and further not specifically about the area of Bachelor Lake.

I suggest that editors involved discuss the items here on the Talk page and do not return any such stuff to the article unless consensus has been established here. If editors do return stuff without consensus, I tend to think they should probably be blocked and/or banned. It seems to me that sensible traffic control over this article is lacking, despite good will and fair participation by several editors actually trying to improve what is presented to readers here and/or in county article, town article, and list-article section. --Doncram (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The above is a local discussion - not an RfC or call for consensus. Your suggestion is not helpful and neither are your threats of blocks and bans. Collaboration and helping to find sources rather than obstructing editors by reverting sourced material you simply misunderstood or when templates could be used for "challenged material". Read my suggestion below and let's all AGF, and collaborate productively to expand the article - it would be far more beneficial to the project. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion - Doncram, please stop removing material you believe to be unsourced or false when it can be tagged instead - or better yet, help find sources. I've spent the better part of the morning trying to improve this article and almost every single thing I've spent the better part of the morning adding/finding sources for, you have reverted. I truly do not want to waste any more of my time on baseless arguments. You are now up to 3 reverts, 2 of which are contiguous so it's technically 2 reverts, but it leaves the impression of BATTLEGROUND behavior when we should be collaborating in an effort to improve the article. I am aware that you recently nominated this article for deletion, and some were not happy with the outcome, but I am trying to AGF here and do what is best for the project. I actually did remove one of the unsourced statements that related to the lake's size as there was no way to verify it, but I did find/cite sources for the material I added, one of which (re: the 3 named lakes) I simply forgot to add the citation, and of course, didn't write it down. Looking at the boundary maps of the township we can see there are only 3 named lakes, but I will find the source again and add it. ^{Adding source map that shows the 3 lakes: Bachelor, Zanders & Gilman. 01:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)} We should all be working collaboratively to improve the article so that it will clearly pass WP:GEOLAND, so show me the consensus you referred to in your edit summary: after EC, perform "Removal 1", as has been discussed at Talk page. It appears to be consensus there that this statement and "Removal 2" should be removed. Reversion without addressing Talk page was perhaps a mistake?). I did see your recently added discussion above wherein you misinterpreted a source for the material I added, and I did see that GirthSummit is overseeing this article so I've pinged him. Was there an RfC called and consensus reached that I somehow missed, or are you referring to the brief discussion wherein you and another editor appear to have misinterpreted the source? We all want to get the article right, of course, but some collaboration would be welcome. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

^{re-ping Girth Summit, other ping didn't work. Atsme _Talk 📧 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)}

Hi Atsme - I think I'd distance myself from the idea that I'm overseeing this article, or even this discussion. I had some input into the recent ANI thread, but that was more a question of conduct rather than content - I was concerned that a lot of editors were getting increasingly hostile towards one another over the article, and I wanted to try to take the heat out of it. I commented above in response to being pinged, which I'm doing again now, but I'm not really following this closely. If everyone tries to bear in mind that we're all on the same team, and that the existence or otherwise of this very short article about a fairly obscure lake is not something that it's worth raising voices about, I'll be content. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Historical mention

It was mentioned before that, though, in a geological study that was conducted from 1872 to 1884. I would also say that if User:Hijiri88 has fancied himself as some kind of lawyer, a "hearsay" objection wouldn't be appropriate. The statement is offered only to show that it was made, not to show "the truth of the matter asserted." So it was not hearsay. I didn't know that the rules of evidence would be a ground for objection in Wikipedia. Indeed, all old history is based on a statement by a declarant who is not available to personally appear and be subject to cross examination.
If there is something more to these WP:Disruptive edits here and here, I expect an explanation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Inserting reflist here so it doesn't float at the bottom of the page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

13, please strike the personal attack in your last paragraph. If you do not, I will template it out myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Would it help solve the issue if the statement was reworded, such as "in 1884, it was mentioned in a book on Minnesota's Geology"? Or something like that. I am finding that on page 563. I am not finding it on page 560.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed it to 563. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• You can't use a book from 1884 to verify a claim that an unnamed (or differently named) lake mentioned therein is the same lake that was named "Bachelor Lake" 10 years later. That is WP:OR. You need a secondary source that explicitly connects the two, or a modern annotated version of the 1884 text that explicitly connects the two. (My apologies if the cited source actually was such an annotated version; nothing in the citation implied such.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bachelor Lake is mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Lakes" section on page 563 on the 5th line (and I think the second sentence lots of ";" use).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If the name of the lake appears in a document from 1884, then the sourced claim in the previous sentence that it was named in 1894 is wrong. It is, however, OR to include both a reliably sourced statement that it was named in 1894 and a following "But it is also mentioned under that name in a work from 1884 (dug up by diligent Wikipedians)", unless you have a source explicitly making the connection between the two apparently contradictory sources. That being said, looking closer at the previous sentence it appears the "2017" source actually dates to 1920, and there's nothing to indicate that the source consulted was a modern reprint (annotated?) edition. Moreover, it's even worse OR than I thought if what we are doing is taking a source from 100 years ago and another source from 36 years before that and comparing the two. I've been accused about a dozen times in the past two months of "OR" for using an article talk page to speculate that a modern "reliable source" actually got their information from Wikipedia because all the other more obviously reliable sources (including its own cited source) contradict it; such accusations are, of course, ridiculous, but adding content like that to the article space, as is apparently being done here (with sources dating to a century or more ago), is a definite no-no. (And, ironically, the editors accusing me of OR are very likely sock/meat puppets of one or more of the keep !voters in this article's recent AFD.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see your points, Hijiri88.

I made a series of edits on January 3 to use the most recent editions of books, remove unreliable sources (realtor site of info without info about where the info came from, and information that failed verification). When I was done, this version remained, but it was reverted en masse without looking at the edit summary because a few assumed that my edits were bad faith edits. Based on your information here, I should have removed the info from the 1884 edition. I still stand by the rest of my edits that resulted in this version, except of course, now re: the use of the 1884 edition.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's not actually synthesis to include the two facts in separate sentences. It's possible that the information in the two books is contradictory (or not, we may be reading too much into it), but either way both books are reliable sources. Putting both pieces of information in separate sentences is perfectly acceptable and certainly not synthesis.Patiodweller (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirected

Tonight Doncram redirected all of the lakes of Brown county which I had listed on this template with no discussion. After the sudden redirect on Bachelor Lake I oppose the redirecting of every lake in the Brown county template.

I have restored the articles and then went about improving them...adding RS. I also added information boxes, coordinates, size, protected status. Perhaps another editor can take a peek and help me shore (no pun) up these articles a bit more? Cheers all, I hope that we can work together on the issues before us. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh..nobody cares. How about another problem. We have a duplicate on this template. Two articles for the same unincorporated town called Leavenworth. Do you know if we should speedy it? Merge it? redirect it? Thanks in advance. Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion - start an RfC at VP and see what the community says about WP:GEOLAND and how to remove the ambiguity as it relates to protected areas/natural features. Propose an A - B choice - A to keep as is or B to modify to (proposed wording) and present it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

How about this immediate issue of the duplicated article for an unincorporated town called Leavenworth? Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I just now read the suggestion by CaroleHenson above - basically proposing something similar at the guideline TP re: WP:Notability (geographic features). That may work best. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

^{Doh!! Sorry, I was distracted, and my one-track mind was on Bachelor Lake and not the new issue. Happy to see CaroleHenson has her wits about her! 😎 Now that is the kind of collaboration I truly enjoy!! Resolving issues! Thank you! Atsme _Talk 📧 05:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)}

I was just going to make a suggestion for a really easy solution: Find out whether it's an unincorporated community or a township and go ahead and merge. I am happy to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• CaroleHensonI appreciate if you do. It is an unincorporated township. But then do you redirect the other or speedy it? Just for my knowledge. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to. Whether to redirect or speedy delete will depend on what I find when I start working on it (e.g., is it likely that someone would use the name of the page getting merged from. I'd rather work on it first and get more familiar with the two pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not sure how someone missed it before. Same template. Lightburst (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will start on it now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

My first stop was GNIS and it looks like it is both a populated place (unincorporated community) and a township. With the place being within the township. It looks like I may just need to make some edits to clarify which is which, add For statements in each article, etc. See GNIS

Feature

Leavenworth Populated Place Brown MN
Leavenworth Post Office 2063757 Post Office Brown MN
Township of Leavenworth 664741 Civil Brown MN
–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Notability (lakes)

The draft for notability guidelines edits or perhaps an essay is completed at Draft:Notability (lakes) from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features).

It seems to me that it is possible that this would work for other geographic features like rivers, since it's relatively straightford and simple. Feel free to comment or clarify the draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Stark Township

Atsme, I made this change to your edit because you were essentially duplicating info in the first sentence of the article and it's not a good source. This source, for instance, would be better than a personal genealogy site.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)