Wikipedia

Talk:Edina, Minnesota

Latest comment: 3 years ago by JayBeeEll in topic Presidential election table
Learn more about this page


edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential election table

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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