Talk:St. Louis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A proposed preamble to the St. Louis MO WIKI article.

I want to add the following to the Saint Louis, Missouri article.

Throughout his life T.S. Elliot reclalled the city of St. Louis as having "affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done" and counted himself "fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."

I am searching for the source of the comment.

If you are of the opinion that is is copyright infringement, please see:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

which I quote, in part, below:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use

is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

  3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of

the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

and

therefore I believe this "short" and "not for profit" and "educational" example and “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" qualifies the foregoing under the Fair Use Doctrine elements.

Now if you are a lawyer or qualified legal scholar (I have a Paralegal degree -- Santa Monica College, 1987)and have done copyright practice for pay and for myself, let's talk. If you can't say you know the law, please stay on the sidelines. 66.81.194.20 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copyright concern, but I would be a little it concerned about the relevance of the quote at the very start of the article. Perhaps a more appropriate place would be closer to the end, with a section entitled "Quotes about St. Louis" or something to that effect. I havelaso always liked Mark Twai's quote to the effect of "The first time i saw St. Louis I could have bought the enire city for $6 million and it is the regret of my lifetime that i did not do so". I'm sure we could find some other good quotes (including some negative ones from Tennessee Williams) about the city. TMS63112 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the concern about the quote coming at the start? I believe Elliot's words set the tone about what is special and unique about St.L. It is not just a quip, per Twain, or Dickens, who decried it as a swamp, that makes it worthy. Anyplace has good and/or bad. Think you St. Louis not unique in this as described in the Cityscape section of the Wiki article and confirmed, by Elliot?

I think st. Louis is a wonderful, special place and I have created and edited a number of articles that I hope help convey what makes St. Louis unique to readers. I personally identify very deeply with the sentiments expressed in the Eliott quote. However, we are creating an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure. I'm not sure the quote belongs at the start of an encyclopedia article about the city. Maybe I am just trying too hard to keep my own biases in check. TMS63112 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What say you to waiting a while (it might be a long while) and see what some others have to say on the subject? As for the "promotional brochure" idea, that a little harsh. I see it as an opening gambit about why the reader would like to see more about St. Louis. Bye-the-by, please see my St-L Talk about the "legal" or official name of St. Louis. Meanwhile, I'm sticking to my point until I take root. Do you still live in St.L? Maybe we should have this conversation via email. I am emarkprestonat hot male(spelling change please). Yours MP -30-

I'd be happy to wait a while and let other editors give their thoughts on this. I was just sharing my own reaction. Others may disagree. I'm sorry if my comments came ofas harsh. That was not my intention. Meanwhile, I'd be happy to continue this discussion at my talk page or you can e-mail me by following the e-mail link from the toolbar on the left hand side of the page at my user page. By the way, I agree with you about the official name being St. Louis rather than Saint Louis, but since we have redirects for each spelling, I don't care too much and have stayed out of that discussion TMS63112 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on having the quote at the beginning of the article either but I don't have a strong objection. It doesn't really bring any additional information though it is a nice quote setting the character of the city through the experience of a notable person. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like quotes but they're not necessarily unecyclopedic; especially if it fits very well in context it could fit appropriately in various parts of the article. Evolauxia 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sirs: Per my comment using the word "harsh". If I were changing the entirety of the article I could understand the comment about "promotional brochure". Yes, I read the WIKI guidelines, including the one about "no rules". I recall seeing encyclopedia entries (printed books -- of all things!), that had short snippets, such as I have proposed, so I feel it's not outside the nature of things encyclopedic. As soon as I can cite to them, so that I might make User:TMS63112, more confortable with the unusualness of my idea.

So far, nobody has come up with a better place, although, it seems as though I've come across a WIKI with only two writers. I thought that there might be ten to 12. Reaching a concensus with three, well, I see there isn't one, at the moment.

I read and re-read the article and short of just including the blurb just about anyplace, I can't seem to find a more appropriate place. Cityscape is too particular about neighborhoods, etc. I hope we can take our time. I am certainly not going anywhere.66.81.23.132 07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution is to use a quote box, for example:

"The City of St. Louis has affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done, I consider myself fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."

T.S. Eliot on St. Louis

Evolauxia 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I do like the quote box, how about under the Seal and Flag, or near there?

I read the Gaslight Square (almost a) stub. There is on-line, the history of the place. I was often there in '64, '65', '66. Barbra Streisand, Woody Allan, The Smothers Bros. all got work there (Xtal palace) before they became famous. Anybody think I could add some. Happy to post the preview for review here first. 66.81.22.21 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not finding an article for Gaslight Square. Am I doing something wrong? TMS63112 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, but here is the link:

http://stlouis.missouri.org/cwe/landmarks_gaslights.html 66.81.28.192 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote box seems like a perfect solution. Thank you Evolauxia! TMS63112 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the box, but: Could whoever is willing and able to do it, please post it as I have edited here in the Discuss page. Or tell me why not. Please! I'm still tracing the source of the quote.

OH! and where is it going TMS63112?66.81.28.192 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some trial and error trying to place the quote box in the infobox (I didn't expect it to work on a template and it didn't) as well as below it, to no avail. When I tried to place it on the right and below the infobox, it would be on the right but to the left of the infobox in the text field. The Apotheosis photograph seemingly works differently as a graphic, as I tried placing the quotebox just above it as well, to the same effect. I did change the sample width to 250px to match the standard graphic size for city infobox templates, if someone figures out how to place it there. Of course, I'm open to wherever it's decided to place it. A source would be nice too, as it's standard to cite it, and the year would be nice to place the period especially since St. Louis has changed a lot from the turn of the century and even the time of Gaslight Square. Evolauxia 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation, year, etc. to the quote is on the way, the primary source will take a little longer unless I get lucky. Thank you for all the work on the box. Whew! If I had known it would be such a piece of work, I probably would have quit. I am not, repeat, not computer savvy.66.81.28.59 02:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The preamble should be cited as follows:

T.S. Eliot, letter to Marquis Childs quoted in St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 15, 1930; T.S. Eliot, "American Literature and the American Language," address delivered at Washington University, June 9, 1953, published in Washington University Studies, New Series: Literature and Language, no. 23 (St. Louis : Washington Univresity Press, 1953), p. 6.

My source for the foregoing is: Stand Facing the Stove / Anne Mendelson (Henry Holt : New York, 1996) First Edition. Notes p. 418 #1 (Chapter 1, page 9, endnote 1).

I'm looking forward to seeing it somewhere.

Now, if we can confab about the proper spelling of the City of St. Louis, NOT SAINT.66.81.23.117 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it is now ready to placed in the article. The proper spelling has finally been taken care of as well. Evolauxia 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to St. Louis

Seeing as articles are supposed to exist at the most common spelling of their name, and almost everyone, including the city govt. spells it "St. Louis", I've moved the article to the much more common spelling. Compare Google hits: 1 and 2. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 18:24

Thanks! I took the liberty of changing most of the references to "Saint Louis" to "St. Louis" in the article. I left the links intact though. Someone else can go through and fix the target pages then fix the link here. GT 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, I went through and and left intact the names of places and things in which Saint Louis is actually spelled out (Saint Louis university, Fair Saint Louis, Saint Louis Art Museum). Please don't change any further spellings of "Saint Louis" unless you're sure that it's not supposed to be written out. GT 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a long time in coming. Evolauxia 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen -- We have liftoff!Mark Preston 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockin', Brian. Oft talked about, only a few objectors, but it really was needed. Now to go fix my articles —Wikibarista 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed preamble

A preamble containing a quote by St. Louis native T.S. Eliot was inserted into the beginning of the article as a preamble. Discussion leading up to this insertion can be found here. However, I have removed it and replaced it in a newly created quotations section. Here is why:

1. This page is an encyclopedia article about the city, not some kind of tribute to it. For the article to have that as its preamble is to have it adopt a point of view of something like a tourism pamphlet trying to sell the city (so to speak). Now I'm not here to say that St. Louis is not a great city (I actually wouldn't know, since I've never been there), but the article needs to remain objective.

2. Is it really notable that a native of the city is proud to be from it? I think almost every large city in the world could find famous natives who make similar statements. That's why personally I am not crazy about having the quote in the article in the first place, but I do understand that he is a very influential person (and a Nobel Prize winner) so it's not lost on me why it might be worthy of inclusion.

3. Has anyone actually dug up the 75 year old newspaper to see if that's the quote as published?

If you agree/disagree or see fit to revert my changes outright please make a note on this talk page. GT 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to point 1

Not exactly, I proposed it as a preamble. This because, if you peruse Collier's Encyclopedia or E. Americana and other encyclopedias, you will occasionally see short, pithy quotes or precis preceeding the main entry. It's still not inappropiate as a preamble, but some concensus was reached as to where to place it.

So the following seems encyclopedic and a "neutral" POV?

". . . and in a coinage popularized by native hip hop artist Nelly, "The Lou". Alternatively, many young people who live in St. Louis have begun to call it "The STL"".

which is hardly important information in comparison to the info around it. The quote is too short to start to "sell the city" (so to speak). I think it hardly more "promotional" than the image of the flag or a picture of the Arch.

The tourist pamphlet "crack" is invalid. I can't say I've seen thousands of them, but the hundreds I've seen contain no quotes. Except maybe from Shakespeare. Eliot did spend a number of years in England. I sure he wasn't writing it in a tourist pamphlet style in any event. The lines were written in the 1930s when Eliot had live for years in England. He surely was reflecting.

Response to point 2

Please give me 3 examples of anything remotely similar to Eliot's words. If it were a lesser author, Jimmy Breslin, for example, I would agree with you. Nobody would care, he didn't win a Nobel Prize. His quote could go anywhere or nowhere, it truly wouldn't matter a bit.

Personally I'm crazy for having the quote where it was.

Response to point 3"

You didn't read the attribution on the discussion page. Somebody "dug up" the quote. We debated placement. And even debated inclusion. I suppose on the same basis of Wiki standards you wouldn't allow quotes from 400 year old Shakespeare, but that's a different conversation.

Mark Preston 66.81.23.19 07:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (the computer lost my log-in name or something computer-goofy)

Let me apologize if anyone is offended that I altered their comments, but I couldn't make out who was saying what. I believe I completely and faithfully moved the comments to a more readable format, but if there are errors I apologize. That said any POV concerns need to be thrown out of this discussion right away. It is not in anyway biased to state someone's opinion properly attributed. The verification of the quote was already established and it isn't that hard to look at microfilm in a library anyway. So the only reason left for it removal is dislike of the tone of the quote or else dislike of quotes in general. Either way I think it was hasty to remove the quote from article after the lengthy disscussion that went into it's placement on this page. I reinserted the earlier discussion as it is relevant and not so old that it must be archived--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept an apology for the way that I edited the == Removed Preamble == work? It was after midnight, I was sleepy and startled to find that the quote had been moved. I wasn't thinking my clearest.Thanks for the editing work to make it more discernable.Mark Preston 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are happy with the re-formatting. Remember the preview button is your friend :) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:GT

If I don't hear from you at this page within 7 days from Friday April 7, 2006, I am moving the quote back to where it came from. It seems to me you were plenty "quick on the draw" to move it, but have nothing to say since Birgitte "corrected" your complaint.

If you do you'll be violating policy as well as breaking layout conventions. Making that quote the "preamble" to the article forces the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) to adopt the point of view that St. Louis is a wonderful city to live in and better than Boston, New York, or London. After all, the great T.S. Eliot said so and we must agree since we think that quote should represents the purpose or basis of the rest of the article (that is what a preamble is for, you know). However, placing it in a Quotations section is fine because then the quote is just presented as information relevant to the city. Additionally, the Wikipedia Guide to Layout prescribes quotations to be placed, if not embedded within the article text itself, in a Quotations section like I have created. And nowhere on that page or any other does it provide any provisions for articles having preambles. You won't find another article on Wikipedia that uses a preamble like what you're suggesting and certainly not one consisting of just a quote. GT 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having a quote about St. Louis from an author "forces" a POV upon anybody or anything. It's a common practice in other neutral documents, such as ... encyclopedias. I am, however, concerned that we'd have this one article with a quote and no others that do, it's inconsistant. Having a little quote box is a common stylistic device to convey information in a more interesting and less academic and dry manner than rote categorization. Bjsiders 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand and if someone wants to create that box and insert it in part of the article where T.S. Eliot is discussed the same way a graphic would be inserted, I wouldn't have any problems with that whatsoever. However this was discussed and placed as a "preamble", which by its nature gives the impression that the opinion of the writers and of the encyclopedia agree with T.S. Eliot that one would be fortunate to grow up in St. Louis rather than the other big cities. Irrelevant as it is, I don't know if such things are acceptible in other encyclopedias, seeing as though I haven't opened a printed encyclopedia since high school, but on Wikipedia writers are not allowed to make such statements of opinion on the subjects they're writing about. So not only is it inappropriate as a preamble but such preambles don't even exist on Wikipedia. GT 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

GT Please note that niether Wikipedia:Describing points of view] or Wikipedia:Guide to layout are officail policy. I realize that you do not like the quotation, but please do not tell people they will be breaking policy. As I said before, this quote does not make the article POV. It is obviously an opinion. lets look at it again:

"The City of St. Louis has affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done, I consider myself fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London." —T.S. Eliot. Letter to Marquis Childs quoted in St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 15, 1930.

The author says he feels "affected" and "fortunate." This is not POV about how great St Louis is, it is personal experience. The quote clearly states he was born in St. Louis which puts it in proper perspective. Anyone who reads it will give it the same weight they give anyone who was "born in thier favorite city." I don't mind having this one quote, but I really dislike a Quotations sections which will soon hold 5 or ten quotes.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When I said policy I linked to WP:NPOV. Please don't misattribute statements to me that I didn't make. As far as the layout conventions, they may not be policy but I don't see a pressing reason to break them. And it is the selective usage of that particular, highly favorable quote that creates the "POV" that is not allowed. GT 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting is not POV. Especially in this example, which is clearly his personal experience. Maybe if the quote said "St. Louis is a better city than New York," you could convince me. What is the bias here? Is it baised to say the city someone was born in has a greater affect on them than any other? Is biased to say a person feels lucky they were born in the city they grew up in? I don't know how else to explain it. This quote does not break policy, no one should worry on that aspect. Obviously you still don't like it. Many other people do like it. I certainly prefer it over a quotations section. Sorry about the misunderstanding above, I struck my comments. The layout conventions not closely adhered to and self-contradictory. They say that there should be a Quotation section and then stated it should be removed and replaced with a banner to Wikiquote. It looks like we can all agree on the graphic quote box though. I actually like that even better.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's very common and unremarkable to be proud of the city you were born in. That's why I originally said I don't even think the quote should be in the article. But if the rest of you want it in the form of a quote box near discussion of famous natives or something, that's your decision to make, as it's not that big of a deal to me. The idea of a "preamble" in particular (and specifically, one that is overwhelmingly favorable about the city) is what I have problems with as I've gone into detail about already. GT 06:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote is an illustration from a notable native. The photos in this article are also illustrations. The photos are terribly POV in that they "promote" the city. Why not feature photos from inside the public toilets in the city's main train station? I think the way a city keeps its toilets serves as a strong indicator of a city's overall quality of life (seriously). Many would argue, however, that this article's photos are indeed encyclopedic and suitable. I won't argue the point. However, all the justifications these people would use in defending glamorous photos of the city should also apply to Elliot's quote. His quote provides a unique and beautiful tribute to the city. The fact that other encyclopedias occasionally introduce an article with a literary quotation simply adds weight to this and previous arguments. Please replace the preamble, provide some new justification for not using it, or start replacing the beautiful illustrations with those of more "typical" experiences. Rklawton 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have better photos that more accurately and correctly represent the city then feel free to upload them and insert them in the article. As it stands, the current ones do a good job and I have no problems with them. I agree about the toilets and I encourage you to conduct a study of public toilets in every big city in America and report on the results (just not here). If St. Louis has interesting results then I'd support mentioning them here.

And, beautiful as you may find the quote to be, we are not here to make a tribute. That should give you an idea of why it's an inappropriate "preamble", as though such a thing were possible here. GT 06:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you missed the point. 1) The photos provided are POV tributes to the city. 2) The photos provided are typical of photos that illustrate just about every city article (see East St. Louis, Illinois - and don't need to be replaced. 3) the quote is not atypical of articles about home cities of famous authors.

It's a fact that Elliot wrote what he did, and it is included as a fact, as a real illustration. The fact that Elliot's comments reflect his POV might disqualify them, except that folks tend to be interested in reading the comments of Nobel Prize recipients.

Lastly, why is it you seem to be the only one arguing for removal? Please stop and consider this. Rklawton 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you are so sure that the photos are "POV tributes" and thus in violation of Wikipedia policy and since you are a professional photographer, I eagerly await your replacements for them. I on the other hand think they are simply accurate visual depictions of St. Louis's most memorable sights and deserve to stay, but I guess we can disagree on that point. And since when did winning a Nobel prize elevate you to deity status, and their statements turned into holy scripture? GT 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. I do not advocate removing any of the photos. They are standard for these types of articles. Instead, I advocate re-adding Elliot's preamble for the same reasons that the photos are acceptable.

No I get the point but I disagree that the quote box resembles the photos in that way. Can we agree on the pull quote as a compromise, if/when someone actually gets around to mentioning Eliot in the article? GT 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Because interlineation is graphically difficult, I am pasting the objectors words, here and there, in and as a response. Those words are italcized here following to try to make for clarity of purpose.

If you do you'll be violating policy as well as breaking layout conventions. Making that quote the "preamble" to the article forces the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) to adopt the point of view that St. Louis is a wonderful city to live in and better than Boston, New York, or London. After all, the great T.S. Eliot said so and we must agree since we think that quote should represents the purpose or basis of the rest of the article (that is what a preamble is for, you know). However, placing it in a Quotations section is fine because then the quote is just presented as information relevant to the city. Additionally, the Wikipedia Guide to Layout prescribes quotations to be placed, if not embedded within the article text itself, in a Quotations section like I have created. And nowhere on that page or any other does it provide any provisions for articles having preambles. You won't find another article on Wikipedia that uses a preamble like what you're suggesting and certainly not one consisting of just a quote. GT 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will address the "neutral point of view" in a few sentences. First, from the Oxford English Dictionary, comes the definition of preamble.

   1. A preliminary statement, in speech or writing; an introductory paragraph, section, or clause; a preface, prologue, introduction.

This is the first definition. Let us hope it's the most accepted. It's the one that fits best here.

Quoting the objector:

"After all, the great T.S. Eliot said so and we must agree since we think that quote should represents the purpose or basis of the rest of the article (that is what a preamble is for, you know)."

Evidently, according to the dictionary, that's not quite accurate. Even so, "we must agree" doesn't ring true. Any objective minded reader would/could/should discount what is written. Just ask that British science magazine that said that Wiki articles were highly inaccurate. I'm sure not a word would ring true in Wiki. Well, enough humor.

Quoting the objector:

"Making that quote the "preamble" to the article forces the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) to adopt the point of view "

Usually, I know what to skip when I'm using an encyclopedia, but for the sake of argument, even if it "forces" a point of view, it only does it for 35 words. The balance of the entry is: 8628 words. Seemingly otherwise intelligent readers of Wikipedia articles will be unduly swayed here. If it had been truly the front matter of the article, preceeding the headline: "St. Louis, Missouri" maybe I'ld agree. But as it stands, 'tweren't the case.

OK, to the "heart" of the objectors arguments.

Objector:

"I agree, it's very common and unremarkable to be proud of the city you were born in. That's why I originally said I don't even think the quote should be in the article. But if the rest of you want it in the form of a quote box near discussion of famous natives or something, that's your decision to make, as it's not that big of a deal to me."

I take the foregoing meaning to be that all people who are "proud of the city you were born in" to be disingenuous as to their opinions precisely because they can't be objective. Well, we all must be from somewhere.

As to disingenuous "that's your decision to make, as it's not that big of a deal to me", is disingenuous. The objector, came along and changed the quote, which after debate with three or four other interested parties was settled on, without as much as a jot or tittle. The quote was NOT a preamble, that is to say, in front of all the other graphic elements/text. It was however near the beginning. Next to a "quote" from some Nelly about the pejorative "the Loo". As to "But if the rest of you . . ." Do you mean it? You still seem to be the ONLY objector.

Objector: "I understand and if someone wants to create that box and insert it in part of the article where T.S. Eliot is discussed the same way a graphic would be inserted, I wouldn't have any problems with that whatsoever. However this was discussed and placed as a "preamble", which by its nature gives the impression that the opinion of the writers and of the encyclopedia agree with T.S. Eliot that one would be fortunate to grow up in St. Louis rather than the other big cities. Irrelevant as it is, I don't know if such things are acceptible in other encyclopedias, seeing as though I haven't opened a printed encyclopedia since high school . . ."

No it wasn't placed as a "preamble" in the context you mean that in. Why resort to half-truth here?

Ojbector: "Irrelevant as it is, I don't know if such things are acceptible in other encyclopedias, seeing as though I haven't opened a printed encyclopedia since high school . . ."

Having read the arguments about the crappers and such how long ago was it that you were in high school? Did you read on the discussion page about the quote box and the problems with placement? I don't think so. This is the most troubling feature of your thoughts. You truly seem to have gone off "half-cocked" in an attempt to get your way. As of Monday, April 17th, 2006, NOBODY else favors your ideas? Ready to say "uncle"?

Objector: "If you agree/disagree or see fit to revert my changes outright please make a note on this talk page."

There are my notes on this talk page.

Have we had done with this? I think you should put the "quote" back. You removed it without even asking at this page prior to that action. A concensus had been reached. The quote had been on the page a while. Even if it's on the internet, it's not written in stone. Even if it were written in stone, sensible readers (like you?) would take the quote for what THEY thought it was worth. It does not "stilt" the tone of the entire article into a "business" or something just as unacceptable.Mark Preston 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually this whole discussion is moot. We have no evidence that Eliot never uttered the words as they were inserted in the preamble. Here is the book that the anonymous user cited earlier on this talk page as its source: [1]. Although the anonymous user originally presented it correctly as being two smaller fragments (see the text in bold at the top of this page), somebody along the way decided to splice them together by inserting some of their own words. The meaning might not have been noticeably changed by that process, but by altering the wording from what is given in that book (currently our only source) we're presenting impermissible original research (at best, if not just flat out misquoting him), and thus I'm pulling it from the article altogether. In order to continue this discussion you will need to find a new source for Eliot that tells us what he actually said in full sentence form, unless you feel like finding some creative way (that isn't dishonest) to utilize these two sentence fragments to quote a legendary writer. If you do so you will need to once again seek the consensus of the editors of the page before you insert it. Otherwise the only way that quote fits in the article would be if we quoted Eliot inline within the article text (for instance, Eliot cited his hometown as a strong influence, saying that the city "affected me more deeply...") which would be something of a tall order considering the article doesn't even mention Eliot currently. GT 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So why you now bring this "bad research" up? Where were you at the beginning of this discussion? You never answer this question. I will get the St. Louis Public Library to send me a fax of the quote.Mark Preston 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime feel free to reread the discussion, where TMS63112 raised the same objections I have and as a result the consensus became not a "preamble" but a quotebox off to the side of the article text. You were around for the whole discussion so I am curious as to why you continue to assert that I am the only one who objects to your plans. TMS63112 was very clear in his lack of support, even using virtually the same analogy as I did (promotional brochure / tourism pamphlet) to emphasize why we shouldn't feature that quote.

I don't care for the quotebox either seeing as though it's an ordinary quote expressing a common sentiment from a person that's not even mentioned in the article, but at least it's not as ridiculous as the notion of a preamble. GT 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time keeping a linear conversation going, due to the decontextualization. The first two lines, below, are a quote from above here. They are the words of a WikiUser named: Evolauxia.

Thanks, it is now ready to placed in the article. The proper spelling has finally been taken care of as well. Evolauxia 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)!!!!| Please note the date, especially.

This was the conclusion that could be drawn, NOT that no one ever objected. The objections had been WAIVED! That's beside the point I make. I think GT should come to this discussion page, first, to have the discussion raised, and edit after a concensus is reached, not to unilaterally change someone's work without the consent of the "group".

So the foregoing is where we left it. Mostly I understood that all objecitons had been raised and met. Therefore, there were NO LONGER ANY OBJECTIONS! Then you came along. OK. I'm not going anywhere. I looked at your "GT" user page. You give no email address. I have, as of April 19, 2006, via the St. Louis Public Library, scans of the Eliot quotations from their original sources. Anne Mendelson, author of "Stand Facing the Stove" did paraphrase Eliot. However, I now have accurate primary source material. If you want to see it, I will forward the email (with scan attachments) to you. I am emarkpreston-at-hotmail-dot-com. For the article, as these are scans, I will have to hand copy them. At the moment, I can't figure out how to print them from the email.

I would prefer to post the scans from the St. Louis Public Library here on this discussion page, but I have no idea of how to go about that. If anyone reading this does know, please let me know.

The relevant passages are:

"Many other memories have invaded my mind, since I received the invitation to speak to you today; but I think there are enough to serve as a token of my thoughts and feelings. I am very well satisfied with having been born in St. Louis: in fact I think I was fortunate to have been born here, rather then in Boston, or New York, or London."

T.S. Eliot, "American Literature and the American Language," address delivered at Washington University, June 9, 1953, published in Washington University Studies, New Series: Literature and Language, no. 23 (St. Louis : Washington University Press, 1953), p. 6.

". . . it is self-evident that St. Louis affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done.

I left St. Louis in 1905, to go to Milton Academy in Massachusetts; and apart from a few Christmas holidays, I have never seen St. Louis again. . . . And I feel that there is something in having passed one's childhood beside the big river, which is incommunicable to those people who have not."

T.S. Eliot, letter to Marquis Childs quoted in St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 15, 1930;

Despite the fact that I quoted from a published work (Stand Facing the Stove / Anne Mendelson), and stand by that research as authoritative, I see that in a way, you are partially correct that the quote is . . . well isn't. However I see that Eliot's words were even more endearing that her . . . well I'll call it a paraphrase for lack of a better term.

So, the quote(s) have now been "dug up", so to speak. What I was sent via scanned images from the newspaper and learned journal are somewhat extensive. The balance of the words, while interesting and important aren't (as of yet) relevant to your objection. I am giving thought to what the quote might resemble. Any positive input from others here is desirable from my perspective. This does not include those who don't want a quote, whatsoever. I know what you will say.

"If you do so you will need to once again seek the consensus of the editors of the page before you insert it."

Assuming that GT can be relied on for the above sentence. All aboard?Mark Preston 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On April 20, 2006 ~6:35pm PDT, I uploaded the jpg file from: T.S. Eliot, "American Literature and the American Language," address delivered at Washington University, June 9, 1953, published in Washington University Studies, New Series: Literature and Language, no. 23 (St. Louis : Washington University Press, 1953), p. 6.

I have no idea of where it went. I intended it to be here! If you see it, please put it on this discussion page or if that isn't possible, please delete it. So sorry for the inconvenienceMark Preston 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your image is here. For future reference you can click on "My contributions" at the top of the page to see a record of everything you've done (or for another user's record, click on "User contributions" on the left when viewing their user page, which is how I found your photo). I'm guessing it's probably a copyright violation and the image may be automatically deleted if that is not clarified soon. Anyway, I think it's great that you were able to get those excerpts and in my opinion that would be fantastic information to add to the T.S. Eliot article. But I still don't believe one person's feelings for his hometown are notable enough to even warrant mention in St. Louis, Missouri (let alone being featured as a highlight of the article as you suggest) and if you still hope to do that I would like to see a justification for it that goes beyond "It would be a nice tribute" (because that's counter to the purpose of this encyclopedia) or that other encyclopedias supposedly do things like that (because their practices aren't necessarily applicable here). GT 11:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of pasting the image anywhere, except on this page for reference, and as that is probably consistent with the "fair use doctrine", for the purpose of discussion. It can stay for a while. I know the only person objecting to my ideas has seen and read it. I reserve the right to remove it after all discussion is concluded. As for your it is "probably a copyright violation", have you legal skills? I do. In any event I can probably get clearance from the Eliot Estate if needs-be. But I doubt it will be necessary. More to come. -30-

I tagged the image as being copyrighted and used under Fair Use. Images that do not contain tags may be automatically deleted so if in the future you upload any more images please be sure to also select an image copyright tag to accompany it on the page. GT 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is the approximate quote I intend to add to the beginning of the Wikipedia article about St. Louis.

"It is self-evident that St. Louis affected me more deeply than any other environment has ever done. I feel that there is something in having passed one's childhood beside the big river, which is incommunicable to those people who have not."

"I consider myself fortunate to have been born here, rather than in Boston, or New York, or London."

T.S. Eliot

Letter to Marquis Childs quoted in St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 15, 1930 and "American Literature and the American Language," address delivered at Washington University, June 9, 1953, published in Washington University Studies, New Series: Literature and Language, no. 23 (St. Louis : Washington University Press, 1953), p. 6.

Then the footnote symbols to supply the sources, at the very end of the wiki page and a bit about the sentences being "spliced".

Discussion:

Gt has the mistaken impression that the purpose of giving a quote from T.S. Eliot is about "selling" St. Louis and is unencyclopedic. That is somewhat my fault. I did not layout my purpose in the original discussion. The purpose is to set a tone about St. Louis. To communicate what is special about that place.

"After all, the great T.S. Eliot said so and we must agree since we think that quote should represents the purpose or basis of the rest of the article" GT 08:26, 12 April 2006

I have no idea as to whether Eliot is a great poet. His winning a Nobel Prize tilts it in his favor I suppose, I don't read enough poetry to measure Eliot against others, whether they have won Poetry Prizes or not. Nor does anybody else know whether he is a great poet or not. All of this is entirely beside the point of the reason for wanting to put his thoughts in the St. Louis article. Since there is an "implied" everybody in ft's use of "we" how does he know what ALL may or may not think as they read the article. Additionally, it may be as reasonably asserted that the census figures must be accepted as accurate. Probably nobody questions the numbers, but they may be inaccurate never the less.

As nobody gets paid for writing for Wikipedia, the only reason left is passion. Well, I suppose there are a few college students and the like adding it to their c.v. -- beside the point. Some may prefer dry-fact. I prefer style. Please read on.

In the nearly 9000 words on the article about St. Louis, all of them are dry. Fact like, but dry. I am including Eliot, because it adds a flourish to the dryness. It also explains the difference between living elsewhere and living there. And I'm attempting to show why St. Louis isn't like every other place (big city) on earth.

"Is it really notable that a native of the city is proud to be from it?" GT 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the native and the city wouldn't you say? You would insist it is impossible! Yet, after all, every place simply isn't the same as everywhere else. Which is what is implied in your meaning. As for the idea of "necessary weight" to be worthy of inclusion, let other dig up quotes from prize winning poets and put them up on their cities page. Not remove them from here due to the fact that there probably aren't any; or are any of eqivalent significance.

Assuming that Eliot could not sever himself from his childhood emotions, his point might be more significantly by asking St. Louisans if they thought they understood it. T.S. Eliot left St. Louis in 1905. He would have been between the ages of 17 and 18 years. When he wrote the above quote, it is 1930 and 1953, respectively. That length of time distances Eliot from supercilliousness. It is what it is.

"Discussion leading up to this insertion can be found" GT 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So, knowing that other had reached a concensus, you arbitrarily moved the quote. Fie!

"If you do you'll be violating policy as well as breaking layout conventions. Making that quote the "preamble" to the article forces the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) [User:GT|GT]] 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"

I may agree with you about layout conventions, but as to forcing Wikipedia to "to adopt the point of view that St. Louis is a wonderful city to live in and better than Boston, New York, or London." That's bosh. If I (repeat I) added something I thought of about St. Louis, e.g., It's better here than New York, that would be non-encyclopedic. Quoting Eliot is well, a quote. And since there is attribution that it is a quote, who could get that confused who can read English?

What is most central to the notion of this quote is to convey what it means to be a St. Louisan to the rest of the Wikipedia reading public. That is more important for few words than 9000 remaining other dry fact words. Again, 9000 words of dry fact, a (very) few words of flouirish. The quote never appeared as actual preamble prior to the main body of the article in any possible characterization of it's placement. Not that the quote as a preamble is innappropriate except in absolute conformity to all other dry fact articles. Who is to know, maybe it will convince some readers to read more. That is just as likely a scenario as those who would then not read; due to the supercillious Eliot being "proud" of St. Louis.

"And nowhere on that page or any other does it provide any provisions for articles having preambles. You won't find another article on Wikipedia that uses a preamble like what you're suggesting and certainly not one consisting of just a quote. GT 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"

So what? This isn't about reasonably discernable standards, but about a kind of dry-conformity to an online encyclopedia article that 200 or 20 or 2 years from now, may not exist. Just because "other" Wiki pages don't have preambles doesn't mean that this one should not have one. It means that this one is the first and maybe we will start a trend. Who knows? What can it hurt to try it for a while? Say six months.

I've been to my public library and in "The Encyclopedia Americana" (CT : Scholastic, c.2003) in Vol 5, two entries: Burma and Canada both have short "preambles" or otherwise extraneous material of a non-dry-fact nature.

" . . .but on Wikipedia writers are not allowed to make such statements of opinion on the subjects they're writing about." GT 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What opinion of the "writers" of subjects they're writing about? These words by Eliot: "affected me" what is this a medical/psychologists opinion? He said he was "affected" surely that isn't a statement that resembles an opinion.

"When I said policy I linked to WP:NPOV. Please don't misattribute statements to me that I didn't make. As far as the layout conventions, they may not be policy but I don't see a pressing reason to break them. . . . GT 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)"

I take issue again with user:GT about his not seeing a "pressing need". I say the need is pressing. (that's period, folks) His justification for this "reason" is that he is back to not liking something here that is different than other Wikipedia pages. Now, he will respond that Wiki has standards, and policies and rules and regulations and every-every-every body must abide by each one of them. I will remind all who write here:

Be Bold! There are no rules.

"I agree, it's very common and unremarkable to be proud of the city you were born in. That's why I originally said I don't even think the quote should be in the article. But if the rest of you want it in the form of a quote box near discussion of famous natives or something, that's your decision to make. GT 06:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"

This means, IN GENERAL. Yes, it is common and unremarkable, in GENERAL. Not in the specific. As I said somewhere else, a "quote box near discussion of famous natives or something" completely misses the point. GT would force us all to an identical, unrecognizable, conformist mass and for what? Why would it be wrong to write with passion about something. When I wrote cookbooks I had a passion for that. If the recipes were opinion, that would warrant removal. Or at least editing.

"that's your decision to make." Does this imply a doctrinal approach to both writing and editing on Gt's part? How is it that he comes of have the "final" word?

":::::::Since you are so sure that the photos are "POV tributes" and thus in violation of Wikipedia policy and since you are a professional photographer, I eagerly await your replacements for them. I on the other hand think they are simply accurate visual depictions of St. Louis's most memorable sights and deserve to stay, but I guess we can disagree on that point. And since when did winning a Nobel prize elevate you to deity status, and their statements turned into holy scripture? GT 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"

Of course, the photos aren't from a Nobel Prize winner. They are however, as "tourist brochure" in comparison to non-dry fact, that is. We are not the "Gateway to the West" for nothing, I note.

I'm also not interested in a "quotes about St. Louis section". That doesn't differentiate St. Louis from elsewhere. Nor a section for the "famous". They have nothing to say about St. Louis worth repeating. For example, I quote from no less a noted author than Charles Dickens, writing about (of all things: St. Louis):

"flat; the settlements and log-cabins fewer in number: their inhabitants more wan and wretched than any we had encountered yet. No songs of birds were in the air, no pleasant scents, no moving lights and shadows from swift-passing clouds. Hour after hour, the changeless glare of the hot, unwinking sky shone upon the same monotonous objects. Hour after hour, the river rolled along as wearily and slowly as the time itself.

At length, upon the morning of the third day, we arrived at a spot so much more desolate than any we had yet beheld, that the forlornest places we had passed were, in comparison with it, full of interest. At the junction of the two rivers, on ground so flat and low and marshy, that at certain seasons of the year it is inundated to the housetops, lies a breeding-place of fever, ague, and death; vaunted in England as a mine of Golden Hope, and speculated in, on the faith of monstrous representations, to many people's ruin. A dismal swamp, on which the half-built houses rot away: cleared here and there for the space of a few yards; and teeming, then, with rank, unwholesome vegetation, in whose baleful shade the wretched wanderers who are tempted hither droop, and die, and lay their bones; the hateful Mississippi circling and eddying before it, and turning off upon its southern course, a slimy monster hideous to behold; a hotbed of disease, an ugly sepulchre, a grave uncheered by any gleam of promise: a place without one single quality, in earth or air or water, to commend it: such is this dismal Cairo."

Mostly his opinion, I believe. As opions differ often. Better to leave opinion out all together. Unless one believes Dickens to be a professional: meterologist, geologist, census taker, physician and financier or banker.

I also refuse to abide by the "two sides to every issue" idea. The Eliot quote "steals the scene" if I may so speak. That is why it would make a nice inclusion in a place of importance. Using Quote-boxes and Famous Native Sections robs us of what makes St. Louis worth reading about; and makes St. Louis like everywhere else, just to insure that nothing different or non-conforming happens at one article out of more than a million articles. What's wrong with pointing out the difference, using a Nobel Prize winner to make the point?

". . . unless you feel like finding some creative way (that isn't dishonest) to utilize these two sentence fragments to quote a legendary writer. If you do so you will need to once again seek the consensus of the editors of the page before you insert it. Otherwise the only way that quote fits in the article would be if we quoted Eliot inline within the article text (for instance, Eliot cited his hometown as a strong influence, saying that the city "affected me more deeply...") which would be something of a tall order considering the article doesn't even mention Eliot currently. GT 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)"

Tall order no problem. Considering that the article mentions Nelly ("famous?" rap artist) it is obvious that writers of Wiki St Louis and Wiki articles-general are more likely to be young people. This violates NPOV, I'm thinking. Is Nelly worth as much mention as T.S. Eliot? As for a consensus: HOWS ABOUT IT ONE AND ALL? LET US HEAR FROM YOU!

I propose a short introductory sentence of just a few words from the Nobel Prize winning poet, T.S. Eliot for inclusion in the Wiki St. Louis article. Later a heading:

One Notable St. Louisan -- T.S. Eliot.

Odd that he received no mention and gun-toting drive-by shooting rappers did.Mark Preston 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for the last time: Wikipedia is about building a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW encyclopedia. It is POV-pushing to selectively rip a quote from one of his writings and feature it at the top of the article in an effort to make the city come across a little more favorably. You know this, and you're proposing to circumvent policy and convention so we can "communicate what is special" about the city and ensure that its article doesn't come across as dry as those other, bland cities, so to speak. That simply isn't our domain. NPOV means that when you edit an article, you leave your subjectivity at the door and you deal strictly with that which has basis in fact. Is it "dry"? Maybe, but it's also impartial, which is not just something nice but a REQUIREMENT here.

Want to talk about how editing from subjective viewpoints can ruin the process? You say you want to communicate what is special and unique about St. Louis. Those feelings are personal and different people will have different reasons for how they feel about their city. Maybe to some people T.S. Eliot is boring, irrelevant, and having been dead for 40 years is not in a position to represent anything about the city in its current state. They may prefer, to your dismay, to let someone like Nelly, a hugely successful Grammy-winning rap artist, speak for them: "I'm from the Lou and I'm proud" (from his 2000 hit single). Clearly you have no fondness for rappers so we have a conflict. Now, whose personal opinions make it to the article? The person who is loudest on the talk page? You might not like the answer but as per policy -- NOBODY'S DO.

Incidentally Wikitravel might be more to your liking and I suggest you redirect your efforts to make your city look special to that site. And once again may I suggest that you focus on the article T.S. Eliot as a place to use your excellent source material to document Mr. Eliot's feelings for his city. GT 07:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is littered with articles containing quotes from people that are clearly opinions. This is not a violation of the NPOV policy. At worst, it's inconsistant style to put one quote in a box. But I cannot see any valid construction of a NPOV violation argument. You are assuming that the city comes across "a little more favorably" by including the T.S. Eliot quote. What if I absolutely despise T.S. Eliot and immediately believe anything he says to be utter garbage. St. Louis comes across even less favorably by putting that quote there. The motivations of the user aren't relevent, we're dealing with content. You are assuming much about the mindset of the reader upon running into that quote, and I submit that you're assuming it unfairly. There may be good reasons not to put the quote in, at least in the suggested format, but NPOV isn't one of them. On the flip side, I find arguments about bland and dry writing to be equally unpersuasive. Bjsiders 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I thought I was clear about the fact that including a reference to the quote would be totally permissible under more typical circumstances but it was this specific business about using this quote as a feature or preamble to make sure we set a tone that conveyed how special St. Louis is, or whatever, that is POV-pushing and that I had problems with. And your little hypothetical example (which is intended to be a counterpoint to something I said, I guess, when really I was just talking about Mark Preston's motives) just reiterates what I said in my second paragraph above, about why inserting opinions and subjectivity into articles is such a terrible idea. I swear, I feel like everything that can be said on this topic has been said a dozen times and having to repeat myself again and again is driving me crazy... GT 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think using the quote as a preamble is POV, no matter why the user wishes to have it there. That person's motivations do not make an edit POV. If I go to an article and claim that "there are 100 centimeters in a meter" because I want people to hate cows, it doesn't matter. The substance of that statement is not POV no matter what my reasons for posting it are, and no matter much sense those reasons make or don't make. The user may be pushing a POV but the substance of what (s)he wishes to add to the article does not, in my opinion, violate the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Not even in its little preamble box. I don't like the box on the grounds that it's inconsistant with other city articles, but the NPOV argument is a red herring. That's my point. I understand what you're saying copmletely, GT. I just don't agree with you. Re-stating the same thing isn't going to make me agree with you. I don't find a compelling NPOV argument for excluding the quote, even if it's preamble quote box. There may be other good reasons to, at least, change the formatting, but NPOV isn't among them. Bjsiders 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as my discussions with Mark go his POV-pushing intentions are relevant, especially since there is some opposition to what he wants to do -- he needs to be able to support his plans with reasons that do not violate policy. And comparing this preamble-quotebox-thing to "100 centimeters in a meter" makes no sense. The latter is a definition that, provided it is relevant to the article, cannot possibly be interpreted to mean your hypothetical cow example. The quotebox-thing, on the other hand, simply has no other possible discernable purpose for being featured at the top of the article other than for what Mark is saying. GT 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, Gt, your "side" is supported as per NPOV only by you. Birgette, refuted you, Rklawton refuted you, I refuted you and now Bjsiders has also found your "side" uncompelling. Are you done? I want an answer here, please, so that when I re-insert the quote, I won't find you to have moved it!

Dear BJsiders, so tell me where you think this idea of mine best fits? I don't really want it at the top, under the headline: St. Louis, but I do want it to "stick out" for rather obvious reasons. Otherwise, I should move it to the "famous St. Louisans" page and append it to the Eliot entry. In the rest of the discussion about this, other talked about a quote box, which due to some computer difficulty couldn't be placed at the "top" of the article. Did you see how I had place it? It was with "section lines" above and below. Would that be OK?Mark Preston 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. I don't like the idea of having this one city article with a quote box, it invites much dithering and bickering over which quote gets to be featured. I wonder if Wikipedia could support a rotating quote feature? Bjsiders 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I'll submit some Nelly lyrics for the queue, and maybe we'll start with Dickens and then find a dozen other people who hate the city and see what they have to say. After all as long as we're just quoting somebody else there's absolutely no NPOV concerns, apparently. GT 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all fair game as far as I am concerned. I didn't realize Nelly hated the city, he seems rather proud to be from it. Bjsiders 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he did. GT 22:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood. You'd said something like, "let's get Nelly lyrics and start in with Dickens and other people who hate St. Louis," I thought you meant that Nelly hated St. Louis. Bjsiders 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, start with Dickens. Anyway sarcasm notwithstanding I am not aware of another Wikipedia article with dynamic content and I don't think we need to start with St. Louis, Missouri. GT 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any either, although I don't share your antipathy towards picking this particular article to try it with. It would require some kind of programmatical solution, however, that I wouldn't expect anybody to add to the system. You were being sarcastic ... so do you not think negative quotes about St. Louis are appropriate for this article? That seems weird since you've been crusading on the NPOV stance for the positive quote. Bjsiders 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a reason for there not being any dynamic content and it is not technical limitations. In the vast majority of instances when a person only views an article once (or when printing out articles), that one quote from the queue is effectively the only one that article has in that person's eyes. Even if the queue contained the spectrum of opinions it would be pointless since the person likely won't see more than one of them. As far as my NPOV crusade that applies to any opinion or viewpoint. I'm not arguing against Mark's sentiments, I'm arguing against the notion that we're here to convey something above and beyond what is factual and verifiably true about the city. GT 22:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your philosophy on what should and should not go into Wikipedia. In any case, count my vote towards leaving the quote in, on the condition that we find an appropriate way to present it that is consistant with Wikipedia convention. Bjsiders 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

STILL waiting for justification that the quote is notable enough to merit inclusion. If this quote was, it would not violate NPOV. —GT 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Three people think it is. One person thinks it isn't. I'd say the onus is on you to demonstrate that it does not belong. Bjsiders 22:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First off let me clear up one thing that most of you seem to be misunderstanding. Adding an opinionated quote to an article is not necessarily inherently a violation of NPOV, at all. If it is notable that a person holds a viewpoint by all means a quotation should be included to illustrate it. But if you're going to take a quote and feature it, and make it "stick out" as Mark says, and if the content of the quote is merely a person's feelings about the article subject, then we are endorsing the views espoused in the quote. If we don't, then why else is it there? For its importance? It's important that a person born in St. Louis is proud of it? Unless they had a miserable childhood, EVERYONE is proud of their hometown. And I'm not the only one who thinks so, TMS63112 advanced pretty much these same concerns during the first round of discussions for inserting this quote.

And, OF COURSE a quote can be used to advance a point of view. What do you think these people are doing? [2] [3] Mark is essentially doing the same thing: using this article as his soapbox for proclaiming what a wonderful city St. Louis is via appeal to authority. The fact that you know very well what his intentions are (and how he pretty much has no use for WP:NPOV) yet you continue to oppose me based upon some kind of hypothetical legitimate basis for this quote being featured in the article is really absurd in my opinion. —GT 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark's intentions aren't relevent. I can have any reason I want to include any content I want. What's important is whether or not the content is appropriate for the article. I've yet to see you give any reason why this quote is inappropriate other than an attack on some other user's motivations and because you think it's NPOV. And you've presented no convincing argument that's a POV edit to include this quote. I am not advocating for a "featured" quote, I've said over and over that I do not like the box because it's inconsistant with other articles. I also think you're wrong that include this quote and yes, even in the dreaded quote box, is a NPOV violation. Bjsiders 23:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I said just now and several times before why it's inappropriate. And so did TMS63112. Please re-read my last comment. And I too can conceive of circumstances under which the quote could be included in the article but Mark is advocating for something at the beginning, an intentionally eye-catching and attention grabbing opening. I have said before that if someone wants to actually write about T.S. Eliot in the article, it would probably be very useful to insert some words within that text about how T.S. Eliot had great pride for his hometown.

At this point we can agree that the quote shouldn't be featured at the top of the article. Join me in opposing Mark (and I too desire consistency with other city's articles so we can do it on that basis) and when such point comes as Mark or someone else comes up with a better way for inserting the quote then we can bicker about specifics. —GT 23:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Preamble Redux

I'm starting a new section, the last one is too long. Your reason for the quote's inappropriateness was that you didn't like why Mark wants to include it. As I've said, I find that to be an utterly unconvincing argument. The quote can appear at the beginning, and it can be eye-catching. I do not agree that the quote box cannot be at the top of the article. I would agree, however, that the quote box itself is inconsistant with other city articles, and another way of presenting this information should be selected. I will not join you in opposing Mark because I don't think his addition violates any policies or worsens the article. Quite the contrary, I think it makes it better. I'm here to figure out how it can be included. And frankly, I'm running out of ideas. Bjsiders 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess my comments are too long and boring as you STILL don't seem to have gotten far enough in my comment prior to the last one to have read my reasons. I'll make it brief from now on. It is not significant or noteworthy that someone is proud of their hometown. Every big city has millions of current and former residents, many of whom considerably more famous than Eliot, who give praise to the city they come from. For that reason I find the quote to be quite NON-NOTABLE, UNIMPORTANT, and even PEDESTRIAN. Unless you think that every big city in America doesn't have dozens of people more well-known than T.S. Eliot who have similar things to say about it, you need to offer me a different justification for including the quote or even FEATURING it as you appear to have changed your mind on that matter. (Before: "I am not advocating for a 'featured' quote", now "It can be at the beginning, and it can be eye-catching"). — GT 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not going ti keep responding if you can't control your snarky attitude. I do NOT think every city, big or small for taht matter, doesn't have dozens of proud and famous former residents. I have no problem with any of them wanting to include quotes from those people in their articles. There is also no change of mind. I am not ADVOCATING a featured quote, nor do I find the presence of one to be a NPOV violation. The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. Bjsiders 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are done, gtr, I would like to start building a concensus as to how to place the quote.Mark Preston 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not be done until you satisfy my complaints. — GT 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that no such satisfaction is available to you as long as the majority of us favor the inclusion. Mark Preston 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I would rather hope the quote finds its way to wikiquote - in theory, a suitable quote could be found for every geopgraphic location out there - turning WP into a grand competition for who has the most notable personality touting their charms; sorry, but this just does not appear appropriate.Bridesmill 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Where was this question several weeks ago? You, are a day late and a dollar short. This has been debated by six to eight people, and all with the exception of the gr:user, have in one way or another approved this quote. The one other (original) objector has seen the quote as it was originally placed in the article and not removed it, not misplaced it. The gtr:user has removed the quote before coming here to debate it. If it were reasonable to raise a question after a concensus had been reached, there would be no Wikipedia, or a much smaller one.

While the substance of the entry would be using another's words, the idea of a "quote" in your context, seems to mean you think of it as an addition to factual information. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but NO, this proposed addition's purpose is to suggest what might not be MERE fact about St. Louis and to give the reader something to "bite" on.

As to the idea that there would be a "grand competition" well . . . so what? If New York Citiers want to quote Jimmy Breslin or Woody Allen, let them. It's their town, their entry. If you are looking for notable landmarks or census data, that is there too. This is very few words. Not changing the vast majority of the article. Not "selling" the article out, so to speak. If you don't like it, FORGET IT, after you have read it and memorize the census population for 1880 or whatever yanks your chain. The notion that because it is called Wikipedia it must be like Encyclopedia Britannica in dryness is unnecessary.

I think it highly unlikely that anybody ever said anything remotely similar to what Eliot said. I have asked use:GT to find examples, but he hasn't shown any interest or provided anything remotely similar in tenor. If it were something like: "San Francisco is the happeningest town on the West Coast" I would cease and desist in my sojourn towards the inclusion, but until you render a higher reason that the same as user:gr, the issues he has raised has been previously debated and a consensus reached. You should consider that you have arrived too late.

Most of us are currently deciding a good place for it. Your late entry into this conversation seems somewhat questionable. Please explain to me (and those who find no objection to it) why you have so very late entered in to this discussion.

There is no greater passion in life --than to edit another's draft. Mark Preston 06:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I made a comment yesterday on this page requesting fresh input into this stale discussion. Also please bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are not property of any editor or any subset of editors. The article St. Louis, Missouri should be considered the collaborative product of the entire Wikipedia project (and thus totally impartial), not the effort of Wikipedians from St. Louis to try to make their city look better than others'. And please do not misrepresent my actions to people who are just joining this discussion. I did two things -- I moved the quote from a preamble at the beginning (as that was NOT what anybody else agreed to, they agreed to a quote box off to the side) to a quotations section per Wikipedia layout guidelines, and then I removed the whole thing altogether well after beginning to discuss the matter here when I discovered that the quote was partially illegitimate. Your blatant and possibly willful twisting of the facts and ignorance of policy and etiquette (basically saying screw NPOV and attempting to eject newcomers from the discussion) is making this really hard for me to assume good faith. — GT 08:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a St. Louisan. I live in Los Angeles, California. Aside from that, the quote was not listed under the word(s): Preamble, Introduction, Foreword and the like. It was well into the article. I only chose to use preamble, to describe placement, not importance, in an attempt to communicate passion for writing, not selfish ends.

Actions speak louder than words. When the quote box could not be placed due to computer/software restrictions, I placed the quote, separated by section-lines. Nobody but you objected or asked for a change. NOBODY!! The remainder of your comments are sophomoric. Nihil Obstat imprimitur "your comments here".

I showed up on this debate a day after it was posted on RfC. To call me a day late & dollar short is somewhat insulting - not everybody is aware of what is happening in every quarter of WP at all times. An opinion was asked for, I gave it. How many other cities have famous quotes on them? esp. leading the article? Paris doesn't, none of the other great cities do - seems that WP practice is to steer away from this for the reasons I gave. And as I suggested, all someone would have to do is find a just as notable individual who didn't like St.Louis & you'd have to put their POV up as well - try Googling dislike of the place; you'll find lots, & I'm sure at least one of those is reasonably notable. Frequency of objection, or lack thereof, is also not a vote of quality - truth is not democratic; often an error languishes for ages on WP before someone spots it. Bridesmill 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with everything Bridesmill is saying. As far as moving it to the history section, I can't imagine why that should be done. That quote has nothing to do with the history of the city. I think you just want it there because it's at the top. I will again suggest that if T.S. Eliot's feelings are notable enough to mention in the article ... shouldn't HE HIMSELF also be that notable? He currently is mentioned nowhere in the article. If you can find an APPROPRIATE spot to talk about Eliot then I think the quote would be a great addition to appear, even in a quotebox, alongside that mention. In fact I will be the first one to help make sure the quotebox fits and there are no problems like last time. But to just stick it somewhere out of the blue is kind of odd and random and any such suggestions are likely to draw my opposition. — GT 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Directed to Bridesmill after edit conflict: Of course your opinion is welcome here and I am certainly interested in hearing further opinions. I do not believe everyone on this talk page is familar with RfC's and the larger workings of Wikipedia, and some methods used in this disscusion up to this point have people already a bit "on guard". My personal opinion is that the quote was originally well supported and while I slightly approve of having the one, I strongly disaprove of a quotaions sections which would hold numerous quotes. I understand your objections entirely and would like to solict your opinion on two particulat points. 1 Does the addition of this particular quote violate NPOV policy? 2 Would the addition of a quote as an illustration within a box graphically be equivalent or at all similar to having the best pictures possible to showing off the article? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I see why my apearance caused a stir ;-) For functioning of RfC, please see WP:RFC. Whithout wanting to offend anyone, the normal protocol on this page should have been whoever wanted 'second opinion' should have mentioned that in the discussion (as in we're getting nowhere in this debate, I am going to invite RfC) Re. your questions; 1. - potentially; TS Eliot's view is of course a relevant critique of the place; the downside is that if you allow that you also have to allow any notable person who hates the place to have their quote published - in other words, you potentially open up a pandora's box. I believe this is why no other notable city to my knowledge has a quote of this nature to go with it. 2. Yes, an image obviously tends to be select4ed to have a positive POV (nobody puts the city dump up as a pic LOL); I just think that a quote-in-a-box looks a lot like blatant advertising. If you have to have it, I agree that TS Eliot would need a mention.Bridesmill 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Day late and dollar short, because many of the interested parties had "said their piece", a concensus had been "more or less" reached and to go over the same discussion again is for those who have already made decisions/reached conclusions: counterproductive use of time. The only "stir" is irrelevancy. A majority had seen the quote as put on the page and only you and gr:user have raised so-called "new" questions/objections.

AGAIN, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU WERE DURING THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. WHY NO WORD THEN?

To all others: Evoluxia, Birgette, Rklawton, and one or two other names I can't remember off the top of my head, if you are still following this, can you explain that this "issue" was, as to a consensus, settled? I just keep repeating what had been discussed with this objector. He keeps raising the same question, it becomes a game. The same objection without a majority consensus on their side. Over and over and over.

There is no greater passion in life than the passion to edit another's draft.Mark Preston 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The thing with Wikipedia is, nothing is really ever settled. There is always one more refinement which can be made. Consensus is only as applicable as long as it is actively supported by consensus. I understand that you are upset by the manner that things are progressing here. I am not completely happy with the manner that everything has proceded, and I have done my best to keep everything informed and transparent. An RfC stands for Request for Comment and it is a way of bringing in otherwise disinterested editors to gauge their opinion on a dispute. This is perfectly normal process on Wikipedia. We can expect to see a handful of "strangers" popping in on this page to give their opinion on the dispute. It is best to just listen to all the opinions and then re-evaluate the situation after we have digested the fresh input. As this particular quote was quite innocuous as far as bias goes, I am interested as to whether people feel it inherently violates NPOV policy and if so whether the general preference for attractive pictures likewise violates the policy. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Preston - could you kindly read my remarks and explanation for my presence before turning on the WP:NPA? Do you believe I am here on some sort of bizarre conspiratorial vendetta? Is there also some amazing reason why you are taking this so personally & why you have issue with what appears to have been wiki practice for ages (to wit, no famous dead guy quotes on city pages)? If you want people to make a comment & go on their way, starting arguments for no good reason does not tend to be the best solution. For the umpteeenth time - I AM HERE BECAUSE OF WP:RFC and I AM NOT PSYCHIC. The fact that you appear to want to 'own' this page, totally ignore wiki etiquette, and not discuss the issue which the RfC asked for input on makes me somewhat concerned for a whole bunch of Wiki reasons.Bridesmill 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So imagine, if you will, how it would seem to you, if I were another wikipedian, showed up here six months from now and declared your work "null and void". The reason for such would be entirely immaterial or irrelevant. I suppose Birgette is correct in saying "nothing is settled"

There is no greater passion in life than to edit another's draft.Mark Preston 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It happens routinely on Wikipedia. Emotional appeals are not sufficient defense. Bjsiders 17:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In general I think using an epigragh on articles like this is a bad idea. The topic is too broad for one quote to give any fruitful insight, and this quote is not exception to that rule, as it tells us very little about the city. Epigraghs might be appropriate in some places (e.g. perhaps "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" on top of Communist Manifesto) but not on this article. Best of luck, Christopher Parham (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (via RFC)

You must be kidding?:Mark Preston 05:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the city of St. Louis have an official city slogan or motto or whatever? That might make for an appropriate quote. Bjsiders 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate, measured by what? Or in what manner, so to speak?Mark Preston 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Following is a "cut and paste" of a message from about 2 weeks ago, as of this date:

Hi Mark. The thing with Wikipedia is, nothing is really ever settled. There is always one more refinement which can be made. Consensus is only as applicable as long as it is actively supported by consensus. I understand that you are upset by the manner that things are progressing here. I am not completely happy with the manner that everything has proceded, and I have done my best to keep everything informed and transparent. An RfC stands for Request for Comment and it is a way of bringing in otherwise disinterested editors to gauge their opinion on a dispute. This is perfectly normal process on Wikipedia. We can expect to see a handful of "strangers" popping in on this page to give their opinion on the dispute. It is best to just listen to all the opinions and then re-evaluate the situation after we have digested the fresh input. As this particular quote was quite innocuous as far as bias goes, I am interested as to whether people feel it inherently violates NPOV policy and if so whether the general preference for attractive pictures likewise violates the policy. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, 2 weeks have gone by. Nobody else has posted a comment, despite the RFC. It is likely that the original parties to the quote discussion (pre-GT/Sliders/Harpam) have either: gone away and are busy with other work, or have said their "piece" and refuse to comment further, or at least comment further at this time. As I then count it, the consensus is 4 to 3 in favor of the quote being replaced. I have removed my sentiment of placing the quote in a "History" section. At least for the time-being. This is "so to speak" a request for "anything further?" Mark Preston 16:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious way of counting - Bridgitte, Bjsiders, Bridesmill, GT, TMS63112 , Parham against, yourself for - how that equals '4 to 3 in favour' makes for interesting math. Probably the reason everybody has been silent is because we thought it was settled with the latest bjsiders suggestion, to which your response was, well, somewhat confusing.Bridesmill 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

TMS63112

Evolauxia

Birgitte§β

Rklawton

Mark Preston

The above favor a quote.

GT

Bjsiders

Bridesmill

Oppose the quote

Christopher Parham seems to think the quote is about "editing and passion".

I see it as 5 to 3. or, if one idiotically counts the "noise" about epigrams; the count is 5 to 4.

Anybody, anywhere, at all, ANYTHING ELSE?:Mark Preston 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote against this "preamble", because it's an awful idea on all counts: it produces non-standard formatting, it privileges an NPOV perspective, and it adds basically nothing to the content of the article. By the way, Mark Preston, there will never be a "final" vote on anything in Wikipedia. And it's none of your business where I or anybody else was at the beginning of the discussion. You can try to bully people all you want, but your opinion doesn't count for any more than mine. That's Wikipedia, jack. Ain't it grand? Jasontoon 18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those who commented on the quote without having ever seen it on the "article" page are less likely to have as valid a point as those who did. However, as for my asking why others came after the quote had been "grafiti'd", had an opinion, well that, however odd, is certainly to my mind Wikipedian.

As to this newcomers comments, the "non-standard" is rationalization. For, up to the time of your arrival, the score was more for, than against. Now, it appears as a "draw". For now, as you say.

As to the NPOV, that has been discussed and as of this time, there is simply no concensus. Some favor it, others oppose it. Now, it appears as a "draw". For now, as you say. 66.81.22.115 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV and the Eliot quote

What have these "objectors" to the Eliot quote been reading at Wikipedia to attempt to enforce their NPOV?

I have read most, if not all of the Wiki NPOV pages. I'm startled that the quote objectors come here, repeatedly with the same inaccurate argument as to NPOV.

Since St. Louis, although a city, falls into the area of knowdlege of geography I start with Wiki's take on "geographic controversies", i.e., things with a POV.

When I read the types of actual "controversies" that are called POV I cannot see these objection folks adopting this standard as their POV. Typically: geographic controversies roil around:

   * Sea of Japan naming dispute
   * Derry (Londonderry) and County Londonderry (County Derry)
   * Oder-Neisse line
   * Persian Gulf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues#Geography

Next:

Here are the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines as given:

"Introduction: the basic concept of neutrality and why Wikipedia must be unbiased

Basically (but inexactly), we can say that to write without bias, or from the neutral point of view, is to write so that articles do not express controversial points of view, but, where there is any significant controversy, the different viewpoints in the controversy are each described fairly. Essentially, to write articles in an unbiased way is to attempt to characterize debates rather than to make the articles take a definite stand on the debated issue. So an unbiased article about controversial topic T "goes meta," in that, rather than attempting to state what the truth about T is, it attempts to state, fairly, the various different views about T.

To sum up. Wikipedia has a nonbias policy for the following reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes human knowledge in a strict sense. We should, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "human knowledge." But again, since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we must make an effort to present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of them."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=729

The above is expanded on below:

From the "Neutral point of view--draft

One can, of course, try to sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a very biased way: one presents a series of theories about T, and then says that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, we must consider the fact that Wikipedia is collaborative--and not just collaborative, but international. So it is practically guaranteed that, particularly as we grow larger, nearly every significant view on every significant subject will eventually be found among our authors and readership. Again, in order to avoid the problem of endless edit wars--and indeed, for the liberating reason of allowing people to make up their minds for themselves--we should agree to present each of these views fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct.

[MP -- a quotation does NOT assert "any one of them as correct."

That is what we mean by making articles "unbiased" or "neutral": to write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; and to do that it generally suffices to present the view in a way that is more or less acceptable to its adherents, and also to attribute the view to its adherents.

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Most of us, it seems, believe that the mere fact that some text is biased is not enough to delete it outright. If it contains perfectly valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly, and certainly not deleted.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but certainly not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written biased text."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=729

From:

"Neutral point of view

Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission as an encyclopedia is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts -- among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist. (Of course, there are limits to what POVs are considered worth mentioning, which can be an area of conflict.)"

[If Nelly is worth mentioning, certainly T.S. Eliot can't be far behind!!! And as the Nelly bit is a paraphrase, that is, a way around saying: 'Nelly calls St. Louis "The Lou"' Why it looks just like a quote!!!]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=31163

At worst, this seems to say that if there is more than one POV, then it should be presented "neutrally".

Now I would agree with you all if what was being presented in the quote was implying or inferring a "fact". But again, (again and again and again), it is not a STATEMENT OF FACT. It is a quote. And a quotation is not a "biased" point of view. Or even if it were, it would be allowable, because it is Eliot's opinion, obviously, again quoting (heavens!!!) Wikipedia policy viz:

". . . Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The only other possible connotation for the Eliot quote is that it "commercializes" the St. Louis article. That also is inaccurate, again, because, I am the quoter of Eliot, not Eliot, attempting to what-say "promote" St. Louis out of character? Out of turn? Out of order? Even if that were "non-enclyclpedic" in GENERAL, the following is observable at another Wiki convention/standards page:

"Wikipedia's NPOV policy is flawed as stated (w:NPOV).

The neutral point of view is an ideal, and should be recognized such. True neutrality is impossible to achieve. Thus, we must remember that every contribution to Wikipedia is biased. Rather than giving up and deleting everything, we instead try to contextualize, and distinguish the sources of knowledge: scientific, historical, inspirational, cultural, etc."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal

So, I remind the reader, that the Eliot quote falls under "inspirational", above and is therefore, contextualizeable, and as to "distinguish"-able, with obvious attribution, what is left requisite?

So I ask you ALL again:

In what possible reading of the Neutral Point of View(s), does a quote from T.S. Eliot violate Wikipedia NPOV policy, no matter where it is placed? 66.81.23.133 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of this is not germane. The problem with the quote is not that the quote is POV; it is, but when someone famous says something, that makes it admissible. The problem is rather, is there a desire to set a precedent in (particularly City) articles by starting them off with famous person quotes. I fear a Pandora's box. The other problem, which could come back to bite anyone who puts up a famous-guy quote, is that if that quote is not neutral - which they invariably aren't - then another contributor (in this case, say someone from a rival city) has every right to insert another famous guy quote with an opposing view (such as a hypothetical The 95th president of the US stated that quote St Louis is the worst place in America to spend a summer unquote), which is not the kind of press you want. My conclusion there is avoid them at all cost at the top of an article, and be very cautious about putting them in the body; perhaps a link to wikiquote. Bridesmill 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well--thanks for an extraordinarly fast response. By the time I could get the computer back online, there your response is. I'm sure your "fear" is palpable, yet, not enough, as I read the POV pages, especailly about "inspiration" to overcome quote placement entirely. Yet, perhaps it's time to submit the "issue" to arbitration. At this moment, it seems somewhat premature, as there is no quote, and I have no idea of where to place it, although, prior to user:gto removing the quote, it was near the beginning, set off by lines, above and below, below the bit from Nellie. Another supporter of the idea for a quote suggested it in history and the original objector, who called the idea "tourist brochure" wrote me today at my user page and said he liked it in a "quote box". You can see his thoughts, there.

Yet, surely we would all like to end this discussion and move on to something else. Time isn't replaceable. I would like to hear from all others with and without support for the inclusion of a quote by T.S. Eliot. Mark Preston 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the quote itself, nor its placement, constitutes a POV problem. My opinion will probably turn out to be in the minority on this, but there it is. I'd like to see the quote included somewhere in a manner consistant with the layout of other city pages. Bjsiders 16:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Including this T. S. Eliot quote in a privileged position on the page seems like a definite NPOV violation to me, because it adds nothing to anyone's understanding about St. Louis other than to boost the city using a famous poet's endorsement. It also doesn't acknowledge that there's another side to the story - that some people don't like St. Louis. I would also add, the whole "issue" of whether Given Person X likes St. Louis is trivial, and that's all this quote addresses. We're not talking about Sandburgian poetic insight here, that conveys some sense of what makes St. Louis unique. Find a notable quote (from Twain or Dickens or Jonathan Franzen or Miles Davis or whoever) that actually addresses the character of St. Louis and you might have a stronger case.

The burden of proof lies with the people who want to add a non-standard feature (like a boxed quote) to make a case that it adds something, anything, to the article. At least the attractive photos on city pages do provide verifiable facts: this is what the Gateway Arch looks like at least some of the time, etc. Nobody has advanced a single compelling reason for breaking with standard layout and flirting with NPOV to privilege this particular quote.

And like it or not, "the Lou" is now a widespread nickname for St. Louis, and hence worthy of mention. I've heard it used repeatedly, including by people from other cities (although probably not by people from Mark Preston's social circle, it seems). And it was popularized almost solely by Nelly, which makes his connection to it worthy of mention, too.Jasontoon 16:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure if you're getting what I'm saying; no need for arb on my part - if you really, really want to use the quote, go for it - but be very, very aware that you are opening a pandora's box. Google 'St Louis sucks' - you'll get 2 million plus ghits - makes it pretty obvious that if someone doesn't like the place and they see the Elliot quote, they'll come up with another quote by 'someone' notable that says the place sucks. And then you're stuck with it. (read some of the other geography RfC debates - it happens)Bridesmill 16:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict Yikes this has been quite heated. Moreso than it really derserves. I have not been watching the disscusion the past weeks. If I read this correctly, I am listed above as opposing the quote. Which is not true. Actually I am unsure right now, because I am not sure of the exact wording we are debating at this point. In general I support having one such quote, but I am unsure how this will turn out when it is correctly quoted as the first example was some kind on paraphrase I think. In the course of this disscussion various arguments have been brought up against this quote and many have been refuted. That is was unverifiable, biased, etc. Everyone is aware things did not proceed properly to get to this point, but we can only work forward from where we are now. I think where we stand is this. No one is arguing any longer that the quote breaks any sort of policy. Those that wish to not see the quote on this article are raising two points.

1. This particular quote itself is unremarkable and adds nothing to the article.
2. That having a quote breaks form with other city articles and is against the pereferences of the editor in question.

I would really appreciate seeing the quote posted here again as it would be put in the article. Also if anyone has any other arguments against the quote please also list them. One of the problems in sorting this out has been that as soon as one objection is answered, an entirely different objection is suddenly brought up for the first time which is quite frustrating to all involved. Other than that it would be nice to know if any of the editors agree with point #1 above and not #2. Really there is no reason for everyone to be so heated. Although things have been done that each one disagrees with, we really want the same thing. A top-quality article about St. Louis. Please try in keep in mind that you should post to explain why your position will make this article better!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise

I have edited the history section to include some discussion of TS Eliot, along with Tennessee Williams and Sarah Teasdale as notable individuals in the field of literature who lived in St. Louis during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (I have also added some sub headings to break up this rather long section). I have noted that Eliott was a fan of the city while Williams despised it and I have added the quote box (as proposed by Evoluxia) with the quote that Mark proposed as a "preamble". If someone else wants to find a Tennessee Williams quote about what a miserable experience he had in the city I don't see how we could keep it out in the interest of balance and NPOV. Hope this is the start of a compromise that everyone can live with. TMS63112 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that Eliot is mentioned now and that some good is coming of this increased attention to the article besides the quote business. Personally after seeing the quote in place I don't think it belongs (especially when you imagine when and how you might have to put a competing quote next to it) but if the rest of you like it then I won't object. — GT 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote 'aye'. Mark Preston 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)