Talk:Windsor, Virginia

Untitled

Welcome to the Talk page for Windsor, Virginia.

Photographs

I will be back home sometime mid-may, if a photograph is still required at that time, I am willing to provide. (I live in Franklin, a short trip from Windsor.) Anyone have any general ideas to what I ought to get pictures of? Fnsnet (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

2020 Police Brutality Incident

Notice to: @Zimmer16:, @Bb202010:, @Bmsp1989:, @RacoonyRE:.

I think it's clear at this point that consensus is needed before any further edits on the 2020 Police Brutality Incident. We are approaching Edit warring.

I believe the subject matter should not be added at this time. As I said in my revert [1], Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I think it's far too early to determine if this event is encyclopedic about the town. Let me be clear on one point: I believe this event happened, and it's horrific, and I don't condone it. Rklahn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support coverage This is the first time the city is in the international news in recent memory. As long as there are reliable sources, then it should be placed. Just because the WP article is short, does not limit mention of this incident and lawsuit to 1 sentence. The other parts of the article are just too short. For example, the history section is only one sentence. Was the town established a long time ago or recently? How did the town get started? How about other sections that often appear in articles, such as the town's economy, transit links, education, weather records, etc.?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56707979

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/11/us/windsor-virginia-police-stop-army-lieutenant-lawsuit/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/11/986271819/black-army-lieutenant-sues-virginia-police-officers-for-excessive-force

https://www.wtkr.com/news/windsor-officer-terminated-after-traffic-stop-incident-involving-army-lt (the spraying policeman has been fired)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/officer-accused-of-force-in-stop-of-black-u-s-army-officer-fired-1.5383376

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/04/10/army-lieutenant-sues-police-for-pepper-spraying-threatening-him-during-stop/

https://www.arabnews.com/node/1841456/world

And many, many more articles. Inkfo (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The test of the What Wikipedia is not policy is not everything that is sourceable (and reliable), and the number of sources does not matter. Specifically, edits need to be encyclopedic, and not just news. In fact,

most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion

— Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Rklahn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just making a note, as you've placed it in blockquotes, nowhere in your linked content policy does it state "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." It states:

Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The question is if the threshold exceeds simple verifiable events not worth of including, versus allowing relevant noteworthy information to an added article. If the content is noteworthy, relevant, and composed in an encyclopedic manner, do you believe it deserves mention? — TheKMan 02:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly do not know how I missed this before, and am catching it now. The policy I linked to says exactly what I quoted. It is in the 2nd numbered point. Rklahn (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. This content is indeed noteworthy, encyclopedic, and suitable for inclusion. Pasting Wikipedia is not a newspaper is not an argument, just a boilerplate response to avoid making an actual case against inclusion in space that should err on the side of recording important events for posterity. Not only is this a globally reported event, as Inkfo has shown, this incident has resulted in further actions by the Town of Windsor including a public response and firing one of their public servants [2], it has resulted in a Virginia State Police investigation [3], it has resulted in the Governor of Virginia to issue a statement and request for investigation [4], and has resulted in the Attorney General of Virginia to open a broad civil rights probe into the police officers and police department of Windsor. [5] [6] Having that background information for your consideration, let's address the apparent misapplication of Wikipedia is not a newspaper point by point:

1. Original reporting. The referenced articles are proof enough that this is not primary source information, and is in fact verified information from multiple reliable sources.
2. News reports. What's important here is confirming the enduring notability of the event. The event is not "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities," nor does it meet the definition of breaking news of questionable importance as the event has been covered in significant, well sourced detail and not as headline-only news minutes or hours after the event. Specific to notability, let's review the general notability guidelines: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone* article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (For this specific case, interpreted as inclusion in a relevant existing article) Again point by point:
   • "Significant coverage" — Passes, no original research required, significant coverage is available that specifically applies to the topic that is more than a trivial mention. See examples above.
   • "Reliable" — Passes, covered by a wide range of news sources that are broadly accepted to be reliable, and State and Local government press statements and official responses.
   • "Sources" — Passes, sources cover a broad range of objective secondary sources.
   • "Independent of the subject" — Passes, sources are not produced by the subjects.
   • "Presumed" — As shown, the topic has experienced significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, it may be presumed the topic to in fact be notable and merits an entry.
3. Who's who. The content in question relates to information about a notable series of events directly applying to the page in question, rather than creation of new pages solely about the subject individuals. Coverage of the individuals would be limited specifically to the section about the event. This item is not applicable in denying inclusion.
4. Celebrity gossip and diary. Clearly this item does not apply.

The rational and sensible decision would be to support inclusion, and I encourage other editors to press for concurrence. Seriously, why are we overthinking this? — TheKMan 07:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pasting Wikipedia is not a newspaper is pointing out that there is a Wikipedia policy against the inclusion of this material, at least in this article. It is not true that Wikipedia is a place that should err on the side of recording important events for posterity, Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that has occurred in the world.

This content is probably encyclopedic in the context of Police brutality in the United States, with a link in the "See also" section in this article. Rklahn (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've explained why the cited policy does not apply here with regards to notability standards, and the content that specifically makes it worthwhile of inclusion here involves a notable part of the Town of Windsor government, its police force. — TheKMan 21:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are taking the general notability guidelines (which, by the way, is a guideline about what may constitute a new article, it does not apply to edits in general), and trying to override a policy (What Wikipedia is not) with it. The fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper is mentioned in the Five pillars, which makes my override point again, even stronger. I really have no other way to say this, and no offense is intended, but your analysis is invalid. Rklahn (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable current events into Wikipedia is not treating it like a newspaper, new information has always been added as time passes and new events happen. Discussion of Wikipedia's definition of notability applies to the inclusion of content in question only as it applies to the policy, do not make the argument into something it isn't. — TheKMan 02:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" does not mean "if it's in the newspaper, it cannot be in Wikipedia". If so, then the Joe Biden article should be completely blank except his first grade report card because that's not in the newspaper (I don't think).

What "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" means that not everything in the newspaper, including want ads and the routine weather forecast, is required to be in Wikipedia. Based on the substance of the information, I support some inclusion of the recent incident into this Wikipedia article. Inkfo (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with why this incident should not be in the article. I'll just say it: The event is notable. I think the problem with every edit I've seen on the page is this: there is a failure to put the event into an encyclopedic tone. As events stand today, I don't think that can be done, but if someone has a proposed edit, put it up, and let's talk about it.

I mentioned this before, but an edit that's not encyclopedic in this article may be able to find the tone much easier elsewhere. Police brutality in the United States might be that place. And reference to the town can be made with an entry in the "See also" section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion. This is a major incident in the history of this tiny town. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Letting it go. I still think this is news, not history, and not encyclopedic. I think it rubs against Wikipedia policy and the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" pillar. It is not going to be remembered a year from now because it happened in Windsor, but because it fits into the larger national pattern of Police brutality. But this has become a hill I do not want to die on, I have made my point, and I'm moving on. Rklahn (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Returning to the subject Over a month has passed since this incident poped up in the media, and the coverage has been scant for several weeks. It's not encyclopedic, and I'm prodbably going to remove the relevant paragraph unless a contrary consensus emerges. Rklahn (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion. The event has significant impact on the town, as detailed by TheKMan above, including the state investigation and federal lawsuit; in addition, it has resulted in Windsor signing on with the private company Lexipol to handle its law enforcement policies.[7] Schazjmd (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Editors @Inkfo, TheKMan, and Snooganssnoogans: and myself all supported inclusion. @Rklahn:, the only editor to object, just removed the content with the edit summary Removing per consensus. This seems to indicate a misunderstanding of consensus on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus does not go back to the beginning of time. Consensus can change. I gave fair notice in a discussion of what I was going to do, and why I was going to do it. Only one editor suggested the edit should not happen, that is not a contrary consensus. My edit should not have been reverted, and, again, unless a contrary consensus emerges, Im going to either revert the revert, or formalize this into an Request for comment. Also, it should be noted, consensus is not a Democracy. Rklahn (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you expected every editor who'd already weighed in on the question to respond again because you unilaterally declared you were going to remove it, and because they didn't repeat their opposition, their previous statements don't count? So far, this discussion over the past month has had multiple editors support inclusion of the content; no other editor has agreed with your suggestion to remove it. If you want to let the conversation continue and try to convince others to agree with your view, that's fine. If you want to open a formal RfC, fine. But right now, there is no one else supporting removal. Consensus is not a democracy, but it is not required to be unanimous either.

Hardly a day has gone by that I haven't received google news alerts on this incident; news coverage is ongoing. This is a significant event for the town and should be mentioned in the article. (Restating my stance so you don't interpret its absence as agreement with removal.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. You seem to be presuming I'm acting in bad faith, and if you think that, we have no common ground for discussion. I have been involved in many discussions on Wikipedia where consensus was reached, and the consensus was revisited in short order. I can recall one instance where it happened in less than a week. It usually happened because the subject of the article achieved some notoriety, and many more editors were attracted to the subject. I see no reason why the inverse should not be true.

It's also clear that on Wikipedia, prior consensus does not count when revisiting a consensus. It must stand on its own. It has no value in terms of precedent.

It matters not if it's a significant event for the town. What matters is if it's encyclopedic or not. And it's not. It never was. I find your assertion that you are receiving near-daily Google news alerts hard to believe. Before I even suggested I was going to make my edit, I did research the level of coverage, it has dropped dramatically, and is mainly limited to local press. Which I think further backs up the point that this is news, and not encyclopedic. Rklahn (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What I observe in this discussion is that you opened with the question about including the information; a number of editors replied supporting inclusion; you presented your disagreement with their views, saying I still think this is news...But this has become a hill I do not want to die on, I have made my point, and I'm moving on.. A month later, in the same thread, you stated you were going to remove the content unless a contrary consensus emerges, even though it appeared that one already had. I added my support for inclusion. You stated Consensus does not go back to the beginning of time, evidently referring to the responses to your original question, and Only one editor suggested the edit should not happen, evidently meaning that you no longer considered the original responses to your question to be relevant. At this point, an RfC seems to be the best option to resolve the question. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What you have said in the above paragraph is true. My motivation to make my recent edit was grounded in my belief that the previous consensus got it wrong. I may have given up then, but that is not an admission that I was convinced that the consensus was right. And I think time proved my point of view. The consensus was contrary to Wikipedia policy. End of story. And, yes, an RfC would help to resolve this. One thing I hope it will do is to provide a framework where policy will count. Rklahn (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment (RfC): Dec 2020 police harassment of Nazario

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's consensus to mention this incident in the history section of the article (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the "History" section include content regarding the Dec 2020 police harassment of Nazario? Rklahn (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Heading and question changed from "2020 Police Brutality Incident" to "Dec 2020 police harassment of Nazario"

Apparently not. I googled to find out what the 2020 Police Brutality Incident (searching with and without "2020") and nothing really popped, certainly nothing with the exact search phrase. I may have searched poorly, but my lack of ability to find out what the thing is suggests a lack of reliable sources talking about whatever-it-is. So, as always in such circumstances: no. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney, "2020 Police Brutality Incident" is how Rklahn refers to content about the recent incident between Windsor police and Lt. Caron Nazario (see previous discussion on this page); it isn't a proper search string. Some of the refs from the previous thread are:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Schazjmd (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue and context, Schazjmd. I was confused because "2020 Police Brutality Incident" was capitalized af it were An Official Thing that everybody knew about. The name "Nazario" would have gone a long way toward giving a clue to uninvolved Wikipedians summoned here for an RfC.

And now I see that his name is mentioned already in the History section. Unfortunately, the wording makes it look like the incident is from 2021, so I didn't follow the ref there, earlier. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: You really have to find a way to refer to me that assumes good faith. And if you can find a neutral way to describe the incident, I'm all ears.

I said the incident was in the "History" section, and the incident did occur in 2020. If it's not easily found with these breadcrumbs, I think that speaks negatively to its encyclopedic value. Rklahn (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

With respect, Rklahn,you did not say it was in the section; you asked whether it should be included. I looked at the article quickly before I first posted, saw stuff only from 2021 (and nothing about the Police Brutality Incident, with caps) so I assumed you (or some editors) wanted to add something that was not so notable. I googled, found nothing with that name, and posted. I shouldn't have to follow breadcrumbs; the section could have been linked, you could have pointed to the discussion above and explained the salient points, you could have mentioned the magic word "Nazario". And BTW, I don't see why you think Schazjmd isn't assuming good faith. There seems nothing disrepectful or malicious about the use of {{noping}}. Naming: I would have gotten the necessary clues faster, I believe, with something like "[Dec. 2020] police harassment of Nazario", although the time frame appears to be unnecessary for web search purposes. It would have given my brain some context, as (obviously) I'd never heard of the incident. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The disrespectful bit is is how Rklahn refers to content as if its biased, and an attempt to be something other than neutral by someone who is not neutral. It's also part of a larger pattern of disrespect, a tip of an iceberg, so to say. I think your alternative remains neutral but does provide search context. Rklahn (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak include now that I (sort of) know what the question is about, I think it's okay to keep/include, because it: (a) apparently got covered by multiple RSs, (b) got national attention at a time when police inclination to unduly harass people of color was a sensitive matter, (c) got the governor to involve himself, and (d) led to to (some) consequences for the officer(s). I say weak because it's a little WP:UNDUE sitting there in an empty cornfield with only an NHRP farm to keep it company. What's needed (and I'm sorry, but I don't expect to help provide what's needed) is a fleshed-out "History" section. Three sentences about one egregious police stop and one sentence about an old farm is surely unbalanced coverage. Hasn't anything else ever happened in Windsor? When was it first settled? When was it "settled" by European-types? Who founded it? Why? Was there water, a railroad, industry there? Was it key to slave trading? What role did it play in the Civil War? What explains the fluctuation at 2000 I see in the population table? And so on. If the section were more comprehensive, it'd be an easier sell to this editor/reader to keep the cop's blowout from last year. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the position taken by JohnFromPinckney, the traffic stop should be for the reasons previously mentioned, mainly because it was reported by reliable sources. In doing research, I found that the town has a website that talks about the history of the town. Of note is that the town organized its police force in 1990. See https://www.windsor-va.gov/page/history-of-windsor-virginia/. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually have nearly the position of JohnFromPinckney. Where JohnFromPinckney says it's okay to keep because it's a little WP:UNDUE, I think it should go because it's both more than a little undue and not encyclopedic. And I agree (and have said before) that if it's placed in the proper context, sure, it should stay. I've also said that context and tone could be easier found elsewhere, perhaps on Police_brutality_in_the_United_States#Recent_incidents. Rklahn (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Good work, Jurisdicta. Not perfect as a reliable source, but a great starting point for expansion of the section. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The event has had international coverage.[15][16][17] It has had a lasting impact on the town: changing the way it establishes policing policies,[18] an investigation by the state governor,[19] and a federal lawsuit.[20] News coverage continues long after the initial event (Apr 30May 2May 2May 5May 6May 13May 14). WP:WEIGHT issues should be addressed by expanding the town's earlier history, not by removing the significant event. Schazjmd (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If there are ideas on how to expand the history section so that there is proper weight, we should talk about them. If there are not, there is a weight problem including the event in the article, and it should go. Not everything needs to be in Wikipedia. Rklahn (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Consensus?. I think the consensus here can be best described as weak keep. There are problems with the content, but it's not so undue as to demand revert.

Notice to: @Zimmer16, Bb202010, Bmsp1989, RacoonyRE, Inkfo, TheKMan, Snooganssnoogans, and Schazjmd: who may be interested in seeing such problems resolved. Apologies to anyone I may have missed. Rklahn (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include. It's a major incident in the history of this tiny town. It also fits within a broader theme[21] of how the town functions as a "stationary bandit" of sorts that incessantly tickets anyone who goes through the town. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.