Talk:Gates County, North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / North Carolina / Counties (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties.
 

History dispute[edit]

Can't edit it now. Some spoiled kid who doesn't know when the history of something begins or ends, and wants to work an agenda regarding unrelated issues, has commandeered the page and reverts any attempts to correct his errors, or him. Has an admin facilitator who locked the article against further editing for him and, as is typical for Wikipedia, that is that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.164.230 (talkcontribs) 01:59, October 4, 2014‎

I protected to stop an edit war. Please stop your name calling or you may be blocked from editing yourself. As for the history, please look at the county history online from Gates County's government: here - it mentions quite a bit that happened before the county was established. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Might I suggest you take a look at some of the higher rated county pages before you start editing? In addition to the suggestion the above editor mentioned, you might also check out some highly rated county pages here on Wikipedia, such as: Warren County, New Jersey, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Warren County, Indiana. Or in the case where the history is so extensive it has its own particular article: History of Brevard County, Florida. You'll notice that in almost every instance the history begins with the history of the area, and not simply of the county. It has nothing to do with agendas, I asked you several times to bring the discussion here, and you chose not to. Glad to see you finally understand. Any good history does not necessarily begin with the conception of the entity (look at the histories of any of the cities, either here on Wikipedia, or in history books). Look at the history of the United States, or England, or Germany, or any of most of the other 300 or so countries. All their histories begin before the actual establishment of those entities. Not exactly sure where your coming up with the viewpoint that it doesn't. Onel5969 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
a) YOU began the name-calling, accusing me of an act of "test/vandalism" when you reverted my original edit, so go block yourself, blockhead.
b) I have as much right to edit and control the contents of the article as anyone, including you.
c) The online Gates County history simply replicates the Wikipedia entry you are defending, obviously, as do far too many similar sites. It proves nothing except that the county's website was made by somebody with no firsthand knowledge of the place, just grasping at whatever he could find out there in cyberspace.
d) What happened before the county was established has generally nothing to do with the founding of the county in any case; it is at best irrelevant filler and redundant material. Of course, if an event directly precipitated the county's founding, that would be relevant. But simply who once lived in the area eons ago has nothing to do with the why, how, who and when of the county's beginnings, history or current status. People interested in the pre-history of the place can look up relevant articles on those who lived in the general area before Gates, or any other counties, were founded: you surely don't believe those pre-history peoples only acted within the county's boundary lines do you? Or do you put this material on the Indians and British in every nearby county in Georgia, et al.? And how about the cavemen, dinosaurs, and whatever else inhabited the area before the Indians got to it? And why is there more of that stuff than info about the county itself once it *was* founded? You have more on pre-Gates history than Gates history!
e) "Higher rated county pages" is a meaningless concept at Wikipedia: all they show is what a handful of ratings' activists may think, not the broad band of researchers who want to know about the life and times of counties proper when they look them up. And, yes, a good history *does* begin "with the conception of the entity" when on a website where the pre-history has already been recorded (or should be) in other, relevant articles which can be instantly accessed by *URL* by those interested in that sort of esoterica. I come up with the viewpoint I have from decades of writing HISTORY articles for pre-computer BOOKS. Try reading some sometime, like encyclopedias, and see how HISTORY articles are constructed by EXPERIENCED writers, instead of what you make up from a rebellious, anti-academia POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.163.205 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow. First of all, take a chill pill. I never called you a name. The tag is something that is automatically put on certain reverts. Second I didn't block you, an administrator did. Third, if you senselessly delete material, NO ONE has the right to do that, simply because you feel the info is irrelevant, in spite of the precedent throughout this (and other) reference sources. Wikipedia is based on consensus editing. Might I suggest that rather than posting comments that are non-constructive, you state your position, and let other editors comment on whether or not they agree with you, based on wiki policies. If a consensus is reached which agrees with your understanding of how the history of this county should be portrayed, than that's the way the article will roll. You seem to not be too experienced. If not, than it won't. Aside from that, there's no more point in my entering into a discussion with someone like you, so try to have a nice life.Onel5969 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Replies to the IP editor:

a) Your edits were reverted with a special tool which made the summary - see Wikipedia:STiki. No insult was meant or implied (no one is their edits either, so comments on an edit are not really comments on you).
b) While anyone can edit here, no one's edits are guaranteed to stay. See WP:OWN and WP:Consensus
c) The county's web history is not a duplicate of what is here and each has things the other does not (for example the disputed border between VA and NC is on the county's website history, but not on Wikipedia)
d) and e) Look at published histories of other counties (and a state) - I already mentioned the Gates County history has material from before the establishment of the county. As another example, look at this history of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania which has 57 chapters - 12 are from before the county was established (and only 48 are actual history, the last 9 are biographies of local citizens) - see here. Or since you mentioned encylopedias, here is the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on Ohio (I did not see articles on counties), which became a state in 1803, but includes a fair amount of material from before that here. I have chosen two histories which are in the public domain (copyright expired), but others do the same. Finally, Wikipedia does assess articles according to its Manual of Style and the Good Article criteria and Featured Article Criteria and the articles given as examples have met those standards. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Without taking any sides, I think the fact that the "history" and "law and government" sections are almost entirely unsourced is just gross. We should focus on trying to verify this material or otherwise it should be removed for that reason alone. — MusikAnimal talk 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)