Talk:Buffalo Presbyterian Church (Montello, Wisconsin)

Revert of cn tags, Google maps ref, and "That historic church may be this church, or maybe is not."

@Doncram: I guess I'll ask since there were three separate things happening in this edit:

1. Replacing the footnote Google maps with a citation needed tag: There are several issues with referencing something to Google Maps.
   1. Google Maps does not say where the nearby things are; it is original research / synthesis because you had to deduce that from looking at the map yourself.
   2. Google Maps is constantly changing. The location pin could move or be deleted in an hour. This happens all the time - even to notable locations!
      • Example: Google Maps has three location pins for Hong Kong Soya Sauce Chicken Rice and Noodle (1, 2, 3); 1 & 2 are the actual stall but with different location pins at slightly different coordinates, all three have represented the actual stall at some point, and all three have changed addresses, location pins, and coordinates several times in the last year. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
   3. There is no link, so it does not give the reader any way of seeing where in Google Maps you looked, i.e. it's not verifiable. It's litle more than giving a ref to just "Google".
2. Removed That historic church may be this church, or maybe is not.: What is the point of this sentence? In some sense, it is meaningless since it is always true regardless of the nouns. "That historic church may be a cat, or may is not" is equally true. I also assume that there is a missing "it" between maybe and is?
3. Placing a citation needed tag on It is recognized as Site number 102 of the American Presbyterian/Reformed Historic Sites Registry.: There's no citation for this; what's wrong with asking for one?

Hopefully that explains why I made the original edit. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

About this, it is a pretty quick draft, where I was trying something out. I just developed a big linked article about the Presbyterian historic sites. I have requested by email more detailed material from the Presbyterian historic registry place, specifically two big documents about their sites 1-100 and their sites 101-200. If/when I get those, I will seek info about the others which I understand is available through JSTOR coverage of a journal of theirs. What I have so far is mainly just the list of its registered places. And I figured out links to existing articles about some of their places which are already covered in Wikipedia because they are NRHP-listed places. Maybe my creating this article about one of the non-NRHP sites is somewhat premature, without having their equivalent to a National Register of Historic Places nomination document, which is the kind of source I usually work with (most of my edits are developing or expanding about U.S. NRHP sites using these documents. This article is sort of a test, can I figure out what their listing is about. In this case, i did sort of figure out some stuff, but also obviously I am short of info. Hopefully I will receive some serious documentation which I would use to improve this article. About 3 points:

1. I disagree, it is not inappropriate synthesis to use information from a mapping service. There is in fact a set of coordinates in the article, which point to the place. A reader can click on that and then select Google Maps as the viewer to see that place. The footnote could be expanded/explained further, perhaps, but Google Maps is the source, and the footnote should not merely be removed.

2. Right, the sentence is true, you agree. This is a quick draft thing, and this sentence conveys accurately about the uncertain relevance of the info I stated.

3. I don't think a citation should be necessary, unless you are challenging the factual accuracy of the statement. The sentence links to the page I just developed about the Presbyterian historic sites registry, which lists them all, including this one. And there is a source there, linking to a document which you could examine yourself. Not every statement in mainspace needs to be explicitly supported by a footnote, certainly not obviously true things. And I think not where the sourcing is pretty obviously going to be in the one article linked in the sentence. Are you seriously wanting to dispute the accuracy of the fact that the listing is a listing?

--Doncram (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps starting it at Draft:Buffalo Presbyterian Church (Montello, Wisconsin) would be have been useful then?

1. Since the mapping service is dynamic, it is inappropriate to use such synthesis. Part of the problem is that the statements about 1 mile (1.6 km) east of Fox River Road. The United Presbyterian Church Cemetery is also located there. are also attributed to Google Maps. Google Maps does not explicitly give the distance estimate directly to the road and verifying the second statements requires looking at Google Maps for location pins that may change. Even the location pin for the Buffalo Presbyterian Church may change.
2. If the relevance is uncertain, then the info shouldn't be in the article. If it's certain, then the sentence is meaningless because it's a tautology. The appropriate action is to either remove the information (perhaps to a sandbox) until its relevance is established by a reliable source, or move the article to draftspace.
3. I'm not challenging the factual accuracy, but challenging it for verifiability. Every statement in mainspace that is challenged must be supported by a footnote by the verifiability policy: Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This could be fixed by just importing the citation from American Presbyterian/Reformed Historic Sites Registry.

I don't think that the article needs to be draftified at its current status, but I do think that either the potentially irrelevant information should be removed if the article does stay in mainspace for now. If you still disagree about any of the points, we can ask for a 3O or RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Just added the citation for #3. But just for future awareness, the point about WP:V requiring inline citations for anything challenged still stands. A challenge doesn't necessarily mean that the factual accuracy is what's being challenged. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

About Google maps footnote, I already said that could be further developed. Say to report accessdate and to be more explicit in prose about what labels currently appear in Google maps for these places. It is the actual source about co-location of cemetery so it would not be appropriate to ignore it as source. About the coordinates location in the article, that is from me, found by me zeroing in on exactly the building using satellite view, and as verified by comparing historic photo in one source to a streetview type view within Google maps. This is reasonable straightforward interpretation, not bad synthesis. Its location can always be seen in Google maps or in any other map service; it is not a Google-specific location pin that will be changed by anyone over at Google; it can only be changed by explicit editorial decision at this article. In the coordinates template usage I follow a recommended practice (among some NRHP editors, and suggested for wider use) of recording the source as myself ("source:Doncram") which does not show to readers but you can see it in edit mode, and the total count and specific contributions this way by me may become available in WikiProject type reports that may be created in future. Reasoning for this developed in multiple discussions. I am accountable for the location being accurate, not Google. Often Google maps does have a location pin for a landmark which i suppose conceivably could change randomly, but actually I make a point to determine a significantly better location often (when their location pins are actually off by a bit). Or if their pin is spot on I still deliberately take a minimally different point. About most NRHP locations we usually start with a coordinate source from NRIS database, but those are often off by a bit, so we often do refine coordinates by our own work. There are occasionally arriving editors who question the use of maps and satellite views and county assessor maps as sources, assuming incorrectly that wp:OR is going on. It is not OR to use maps in straightforward ways, including to determine approximate distances. I could link you to an example that involved multiple discussions, including at reliable sources noticeboard.

No way about any RFC or 3rd Opinion, frankly. I guess I am willing to explain more about how some of this stuff works, but I would rather coach an editor actually developing articles of this type, not someone with mere passing interest. I do coach many new editors in historic site article areas, who gradually have need to understand more context. If you want to learn more about context, including about WikiProject NRHP treatment of coordinates, wp:NRHPHELP is one good starting point. Then browse in archives of wt:NRHP perhaps searching on "coordinates". This is not your area of familiarity; i don't want to participate in another process right now where you would be putting me up as wrong in some way and have to involve a lot of others in some process that won't change anything. --Doncram (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree and consider that to still be OR/synthesis. Dispute resolution is the next step. I mean you can’t just disagree, use an ad hominem, and say that we can’t use DR. I’ll post on the original research noticeboards if you don’t want to use 3O or RfC.

You haven’t said anything about #2 so I assume you don’t contest that it shouldn’t be here for now? — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, using DR would not in any way be putting me up as wrong in some way. It’s consensus-building. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the "Trinity United Methodist Church..." bit until it is demonstrably relevant, as you point out that its relevant is unclear right now. Also about the Google Maps issue, it seems that old consensus from the No original research noticeboard is that Google Maps should not be used to calculate distances or give other calculations that are not routine or uncontroversial. Instead of removing the footnote, I've placed a Template:Better sources needed to illustrate that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong church?

Hold on, is the church described in the book (and where most of the details of the article come from) the same as the one in the registry?

The one in the registry lists  Site No. 102 Buffalo Presbyterian Church, Montello, WI in Winnebago County, Wisconsin but the Montello, WI described in the book is the one at the link Montello, Wisconsin in Marquette County, which isn't even adjacent to Winnebago County. These appear to be two entirely different churches named "Buffalo" in different places named "Montello".

Also @Doncram: the White Wee Kirk seems to be a different church than the Presbyterian Church at Buffalo described in the book, based on the description (also here and here), on the historical marker from the American Presbyterian and Reformed Historic Sites; note it being founded in 1865 and not 1858! — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)