Talk:Enumclaw, Washington

Mt. Baldy

Although it is called Mt Baldy locally, and in the history of the area, when i go to the disabiguation page for places called Mt. Baldy (or the List of peaks named Baldy page), i see no reference to this location. I need to verify the exact location, and get all the particulars for that page, then re-link when the info is applicable. Nothingofwater (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in Pierce County?

Apparently Enumclaw spills over into Pierce (page 2-5 of [1]) but I can't find much information on that. A city map seems to suggest that the bit of Enumclaw in Pierce is completely surrounded by unincorporated King county; is that really true? Could someone add info? Admittedly, it may not be as, um, exciting as horses, but that's what I was hoping to find here.

The town of Greenwater which is east of Enumclaw in the mountains on Highway 410 is in Pierce County. Greenwater and Enumclaw share the same zip code (98022). I assume this is why Enumclaw is reference in the Pierce County information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.171.66 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Horse sex case

Is that really what we're known for here? I'm so proud. --Smell? 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was the horse sex taken off? It is a legitimate notable entry about the city. It pretty much has put Enumclaw on the map, so to speak. Can you mention anything more important? I didn't think so. 129.110.195.70 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the anon - I bet that over 2/3 of the people who look up Enumclaw in Wikipedia are doing it to find information on the horse sex case. Even if that weren't the only thing about Enumclaw that's notable, I don't think there's any reason to remove the links and reference. In fact, it seems like hiding facts, which is the antithesis of Wikipedia in the first place.

I do agree that what was here before was a bit overkill-ish, but I could easily put in a more toned down note and a link or two, in the interest of factual accuracy. Suntiger 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many more notable aspects of Enumclaw other than a single instance of beastiality. It should appear as mere blemish on the rich history of the town. I would hate if a sex scandal was the defining characterstic of my life so I beleive Enumclaw deserves due recognition beyond a case of horse sex. (NK)70.162.62.54 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's old news, didn't happen in the city, and like the previous user said, it's one incident. It's better suited for the external links section. Jslik 17:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

According to reports, this incident did not happen within the city limits of Enumclaw. The content is irrelevent and vile to say the least. If a person wants to read about Enumclaw because of the incident, it would not be to know about the incident (as they obviously already do), but it would be to find out more about the town. If for any other reason someone wants to know about Enumclaw, I can assure you that's the last thing they will care to read about. Wikipedia is meant for encyclopedic information, not for gossip and miscontrued information. Jubican 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Google results for "enumclaw horse" make it pretty clear that, while the incident may not have happened within the Enumclaw city limits, it's often referred to as "the Enumclaw horse incident", and is always referred to as having happened in the Enumclaw region. In fact, a Google search just for the word "enumclaw" helpfully offers to "See results for: enumclaw horse", right below links to the city web site, the school district site, and this article. While I'm sure this is embarrassing for the town (to say the least!), there's a preponderance of evidence which suggests that this is, for better or for worse, what the town's currently best known for. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it's best to leave it as it is: News. It's not encyclopedic, just news. It has not, and will not shape this town by any means. Indeed, a state law has been passed because of it, but it's merely a piece of news. It has had no impact on the demographic or economic situation of Enumclaw. There is just simply not enough relevance to include it in this wiki. In addition, you would not find that kind of information in a reputable, printed encyclopedia, nor should it be found in Wikipedia. Jubican 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has the history of a place. The "incident" is by FAR the most important thing that ever happened in that area. It definitely shapes the reputation of the city: as a native of Enumclaw living in Seattle, any mention of where I came from immediately brings about, at the very least, some strange looks. A tiny town gets mentioned in newspapers all around the world, and you would say it's not relevant? You're right in that it wouldn't be found in a printed encyclopedia, but that's due to space and research resources, not because it's not important. It's practically the ONLY thing that's important about it.

I have to weigh in on the side of inclusion. I was pretty surprised when I saw that the page did not include information regarding the incident with the horse. Do the defensive residents of Enumclaw really think that the vast, overwhelming majority of users reading their Wikipedia are doing so for any reason other than because of its connection with Pinyan and the horse? Do they really think anyone will "stumble upon the reference while looking for information about Enumclaw"?

Like it or not, and whether locals would like to deem it "gossip and miscontrued information," the fact is that it's a --or better, the-- defining feature of the town. - JC

Now that the article is unprotected, would anyone mind if I readded in some content, or at least put a link at the top saying "This article is about a city for information on the Enumclaw-area horse sex case see Kenneth Pinyan" -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be great to put a link pointing to the other (more appropriate) article - to help divert some of the nonsense that caused this page to be protected in the first place - but does it really have to be at the top of the article? I would hate to think that even from an objective and encyclopedic point of view, that this is the lead-in, most notable, most defining moment in Enumclaw's history... Nothingofwater (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that Enumclaw is a small and otherwise not particularly well known town that was thrust into the news upon the Kenneth Pinyan case, typically the otheruses templates get put at the top so people can find the article they are looking for more quickly. I was thinking about sticking this one on here: template:this -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard any response, if anybody is opposed to me adding {{otherpeople4|the city of Enumclaw|the Enumclaw horse sex case|Kenneth Pinyan}} to the top of the page, they should speak up soon -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with it if it refers to 'Issues related to the Kenneth Pinyan case' or something along those lines, as opposed to 'Issues related to the Enumclaw-Horse-sex case'. I'd hate to think that the ONLY reason someone would come to the Enumclaw page (With it's newly-expanded History section! -small plug there) is to guffaw at some guy who didnt live in Enumclaw, for an incident that didnt happen in Enumclaw, and only put it on the map because news outlets found 'Unincorporated-King-County-horse-sex-case' to be a bit too unwieldy for their news anchor. Nothingofwater (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think if somebody were looking for information on the subject, the only thing they might know about the subject is that it happened somewhere near Enumclaw. I don't have a problem with changing the line to something other than 'Enumclaw horse sex case', but I think 'the Kenneth Pinyan case' would not help most of the people finding this article looking for the other one. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole episode seems to be more in the realm of current events than true encyclopedic content. And anyway, if we were to strictly stick to the facts, it didnt happen in Enumclaw anyway.

I'm guessing those people you refer to above would Google it first (which would probably have the Kenneth Pinyan article in Wikipedia at or near the top of the list anyway). I'm also guessing that most people who come to the Enumclaw Wikipedia article are here to find out about Enumclaw, not Mr. Pinyan's unfortunate demise.

Now I will grant that this is based on an opinion, and one that illustrates the heart of this issue and it's accompanying debate: what is most notable about Enumclaw? Is it the town itself (including the rich history, the unique geography, the people, etc), or Kenneth Pinyan's shot at the darwin awards? If we can satisfactorily answer that question, then we will have a compass by which to steer this discussion. Just my $0.02 worth. Nothingofwater (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think both subjects can be notable, and should be represented. As far as the horse case, it was influential in passing anti-bestiality laws in Washington state, and was the subject of a notable movie, and despite the fact that it didn't happen in Enumclaw, was always associated with Enumclaw. In fact, even though it's 3 years later, if you search for "Enumclaw" on Google, it will still helpfully ask if you meant "Enumclaw horse". I think this qualifies as more than just a current events case.

As far as what people coming to this article are looking for, I would definitely disagree with you. You are right that most people would google it first, typing in something along the lines of "Enumclaw Horse", as that's all most people really know about the subject without any research. But the Kenneth Pinyan article does not come up, in fact, none of the news articles in the top page mention Pinyan's name. Frustated at the lack of information they can easily access from the newspaper articles, they will generally come to the only wikipedia article they can find on the subject, which is this page, and without the link at the top of the page that I inserted, the only way they would be able to find out more information on the subject would be to look at this discussion page, which is a tactic most web denizens are unfamiliar with. Most people do not know of the name 'Kenneth Pinyan', but they do know that the event had something to do with Enumclaw from the news coverage. We need the link at the top of the page, if you can think of something better for it to say that will better direct the people that have no interest in the actual city of Enumclaw to the page they are actually looking for without relying on them to already know who Kenneth Pinyan is, perhaps we could change the title of the link. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd be in favor of leaving it out, for many of the reasons already stated, however, SneakyTodd's solution is sensible and will hopefully keep the article unlocked. I will make a *minor* change "...the so-called..". I hope it's ok. My newbie question: Is there such a thing as a 'statute of limitations'? Certainly, there has been a lot of interest in the subject, but as time moves on, will there ever be a point where this mention/link truly is irrelevant to this article? As far as I have read, there was nothing 'special' about this area that made this 'activity' more "acceptable" than any place else in the state (given state law at the time), and nothing new, again, as far as I know, has happened beyond what's reported elsewhere in Wikipedia. Endifin (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any official statute of limitations. It's possible when there's a time when the subject becomes irrelevant; I would imagine when the Kenneth Pinyan article gets deleted, the reference should get deleted too, but there's no telling when or if that will happen. No, there wasn't any particular reason that it happened right outside Enumclaw, but that's where it ended up happening, and so that's where the link needs to be. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship. at no point here do i see Jim saying that "thou shall not mention the horse thing" and yet its continuously deleted.

RFC: Kenneth Pinyan issue

RFC summary: Dispute whether the article on Enumclaw should include or exclude a reference to a disturbing incident that gained worldwide notoriety.

The case of Kenneth Pinyan (see that article) is causing some debate in this article.

Kenneth Pinyan died notoriously, with widespread news interest and long-standing state repercussions. His death lead to state law changes, was the #1 most read article of the year in the Seattle Times, and has had a film made related to it, to mention but three items. As one editor has commented above, it is for better or worse what Enumclaw is most known for, to the world at large.

The Enumclaw Courier Herald described that "The city of Enumclaw popped up on the national media radar in July 2005 ... The incident spurred a stampede of media attention on the city, including a national magazine article." [2]

View for inclusion

An entry in the Enumclaw article read:

"On July 2, 2005 Kenneth Pinyan, a Seattle resident, died from colonic rupture by an Arabian stallion at a farm near Enumclaw in unincorporated King County. His death led to the criminalization of bestiality in Washington." [3]

with the narrative "Stop censoring the Pinyan case. It's real. It happened in Enumclaw."

View for exclusion

A contrary view is stated (by an Enumclaw resident judging by the text) that:

"It has not, and will not shape this town by any means. Indeed, a state law has been passed because of it, but it's merely a piece of news. It has had no impact on the demographic or economic situation of Enumclaw. There is just simply not enough relevance to include it in this wiki. In addition, you would not find that kind of information in a reputable, printed encyclopedia, nor should it be found in Wikipedia." [4]

and that the link is "irrelevent and vile to say the least" and "did not happen within the city limits". [5] (same editor)

Possible COI

Of the 4 editors who have supported removal, three appear to be self-declared Enumclaw residents or affiliated with the town [6][7][8], and the fourth is a single purpose account [9]. (Some aspects of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may be relevant if this is the case.)

Current state of debate

The above text has been inserted and removed by editors several times, until page protection halted the revert war.

RFC is sought. How notable is Kenneth Pinyan's case in the context of an article on Enumclaw (i.e., the town, it's notability, and it's history)? Should this item be included or excluded? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a resident of Seattle, I only had a vague recollection of Enumclaw until the horse incident. Since the incident, whenever anyone in Seattle talks about Enumclaw, it is generally related to some horse sex joke. I think that currently that is what the town is known for, and a brief mention of the incident would be appropriate -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for Wikipedia to feed anyone's prurient interests via a link from the town's article. Maybe the locals know Enumclaw as a place sort of like Catherine the Great's palace, but outsiders who don't know about it and who stumble on the reference while looking for information about Enumclaw might get an unnecessary bit of titillation. All this horsing around keeps the article from being stable. (OK, that was bad.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles stability is a result of lack of editorial consensus. Hence RFC. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was making a bad pun with the word "stable". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)