Talk:Alma, New Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"In 2000, a wolf was reported to have been seen "hanging around" a school bus stop serving a local elementary school"

The last section of this article is clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti-environmental view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(from anon IP's talk page: Please don't revert explained edits. "RVV", which I marked in the edit summary, means Revert Vandalism. Your edit removed details with reliable sources from the article. Reviewing your edit summary closer, I see that you were probably not intending to vandalize; however, if you disagree with the information provided, please find reliable sources to share an alternate perspective. However, please do no removed legitimate information. • Freechild'sup? 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The proposal for editing went up here two weeks ago and there were no objections. The edit, as I've already stated, corrects apparent vandalism where nonsense information has been entered. The appropriate place for this is in an already existing article Feel free to move this paragraph there, but it has no place in an article about Alma, NM. Please stop restoring obvious vandalism.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Snowcat.ntas, and thank you for your contribution to the article. First, please note that I have re-inserted information that I assume you do not have a problem with. Second, rather than getting into an edit war with you, I would like to propose that we come to consensus about what we're each talking about in reference to this dispute.
The article content I believe you are disputing is the information about the wolf siting. Is that correct? Can we agree on that?
I would suggest that since the information you have repeatedly deleted is verifiable by reliable sources, it is legitimate for inclusion. The fact that it is testimony from the US Senate makes it notable to the article's topic, no matter what the topic is. You are correct that it should be included in the other article; however, it is notable to this one as well. A way to resolve what you state is "clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti-environmental view" is to provide a reliably sourced counter-perspective.
I look forward to your response, and to working out a solution to this dispute. Thanks! • Freechild'sup? 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Whats there now looks fine. Thanks. Your statement 'is verifiable by reliable sources, it is legitimate for inclusion' does not make sense if the subject is irrelevant to the topic. Do I include information about skyscrapers in an article about onions simply because I can cite a source?Snowcat.ntas (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a link to an ftp site rather than an html site (number 6)? Thats an error.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You did not reply to my question above, and I am not asking you permission to put information into the article. I am, however, asking you to come to consensus about the article's content. As I asked above, The article content I believe you are disputing is the information about the wolf siting. Is that correct? Can we agree on that? Please respond to that. • Freechild'sup? 12:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand there needs to be a consensus, and I thought you were coming to a compromise. I also understand that you are making clear that you are not offering a compromise.
The entire paragraph needed to be removed. It added nothing to the article. Info about burials and structures are vaccuous and non-informative. While there is no real rule against paragraphs empty of content, it is poor writing style. Perhaps you tell me how this info adds clarity to this article or contributes useful factual and neutral information?
The section on wolf-relocation belong in its own article that already exists. The link has already been provided. Please tell me why the info should not be moved to an article that deals specifically with that topic?
Its ironic that you ask me to provide references to support 'clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti-environmental view' in the same paragraph that you indicate one of the (your) supporting sources is a apparently a lobbyist or politician.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
To be clear then, now you are disputing two separate issues:
1. Information about wolf sitings in Alma, and;
2. Information about the town's current details including the cemetery, store, and the homes.
Is that correct? And about your suspicions regarding my motivations, please assume good faith. I do want to find consensus with you, and I believe that both of us are working to create the best possible encyclopedic article we can. • Freechild'sup? 18:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. Awaiting a response to my questions. The entire paragraph was objected to, hence its removal. I did not change any position as you presented what appeared to be a compromise. I was trying to accomodate that.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Repeat Info about burials and structures are vaccuous and non-informative. While there is no real rule against paragraphs empty of content, it is poor writing style. Perhaps you tell me how this info adds clarity to this article or contributes useful factual and neutral information?
Reply First, I would ask that you avoid personal attacks, such as calling anything I have done "poor writing style". According to standards generated by the WikiProject Cities, including information of both these types (one being a factual characteristic of the town, the other being a noted event) is standard procedure.
Repeat The section on wolf-relocation belong in its own article that already exists. The link has already been provided. Please tell me why the info should not be moved to an article that deals specifically with that topic?
Reply Having addressed this already, I will repeat myself: "...since the information you have repeatedly deleted is verifiable by reliable sources, it is legitimate for inclusion. The fact that it is testimony from the US Senate makes it notable to the article's topic, no matter what the topic is."
With regard to your approach to dealing with our disagreement, I would suggest that you stop deleting information with reliable sources that you personally disagree with; this behavior constitutes disruptive editing, which, if continued, comes with repercussions within the Wikipedia community. Do you have a suggestion that could lead to consensus on the two different issues we are addressing here? • Freechild'sup? 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing to do to resolve the disagreement. You have resorted to making threats and refusing to provide any rational for the information other than saying 'I have a source' regardless of how inappropriate or irrelevent it is. If you had read the notable info section, it clearly states that it is *NOT* an open license to include information in an article. Please re-read this section for your own benefit. I will delete info that is clearly inappropriate.

The next option is to open a dispute. I have no problem in doing this.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that we cannot come to consensus on a solution. I look forward to you opening a dispute in order to have other experienced editors contribute their opinions. • Freechild'sup? 02:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought I'd chime in, I came across this article when the "controversial" section was being removed. Per the essay about making a Bold edit, having it Reverted, then Discussing, you're doing ok on working towards a consensus. The dispute seems to be whether the mention of wolves is relevant to Alma, and just a quick google reveals this news item which mentions the trouble that the inhabitants of Alma, NM, are having with wolves. There are probably other sources. Given that this is an issue, I don't yet see a reason for excluding the information, and would appreciate an explanation from Snowcat.ntas. Mechanical digger (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Another source here which gives an individual's view, linked to Alma. Mechanical digger (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have never asserted that any information about wolves should be eliminated, but that it be moved to an *existing* article. A link to that article should remain. The other 'information' is nonsense and should be removed.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Hi! I'm here to provide a third opinion, as was requested on WP:3O. It's a little rash to imply that the content was "clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti-environmental view", I think the edit was done in good faith, with the implications unintentional. But, I will admit that the issue here is not purely reliable sources, but one of "due weight". The complaint isn't just "is it backed up by reliable sources?", but rather "are we putting too much emphasis on one event?", which I assume is Snowcat.ntas's concern. I think a fair compromise would be to add a separate environmental section, mentioning the re-introduction of the wolves and why they were re-introduced, along with a segment detailing community concerns regarding wolf attacks (so essentially, including the counter-perspective that User:Freechild proposed).—hkr Laozi speak 03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have made no assertions as to weight. I am objecting to something that was not neutral, already had its own article and violated wikipedia writing standards. Why should a section be added that will duplicate an existing article rather than having a link to it?Snowcat.ntas (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an unrelated aside, but your argument does involve due weight, which is part of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. To define due weight: "the discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic," which, I believe, is your concern.--hkr (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the section wouldn't be a duplicate. It would be a section on environmental protection pertaining to Alma, New Mexico, not a section on environmental protection in general.--hkr (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll skip down here to keep a single thread, that other digger up there is my anti-vandal sock which is how I came across this article when the sourced text was removed. Snowcast, do you agree that a notable part of living in Alma has, whether now or in the recent past, involved concern about the presence of wolves? Bigger digger (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact, you say above that you think a link should be included, so why not edit the article to insert the information in a manner acceptable to you? At the moment you have removed all trace of this information, and there is no link from Alma to the wolf programmes. Bigger digger
I agree that the area has a wolf concern and the newspaper reference is a good source. Consistency would be nice too. The re-introduction article has subsections belonging to each geographical area. Alma should not be a special exception, but that seems to be a prevailing view right now.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(talk) 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is important to note here that Snowcat.ntas has made two things clear in the discussion above:
  1. The inclusion of information about the town is non-notable and should not be included in the article
  2. Information about the wolves does not belong in this article, as it (supposedly) duplicates information in the article about wolf reintroduction.
It is also important to note that Snowcat.ntas has made no concessions towards consensus; rather, in trying to clearly identify the issue at hand this editor read my attempt to state the problem as a concession. Bigger digger, et al, would you agree that rather than make an edit that reflects the sole perspective of Snowcat.ntas, it is important to find consensus? • Freechildtalk 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Snowcat.ntas, according to the additional opinions you solicited there appears to be consensus that adding the information regarding the wolves is valid, perhaps with someone else who is committed to write the opposite perspective. I am going to re-insert the information for users, along with the Template:POV-section in order to let readers know there is a disagreement. We can henceforth continue this conversation at leisure. • Freechildtalk 16:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that rather than simply re-inserting old information only, I added additional information from the new sources, as well as the POV tag. • Freechildtalk 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been out with illness lately and have not been able to keep up on this until now.

I see that user Freechild has gone ahead and re-added the objectionable material without consensus. It is clear that this user is going to be inflexible.

The issues to be decided is whether hearsay information is considered acceptable to use. It looks clear to me that it falls under 'Questionable sources' and is to be disgarded. I refer to the 'Senate letter'. While a notable source - and I am repeating again Wikipedia guidelines - being notable is *NOT* a license to include nonsense material as sources. There is no original source for the quote Freechild is attempting to use. Besides being hearsay 'the material is not unduly self-serving' which it obviously is. Its not even an original material scan. It was typed up by someone and uploaded. It needs to be deleted.

Additionally, the assertion that Canton county is the site of a wolf reintroduction program is flat out false. Is false and hearsay information allowed simply because there is consensus to use it????Snowcat.ntas (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowcat, help us out a little bit, edit the paragraph so that it still contains information about wolves, that is verifiable by reliable sources, excludes a submission to a Senate committee (which I suppose ought to be reliable, but if that's what's causing the problem here...). My problem was that you were removing carte blanche the whole section on wolves. Your issue seems to be the mention of the wolf roaming near a school. As is mentioned above it seems hard for us to all agree on what the disagreement is, so make the edit so we can advance this issue. I don't think that Freechild is being inflexible, you should assume good faith that the motivations are coming from a good place. Mechanical digger (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (Bigger digger by another name)
The guidelines for good faith are to accepted it 'until proven otherwise'. Here is the proof otherwise.
What was written:
"a wolf was reported to have been seen "hanging around" a school bus stop serving a local elementary school."
What the source said:
"a lone male wolf began hanging around a bus stop in tiny Alma"
What was written:
"Catron County has been a site for the contentious re-introduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf"
What the source said:
"Wolves reintroduced into Arizona by the US Fish & Wildlife Service in 1998"
The facts were altered into falsehoods to make a biased representation. I feel I have proven a bad-faith action on this article in just the two sentences I was looking at originally. The source itself is a collection of rambling anecdotes that have no original source. It is clear hearsay and is also self-serving. Both of these conditions make it a questionable source by Wikipedias standards.

Arbitrary break[edit]

As requested, I will go ahead and place the edit I would like to see in the article.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Finished the edit, though I could not figure out how to 'share' a source in two places, hence the duplication.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You removed legitimate citations and cited information from reliable sources. I added new citations and fixed the references you added to include retrieval dates. We are close to a consensus. • Freechildtalk 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Snowcat, again, please don't assume that these edits are "falsehoods" intended to mislead. This is the first time you've brought your specific problem to the talk page and we are now close to an agreement. Anyhow, I agree that the source doesn't connect the bus stop to the school, so have removed that. I too am not convinced that the source is reliable, so have requested attention from some editors at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Big_bad_wolves. Finally, remember to sign in when you edit, it gets confusing otherwise! Bigger digger (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that I added a new source, the local newspaper, which identified the children standing by the school bus stop. I am not attached to this particular subject; however, I am concerned about the principle at work here. Bigger, thanks for bringing this to the broader community for their review. Also, please note that I also inserted another statement about the environmentalists to give the section a little more "balance". • Freechildtalk 02:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Freechild, I have removed the Senate submission, the guy wasn't a rancher, he represented paper mills, and was probably reporting what is in the newspaper anyway. He certainly wasn't present for the sightings. This is supported by the comments at the reliable sources noticeboard. I have altered the info from the newspaper, the concentration in the article on the proximity to children is not reflected in the general discussion in the source. Bigger digger (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Bigger, I disagree with removing the content from the article, as the conversation directly talks about that one source, and not removing any content. However, I am willing to get out of the way of that specific issue in order for us to come to consensus on this article. • Freechildtalk 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems like it's only us discussing this now! I thought the newspaper source was more general in its discussion of wolf activities in Alma and wanted to reflect that. Adding just the info about the bus stop sighting seems a bit sensationalist and fails to reflect the whole article, whilst using much more detail from the source would be WP:UNDUE, IMHO. Is that reasonable? Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the source '' because it is a dead link. It has been put back again. There is nothing there.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not in the version present at the time of writing, but also, per WP:DEADLINK, we don't immediately remove deadlinks as they may have further use. Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I replaced it with several other links. • Freechildtalk 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in this issue will involve removing the NPOV tag. Snowcat.ntas or Bigger, feel free to do that if you think we're there. • Freechildtalk 14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"The issue remains controversial, with environmentalists, ranchers, law enforcement, and others involved". Can you please show me from the source which, if any, law enforcement finds this controversial? Otherwise, that needs to be dropped.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I intended the sentence to read differently. Please see the corrected revision. • Freechildtalk 19:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Removing POV tag. At least it has some balance now.Snowcat.ntas (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alma Massacre[edit]

I removed language in the article describing the memorial to Victorio as being to his murders. The text of the memorial actually said This monument celebrates the 100th Anniversary of the great Apache chief Victorio's raid on the Cooney minimg camp near Mogollon, New Mexico, on April 28, 1880. Victorio strove to protect theres mountains from mining and other destructive activities of the white race. the present Gila Wilderness is partly a fruit of his efforts. Erected by The New Mexico Patriotic Heritage Society. (See citation in footnote.) I have not yet been able to confirm that the memorial was removed by the U.S. Forest Service as "vandalism". --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alma, New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)