Talk:Foresters Falls, Ontario

A Small Community?

I am having an issue. On the 26th of august the following statement was removed from the Foresters Falls, Ontario article:

Foresters Falls is now a small community having digressed significantly since the invention of motorized transport.

This information was removed without any explanation. Because it is a factual peice of information I replaced it (aug 28th) and for safety sake put the book I had gotten it from as a referance. I explained my edit as "Facts are facts". I imagined that the matter would end here. Why would anyone insist on its removal after this point? The next day I saw that it had been removed again by the same user who explained "if it's a fact cite a reliable source". A simple enough request. I thought I had already done that but no matter. I renamed referances as sources, re-added the sentance again, explained this and left it. Within the hour my edit had been reverted and a message left on my user board saying "Your change to the page Foresters Falls, Ontario was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted". Needless to say I was a bit upset. Who determined this? who's POV about Foresters Falls is more important? What criteria are being used? I understand that the statement is not the most important ever but it certainly doesn't detract from the article. I have been attempting to have the user User:ArmadilloFromHell explain why he insists on it's absence but he will not answer my questions. I don't want to start harrassing people but I have no idea what to do. Here are a few of my questions:

has the community not gotten smaller?
was it not caused by the automobile?
have I not sourced the statement as asked?
is it not a fact?
is it not information?
does it not help inform people as to why foresters falls is not as large as it seemingly once was?
is it not the only peice of information in the article that bridges the span of time between 1870 and present?
is the usfullness of the edit the only criteria used to determine if it will be reverted or not?
Why it is better to not have the statement than to have it?
Does this information not answers a pertinant question left open by the article?
If I were to refrase the sentance would that be better?
What criteria was used to determine that it should be removed?
Why insist on the removal of this perfectly sensible statement?

I simply think that this edit was made in haste and I get the feeling that I've cause offence simply by questioning the logic behind it.--Matt D 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have gotten some advice from other users on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I was told that I should place my source as a footnote on the end of the sentance. I was also told that "regressed" would be a better word than "digressed". Other than that I was told to leave a note here on the talks page and on User:ArmadilloFromHell's talk page so that there will be no edit war.--Matt D 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote doesnt sho unless you add the code: <references /> onto the page. I did that for you. By the way any chance of an ISBN number for that number just to confirm it :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 14:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd also like to request an ISBN for the source. Second, there is the issue of causality - did the town regress because of the invention or introduction of motorized transport, or for other reasons that happened to coincide in time. Third, the community is by no means unique in having "regressed" over time - many mining towns in Canada have become ghost towns as the mines have shut down.

If this truly did happen as a result of motorized transport, then a more extensive elaboration of the reasons should be presented. A one-sentence statement isn't sufficient to explain to the reader why it happened. To me, it appears that people simply moved away from Forester's Falls to more prosperous locations, nothing more. Mind matrix 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this and this, the source was published by Renfrew County Council in 1970; it doesn't appear to have an ISBN. Mind matrix 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how your own speculation or opinion have any bearing on the relivance of this statement. It's a sourced statement. Did it really happen the way it said in the book? what qualification do any of us have to question that? Right now we have information from a book versus your thoughts. I don't see a conflict. I continualy see an arguement from this stand point: I don't think it is absolutly crucial to have this info on this article so it has to be deleted. Since Jimbo Wales has said that he invisions wikipedia as a place where the sum of all human knowledge can be found I would say: When in doubt, leave the info.--Matt D 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, anyone can write a book; what kind of research was performed for this book? Was the statement made simply spurious, or an observation, instead of an in-depth analysis of the situation? I have no problem including the information, if it can be established that it has some basis in reality, rather than an anecdotal point. Moreover, it's hard to judge the statement, since I don't have a copy of the book, and there is no elaboration about it in the article or this talk page. What is the context of the statement? My thoughts are irrelevant to this - what's important is to be critical of every piece of informaiton included that isn't immediately obvious. (Aside: I'd like to point out that a book written by a member of the county council is likely to be heavy on opinion and anecdotes, and light on research. That is, what qualification did the author have to draw those conclusions, using which data? The quality of a source is just as important has having a source.)

And by the way, Wikipedia policy is the exact opposite of what you stated: when in doubt, exclude the information. Including random bits of unverified information is what led to the Siegenthaler controversy. My only concern here is accuracy. Mind matrix 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of book

I can confirm that the book exists, since Library and Archives Canada, formerly the National Library of Canada, has a copy, according to Amicus, its online catalogue, at http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb/aalogine.htm. Canadian publishers are required to send the Library and Archives Canada free of charge two copies of most books published in Canada.

The following book may also be of interest:

Price, Carl, Mrs. Notes on the history of Renfrew County / compiled by Mrs. Carl Price and Clyde C. Kennedy. -- Pembroke, Ont. : Renfrew County Council, [1961]

Several Ontario libraries hold copies of the 1961 book, so that you may be able to borrow it through inter-library loan. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]