Talk:Woburn, Massachusetts

Untitled

I don't know who put this page together but there needs to be a separate section on the toxic tort claims against Grace and Beatrice. It's widely known and was a major issue within Woburn. This article seems to emphasize the movie over the actual events in Woburn. --Gcilley 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for pronunciation

Is a citation really needed for the local pronunciation of Woburn? I'm a Woburn resident and can confirm that it is a fact. 65.78.10.47 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever is not "Common Knowledge" needs to be cited. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge - The page isn't a guideline, but it is a norm practiced throughout Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Form of citation required for "Notable residents" list

Suppose the Notable Residents list in the article on Anytown lists "John Smith," with a link to the Wikipedia article on Smith. The Smith article states (with citation) that Smith is/was a resident. Questions: (1) Does the Notable Residents list (back in the Anytown article) need to duplicate the citation supporting Smith's residence in Anytown? Or is the link to the main article on Smith sufficient citation? Also: (2a) Does the answer to (1) depend on whether Smith is still living? (2b) If so, is it appropriate for an editor to blank Anytown's entire Notable Residents list without regard for whether the various persons listed are living? I would appreciate assistance on resolving this. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The evolving discussion on this point:

WhisperToMe has blanked the "Notable residents" list, claiming that each entry on such a list must carry an individual citation even where the entry links to an article on the subject. His argument, in part, is the following:

• Citations need to be in the article - If there are specific citations that address where a person lives, please add them
• Having unreferenced contentious information about living people violates WP:BLP - And where a person lives can be made into a contentious issue. Citations are required for lists of people
• As discussed in this BLP noticeboard page, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_21#Folks.2C_we_urgently_need_a_rule_for_.22Notable_people.22_lists_in_cities.27_articles.21, unreferenced lists of people can become dangerous to the article's integrity. This user complained when I removed a long list of unreferenced names from Gary, Indiana, but the discussion shows that sources are needed in these lists.
• If you want, I can help you find sources for these names so the list can be restored.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(Full discussion to this point at [[1]].) Here is my final plea that he not do this:

No, support does do not have to be, as you say, in the article because if that were true every inter-article link saying anything substantive at all about the subject of the article being linked to would have to carry a cite. For example, the article on Doonesbury states that, "In February 1998, a strip dealing with Bill Clinton’s sex scandal [linking here to the article Lewinsky_scandal ] was removed from the comics pages of a number of newspapers..." Certainly a reference to "X's sex scandal" is about as sensitive a topic as can be imagined. Yet there's no cite. Why? Because the linked-to article has the cites, and that's enough. (We'd all appreciate it if you would please now not now go "cleanse" the Lewinsky article...)

The discussion to which you point does indeed show that where a person lives can be made into a contentious issue, but that turns out to be primarily because you have made it so. What, more significantly, we find in that discussion is several senseible people trying to get you to stop making a mountain out of a molehill. For example:

• "It either needs to be sourced in the list or sourced in the linked article."
• "On lists that I have been involved with, the best way to do this is to require that every entry have an article..."
• "WP:V and WP:BLP do not mean that every single fact in the encyclopedia must be sourced wherever it appears."

I didn't contribute any of the entries to the Woburn list, but I don't like to see the fruits of people's hard work discarded for no good reason. Every entry on the Woburn "notables" list points to an article (except one, which directly cites references). As stated before and consistent with common sense, the linked-to article acts as the verification needed. Feel free to check the linked-to yourself, and if you find that one of them carries insufficient citation, then add a "cite" tag to that entry. But please stop deleting these lists wholesale. It's counterproductive and completely unnececssary. So cut it out.

I have transferred this discussion to the Woburn talk page in hopes others will join in gently helping you to separate the important from the trivial. 72.70.68.39 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on the BLP stuff first. It is urgent and important. For a moment, forget about China Airlines, because we need to clear out the BLP stuff.

1. The statement "It either needs to be sourced in the list or sourced in the linked article." - Let's take a look at that, 72.70. Protonk said that, but Gadget850 replied and said "Featured Lists require that every entry be verified; lists within articles, featured or not should be held to the same standards" So every entry has to be verified, and nothing is said about "the entry doesn't have to be verified if the main article has a source" - Why make the reader work harder to check if there is really a citation for a given subject by going to another article? Just have the citation copied. It is better to over-cite than to under-cite. Why would one avoid citations for things which are not common knowledge?

2. You said: "The discussion to which you point does indeed show that where a person lives can be made into a contentious issue, but that turns out to be primarily because you have made it so." - Rightfully and justifiably so. There is nothing wrong with trying to fix Wikipedia, is there? Did you see the outcome of the discussion? The outcome was that the editors agreed that these lists need citations, and any dispute involving citations should be resolved by the editors. BTW I heard there are posts about unreferenced lists of people at Wikipedia:WikiProject cities, but I'll have to find them first.

3. Gadget8050 said "On lists that I have been involved with, the best way to do this is to require that every entry have an article" - and this was the same post as the one that said "Featured Lists require that every entry be verified; lists within articles, featured or not should be held to the same standards" - This is incompatible with your idea that entries with articles do not have to be cited.

4. So you wonder why I am not trying to start citing large unreferenced lists:

a. I said in that discussion that I want people to start citing what they add to these lists. If people want to restore this information, they need to start citing stuff

b. I do not wish to enable a practice which can compromise the quality of articles. I want to start encouraging less experienced Wikipedia editors to adopt a better editing practice.

c. Removing unreferenced lists solves the BLP problem in the least amount of time. It takes a long time to verify a long unreferenced list of people.

d. The reason why I ask the person who wants to restore the information to begin citing is simple: WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons." - Even though you did not add the information, you want the information restored, so the burden of proof falls on you - I can assist you if you want help in citing everything in the list, but I do not wish to do all of the work.

5. In the discussion Gadget said: "Where there are a number of unreferenced entries, consider moving them to a todo section on the talk page until they can be verified." - It is an idea -- that involved removing the unreferenced entries from the article anyway. If you want this idea to make it easier to begin citing the entries, that is perfectly fine.

6. It is not a big deal to remove unreferenced entries because one can always cite them and add them back.

72.70.68.39, I am going to kindly ask you to begin citing the sources for the unreferenced people if you want the material restored. While time consuming, it isn't difficult. If you have any further questions I would like to refer this to the Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard. Also I understand that, as a Woburn resident, you have pride in this city. But please understand, above all else, that the goal of making a better encyclopedia is the number one priority here, and ensuring that all information that needs citations gets citations is one of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You continue to cite BLP, yet many persons on the list which you blanked are dead. At most, you should have taken your hatchet only to living persons (figuratively speaking). I am restoring the entries on persons obviously or apparently dead.

As to living persons: First, you keep fussing that town-of-residence "can be a contentious issue." I recall a discussion of a list entitled "Anti-Semitic Persons" -- that's contentious. Holding a "Notable Residents" list for some charming little city to the same standards is silly, because it implies there are no degrees of importance in this world. (Is there anything you consider non-contentious? If so, please give an example.)

The crux of the issue is your apparent belief every fact stated or implied (no matter how minor) by an article must carry a citation directly in that article, even where 'the article's text links to another article directly giving, with citation, the fact in question. This would imply that every inter-article link would have to carry a citation, which is absurd. My example above re the "Doonsbury" article's reference to Clinton/Lewinsky makes this point sharply, but you seem to have overlooked responding to it.

You say that "Removing unreferenced lists solves the BLP problem in the least amount of time." Blatantly false! Blanking all of Wikipedia would solve the "problem" in even less time! Apparently time is neither the best nor only consideration. You state that "It takes a long time to verify a long unreferenced list of people." Blatantly false! With one exception (a Revolutionary soldier) every entry on the Woburn "Notable Residents" list links to an article on that very person (or did, until you blanked it). Clicking the link would tell you whether Woburn residence is or is not stated (and cited) there.

You (contentiously!) refer to me as a Woburn resident, but I am not. There's something laughable about that in the context of the current discussion. I contend that your campaign to blank innocuous Notable Residents lists in various articles -- even where the person is dead, or where the list entry links directly to an article on that person supporting inclusion in the list -- solves a non-problem by illogically destroying the work of others.

I've put in an RfC on this (see top of this section). A nice start to the discussion would be for you to explain why the form of citation for "Notable Residents" of a particular municipality should be held to a higher standard than that required when linking someone to a "sex scandal" (the Clinton/Lewinsy text I've pointed to above). If you can't explain this, WhisperToMe, then all your worries and arguments fall to the ground. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)