Jump to content

Talk:Alaska Veterans Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removal of a reference

[edit]
Extended content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • William Pencak (2009). Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America. ABC-CLIO. pp. 589–590. ISBN 978-0-313-34009-3. Retrieved 2011-10-26. The Alaska Veterans Memorial Museum is in the planning stages.

The above reference was removed with the edit comment, "while seemingly related, this memorial was constructed and is maintained by the state, the proposed museum is a private venture".

I don't understand the theory that Wikipedia should avoid mentioning a private venture.  And what does the selection used for the quote have to do with the source?  Was the editor that removed this source aware that the pages listed were both 589 and 590?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood my point. The subject of this article is the Alaska Veteran's Memorial, which actually exists, having been constructed by the State of Alaska at Denali State Park in 1983. The Alaska Veteran's Memorial Museum is an idea for a private museum in Anchorage some 150 miles away. They are two separate subjects. This article is about the one that actually exists, not the idea to maybe do something else, somewhere else, at some nebulous point in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that I have misunderstood, the most obvious explanation is that you have never looked at page 589.  Please do so.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better idea, why don't you just come out and say what it is you intended for the reader to gain from this book being listed as the "bibliography" for this page. I wrote pretty much the whole article and did not use that book when doing so, I know I did not use it as a reference. Since we have established that the quote you mentioned in the cite is not related to the subject of this article your goal in adding it, and in opening this thread is not clear and is unlikely to become clear unless you speak plainly about what it is you think is gained by putting it back. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page 589 says in bold letters, "Alaska Veterans Memorial".  Is that what you wanted to know?  When you look at that page, we will have a common set of information with which to go forward, and this could improve our communication issues.  Since as per Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Alaska Veterans Memorial, the notability of this article relies on WP:NRVE, it is useful to list additional sources.  I'm sorry you don't like the quote I selected, I thought it added to the article, but it is a small point, if you didn't like that quote you could have found another one, objecting to the quote is not a reason to remove the reference, ok?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. You clearly are not getting the point. The ref was not actually used' is creating this article and says absolutely nothing about this article's subject that isn't perfectly clear from the other refs, the article text itself, and the various images. It's basically a directory listing. So, in addition to the quote you selected being irrelevant to this subject, the ref does not further the reader's understanding of the subject and we have also established that it was not actually used as a reference in any way for this article. i realize you have strong inclusionist tendencies and that philosophy seems to favor the view that merely adding refs without actually using them to improve an article is a good idea, but I don't happen to share that philosophy and don't see any reason to clutter up the article in that manner. I would add that you seem to keep changing your reason for objecting to the removal. First you seemed to be objecting on the basis that there ws no reason not to mention a private venture. I explained that that private venture was not related to the article subject. Then your pbjection was that I hadn't looked at it. I actually had but you were obviously driving at some point without actually saying what it was, hence my request for you to just spit it out and say what you meant. Now we're back to you believing this is solely related to me not liking the quote you selected, which is not even what I said. I don't dislike the quotethat would be just plain silly. I find it, and the entire reference, uneccesarry. References are there to verify the article's content, not as decorations, and this one just repeats facts already properly verified before it was added. Also, I believe it to be out of date as it turns out the museum, such as it is, iis actually operating out of a small storefront suite in Anchorage, but that's neither here nor there. If you find there is something in that ref that is not currently in the article and you would like to actually use it to improve the article I would obviously welcome that. If you just want to add it back because you added it originally and you feel slighted personally by the removal I would say that is your problem. Only you know which of those is the case. I would also welcome a WP:3O on this matter should you care to go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that for each post I make the response is an escalation.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no escalation, we're just talking here. However, it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, which is why I suggested a third opinion. It's simply a way to get some outside input for everyday banal diagreements like this one and is not any kind of binding dispute resolution or anything like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alaska Veterans Memorial. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alaska_Veterans_Memorial&oldid=1204659512"