Talk:Edgewood, New Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Mexico, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New Mexico. Join us on our project talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. If you rate the article please leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

What is the altitude of Edgewood

Contents 1 altitude 2 Opinion Edits by Edgeweedian and Others 3 Request for Third Opinion 4 Content Issues 5 Edits to History and Development - 10--18-07

[edit] altitude

the altitude of edgewood is about 6700 feet.

The elevation of Edgewood actually varies fairly substantially, from slightly below 6,000 feet probably to well above 7,000 feet in the far northwest part of the incorporated area.Weckerleje 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Edits by Edgeweedian and Others

You will note that I have again removed the unverifiable and subjective information that has been placed in the Edgewood article. Again, this content appears to violate the WP:NPOV policy. It may be worth your while to read that policy, and also WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V, which provide information on what is and what is not appropriate to Wikipedia article space.

As it states in the latter policy: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." You certainly have the right to your opinions, and it's very obvious that you disapprove of some of the policy decisions made by your local government. However, the Wikipedia policies are very clear on this issue, and I think it would be best for you to seek the appropriate venue in which to express your discontent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 October 2007

[edit] Request for Third Opinion

We are unable to reach consensus, as Edgweedian appears unwilling to engage in discussion, choosing rather to simply re-introduce the disputed text. Please see comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007

Comment. Hi Weckerleje, I applaud your patience in trying to deal with this situation. I'll try to offer some advice on how to proceed. (Let me preface by saying that, technically, I think Third Opinion is for cases when the parties are in conversation. For your future reference....)

First, I think it's good to keep trying to contact Edgeweedian. As a new user, much like yourself, Edgeweedian will probably come around and eventually talk this through with you and become a useful contributor to Wikipedia. You might began by posting calm and polite messages at User talk:Edgeweedian, asking for dialogue on your disagreement over the article content. From what I hear, many new users start off on a bad foot, yet gradually become productive after (much?) patient prodding and education about the Wikipedia project. (See WP:BITE and its "See also" links.)

Second, this probably is not what we call vandalism. Instead, it's more like a stubborn effort to continue pushing one's own point of view, without regard to others editors/collaborators. This can lead to what we call "edit warring", when users revert each other repeatedly. Looks like Edgeweedian, at least, reverted the article section 3 times within a 24 hr period. According to the 3 revert rule, it is possible that Edgeweedian could be blocked from editing, beginning with up to a 24 hour block. You may wish to warn Edgeweedian, who might appreciate the favor, I don't know. Or, you might report Edgeweedian to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and request a block. (Technically, you may have violated 3RR, too. If so, you should undo your reverts, even if that leaves the article unsatisfactory in your eyes, temporarily. Your edits are saved in History and can always be retrieved later.)

Third, you might try the following idea. Edgeweedian's text raises some questions about Walmart, town politics, etc. Is there any validity to these questions, even if it's a minority or controversial viewpoint? Are there any newspaper or other sources that have reported on such controversies? If so, why not yourself write a few sentences that speak to Edgeweedian's concerns? Maybe you don't want to do so in the lead paragraph, but maybe in a section on Government or History of the town? If you choose this route, it might strengthen the article, report verifiable information, and possibly draw Edgeweedian into conversation by demonstrating your willingness to listen and respond flexibly. Just an idea, can't say if it would work. Hope these thoughts are helpful. Please reply to my Talk page if you any of these ideas make sense, or if you'd like further info/advice. Good luck. HG | Talk 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. To illustrate my third point, I've made some small edits in the article and mentioned Wal-Mart. Perhaps this will provide a middle ground for a conversation between you all. (And thanks for signing your edits!} Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is all proving to be an education. I added some detail to the Wal-Mart issue; there were actually two lawsuits. I left your footnote, but the link doesn't seem to go anywhere. I was advised early on that Edgeweedian's edits (and similar ones) probably don't qualify as vandalism. Interestingly, the real vandalism was traced to a local high school, and it turned out that the perpetrators were vandalizing articles all over Wikipedia - blanking pages, adding racist and sexually explicit comments, and so on. I reported the issue to the school, and the problem seems to have been resolved.Weckerleje 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Issues

Despite requests to the contrary, certain parties appear insistent on using this venue to advance opinions, rather than allow this article to be simply a description of the community and its setting. The posts in question contained information that cannot be independently verified, and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia article space.

These opinions were apparently posted by someone who clearly feels he or she has an axe to grind with the local government. Such opinions are also occasionally seen in local newspapers. In any community, there will be disagreement regarding issues such as development. Content of this nature appears to violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, and should not be posted here. It would be best to address such concerns to the Town government or local newspapers - and they would probably carry more weight if they were not presented anonymously or through proxies. Wikipedia is not a blog or a newspaper editorial site - it is an encyclopedia, and articles should contain only verifiable information.Weckerleje 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edgeweedian: "You will note that I have again removed the unverifiable and subjective information that has been placed in the Edgewood article."

I will grant you the comment of the Wal-Mart being an eyesore is subjective but it’s not a modern art masterpiece either but I changed it anyway as to not offend. The sad thing is most of the dissenters to Wal-Mart will be good little sheeple and support the newest made in China store to a great success.

As far as the other information being inaccurate, you are wrong. Just like the book title, this is an inconvenient truth as I have lived here for 15 years and the reality may not be favorable but it is none the less true. My sources were facts and figures from the local newspaper that you also cited in your opinion/entry. If I recall correctly at the time of the initial vote there were about 160 eligible voters and the measure won with about 80 votes cast (not in favor but total) and then promptly incorporated other lands. Granted those numbers may not be dead on but close enough to matter here.

"You certainly have the right to your opinions, and it's very obvious that you disapprove of some of the policy decisions made by your local government."

Part of the problem was that so few people had the vote and effect on so many people. I live but 2 miles from Edgewood (I have a POBox in Edgewood, as do many people) but I have zero representation and cannot vote on policies, as I do not live in the effected area. I just have see and pass the blight on my way to work. So my question to you is how is your opinion more important than mine is? Since this is just that, an opinion.

Edgeweedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeweedian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that you're discussing your disagreement. While I think it's a constructive start, I'd suggest trying to avoid putting competing opinions in the article. If necessary, go through each paragraph line by line. For any line that's contested, ask for a reliable source to back it up. Make sure the source is written up in a neutral and fair way. If necessary, use the reliable sources -- not your own knowledge/opinion -- to neutrally describe any controversy among residents (et al.). If a controversial opinion isn't mentioned in a reliable source, then I'm afraid it won't pass muster for the encyclopedia entry. You can also float draft edits here (i.e., in new sections at the bottom of this page), to make discussion easier. Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've made a few changes along the lines of what I think my be helpful. I tried to use more neutral phrasing for what had been called "Opinion 1" and I used the {{fact}} tag for potentially challenged statements, that need to be sourced. Take care, HG | Talk 22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Weckerleje: There is much upon which we agree. The issue of Wal-Mart being an eyesore remains to be resolved, but I'm not particularly impressed by what I see so far. Admittedly, though, it is in a very early stage of construction. I have often, and very publicly (to the point of bringing my own Open Meetings Act complaint - a successful one - against the Town government) disagreed with the municipality's approach to planning, zoning, and development. I'm a big proponent of open space preservation, wildlife corridor incorporation, and other progressive planning approaches that have not yet been incorporated successfully into public policy to my satisfaction. Like you, I live just outside the Town boundaries and cannot directly impact Town policy - at least not yet.

What we disagree upon is the role of Wikipedia in all this. This is, for all intents and purposes, an encyclopedia. I see this as a place to list the basic facts about the Town, its location, and other attributes. It's not a place for us to air our dissatisfaction with the local government's decisions. Again, I'd like to suggest that you explore the Wikipedia guidelines and policies on what does and does not belong in "article space." Of course, we're free to discuss these issues here on the Talk page, and at this point I'm sure local people are watching.

As to the accuracy of information (I'm not sure which information I said was inaccurate; can you point me in the right direction?) - It's not accuracy, but independent verifiability that is required at Wikipedia. I will say this, though: I take exception to people making personal attacks against those with whom they disagree, whether they are doing it for strategic/tactical purposes or because they simply assume that the opposition must have a sinister motive. The former is simply contemptible, and the latter ignores human nature. I've gotten to know many people on both sides of the issues we're talking about here, and understand both sides of the argument. I've seen no evidence of corruption, dishonesty, or ill intent on the part of the Town's current elected officials; they, and many of their predecessors, are simply doing what they think is right. Similarly, the folks on the opposite side of the discussion seem dedicated to their own beliefs. In either case, I may disagree on what is right, but I respect their opinions.:I haven't expressed any opinions here on local issues. My opinions are no more important than yours, regardless of where they may differ - or not. There's a lot of room for conversation, but not necessarily in Wikipedia article space. Talk space here is fine, but the "real world" might be a good place to share ideas and discuss solutions. You know who I am, and I'm in the book; how about lunch, my treat, whether or not we've disagreed in the past on local issues? I'll wait until tomorrow to revise the article, in hope that you'll give it some thought.Weckerleje 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

W's comment moved here by HG | Talk 04:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved whole section to bottom of page. This isn't usually done but folks are still learning the WP:TALK conventions here. Continue your dialogue below, add subsections as needed. Pls sign your comments, indent responses, avoid interrupting or editing each other's remarks, etc. Thanks! HG | Talk 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to History and Development - 10--18-07

I've revised the text here to be more in conformance with the NPOV requirements. As presented, the text seemed very subjective, and included claims for which no references were cited. To ensure that Edgeweedian's interest in local annexations were included in the revisions, I detailed the most visible aspects of the Town's annexation history. To provide a sense of perspective, I added the distance to the Wal-Mart from the I-40 interchange. The characterization of the Wal-Mart site as "open prairie" was somewhat incorrect; while the property was vacant, this was actually fenced property zoned for "mixed use." Nearby land uses include commercial, residential, and agricultural uses.Weckerleje 14:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)