Talk:Cold Mountain (North Carolina)

Addressing previous concerns

In an effort to update this article, I will be expanding it and adding additional citations. This includes restoring cited text that was removed by by user:Drmies with invalid reasoning in their edit summary such as "it's not exciting". These reverts enforce a bogus subjective rule that that this editor just simply made up and I feel they they should know better. Since this was done at least twice, here:[1]"Rv. these aren't notable, exciting, encyclopedic, or verified" and here:[2]"Rv, as before". I reverted these edits. Please do not hesitate to state your valid concerns on this talk page and keep illegitimate concerns, rules that you just made up out of thin air, and edits that do not comply with our rules to yourself. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Much of what was removed was trivial and not notable. I support the edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, Thank you for your opinion however, that logic fails completely because quoting WP:N, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."

In particular, see WP:NOTEWORTHY:"The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists..."

Johnvr4 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:VNOT is the policy you should be reading. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion. Of course consensus is important on everywhere on Wikipedia. The IP edits I made were done to address the original concern of verifiability because it was lacking sources. Those changes were removed by the two edits mentioned above. The edits removed sourced content on many topics and your support of those edits indicates to me that either you don't think any of those previously included topics should be included in this article or any of the citations I added should be used. With all due respect, the consensus required for WP:VNOT on certain content will never be achieved when editors and administrators make up and enforce their own arbitrary and capricious or subjective rules such as not exciting or misapply those rules that already have community consensus such as notability (which was your expressed concern), non-encyclopedic (which had been resolved prior to the deleted edit), verifiability (which had also be resolved or tagged per WP:FAIL). I hope am wrong but the position that you've articulated above indicates a willingness to engage in a form of WP:TE by filibustering any expansion or needed improvement with some level of support for ever-expanding nonsensical concerns. I don't believe such a tack will be helpful. To this point, if your invocation of WP:VNOT, which has not been previously mentioned as as an issue with this content (of course WP:CCC applies), is an actual concern with the topics presented, then the guiding policies are WP:DETCON, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:NOCON. Therefore would you please consider further elaborating about that which you are supporting or not supporting (other the two edits, or editor in general) so that I can both understand and further address them? Johnvr4 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of deleted content discussion with user:Drmies. Please be aware that a discussion about the lack of credible reasoning to support user:Drmies recent edits including a content discussion of the article took place at user:Drmies talk page. He was unable to support any of the concerns raised before he blanked the discussion.

You may view the deleted discussion about the edits to this article here:[3]

Johnvr4 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh this is so WP:TIRESOME. It's not just the plethora of WP:ALPHABETSOUPy links, but also the writing here--"I hope am wrong but the position that you've articulated above indicates a willingness to engage in a form of WP:TE by filibustering any expansion or needed improvement with some level of support for ever-expanding nonsensical concerns"? What? If you start editing using reliable secondary sourcing, you have nothing to worry about. And you don't have to ping me all the time, or even once: I'm really not interested (and I muted you). Drmies (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is specifically what's being discussed, then yes I agree that its removal is a good thing. Just off the bat, external links don't belong in the body of the article per WP:EL. The "In popular culture" section needed to go too; if the only sources for an item there are affiliated with the subject itself or are a local interest piece in a newspaper, then it's not popular culture, it's WP:TRIVIA. The only part of the revert that I disagree with was reinserted. - Aoidh (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I can see editors are confused about what is being "supported" here.

The stated justification for that revert was because it was "Rv. these aren't notable, exciting, encyclopedic, or verified."

The question of supporting it is whether the above reasoning is remotely valid support for reverting the previous edit and removal of all of those topics including the death of Paul Wurtsmith from the article--which is what made Cold Mountain notable between 1946 and 2003 (when the film was released).

In short, Do you believe there is a any rule requiring excitement? There is not

Do you believe notability is a requirement for content inside an article? There is not

Was the language removed unencyclopedic? No, it had been corrected

Did the text comply with rules on verification? Yes, each had a source or a tag to soon add a source that very likely exists as required

The question of support is for the stated justification to revert.

I want to be clear, If certain editors are supporting and/ or enforcing a content rule requiring excitement or a rule that information within articles must comply with notability standards and then measuring consensus by invalid standards, they should refer to the "alphabet soup." I didn't post the links for me. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in any debate about what is "exciting", because it's irrelevant. There is no confusion here; I support the removal of that content. That's it. I stated my opinion that the content doesn't belong and gave the reasons. You're not going to get a consensus that the content belongs with this fixation on the word "exciting". - Aoidh (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Excitement is irrelevant by itself. It’s problematic when enforced on others. Reverts are allowed too. It’s when those two are put together that we have consensus problems. We are past the external links. Links were in an external links section which was deleted in the first revert, and deleted from inline text in the second. If they were the issue being discussed, they would need to be removed while we discussed each one. They aren’t, it’s a red herring argument as is the promotional concern.

I think I understand your position but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. You have twice indicated that you don’t want the Wurtsmith information in the article but have only offered reasoning to remove external links (which is fine with me).

However, I’m not hearing a lot of reasoning that justifies the support for the removal of the Wurtsmith death, other than the made up ones previously offered and what sounds very much like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT excuses and I don’t have the WP:VOTEs to proceed. Am I correct? Johnvr4 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Focus on the word notability then if nothing else. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

When "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" is invoked, it's usually because the person invoking it has no better rebuttal to the actual points raised. If in reading these comments your takeaway is "well they just don't like it", I suggest you re-read what has been said. I explained my position on why the popular culture information does not belong; you made it seem as if I have only commented on external links, and I have not. Red herring indeed. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I re-read it several times. You provided two diffs in your comments so everyone knows that you and I are talking about the same content. You have already clarified what you support but are much less clear on why. Allow me to quote you:

1. The only part of the revert that I disagree with was reinserted
2. I support the removal of that content. That's it. I stated my opinion that the content doesn't belong and gave the reasons. You're not going to get a consensus that the content belongs with this fixation on the word "exciting"
3. The "In popular culture" section needed to go too; if the only sources for an item there are affiliated with the subject itself or are a local interest piece in a newspaper, then it's not popular culture, it's WP:TRIVIA.

You still ignored addressing the example (removal of the Wurtsmith content) that I provided. Your opinion that the Pop Culture section "needs to go" does not comply with WP:IPC (an essay). Sure it can be renamed or reorganized and expanded or thinned depending on available sources not removed. Your "reasoning" supporting removing so much of the content in that section does not comply with WP:IPCV either.

As you can see, no "actual" concern has been raised to date. “Not Exciting“ is just another way to say WP:BORING or WP:NOTINTERESTING and so is "WP:TRIVIAL" (as opposed to WP:TRIVIA). and so is "you're not going to get consensus on that" all of which comes directly from WP:IDL (too).

To your observation, I would counter that when an editor can articulate valid reasoning for an edit, no one invokes IDL. On the other hand, when an editor invokes "not exciting," in the absence of any legitimate reason, that is literally the definition of IDL, and Voting, and a bunch of other WP:TE-like behaviors that I have already posted links to above.

I think I've heard enough but I hope you can please clarify exactly what you meant by local interest piece in a newspaper as a source because that very much sounds as if you also raising notability concern reasoning within an article--which is absurd given that it has been addressed above with links. After that, we've put forth our best arguments. Editing will continue and if any of these problems persist, we're going to have larger issues. Then we can take the next steps to resolve our disagreements. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If you edit war to reinsert the content without a consensus, it will be reverted and you will likely be blocked to prevent further disruption, so I hope by Editing will continue and if any of these problems persist, we're going to have larger issues you don't intend to engage in the very WP:TE you've invoked several times. As you can see, no "actual" concern has been raised to date. Rather than addressing the concerns, your solution is to try to downplay the points raised as "illegitimate"? The WP:ONUS is on you to explain why the content belongs; consensus need not be unanimous so your satisfaction with the answers that multiple editors have provided you is not required. If it is your intention to obtain consensus for the content you wish to be placed in the article, downplaying everyone else's comments is not the way to go about it. Don't dismiss, address. I don't care about the word exciting, I didn't invoke it, and my reason for supporting the removal of the content does not rest upon it. You're arguing a point that means nothing. Try focusing on the content itself rather than trying to nitpick specific words. I said that the content is WP:TRIVIA. Your response was to invoke WP:TRIVIAL (irrelevant) and to repeat your complaint about the word exciting (also irrelevant). - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm not sure why you are still not comprehending that None of the so-called concerns raised by your or anyone else to date can be addressed! That simple fact is the core concept of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" and "WP:DONTLIKEIT". And now you have not only expressed a willingness to support this form of WP:TE by filibustering further discussions, but have actually threatened to engage in edits simply to block expansion or needed improvement and revert it continuously with ever-expanding false reasoning and I don't like it "concerns".

WP:TALKDONTREVERT is exactly why these meritless, so-called "concerns" that are being raised (all of them) will be ignored. I feel like my argument prevails based on the quality of the arguments alone--but someone else can decide that one for us. And finally, we can see clearly that all three of the editors here either fully support or are fully intent on gaming the system. That is TE!

Now I will make edits WP:EDITCON and you three will not revert unless you have Valid, Legitimate, WP-rule-complying reasoning in the edit summary and then in discussion that can pass all scrutiny--because there will be some (or a lot of it).

Yes, "Trivial" was reasoning invoked above and supported by another editor and then you claimed other sourced content was "Trivia" (but we'll see where these edits go). Once again, you did not explain your support for removing Wurtsmith or the question about use of local sources and notability. Hopefully you don't really believe it's "trivia".

I am trying to understand why you other editors are intent on doing the things you are doing and I am arguing that which you support doing or are trying to do is wrong (bad even)--just like some of my edits. In my strong view, you really should click on these each of links and understand them before you revert. I can almost guarantee that you won't read the links and you will revert my edits anyway. So be it. Know that you are just digging yourself a deeper hole for when you do what you are threatening to do with the reasoning you have already expressed in depth above. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone said that something I added was WP:TRIVIA, I would provide third-party sources showing why it is not trivia. I would address those points directly. This is a very simple thing to do, and a very low bar to reach; that you "cannot" do it means that it is indeed trivia and has no place in the article. One cannot decide that consensus does not apply to their edits merely because their position is indefensible, and saying that you can't address a point does not render that point moot, it instead validates that point. You have not made a single comment on why the content belongs, and instead nitpicked about the wording that people have used to explain why it does not belong. That you do not like the points that are being raised (WP:JUST, one might say) does not mean you can ignore consensus. WP:VNOT is policy; the content will not remain in the article without a consensus for its inclusion, and you have made no attempt to discuss why it belongs, so you have raised no points that anyone could even agree with. - Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN It is apparent that you are still missing the first part of this deleted discussion at user:Drmies talk page. I asked him to move that discussion here but you'll just have to settle for the link to it above. If you missed it, blame them. Some points have in fact been addressed directly and my position is fine. What you call nitpicking about the wording that people have used to explain why it does not belong is in fact alerting you to the violation you are perpetrating when demanding a false consensus over whether the I don't like it stuff is ever a legitimate reason to remove anything under WP rules.

A few years ago I started updating this article, I added some text, sources, and references...life changed and never got back to it until now. I assumed I left behind enough source material for any other editor to follow up on and complete. That never happened and the text was deleted for not having enough sources/citations. I came back now to finally add those sources and finish expanding it.

The first argument was about promotion and User:Drmies already accepted at least one third-party source showing what I need it to show. An argument about "trivial" content only came later on this page and as I explained to you, I'll get to that in future edits. I have a stack of sources. Ready to cite so, the premise of your observation that I'm not able to provide any, or reach a minimum bar is just absurd.

You've made the claim that I have not made a single comment on why that content belongs... Please do not let any facts get in the way of your WP:Truth. In the often-mentioned but never acknowledged example of the Paul Wurtsmith content, first, let me point out one of those Trivia deletions was the book about the crash and recovery that also won a state history award. I explained that until the novel and film was released, since 1946 that crash was the thing that made the mountain notable (which never expires). And that a majority of the available sources on the subject are about the crash. That is why my argument (or literally any argument) that complies with our rules is more persuasive than the invalid I don't like stuff concerns that you three keep putting forth (or enforcing). I will also remind you that I very clearly stated that consensus is always important everywhere on Wikipedia but the type of consensus you three are demanding Cannot happen because nearly all of the other concerns (the ones that have not already been resolved) are subjective. VNOT fails with a false consensus (the I don't like it stuff) or when that consensus is supporting a rule violation. That has been explained Ad Nauseum.

You must agree that in my two edits, I mainly tried to restore the text to add citations and that I haven't had much opportunity to do so yet since my edits were were reverted within seconds (or a couple of minutes or something) citing "Not Exciting", not notable", "WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC" and WP:V (which would be fine if he hadn't deleted all of the new citations). When I got most of the items that needed verification temporarily minimumly cited or tagged, in my second edit, user:Drmies reverted again. I was at 2RR, and knew many more edits would be required to complete it. So this discussion started with my request on his talk page to undo his revert and allow the completion of adding citations which would resolve the last two concerns without an edit war. I also pointed out the his first two arguments were bogus. User:Drmies refused undo his rv or to allow the changes given some of the responses on his talk page. Hence the discussion to understand that editor's, then a second editor's, and now your concerns. That discussion has been ongoing ever since and seems to be getting no where because you are refusing to to listen, or review the previous discussion in order to obtain a basic understanding of what is being discussed, or what needs to be resolved, or why I'm still here trying to reply.

Now there was a mention of due weight -which might come up in the future. The Wurthsmith subject cannot be removed completely like it was the other day. That was done at a time when it was cited to a reliable source, the sources indicate thats it's an important detail on the subject, not to mention it's the incident that made it notable, not to mention the weight that the available sources on Cold Mountain give to it. So, no not matter how much other content that an editor reverts out to upset the weight balance, mark my words, that Paul Wurtsmith will be mentioned in that article.

I don't believe any single editor or administrator on wikipedia (or all of them put together) could come up with enough consensus, or a policy, or reason or a justification or some type of support for anything that excludes all mentions of the Wurtsmith in this article after the point at which it was properly cited. Each of the other participants in this discussion refuse to mention it or explain how the apparent consensus that the article has had for the last few days, even after citations were added and all this discussion, still doesn't mention it. The argument(s) for inclusion of Wurtsmith (even in this super rough state) is simply insurmountable. That is why the is a continued refusal to offer opinion on it. You're happy enough to support it's deletion in total but are wholly unable to articulate why it should not be there no matter how many times it is asked. I do not anticipate the current level of response changing at any point that I can imagine in the future. In fact, in the spirit of improving the article, I'd be happy if you even tried to surmount it with a comment or an edit.

Does this reply suffice for one comment on why that content will be put into this article and remain there in perpetuity, with or without and your consent, agreement, or consensus? If not, you should address my view on that topic directly in your next comment (or don't even bother leaving one).

Happy editing, or reverting or whatever. If there are ever some actual concerns you can identify, I'd like to hear about them! Johnvr4 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

We'll see. - Aoidh (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's already clear to me. In the spirit of cooperation, here is a unpolished list of just some of the sources any editor would have to overcome to challenge the inclusion of the Wurtsmith stuff. I haven't really searched for national or state publications. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)