Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Notability

A Notability tag was placed on this article with the comment: "Does not appear to meet WP:NBUILDING which requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent sources.

  • Here are the WP:SIGCOV, multiple WP:IIS sources:
    • Hudson, Monica (May 24, 2006). Carmel-by-the-Sea. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California: Arcadia Publishing Incorporated. ISBN 9781439614570
    • Seavey, Kent (2007). Carmel, A History in Architecture. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California: Arcadia Pub. p. 114. ISBN 9780738547053
    • Dramov, Alissandra (2022). Past & Present Carmel-By-The-Sea. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 47. ISBN 9781467108980
    • Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California: Valley Publishers. pp. 24, 98. ISBN 9780913548738

The City of Carmel has recognized the building as a historical resource in the following WP:PRIMARY sources:

    • Kent L. Seavey (January 20, 2003). "DPR 523 Forms Volume II 70-End of Historic Objective and Districts". City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
    • "Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey" (PDF). City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. February 2019. Retrieved January 29,2024.
    • "Carmel Inventory Of Historic Resources Database" (PDF). Carmel-by-the-Sea, California: The City of Carmel. Retrieved April 9, 2023.

Greg Henderson (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Primary Source

@Left guide: I think you're saying that because the source cited for historical significance is a primary source and not a secondary source, that alone is sufficient to remove it. Following this logic, all primary sources have the same problem, and we should not have any primary sources on Wikipedia. Your argument is not based in common sense or policy. Primary sources are permitted on Wikipedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with only city sources is that the language extracted from such sources starts becoming puffery, since of course the city is going to want to promote its buildings and districts; there's financial incentive to do so from taxes and tourism (see WP:COISOURCE). In any case, I've tagged the article and historical significance section so others might be able to help clean it up. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very important to keep in the article as the main source that the building meets the Historical Criteria set out by the state. The article must have some mention of it, e.g. "The City of Carmel has recognized the building as a historical resource in the area of ..." Do you understand my point? Greg Henderson (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're just going to have to agree to disagree and get broader input. Pinging the other main people who have been working on articles you've created. @Netherzone, Graywalls, Melcous, and Theroadislong: what do you guys think about this article's language/neutrality? Particularly regarding the second half of the lead section and the historical significance section. (also note that all of that section's sources are published by the city) Left guide (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't agree with Greg's argument that it's very important to keep in the article as the main source that the building meets the Historical Criteria set out by the state. Why does it matter that the city thinks the building meets the state's criteria when the state has not accepted this? (Noting that the state of California has had twenty two years to confirm that the building meets its criteria but has apparently not done so). Without being on a national register, the building has no presumption of notability and thus is only considered notability if there is significant coverage in independent sources. I'm not convinced that is met here at all.
On the specific point under debate, I'd refer to WP:RSPRIMARY which says Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Thus my view is it could be used for bare facts only, i.e. at most that the city has applied for state listing (but as I said above, I'm not sure this is notable anyway), and not for extended commentary like "The City has recognized the building as a historical resource in the area of architecture, as an early example of pioneering commercial design for advertising and marketing. It also significant as a key anchor building to Carmel's Downtown Historic District" Melcous (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historical status is the very foundation of the buildings historical significance as demonstrated by the DPR Form documents provided. You should read WP:PRIMARY again. Look at the examples of primary documents: diaries etc... If you are still not sure, open a case at WP:RSN, but believe me, historical documents submitted by reliable sources should be included in this article. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Also check out WP:NBUILDING, which want in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I have provided three documents that clearly show the historic and architectural importance of this building. In addition the following document here outlines on pages 68-69, the historic significance of some of the commercial buildings. A table is used to summarize the National Register and the Carmel inventory of historic resources, e.g. Buildings designed by a significant architect, landscape architect, or a significant builder, etc. All this points to importance of including such sources in the article as an indicator of historical importance and that the city has recognized the building as historically important. Please consider this when making your decisions to delete releavant information from the article. Kent Seavey, who wrote the DPR article on the Reardon Building is an author of Arcadia's Carmel A Hisotry in Architecture, is the former curator of the California Historical Society and former director of the Carmel Museum of Art. I would think his accounting of the building is a reliable source. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Melcous: In addition to the above, you said at User talk:Greghenderson2006#CS1 error on Jo Mora: "So the absolute most you would be able to say in wikipedia's voice is that the city believes it meets the state's criteria for historical significance." Based on this, I think it is fair to say: "The City of Carmel has recognized the building meets the state's criteria for historical significance in the area of ..." Greg Henderson (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: You removed the following from the article diff. @Melcous: has already agreed that "So the absolute most you would be able to say in wikipedia's voice is that the city believes it meets the state's criteria for historical significance." So, I think it is only fair to include the basic statement: "The City of Carmel has recognized the building as a historical resource in the area of architecture, as an early commerical design used for advertising and marketing." Do we have consensus with this? Greg Henderson (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Melcous didn't agree to everything you added in this edit. The bottom line is that we generally do not care what the city of Carmel has to say about this building, the city clearly has a vested interest to promote this building to attract tourists to bring in more tax dollars, so it's not an independent reference, and they are not going to write from a neutral objective critical perspective. Wikipedia is not an extension of a city's tourist initiative. Please find better sources for this material if you wish to make a case. Left guide (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I agreed that from the perspective of what primary sources can be used for that that is the most you could say. That is a separate issue. I also noted that from a relevance/notability perspective, I'm not convinced it belongs in the article (or that the building itself meets WP:NBUILDING). Melcous (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above edit was for the change that Left guide made. What Melcous said is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greghenderson2006, under Buildings - again. Melcous said I could say: "that the city believes it meets the state's criteria for historical significance." I am find with leaving it like that.
Thanks for providing your feelings about the city's viewpoint. However, I don't think the city has a vested interest to protect and preserve historic buildings to bring in more tax dollars. The simple fact is that the city wants to preserve the buildings in the downtown historic district, much like other cities. For example, the Los Gatos Historic Commercial District has been recognized as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places. The Carmel Downtown Historic District has similar buildings that are 100 years old and it would like to prevent them from being altered to protect their historical value. Since the city documents are primary sources, they should permitted with the understanding that for WP:NBUILDING, I need to provide significant coverage from secondary and third-party sources. I have provided several but will continue to work on that. Greg Henderson (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the city wants to preserve the buildings in the downtown historic district is even more evidence of a conflict of interest; a COI doesn't have to just be financial which I am sure you are well aware of by now. Do you have reliable sources from independent publishers that support the material you wish to add? Left guide (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006: Your comparison with Los Gatos is entirely unhelpful - they have been recognised by the national register; what we're talking about here is an unaccepted application for state recognition. The difference is blatantly obvious. Come back to this when the Carmel downtown is on the national register. Until then, it is not up to wikipedia editors to look at what the subject of an article (or in this case, the city they are in) would like but rather to include what other independent sources have said about them. Wikipedia is designed to be a tertiary source. Melcous (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I think you need to start being way more selective about the subjects you write about, and only choose those that are truly notable per WP criteria and standards not by your own standards.

Sometimes I get the impression that you are simply flipping through the pages of a book and making articles about everything contained in the book. At first you were using your own self-published book on the Hendersons; then with the book about pilot boat captains, then on pilot boats, and now Carmel people and Carmel buildings. It seems like you are just flipping pages and making impulsive decisions on based on what the oracle of a coffee table book presents that day.

I get it that we often like to write about things that are personally interesting, however I think your choices could and should be made with a much more discretion, acuity and analysis of the available sources before you dive in. Go for quality contributions not for quantity of articles created. Go for quality sources not for quantity of numbers of sources. If you worked in this manner more often, you would be saving time - your own time, and the time of many other editors during clean up (which is out of proportion in relation to your years of editing). You should know this stuff by now. I also think it will save you and others a whole lot of frustration. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I love to write and will stick to the most notable topics. I like what you said "quality sources not for quantity of numbers of sources". Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

@Melcous: The Reardon Building meets WP:NBUILDING guidelines because of the following significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources:

Please remember "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage." per WP:GNG. There is no requirement for the volume of information. The above multiple sources demonstrate historic and architectural importance. This is also one of my top five to keep. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this article is one of your personal "top five to keep" has no bearing on notability; you have no entitlement to keep any articles and Wikipedia notability guidelines apply fairly to all articles. Also, please see WP:ARCADIA, where this publisher has been discussed by the broader community. As alluded to by your comment above, articles you have created are filled with it, yet it is essentially an indiscriminate source which carries almost no weight, and counts little towards notability, if at all. Please find better sources. Left guide (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ARCADIA link was moved into an archive (Archive 321). The truth is that Wikipedia has an entire article about Arcadia Publishing. There is no mention in this article that it is an unreliable source. It is not listed on WP:RSP. In addition, the name "Arcadia Publishing" is used in 12,863 Wikipedia results.
Arcadia is an independent publisher who contacts local editors to write photo essays on local and regional history about their communities, sports, campuses, work, transportation, etc. Also, many editors including myself have used Arcadia books as references for their articles; see Special:Whatlinkshere/Arcadia_Publishing. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with @Left guide on this matter. The discussion on the Reliable Sources Notice Board per WP:ARCADIA has consensus that it should be used with caution; also should '"probably avoid'". Linked in the discussion are some other opinions that that the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published (2009) and "Arcadia Publishing" and "academic source" have a very tenuous relationship. Some of their stuff is excellent; some complete crap; also "should probably be removed unless or until a better source is found".
For the longest time I thought it was a self-publishing platform/imprint similar LuLu or Amazon Publishing - but it is actually a publishing house that accepts submitted manuscripts, although I have no idea how rigorous their vetting process is or if they basically publish everything, or if it is pay-to-play. They are definitely not considered a high-end publishing house for architecture like Princeton Architectural Press, and the like. The fact that WP has an article on Arcadia Publishing means nothing, we also have articles on flat-earth theory and UFO sightings. Just because a source is used elsewhere in WP does not make it a good source. Why stoop to the lowest-common denominator? As I just stated above, go for QUALITY reliable sources because we are an encyclopedia, not a random collection of factoids. Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, not everything is listed on RSP, nor will it ever be because we'd have millions and millions to list. The fact that the discussion is in the archive is equally relevant, and should be seriously considered. Archiving is not the same as erasing; it does not make a discussion irrelevant. The purpose of archiving is so talk pages and notice boards aren't extremely long and impossible to navigate. Netherzone (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you don't see the obvious match with the WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Perahps you need to read them again. When you have 10 references to an article and 7 are written by third-party authors, then you are not reading this: Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
You can call Arcadia Publishing unreliable if you wish, but hundreds if not thousands of articles are using these books as reliable references (see here Special:WhatLinksHere/Arcadia Publishing). To me, it looks like you trying to make a point without solid documentation. Please try to undersand my point of view and realize that some these building articles I have written are great articles! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I am going to start purging Arcadia sources from this and other related articles, since consensus is clearly against its inclusion. Left guide (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the consensus? Please do not do this with out proper grounds. Why don't we just take up with an abritration board. You can't put Arcadia sources! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your consensus for its inclusion? As articulated by Netherzone above, all signs of meaningful discussion and scrutiny of the source point towards it being unsuitable for articles. Furthermore, WP:ONUS stipulates that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so by default, validly disputed material stays out of articles unless and until a contrary consensus is clearly achieved. Left guide (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: and @Left guide:, please hold off on your deletions. I have proposed a topic here to discuss this further: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arcadia Publishing. I don't think you have the grounds to remove sources from third-party books just because they were published by Arcadia. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles with these sources. Just hold off for a couple of days. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I haven't deleted anything. Nor have I made a single edit to the aritcle[1]. Please assume good faith, I've simply offered some thoughts and advice here that I feel are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left guide said" "I am going to start purging Arcadia sources from this and other related articles, since consensus is clearly against its inclusion." Greg Henderson (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why then was I pinged to "hold off on your deletions"? Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were part of the above discussion about using Arcadia sources. You are right, Arcadia deletions should have been directed at Left guide. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: WP:ARCADIA is four years old and involved only four editors, so it's worth revisiting the discussion. I am not seeing any consensus for completely purging any and all Arcadia Publishing books. As Netherzone put, it is not some self-publishing service like Lulu; it is actually a publishing house that accepts submitted manuscripts, which is conventional for publishers.
If anything, looking at reliable sources, I am seeing favorable regard of at least some Arcadia Publishing books.
  • "Pondering Local History", The New York Times, April 19, 1998: for readers with a more localized interest in history than can generally be satisfied in a classroom or the best-seller bin, the Images of America books are an invaluable resource.
  • "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing", Ohio Valley History 7, no. 2 (Summer 2007): 85–91, here 85: many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. As co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky (forthcoming from University Press of Kentucky), I have proudly worked with nearly all of the authors reviewed in this essay, many of whom have contributed entries to the encyclopedia. They include librarians, historians, a professor, two historic preservationists, two planners, a medical doctor, a nurse, and a journalist/publisher.
Rather than unilaterally purge an entire publisher, a far more reasonable approach, based on these reliable sources reviewing Arcadia Publishing books, would seem to take Arcadia books on a case by case basis: does this book have WP:USEBYOTHERS? Does this author have a background or profession that suggests reliability, like being a historian or journalist? Those are the sorts of questions we should ask, not whether four years ago four people had frankly very ambiguous and not necessarily negative feelings. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pertinent to note that Dramov is a councilperson of Carmel; she has a vested interest in promoting the town and its real estate holdings. Given this fact there could be some Boosterism of the importance of certain buildings to acquire historical status. Her political connection might have an affect the neutrality of her writings on Carmel. [2] Netherzone (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good information to have. However, it seems to be a late development that postdates some of her books. The link you shared states Dramov was elected in November 2022, and Pam Marino, Four Candidates Are Vying for Two Open Seats on the Carmel City Council", Monterey County Weekly, September 22, 2022, confirms that Dramov was a challenger for the seat—she was not yet a city councilor at the time.
Meanwhile, Historic Buildings of Downtown Carmel-by-the-sea was published in 2019, and Carmel-by-the-sea in the series Past & Present was published in October 2022, both before she became a city councilor. And that itself we can understand in the context of Arcadia Publishing being a press independent of Carmel-by-the-sea and its city council. If being a city councilor for Carmel-by-the-sea affects her neutrality, that doesn't seem to affect the two of her books being asked about on this talk page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto, you seem to have inadvertently quoted me out of context, what I said: For the longest time I thought it was a self-publishing platform/imprint similar LuLu or Amazon Publishing - but it is actually a publishing house that accepts submitted manuscripts, although I have no idea how rigorous their vetting process is or if they basically publish everything, or if it is pay-to-play. They are definitely not considered a high-end publishing house for architecture like Princeton Architectural Press, and the like. You clipped part of that entire train of thought. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly questionable"?

Arcadia Publishing books seem to be, at worst, somewhat ambiguous, with quality being variable such that an editor should be willing to put the work in to establish a given Arcadia book's reliability and quality if they cite one. "Highly questionable" [3] [4] [5] seems like putting it rather strongly. If there is concern that the article was written in an overly promotional way or that the content was undue, then that should be the reason given in the edit summary. Or if it really is coming down to the source, something like "insufficient consensus on the quality of the source". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @P-Makoto, I did not make those edits, however there have been discussions over the years about the use of Arcadia Publishing's books. For example this discussion on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing aka WP:ARCADIA
  • use with caution and probably avoid
  • usable with caution and verification. If a controversial claim sourced solely to one of their local history books is challenged, it should probably be removed unless or until a better source is found.
  • I would say that they shouldn't be used for controversial claims.
And this comments from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45
  • the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published.
If they are being used by an editor known to use poor-quality sources, self-published sources, or has misrepresenting sources, and they are challenged by an editor(s) in good standing, I'd say the use of Arcadia is controversial; in other words, should not be used. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those noticeboard conversations are quite old. I participated in a more recent thread and pointed out that the academic journal Ohio Valley History complimented several Arcadia books.
If it's the behavioral pattern of the editor that's at root of the concerns, then I think that should be expressed. My own experience leads me to think that Arcadia Publishing books are not highly questionable. That's not the same as saying 'this content must be restored', as I think there are other valid reasons for Left Guide's edits; but I do want to be much more cautious than this in how we characterize sources. The misuse of sources by Greg Henderson doesn't need to be taken as a reason to distrust an entire publishing house. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The age of a noticeboard post does not invalidate the discussion, nor does the fact that you personally disagree with the findings thereof. In this specific case the use of Arcadia is indeed controversial, and therefore it should not be used.
The fact that you disapprove tone or wording of an editor's summary is not a reason to defend the source. No personal attacks were made so why create drama over the use of the words "Highly questionable"? Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be mere personal disagreement. As mentioned further up in the thread, I cited a reliable source that favorably reviews Arcadia Books. The old discussions quoted relied solely on personal opinion, with no reference to reliable sources.
I'm not interested in "creat[ing] drama", to use your phrasing. My interest is only in encouraging editors to represent sources and controversies as accurately as possible. If someone else were to revert these excisions and merely write "these sources are extremely reliable" in the edit summary, I'd find that just as questionable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - Reardon Building intro

  • Add the following text directly after the 1st setnence in the intro:
  • "Constructed in 1932 for the Carmel Dairy, the building was designed by Guy O. Koepp and built by A. Caryle Stoney. Featuring a tower shaped like a milk bottle, the interior artwork and logos on milk bottles and lunch menus were crafted by local artist Jo Mora. The building is a key cornerstone building at the entrance to Carmel's downtown historic district."
  • Use the following citation:[1]

References

  1. ^ Kent L. Seavey (January 20, 2002). "DPR 523 Form Volume II 70 Historic Resources". City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. pp. 10–11. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

Greg Henderson (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit, in the future, please check page numbers when you are checking the requested content against the source provided on a COI edit request. The page number listed above are incorrect. There have been a lot of errors on these articles about Carmel by the Sea. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit you have completed an edit request with incorrect page numbers. Please resolve the problem with your edit. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The url is: https://archive.org/details/carmel_historic_survey_volume_ii_blocks_70-end_plus_historic_objects__districts/page/n9/mode/2up?q=%22Reardon%22 and the correct page numbers are: 10-12 Greg Henderson (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit, Why are you reverting your edits when the correct url and page numbers have been provided in the above reply? It is a simple matter of updating page numbers, right? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Antrotherkus Talk to me! 20:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antrotherkus you need to actually read the text and sources and check them against one another, and check the page numbers before fulfilling edit requests. You have implemented the original wrong page numbers. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone has reverted the changes made by Antrotherkus because of wrong page numbers. Here is the correct URL and pages numbers: https://archive.org/details/carmel_historic_survey_volume_ii_blocks_70-end_plus_historic_objects__districts/page/n9/mode/2up?q=%22Reardon%22 and the correct page numbers are: 10-12. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reardon_Building