Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 13, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before the
Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary began operations in 1934 there was a
citadel on
Alcatraz Island? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 21, 2013, March 21, 2017, and October 12, 2023. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No issues.
Paragraph 3 needs a ref on the end. Same for paragraph 8.
End paragraph needs a ref. No issues other than that, and it reads professionally. I'm not sure about "one of the most intricate escapes ever devised" though.
Done. A lot of sources state the intricate thing though, it is true.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Is based on the map on http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebruce0/6749519095/lightbox/. Can't really source a flickr map, I could source it to the author with is Ocean publishing or something..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 and 4 need references on the end
Done, asked NVV for the other.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent!
Paragraph 4, ref needed at end.
Grand.
Excellent.
Grand.
Good.
Good, as above.
Ref needed on paragraph 1
Could you possibly put a caption in for the image?
Looks good.
Grand.
Grand.
Grand.
Ref on end of paragraph 1?
Ref needed on end of paragraph 3.
First and fourth paragraph need a ref on the end
Ref needed at paragraph 2
Formatted correctly.
I am putting this On Hold until the issues are addressed. Thine Antique Pen ( talk) 08:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I shall promote this to GA standard, as another source is going to be added, but it already meets GA criteria.
Thine Antique Pen (
talk) 10:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we remove the pseudoscience and extensive coverage of "haunted" areas in the subsections of Alcatraz_Cellhouse#Prison_life_and_the_cells? You can't verify that stuff, and the most that I think would be appropriate would be briefly stating that the penitentiary has a reputation for allegedly being haunted. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 21:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you read it is says reported. I think its very relevant, the info is verifiable in multiple reliable sources, that's good enough for me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing "reliable" about a Web site full of "ghost stories." Mythical, nonsensical tosh has no place in an encyclopedia, and anything beyond what Yutsi said goes ridiculously into the direction of WP:UNDUE. Polarscribe ( talk) 21:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you can't verify that something is haunted but you can verify something which is reputedly haunted; there are even whole books on the ghosts of Alcatraz. It is cited by numerous reliable sources as "reputedly haunted". We don't claim it to be haunted but are merely reporting what has been reported in multiple places elsewhere. To not mention anything of it is wrong given the coverage on it. Blocks A-C could use information about the time as a prison though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
UNDUE? It barely mentions it. Always makes me laugh to see a newbie citing UNDUE and wiki guidelines, sock puppet from Bloomington, Indiana!! Given the wealth of coverage with whole books dedicated to it I think this is perfectly acceptable to mention, although one could argue the alleged hauntings would be better but in a single paragraph at the bottom. Read Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have created a separate section entitled "Paranormal claims" and linked it to the current article on reportedly-haunted locations in San Francisco, which contains all significant information on the matter. If you wish to create a separate article on the phenomenon, then that would be an appropriate link as well. Polarscribe ( talk) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, the issue here in WP:FRINGE is this: 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Reports of "ghosts" or "hauntings" are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and as per the Fringe theories guideline, should not be given significant prominence in an article. Polarscribe ( talk) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the deleted entries. Perhaps you could discuss this here before you start edit warring over a few very minor points? Once you have a consensus to remove, that is the time to remove it, not before. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 07:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
@ Bloomington professor, you removed the content without at least trying to verify it in more reliable sources. We'd show you a lot more respect if you returned it and stopped your snotty nosed comments like " That you don't understand that is mind-boggling." We are both intelligent individuals and have contributed many FA quality articles to wikipedia, so why not start showing us a little respect eh? If you weren't so aggressive and presumptuous with your approach on this, treating us like dullards, you'd find you'd be more likely to get somewhere. Your tone of voice on this comes across as highly condescending, as if we know nothing and you know it all. Yes, it comes across as pure arrogance. If you don't want to be perceived in this way, I recommend you start treating others in the way you'd expect yourself to be treated. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"The idea that ghosts exist is fringe nonsense and 80 dozen references to it as if they are real do not belong in a historical article." Your views on ghosts itself is gross POV. You dismiss it as nonsense, yet the purpose of life and indeed the idea that people are spiritual beings we can't possibly know. There are an awful lot of unexplained mysteries surrounding life and so many people have reported phenomena which they can't explain that one cannot arrogantly dismiss them as complete nonsense. I can't prove that people are not spiritual beings which may manifest after they've left their body anymore than I can't prove the existence of God and heaven and hell. Alcatraz, folklore, legend, maybe, its what thousands of people have reported and which hundreds of writers have written about so whether there are actually ghosts in Alcatraz or not it is not up to us to judge, but to report what has clearly been reported in masses of sources. No kidding, it would be like me editing the Islam article and removing any mention of Allah or the Christianity article removing any mention of God because I can't literally prove he exists; science doesn't recognize him so therefore its automatically nonsense? I doubt quite a few things in regards to religions but that's my opinion and my opinion only, I can't dispute the fact that multiple reliable sources document it and many people are convinced its true. It is not up to us as an encyclopedia to judge if the reports are fabricated or not, but to look at what reliable sources choose to write about which makes a topic noteworthy. It is a fact that Alcatraz is widely documented and claimed to be haunted. And you say my focus is on nonsense, when the amount mentioning paranormal activity amounted to just a few sentences and a relatively small section at the end of the article which seems appropriate. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is under dispute - cease removing the tags that express the disputed nature of this article. polarscribe ( talk) 17:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
How about you hold off with the reverting until this issue is sorted? I have not ignorantly ignored your edits. In fact I have monitored and readded most of them you made myself. But if you think this content is unacceptable you'd be better off posting on the village pump and trying to get some support on it. There is really nothing wrong with this article and its very well sourced and verifiable information.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
certainly ghost/hauting legends may be included if the alleged haunting is notable. I think the key is if we are reporting on the haunting as a factual occurance, vs being a notable legend. The notable legend is not a fringe theory. An actual factual haunting probably is. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, the issue may be moot now as Blofeld has left the building, but I think its fairly obvious that the "do not remove another editors tags" was just psuedo-quoting the policy/guideline in its own 3rd person, and not an attempt at sockpuppetry, but that it is in general better to only use one account per article to avoid that impression. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As Aymatth said above Jehoman. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I've full-protected due to the edit warring for 3 days - please discuss. -- Rs chen 7754 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Under the "History" section there is an incomplete sentence. Hopefully someone has the correct information to fix this:
"The $260,000 conversion to the federal prison took place from January 1934.[9][10]" Mateck ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In the section "Prison Life" there is the sentence
They were permitted to subscribe to magazines but crime-related pages were torn out and newspapers were not prohibited.
Should this be either "not permitted" or "prohibited"? It reads "wrong" somehow Yendor1958 ( talk) 07:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I notice from reading Talk:Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary that there has been a bit of contention. For that reason I'm raising a few examples of phrases that don't flow too well or are not precise. I'd like to do some copy editing but want to give a chance for comments first.
Examples:
But the article Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary is long and a LOT of work went into it. I don't intend to produce new content, just some dusting and polishing. Perhaps I should leave it as is? Neonorange ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have removed an attempt to restore fringe cruft. [1] I recommend that we have a discussion here about home much attention (if any) this article needs to give to the idea that Alcatraz is "haunted". As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no such thing as "haunted". This is just folklore. If reported in reliable sources, it could be noted in brief. We should not be referencing dubious sources at all in relation to this issue. What fringe writers believe is of no bearing on the article. Only if the fringe beliefs are so notable that mainstream publications have taken note, would we mention it. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
As Aymatth said above, it is perfectly fine to have a short paragraph on this. Lucky seems quite happy to use newspaper sources, which I have done. Please stop being a nuisance. Folklore or not, the wealth of coverage on it makes it perfectly valid to mention and in my opinion for coverage. If anything it affects neutrality more so by ignoring what has been documented in masses of sources and dismissing what has been reported as complete nonsense. It is not up to wikipedia the encyclopedia to assess whether ghosts exist or not but to document what has been covered in masses of sources. Alcatraz has been widely cited in reliable sources as one of the most haunted places in America.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not claiming it is haunted, But "eerie atmosphere" is probably the best description you can give Alcatraz, and it is documented in many sources. I've written pretty much this entire article with some assistance from my collaborators. WP:OWN or not, I would have much preferred that Jechoman had contacted me on my talk page to discuss the issues and also notified me of the AFD he opened. This was out of process and done in a way which is below what I'd expect for such an experienced editor. The article was stable for a long time with no concerns raised, seems funny you jump in in support for Jerichoman. What you seem to be missing is that "haunted Alcatraz" myth or not has so much coverage in what we normally consider reliable sources that it makes the topic notable. It isn't up for an encyclopedia to agree or disagree that ghosts exist or not, but it is up to us to report what information has been widely covered in the real world. Dismissing it as fringe theories is as much nonsense as Al Capone still playing his banjo in the showeroom. Myths do have a place on wikipedia, and we have thousands of articles on folklore and far moire bizarre topics. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) seems like a promising starting point. Varney, Philip (2001-05-01).
Ghost Towns of Northern California: Your Guide to Ghost Towns and Historic Mining Camps. p. 110ff.
ISBN
978-1-61060-080-4. and Rule, Leslie (2006-08-01).
When the Ghost Screams: True Stories of Victims Who Haunt. p. 124ff.
ISBN
978-1-4494-0280-8. also seem promising. According to paranormal investigator
Mollie Stewart, "It is an extremely haunted site." Wood, Maureen (2010-09-18).
A Ghost a Day: 365 True Tales of the Spectral, Supernatural, and...Just Plain Scary!. p. 122.
ISBN
978-1-4405-0863-9. tells us that California Indigenous people believed Alcatraz island to be inhabited by evil spirits. Many of the JSTOR hits confirm that. There are many sources.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 02:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Yes, indeed. I've found The Alcatraz Effect: Belief and Postmodernity which refers to something termed the "Alcatraz effect" as a term in psychology but doesn't document the alleged hauntings. This newspaper archive picks up 2734 articles on "haunted Alcatraz" but I don't have a subscription.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The image taken from the America's Cup Pier of Alcatraz, especially at a large size, is of high quality and a very good addition to the article. It is the only image to clearly show the craggy and sheer nature of the island with the prison perched on top. Let's not get involved in an edit war nor act on feelings of ownership. Neonorange ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The word "sodomites" is deprecated in modern English. And further clarification is needed: what is a "notorious sodomite"? Were they sent to Alcatraz simply for being homosexual, or for sexual assault against other prisoners? 71.94.14.102 ( talk) 07:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Not at the time of the penitentiary and that was the formal word on the casefiles to describe an offender. As for "notorious sodomite" try reading it again "and a group of notorious bank robbers and counterfeiters, murderers, or sodomite" "or" makes it very clear notorious isn't referring to that. Presumably most of them were rapists who committed forced sexual crimes in public or which were reported and they were convicted for rather that if being "jailing people purely for being homosexual"♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
since were not going to have a gallery here, we should then have a link to the gallery at the commons, not just the category. i just copied our former gallery to there, adding it to the already existing set of images. I assume poeple put some work into selectiong the gallery here. I think maybe a subsection here called gallery, with a --SEE COMMONS-- link, would be nice. Does anyone think this is close to featured article status? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought the gallery was important actually in covering rooms not detailed in the article, but I agree it already has plenty of images. This is one of my proudest articles given that I started it and the topic, but the prose IMO is not even close to FA at the moment although it is very comprehensive. It's too haphazard and scruffy at the moment. I'm not sure those tables are a good idea either, they look ugly and disrupt the flow of the article. If you're interested we can work on polishing it gradually and prepare for FA. It needs a lot of work on the prose though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found any source that describes the Cole/Roe escape as damaging Alcatraz's reputation. Calling this into question
Ahh. My apologies, I thought you were raising a different point. Yes, there seems to have been very little doubt that was not a successful getaway. Qwirkle ( talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The fake color is truly a work of art, high blood pressure and all. It's almost as if he had existed for real. With black and white pictures you don't really know. 2A02:AA1:161D:3B63:3C52:EA21:B2F8:3385 ( talk) 15:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)