 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pecos, Texas. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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).
- 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The Billy Sol Estes scandal was front page and prime time news all over the US, and abroad. [ Guardian obit]. Estes was the most prominent citizen of Pecos, and "Pecos, Texas" was read and heard throughout all the tumult. The events belong in any historical depiction of Pecos. Tapered ( talk) 06:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the Estes case was a big deal at the time, but ordinarily, this kind of thing would be handled by simply listing Estes in the "notable people" section, and the more detailed information about what he did would be kept at the wikilinked article Billy Sol Estes. To warrant more detailed discussion in the town article, I think the text needs to make a stronger case that the scandal had some lasting impact on the town. For example, Billy Sol Estes describes the feud between the Pecos Independent and Estes that led to a newspaper war, scandal, a Pulitzer Prize, and the closing of Estes' competing News and the creation of the Pecos Enterprise. Many city and town articles will have a section about the local media, and this story might be significant enough to warrant some mention here, depending on what else can be said and properly sourced on the topic of the local media. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The primary point of
Arxiloxos's arguement was my primary reason for my removal of the content. Any discussion of Estes here should clearly indicate, with sourcing from out of town publications, what lasting change he had on the community. Otherwise, listing in the notable section with a wikilink should suffice.
John from Idegon (
talk) 23:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- By way of analogy, why is the JFK assassination covered in the Dallas, Texas article? Other than a small museum and monuments, it had no lasting influence on Dallas. Life went on. When a proportionally momentous event occurs in a town, it warrants mention. Yes, the assassination was much bigger, but Dallas is much bigger than Pecos.
Tapered (
talk) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are not talking about either Dallas or JFK.
OTHERSTUFF is seldom a persuasive arguement here.
Arxiloxos has pointed you in the direction of a potentially useful edit. Can you point to content that you would like to see (specifically) with sources to support it so we might have something to discuss?
John from Idegon (
talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're labelling the my statement (Other Stuff) without addressing its content. I'm arguing by analogy and example. I'm demonstrating momentous events that don't have a lasting effect on a city are included in other articles. They appear in those articles for good reason—because they meet
WP:N without causing a substantial change to the city, as BS Estes does for Pecos. Another example is the Los Angeles Olympics in 1932 and 1984 which produced one big swimming pool in 1932. The Olympiads still meet WP:N. To hammer my point home: as a major substantial event that transpired in Pecos and Reeves County, it has notability and warrants some mention in the body of the article, even if it didn't transform Pecos. I'm not just saying that because similar events are included in other articles they belong here. I'm showing that WP:N warrants similar information in any similar article.
Tapered (
talk) 08:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Again, stuff in other articles has no bearing on this one. Content in each individual article is decided by concensus on each articles talk page. Please read
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Altho it is an esssy, it explains the concept here and how policy applies. Notability has no bearing on article content. I did not address your comment on the assassination of John Kennedy because it isn't an argument, it's a
red herring. But I'll address it now, ad argumentum. The Kennedy assassination was one of the top 10 or 15 historic events of the 20th century. It's fair to say that it was front page news in every newspaper and newsmagazine worldwide for at least the remainder of 1963. The
Warren Commission report did not hit til late September 1964, bringing it back to world wide coverage again. It was re investigated again in 1968, in 1975 by the
Rockefeller Commission and most importantly by the
House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978-79. All of these generated significant coverage. A district attorney in Louisiana by the name of
Jim Garrison actually convened a grand jury on the assassination, which was dramatized in the movie
JFK. Conspiracy theories abound to this day. Dealey Plaza is a national monument. The president is surrounded by security when in public (not the case prior to the assassination). He generally does not ride in open vehicles. When the president travels on expressways they are closed. All these things are due to the events of November 22-25, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. It is also fair to say that on a world stage, the assassination of JFK is one of the top three things Dallas is known for (the other two being a crappy eponymous television show and the Cowboys.) It might be said comparing the Kennedy assassination to Estes was an apples and oranges comparison, but IMO it's more like kumquats and watermelons. Now that your arguments have been addressed, do you have a edit to propose, with sources to back it up?
John from Idegon (
talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your original argument referred to impact on a city. You didn't mention a major impact on Dallas for the Kennedy Assassination—only the creation of a memorial. If only events of the magnitude of notability of the Kennedy Assassination were alloted a mention in 'location' articles, that would be a strait jacket indeed! Tapered ( talk) 03:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Again, stuff in other articles has no bearing on this one. Content in each individual article is decided by concensus on each articles talk page. Please read
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Altho it is an esssy, it explains the concept here and how policy applies. Notability has no bearing on article content. I did not address your comment on the assassination of John Kennedy because it isn't an argument, it's a
red herring. But I'll address it now, ad argumentum. The Kennedy assassination was one of the top 10 or 15 historic events of the 20th century. It's fair to say that it was front page news in every newspaper and newsmagazine worldwide for at least the remainder of 1963. The
Warren Commission report did not hit til late September 1964, bringing it back to world wide coverage again. It was re investigated again in 1968, in 1975 by the
Rockefeller Commission and most importantly by the
House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978-79. All of these generated significant coverage. A district attorney in Louisiana by the name of
Jim Garrison actually convened a grand jury on the assassination, which was dramatized in the movie
JFK. Conspiracy theories abound to this day. Dealey Plaza is a national monument. The president is surrounded by security when in public (not the case prior to the assassination). He generally does not ride in open vehicles. When the president travels on expressways they are closed. All these things are due to the events of November 22-25, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. It is also fair to say that on a world stage, the assassination of JFK is one of the top three things Dallas is known for (the other two being a crappy eponymous television show and the Cowboys.) It might be said comparing the Kennedy assassination to Estes was an apples and oranges comparison, but IMO it's more like kumquats and watermelons. Now that your arguments have been addressed, do you have a edit to propose, with sources to back it up?
John from Idegon (
talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're labelling the my statement (Other Stuff) without addressing its content. I'm arguing by analogy and example. I'm demonstrating momentous events that don't have a lasting effect on a city are included in other articles. They appear in those articles for good reason—because they meet
WP:N without causing a substantial change to the city, as BS Estes does for Pecos. Another example is the Los Angeles Olympics in 1932 and 1984 which produced one big swimming pool in 1932. The Olympiads still meet WP:N. To hammer my point home: as a major substantial event that transpired in Pecos and Reeves County, it has notability and warrants some mention in the body of the article, even if it didn't transform Pecos. I'm not just saying that because similar events are included in other articles they belong here. I'm showing that WP:N warrants similar information in any similar article.
Tapered (
talk) 08:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are not talking about either Dallas or JFK.
OTHERSTUFF is seldom a persuasive arguement here.
Arxiloxos has pointed you in the direction of a potentially useful edit. Can you point to content that you would like to see (specifically) with sources to support it so we might have something to discuss?
John from Idegon (
talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- By way of analogy, why is the JFK assassination covered in the Dallas, Texas article? Other than a small museum and monuments, it had no lasting influence on Dallas. Life went on. When a proportionally momentous event occurs in a town, it warrants mention. Yes, the assassination was much bigger, but Dallas is much bigger than Pecos.
Tapered (
talk) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The primary point of
Arxiloxos's arguement was my primary reason for my removal of the content. Any discussion of Estes here should clearly indicate, with sourcing from out of town publications, what lasting change he had on the community. Otherwise, listing in the notable section with a wikilink should suffice.
John from Idegon (
talk) 23:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So write what you want in the article with sources so we have something to talk about. Your opinion (and mine) on what is big or not is irrelevant. All that matters is what can be sourced. Let's see it. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very happy with one sentence about Billy Sol Estes where it is now. I engaged in the above discussion to preempt its removal. From the article I learned that Pecos may be the cantaloupe capitol of the world, and that the local crops are irrigated with ground water. I'm curious about the state of the aquifer. I read something indicating that Pecos may be part of the current fracking collapse. I'm curious about these factoids.
Tapered (
talk) 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- So, I'm supposed to document that the scandal was the biggest thing to include it. A national event centered geographically in Pecos? No. It's your job to show why a major national event centered in a city shouldn't be included. And BTW
OTHERSTUFF, like
WP:N refers to article inclusion, not article content. Making comparisons and analogies between (decent) articles seems perfectly within the guidelines, especially in the context of a reasoned presentation like mine.
Tapered (
talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are supposed to present convincing arguements to sway either myself or the other editor to your position. You have not done that, despite numerous unrequired suggestions as to how you might possibly accomplish that. The current consensus is against anything but a mention in the notable persons section. I'll be disengaging from this discussion as it is going nowhere. You are of course welcome to attempt any of the various forms of dispute resolution. If you do proper form dictates that you notify both other editors. Any addition of the previous content at this time would be editing against concensus. Goodbye.
John from Idegon (
talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think Estes' significance to Pecos probably can be demonstrated from reliable sources, but it hasn't yet been sufficiently articulated. A GBooks search turns up this statement in a 2004 Fodor guidebook of Texas: "The Pecos area . . . is known for the succulent cantaloupe that grows there, and for being the launching pad for Billie Sol Estes, a cotton merchant who turned to crime in the 1960s (with a little help from LBJ, so it's been said)."
[1] West Texas: A Portrait of Its People and Their Raw and Wondrous Land, published in 1999 by the
Texas Tech University Press, describes him as the town's "most famous citizen" and quotes his daughter's comment that at the peak of Estes' success, politicians came to visit the town so often that "It seems for a while that Pecos is the crossroads for Democratic Party financial strategy."
[2] Another book called A Stake in West Texas: Pulling a Chain and Raising a Family across Big Oil Country says, "No one person impacted Pecos and the surrounding area in the 1950s like Billie Sol Estes" and notes that his former house remained one of the leading tourist attractions in Pecos.
[3] And
Oscar Griffin's
New York Times obit describes at some length how Estes had "used cash from his $100 million agricultural empire to practically purchase the town of Pecos", to the point that he "essentially ruled" the town until Griffin's reporting took him down.
[4] An assertion that this era of the town's history was dominated by Estes and then by the Estes scandal, with appropriate sources, would not be out of place in the history section. And as a I noted earlier, the article could also have a section on the local media that would recount the history of the newspaper battle and its aftermath. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Premise: if an article about a town/city has a history section, a major historical event that occurred and was centered in the town, prima facie, is allowed to be included in the article's history section, and only an extraordinarily strong argument can justify its removal once included. If you don't agree, there's no basis for any discussion between us. I'm genuinely sorry it took me so long to get to the heart of the matter. I might seek dispute resolution just to see how that premise is received. Tapered ( talk) 19:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think Estes' significance to Pecos probably can be demonstrated from reliable sources, but it hasn't yet been sufficiently articulated. A GBooks search turns up this statement in a 2004 Fodor guidebook of Texas: "The Pecos area . . . is known for the succulent cantaloupe that grows there, and for being the launching pad for Billie Sol Estes, a cotton merchant who turned to crime in the 1960s (with a little help from LBJ, so it's been said)."
[1] West Texas: A Portrait of Its People and Their Raw and Wondrous Land, published in 1999 by the
Texas Tech University Press, describes him as the town's "most famous citizen" and quotes his daughter's comment that at the peak of Estes' success, politicians came to visit the town so often that "It seems for a while that Pecos is the crossroads for Democratic Party financial strategy."
[2] Another book called A Stake in West Texas: Pulling a Chain and Raising a Family across Big Oil Country says, "No one person impacted Pecos and the surrounding area in the 1950s like Billie Sol Estes" and notes that his former house remained one of the leading tourist attractions in Pecos.
[3] And
Oscar Griffin's
New York Times obit describes at some length how Estes had "used cash from his $100 million agricultural empire to practically purchase the town of Pecos", to the point that he "essentially ruled" the town until Griffin's reporting took him down.
[4] An assertion that this era of the town's history was dominated by Estes and then by the Estes scandal, with appropriate sources, would not be out of place in the history section. And as a I noted earlier, the article could also have a section on the local media that would recount the history of the newspaper battle and its aftermath. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are supposed to present convincing arguements to sway either myself or the other editor to your position. You have not done that, despite numerous unrequired suggestions as to how you might possibly accomplish that. The current consensus is against anything but a mention in the notable persons section. I'll be disengaging from this discussion as it is going nowhere. You are of course welcome to attempt any of the various forms of dispute resolution. If you do proper form dictates that you notify both other editors. Any addition of the previous content at this time would be editing against concensus. Goodbye.
John from Idegon (
talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Once again the "let's pretty things up squad," in the person of John from Idegon, is interfering with encyclopedic content! The first mention of Billy Sol Estes, a major figure in the 20th century (second half already), needs to be linked so that readers can easily access his bigraphical article. Taking it out can only be a petty personal matter or 'image tending' for someone concerned with Pecos standing in the world. Tough luck if its biggest recent event was negative. Last I checked, Wikipedia's raison d'etre was to make knowledge as readily available as possible. Interfering with that function is censorship. The edit will be reverted. Tapered ( talk) 02:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- So, I'm supposed to document that the scandal was the biggest thing to include it. A national event centered geographically in Pecos? No. It's your job to show why a major national event centered in a city shouldn't be included. And BTW
OTHERSTUFF, like
WP:N refers to article inclusion, not article content. Making comparisons and analogies between (decent) articles seems perfectly within the guidelines, especially in the context of a reasoned presentation like mine.
Tapered (
talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Griffin won a Pulitzer Prize while writing for the Pecos Independent and Enterprise newspaper. This is documented by well sourced references in this and several related articles, including his Wikipedia bio. This makes him a notable resident. One wonders why the same criterion used to delete Griffin was not applied to Roger Mobley, who lived in Pecos for a few years of a peripatetic childhood before he achieved notoriety. Tapered ( talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is well supported that Mr. Griffin worked in Pecos. The notable people section includes "notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city", per
WP:USCITIES. Did Mr. Griffin live in Pecos while working for a "stint" at the paper there, or did he live in
Monahans and drive 30 minutes to work each morning? Please provide a source supporting your edit. Thank you.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 01:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this should matter. Griffin's notability is directly and closely related to his work in Pecos. It doesn't make sense to exclude him from this list because of uncertainty about whether he actually slept there at night while he was doing the reporting about the town that won him his Pulitzer. As several commenters noted in the discussions of these kinds of lists (see for example the relevant threads at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 2), even if he was only there in the daytime that would still qualify him as a resident of the town. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are 37 entries in that archive. Could you please indicate which one shows the consensus you are speaking of? Thank you.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would simply note that "lived there" doesn't mean the same thing as "slept there". See for example the discussion in the section entitled "Notable people vs Notable natives and residents", in which the editors support the idea that "notable people" means people who have a significant connection to the community: "The context of Notable people or Notable persons within a city article is obviously that they are (or were) somehow a member of the community." "If they meet WP:Notability, and have a connection to the place mentioned in reliable/independent sources, they should be included." ". . . people who are neither natives nor living residents, but who lived a sizable portion of their life there or otherwise have a significant connection to the community" [should be included]. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are 37 entries in that archive. Could you please indicate which one shows the consensus you are speaking of? Thank you.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Four points. On [
June 2015] Magnolia 677 removed Billy Sol Estes fr/ the Notable Persons list on the grounds that his Wikipedia article didn't mention him as a resident. That's not even a sufficient grounds for removal, and there's more than sufficient documentation of the fact in the refs for this article. My reversion started off the current brouhaha. Second. Griffin won a Pulitzer Prize for a Pecos paper writing about an event centered in Pecos that reverberated all the way back to WashDC. No further justification for inclusion is necessary. Three.
Common sense is allowed. Four.
Pedantry needs be discouraged.
Tapered (
talk) 02:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the archive cited by
Arxiloxos above. Lots of back and forth but no clear consensus on anything (not even the title. Did that concensus come later?). The one thing that is on point to this discussion is that the section of the guideline quoted by
Magnolia677 above was exactly the same then, 5 years ago, as now. The criteria for inclusion is residence, not connection by employment. So lacking a source showing that, I support removal. Nothing in this support precludes working a mention of his name into another part of the article if it fits (and if his importance to the city is as significant as stated above a fit should be able to be made), and wiki linking his name there. My position is that notable people sections should be reserved for people who actually resided in the city verifiably.
John from Idegon (
talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Without in any way accepting that there is any such requirement, I note that the University of Texas biography of Griffin states, explicitly, that he "moved to Pecos in the summer of 1960". [5] Surely you'll agree this is sufficient to allow this important figure in the town's history to to be included on the list of the city's notable people? -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 06:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the archive cited by
Arxiloxos above. Lots of back and forth but no clear consensus on anything (not even the title. Did that concensus come later?). The one thing that is on point to this discussion is that the section of the guideline quoted by
Magnolia677 above was exactly the same then, 5 years ago, as now. The criteria for inclusion is residence, not connection by employment. So lacking a source showing that, I support removal. Nothing in this support precludes working a mention of his name into another part of the article if it fits (and if his importance to the city is as significant as stated above a fit should be able to be made), and wiki linking his name there. My position is that notable people sections should be reserved for people who actually resided in the city verifiably.
John from Idegon (
talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this should matter. Griffin's notability is directly and closely related to his work in Pecos. It doesn't make sense to exclude him from this list because of uncertainty about whether he actually slept there at night while he was doing the reporting about the town that won him his Pulitzer. As several commenters noted in the discussions of these kinds of lists (see for example the relevant threads at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 2), even if he was only there in the daytime that would still qualify him as a resident of the town. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
A source to residence was all that was requested in the first place. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 06:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Arxiloxos, thank you for finding a source to support this edit. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also like to thank User:Arxiloxos for the info which I missed reading the same article and his position on the requirement. When User:Magnolia677 removed [ [6]] BS Estes from the Notables section his rationale was that his Wikipedia bio didn't mention Pecos. I've seen nothing in guidelines or consensus that validates that rationale. When User:John from Idegon removed [ [7]] ole BS fr/ the History section, his rationale was "off topic," despite recent sourcing. Not based on sort of appeal to reason--just categorically dismissed. Clearly, both these editors hold an editor who disagrees with their edits to a higher standard than themselves. One reason I so detest arbitrary rules of exclusion from articles of every stripe, consensus or not, is that it enables covert POV editing, which is my evaluation of the actions of these editors. This brouhaha wasted as much of my time as anyone's. And BTW, I intend to include LBJ in Billy Sol's History section paragraph again. I saw adequate documentation in one of the sources concerning Griffin. Tapered ( talk) 07:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)