Talk:Clay, West Virginia

Ape in heels

I see now that one person has previously removed content[1] related to what I have just added. I found a few international sources and cited them. If this is making national and international news, I see no reason to exclude a summary of the information. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Millions of stories make national and international news that are not encylopedic. This is more of a "five minutes of fame" story. Or infamy, in this case. It's a blip on the radar screen that will almost surely have no lasting notability. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

wp:n relates to articles themselves, not content within articles. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about notability of the content e.g. noteworthiness (WP:NOTEWORTHY), which applies to all content within an article. This incident, while interesting and newsworthy, is not encylopedic. It's fine for a newspaper or tabloid, but not an encylopedia. Read #2 "News Reports" at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:DUE and content policies. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I happen to think that if we were writing a featured article on this subject, that we would include this incident in order to be comprehensive (wp:facr). Let me please give you a few data points as to why I think so. First, the mayor has now resigned because of the incident. (The mayor had not resigned when the content was first removed, if I remember correctly.) Second, the incident appears to have impacted not just one person (the mayor), but the larger community as well: "As a small West Virginia community tries to move past the backlash of a racist Facebook post that targeted first lady Michelle Obama, a council member had some inviting words for outsiders who look down on her town."[2] Third, it is being described in context with other noteworthy incidents: "The uproar occurred as the town is still trying to recover from severe flooding in late June along the nearby Elk River. Clay County also has been hit by hundreds of layoffs in the coal industry this decade. Gibson was asked what was worse, the flood or the attention from the Facebook post. 'I'll have to think about that,' she said. 'This (backlash) will go away.'"[3] Do any of those data points come across to you as increasing the noteworthiness of the incident, in any measure, whether large or small? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. This incident is far too recent to determine if it will have any long-lasting impact sufficient to support its inclusion in an encylopedia. I highly doubt that it ever will. It's a town of less than 500 people, so its impact in terms of noteworthiness is very minimal and certainly not worthy of inclusion here. Also, it's importance is being completely blown out of proportion and has been presented in this article in a way that destroys the due weight guidelines. The way it was written makes it seems like this little issue is more important than the history of the town itself! It doesn't get any more ridiculous than that. It made national news solely because the target of the Facebook post was the sitting First Lady of the U.S. Thousands of people post crap like this every day on social media, but it doesn't make any those incidents encylopedic. The only difference here is that a tiny town's mayor replied to one of these nonsense posts. It got picked up and of course spread like wildfire. As I said, it's just another five minutes of fame story. By the way, NY Daily News is essentially a tabloid and really should always be avoided as a source. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the weighting and recentism (and I've thought a little bit about how to drastically reduce the word count) but "long-lasting impact" is not a requirement for inclusion into the encyclopedia, as far as I am aware. From wp:notnews: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". I have looked into a newspaper database for hits on the town. By and far the most frequent mention was in obituaries. I would count that as a routine news announcement. This incident, however, is far from routine, with a town of ~500 directly apologizing to a first lady after a mayor resigns. Yes, I am afraid we were emphasizing breaking news when one looked at the totality of the history section, of course, but given that I still think that content met the comprehensiveness requirement of wp:facr, I would argue it is appropriate to wp:preserve despite being undue. One would simply tag the section with {{undue weight}} until a more appropriate historical balance was established. Despite this disagreement, I can consider a proposal of drastically shortened text. Would you consider a compromise shortened text being inserted into the section? Or would it be a futile exercise on my part because you'll still say no, even if the text is halved, for example? (Also, from a quick glance at search results at archive 23 and 85 from WP:RSN, it appears you've mischaracterized what appears to be the consensus around here about NY Daily News, FWIW.[4]) Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I just went ahead and pared the text down from 779 characters to 388 characters, a 50.2% decrease. Any thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

7580 hits for this page yesterday, when it normally gets about 10 to 20. I don't think we're doing a disservice to readers to mention the incident, to be honest. I think we're serving the readership. I guess you'd disagree? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You did a very good job of condensing the previous version, which included some details that absolutely should not have been included in the first place. I reduced your wording a bit so that only the necessary parts remain. I also removed overseas sources that simply summarized original reporting form U.S. sources, and replaced them with top quality U.S. original-reporting sources. The racist comment should not be bolded (due weight) and the fact that someone other than Whaling apologized is not important. The only apology that would be worthy of inclusion is hers. Although I still strongly question whether the incident is even encylopedic, I won't object to keeping the content as it now stands. And, yes, I strongly disagree with your point about increased viewership. Our job as editors is solely to make sure that all content is encylopedic and appropriately presented. Tabloidish stories like this will always attract a lot of eyeballs for a brief time, but it's not our responsibility to feed their hunger. That's what newspapers, gossip websites, and others are for. Thanks for discussing the matter in such a gracious and reasonable manner. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article and adding high-quality sources. I'm still thinking the "Two Way" bit and the grocery store closing are worthy of inclusion, for what it's worth. Thanks for working towards a consensus version. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

REPLY TO THE PERSON ABOVE:

While researching my family tree, I came upon this addition to the town's history. I am offended, that you would attach such a racial slur to the entire history of the town of Clay, West Virginia! Although I was not the one to remove it, I certainly agree that it should be removed. This Wiki page is information about the town of Clay WV. It is not a WIKI page about a person that lives there! Mayor, or not, It is inappropriate. Clay WV, established in 1858, holds ancestral significance to my family's ancestry. I will be requesting the removal of your statements in the town history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.45.1 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clay, West Virginia. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Economics

As per my rationale here, I do not understand why this content keeps getting removed. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It puts the situation in concrete terms, and is relevant as an example of rural food deserts. I'm going to put it back in. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)