Jump to content

Talk:Gravette, Arkansas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gravette, Arkansas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Bigo" Barnett

[edit]

There have been several attempts to add this individual to the list of Notable Persons from Gravette. These have been consistently reverted by editors who make claims regarding notability. However, these claims are plainly disproven by the fact of Barnett's inclusion in the primary page on the 2021 Storming of The US Capitol. Barnett's name has appeared on that page, without dispute, since at least January 7th 2021. Happy to begin dispute resolution should this edit be reverted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that editors determined that Barnett did not warrant his own page, is not evidence that he cannot be mentioned in other articles. Again, I point to his mention in the primary reference article on the January 6 riots. Johnadams11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in list of notables.

[edit]

Recently, there has been an effort to include a non-notable person on the list of notables. The person was a participant in a notable event, but is himself not notable. The person has a connection to this article, but this article has no connection to the event. Attempts to create an article have failed, being rejected for insufficient notability per WP:BLP1E. If the person is not considered notable, and if the article in question (Gravette) doesn't have any other connection to the event, they do not magically become notable.Jacona (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
Dear fellow editors,

I am Springnuts, an uninvolved editor. Fwiw I have not previously edited this article, or, afaik, interacted with any involved editors.

The question is – in a nutshell – should Mr Richard "Bigo" Barnett be included in the list of "Notable people".

"Notable" is not a synonym for "famous" (WP:BIO). But notability is not at issue here: notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. What is at issue is whether the person is noteworthy. Given that this person has been added four times and removed four times – and by two different editors – there must at least be doubt about this. Therefore the policy in WP:SOURCELIST is the way forward: “Edits of uncertain quality can be first discussed on the talk page for feedback from other editors”. I therefore commend Johnadams11 for bringing the discussion to the talk page. Here it should stay, at least for the time being. Editors will have to consider Mr Barnett’s due weight in the context of this article. Time (because “this is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news”) will help avoid disproportionality, relative to his overall significance to the article topic.

My 3O is:

1) That I am personally unconvinced Mr Barnett is (certainly as yet) sufficiently noteworthy notable for inclusion on the list of "Notable people".

2) However, this talk page is the right place to seek – over a few weeks or months - consensus that he is, or has become, noteworthy notable.

In summary; my opinion is that Mr Barnett is best left out of the article for the moment; but that the possibility will helpfully be kept open on the talk page to see if a consensus grows that he should be added in.

As an aside, the “Notable people” section might more helpfully be called the “Noteworthy people” section, but perhaps there is a policy on this somewhere, and it is in any case beyond the brief of this 3O.

Springnuts (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow Editors. I must apologise to you all for my complete failure to read in detail the simple guidelines in WP:NOTEWORTHY. If I had read beyond the first few words of the relevant sentence I would have seen that "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)". My conclusion remains unaltered. This in fact makes your task easier: when and if Mr Barnett is felt to be notable he can appear in this list. With renewed apologies for the misleading aspects of my 3O above. Springnuts (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Springnuts for the thoughtful reply. It is edifying to budding editors to understand the distinction between Notability, and Noteworthy. Too often, "Notability" is used as a blunt instrument. to reject otherwise reasonable ideas. To the instant matter, I would propose this standard for our discussion: Is Barnett noteworthy enough to be included in the list of noteworthies from Gravette? Importantly, this suggests a standard, not of noteworthiness generally, but of noteworthiness within the context of this particular list -- the very standard suggested by Springnuts: noteworthy. It stands to reason that a person noteworthy from Gravette, might not be noteworthy in Phoenix, etc. Today, arguably, with the exception of Jake Angeli, Barnett is the most prominent of the January 6th Rioters. And today, from a national, and even global perspective, he is certainly, a by a meaningful margin, and without serious debate, the most well-known resident of Gravette Arkansas.Johnadams11 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest starting with Wikipedia:USCITIES, which reads "To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached. "
This individual has had a draft article rejected as "insufficiently notable". Therefore, I oppose including them in this article at this time. If at some point an article is written, I would certainly agree to inclusion.Jacona (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Richard "Bigo" Barnett

[edit]

We are seeking opinions on the inclusion of January 6th Capitol Rioter Richard "Bigo" Barnett on the list of notable people from Gravette. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Exclude per WP:USCITY "To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached.", per WP:BLP1E, and per WP:BLPCRIME.Jacona (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know the article was deleted, so what. He's still notable for his actions, and the widespread coverage proves it. That photo of him at Pelosi's desk is an iconic and historical photograph that will be recorded in the history books. The insurrection at the Capitol was an extraordinary historical event and sadly, this is his legacy, and he will always be associated with Gravette Arkansas because of it. See our policy WP:IAR as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The broader community has given a clear consensus here and here that the subject matter is not notable. The moment the community agrees on notability, I'll be on board with including it here.Jacona (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By my count the !votes at the above mentioned deletion discussion were 18 for deleting, 1 for keeping.Jacona (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the community wasn't deciding if Barnett should be included as a notable citizen from Gravette, but rather was he a notable subject for a BLP, big difference. The subject of this article is about a city in Arkansas, not a BLP, and per WP:USCITY - having a BLP article is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article - so he doesn't have an article, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not a notable citizen from Gravette Arkansas. There is verifiable evidence that Barnett has received significant attention from multiple sources to support a claim of notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply either because this article is not a BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME is moot as well, as we are not suggesting Barnett has committed a crime. It's been widely reported that he is from Gravette Arkansas. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Isaidnoway, you are both right and wrong at the same time. For inclusion in the article about Gravette, wikipedia notability is not required. However, he's not just being included in an article about Gravette, but in a list of persons who are wikipedia notable. To be included in such a list, the individual must meet the inclusion criteria for notability. That means they could either have an article, or that if an article were to be written, it would likely survive the deletion process. The community has clearly indicated that an article on Barnett does not meet that standard at this time by deleting the article and rejecting an additional draft.Jacona (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia notable says notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people), which applies here, because this is not a stand-alone list, but rather a list/content within this article. Lists of people says that inclusion in lists contained within articles (which is what we are talking about here) should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, which Barnett clearly satisfies with the significant coverage he's received, and continues to receive for being an Arkansas man who gained renown. Good grief, he has more reliable sources that verify supporting his inclusion than the people already listed in this article, which btw, are unsourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the other entries in the list have their own article, and each is clearly sourced to Gravette in that article. Many wikilawyers remove such content, demanding a source in the current article, but I feel that's 1.) a jerk move, and 2.) a violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE, which along with WP:IAR is probably one of the 2 least popular rules among experienced editors. As far as your argument about nlist/listbio/sourcelist, it's not without merit, but it is certainly not the practice that's followed in popular articles. WTAF is clearly the consensus, and if we depart from it, we'll just be sitting around arguing about it with a different set of editors until we do. My guess is that sometime in the future, Barnett will get an article, and if he does, he will be uncontroversially included.Jacona (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - per the WP:USCITY policy cited above. Sure, he gets mentioned in plenty of news coverage, but is he notable enough to be an exception from this rule? I don't really think so, particularly since his notability was discussed and found wanting in different discussions. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - I'm the primary driver of this conversation, so feel free to ignore, but while it's easy to simply assert non-notability, I struggle to understand how this is much more than subjective judgement. Isaidnoway demonstrated the global reach of this man's infamy, and I've made a similar argument here. Johnadams11 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Barnett finds something nearly every day to increase his notoriety. Numerous local media stories. Wire stories. National print media. National broadcast media. If someone added it, he would get an article, and it would not meet deletion criteria. One source line mentioning where he is from is WP:NPOV, WP:V, and not WP:OR. Rklahn (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone did add it, and it did meet deletion criteria. See deletion discussionJacona (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The !vote count was 17 for deletion, 1 for inclusion, so this was an extremely strong consensus that the subject was not notable at that time.Jacona (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to remind everyone, not notable for a BLP article, this article is not a BLP. Just because someone is not notable for a BLP, doesn't automatically mean their not noteworthy enough for inclusion in other articles, like 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, or this one, which reliable sources overwhelmingly describe him as being from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if it were to be a sentence say, in the history section. But it's not. It's in a list of Notables, which means the subject must meet the criteria for inclusion in a list of notables.Jacona (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOURCELIST. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article. So if it's true he meets the criteria for a sentence say, in the history section (text of the article), then he can be added to notable people from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people reads "To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached." When the list in question is a list of notable anything, the entries on that list must be in fact, notable. Just having a reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability.Jacona (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is quite possible that, as 5 weeks have passed, the community's consensus might be different if the article were to be created again. Rather than bucking the overwhelming consensus at AfD by trying to add Barnett to a list of notables when the community has expressly asserted that he is not notable, I would suggest re-creating the article. If the new article survives deletion, no one would oppose it's inclusion in this list as well.Jacona (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The world of Barnett today is very much different than it was on January 11th. Plus, I think we know about some local notoriety that we did not really know about then. Time and energy permitting, I might write at least a stub. Rklahn (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gravette,_Arkansas&oldid=1212032618"