Talk:Tuttle, Oklahoma

Trivia

If you have comments, please make them here. If you wish to tender a straw poll vote, please do so at the bottom of this talk page.

WCityMike - The article is about the town. I'm not sure how including a tidbit about the rude personal behavior of someone who happens to be the city manager, fits within the parameters of an encyclopedic article about the town. What's the point of this section? That many bureaucrats are arrogant and/or incompetent employees? Welcome to the world outside your cave!! Gyan 03:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is (I suspect) that outside the fact that the Federal Census knows about this place, 99% of the people who've heard about this place and come here to look it up have heard about it because of that dude and his Emails. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's humorous that the more rational Wikipedian's way of quieting things they don't like is to claim it's non-encyclopedic. The town has entered the public eye as a consequence of the city manager's behavior. An objective, factual recounting of that incident is most certainly encyclopedic. To omit facts because they're not complimentary is the very definition of POV. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The public eye must be squinting awfully hard since there are only two mentions of this "incident" on Google News at the time of this writing. One is at Register.co.uk, the other is at some German site called "ShortNews" which picked it up from the Register. It hasn't made the wires, not to mention, any of the major news outlets. This is less reporting of an event that oriented the public eye onto Tuttle, and more, documenting a juicy odd-story in the hopes of making it news. IOW, the only way this is important is if you make it so. Gyan 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When attempting to determine whether something is worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article, few Wikipedians use as a metric whether major news outlets and newswires have decided to cover the issue. In this case, newswires are hardly going to cover a small town official's dispute with a Linux distribution; it's not exactly the kind of news story Joe Public would be interested in, given that Linux is not a topic of interest to most. That does not mean it is not encyclopedic and does not deserve coverage. Furthermore, you ascribe to me motivations I do not have. It makes your argument weaker when you infuse personal attacks and insinuations into your statements. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you gave was "The town has entered the public eye...". It hasn't. 'Public eye' doesn't correspond to whether the techies at Slashdot know about it. There are hundreds of instances that one could find if one were to diligently dig up similar "incidents" in almost all cities. A general-purpose encyclopedia has to filter its coverage. I've no dog in this fight with regards to eitherthe manager or CentOS, but this is much ado about nothing. Gyan 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the public eye, I didn't mean America as a whole. I meant that it has left the area of a private discussion between two people. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you are not being literal? Everything posted on the public web has left the "area of private discussion". Should we search for all references to Tuttle, OK on Google and include them here? The standards for inclusion should filter in items of broad interest, items of nontransient interest (will this seem out of place in 3 years?), and information that is potentially useful. Problem here is that a paper encyclopedia certainly wouldn't have included this, but the seemingly infinite volume of a web encyclopedia has made the notions of 'encyclopedic' very fluid. This item would fit right in at everything2, but I don't think it has a place at Wikipedia. Gyan 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you attempt to defend your stance and attack mine by virtue of hyperbole and/or a straw man argument. Kindly don't; you come across as a lot more rational when you don't throw hyperbole and insults in your stance. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and its policies specifically state that it is not limited by what a paper encyclopedia will and will not cover (link). The site's official commentary (not policy) on Wikipedia:Notability simply lays out arguments on both our sides, so I am not sure it's helpful in our disagreement. However, Wikipedia's commentary on importance in coverage state: "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" (link). Granted, that is for whether an article should exist or not, but I think it can scale down to the question of information within an article. I think that this tidbit meets that 'importance' requirement. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell have I insulted you?? You are the one throwing out these false allegations. Gyan 22:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Since you insist:

"What's the point of this section? That many bureaucrats are arrogant and/or incompetent employees? Welcome to the world outside your cave!!"
"documenting a juicy odd-story in the hopes of making it news" -- rather insulting of my motivations
"Should we search for all references to Tuttle, OK on Google and include them here?" (this one not an insult, but was my reference to hyperbole)

Could you also please address the policy cites, if you want to go on from here?

— WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence at the end of the first one was a snark, and I apologize for that. The second one wasn't literal, and my next sentence put forward my point: "IOW, the only way this is important is if you make it so." which was a rebuttal of your point that this was inherently noteworthy. The third one was an application of your broad criteria about what constitutes a "public" event. When we move to a subjective standard i.e "that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested", that still hasn't been satisfied since a few thousand eyeballs across the wide internet used by millions doesn't constitute a "public" event. A key indicator would be the net activity around this topic (NOT originated from WP) a month from now. If nothing develops beyond a Fark thread and a few Usenet threads, it doesn't belong here (nontransient interest). Gyan 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the cite on nontransient interest as policy, or is that just your own standard? I don't think nontransient interest is a sensible policy to determine whether something belongs in Wikipedia or not -- nor do I agree that notability necessarily is a function of how many eyes see the news story. Also, see the additional notes below: you had mentioned that you'd concur with the results of a straw poll. Third opinion evidently only involves, but so far on this page, we've got 68.39.174.238, WCityMike, PeteVerdon, and MartinRe all on this page saying "keep it," and only you saying "don't keep it." Are you willing to accept that as straw poll results and concede the point, or do we need to go to the Mediation Cabal, which has the mentioned 2- to 20-day wait time? — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 23:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The straw poll has been up for only a few hours now (on a Sunday). Give it a week. Advertise it at some Wikipedia community forums (I'm not well-versed on these matters) and get good number of eyeballs. Like you mentioned, Notability is not an official policy, but it supports both of our stances. 'Nontransient interest' is my standard, yours is the opposite. Only votes in the official tally below count, which is 2 to 1 right now. Gyan 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should furthermore say that your rejection of the first draft of this language written by another was understandable. That language demonstrated a considerable bias and point of view. Your desire to not have any coverage of the fact, even material neutrally written, whatsoever reflects a point of view in and of itself, one much less understandable or commendable. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to have coverage also reflects a PoV. There's no such thing as 'objectivity', only points with different degrees of agreement. Gyan 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as objectivity? An interesting philosophy for a Wikipedian. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Gyan, where do you want to go from here? I'm firmly of the opinion it's encyclopedic and should remain in the article. You hold an opposing view. Articles on dispute resolution on Wikipedia suggest that we try to resolve it between ourselves, and if not possible, seek mediation. Shall we? — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put it up for a public vote somewhere? If so, I can accept those results. Gyan 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of information, I have heard of Tuttle - and came to this page - solely because of the incident in question. You're right that it's not something that's newsworthy in general media, but that applies to plenty of other things in Wikipedia. The current wording seems objective enough to me. PeteVerdon 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Third Opinion -- trying to represent our disagreement as fairly as possible there -- and asked for comment here, and set up a format for a straw poll at the bottom. Cool? — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan, it looks like I misunderstood Wikipedia:Third Opinion — the third opinion is only for a site requesting a tie-breaker vote between two dissenting Wikipedians, not requesting a full straw poll vote. Still, everyone else who's voiced an opinion on this page has expressed an opinion to keep it here. Are you willing to concede, or do we need to continue? As far as my research yields, it looks like the next step would be mediation, but their page indicates a 2- to 20-day backlog. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll vote: should this article make mention of the incident between the city manager and the CentOS development team? Please vote keep if you believe the reference should be kept, or remove if you believe the reference should be removed. Please sign your vote by including four tildes after your vote.

Keep, for reasons stated above. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Two issues here. Does this belong at WP, at all? Maybe, although case for that is weak, IMHO. This was a private discussion made public by one of the (grieved) parties, and wasn't a public event. It's a very, very minor dispute in terms of scale & impact. Not even the local paper (Tuttle Times) has mentioned it. Second, if it belongs here, should it belong in this article about the town? No. If a pattern of incompetence was revealed among Tuttle authorities, that would be noteworthy. An individual instance should not be made to reflect on the town, unless the impact was significant, which it wasn't. If it belongs here, it belongs as an illustration in an article about bureaucratic incompetence and/or technological illiteracy. Gyan 22:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As WP:3O (see below) The impact wasn't significant, yes, but that's why it's under trivia, and not in the main sections. MartinRe 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that this wont count, I suggest it be kept since (As has probably been discussed above) beyond the fact that exists, this is probably its claim to fame and notability. 68.39.174.238 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jerry Taylor invoked his official title when threatening Johnny Hughes, it's official town business. It's really frightening and amazing official town business, but official town business none the less. Should Jerry Taylor do this to some other company that can actually afford lawyers, Mr. Taylor's town might find itself having to indemnify itself for the obnoxious and unprofessional behavior of its manager. I, for one, would really enjoy having the complete history on line should Mr. Taylor hit the jackpot in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.63.203 (talk • contribs) 01:27, March 26, 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is going to be something that many people will reference in the future. Perhaps the original emails should be here also. Jspr 05:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, Mr Taylor is now as much a claim to fame for Tuttle as whichever football star I've never heard of came from there. The mention must be kept proportionate, though, and not grow to dominate the article. The "original emails" definitely do not belong here. PeteVerdon 10:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only reason why I looked up Tuttle, OK was because of the Register article. I agree with PeteVerdon; links to the emails is enough. Dflanagan 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, for god's sake, as per Gyan. This is a funny but unbelievably minor occurance (and yes, it is why I looked up the city) that just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It will be forgotten in a week. If you want, create an article for city manager Jerry A. Taylor, include the issue there, and see how long that lasts before it goes to AfD. And no, I am not from Tuttle :-) -- Blorg 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This hit Slashdot, so its noteriety is assured. Florence, Oregon has to live with its exploding whale, so Tuttle, OK shall have to live with its exploding Mr. Taylor. VonWoland 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]