Talk:Bowdon, Georgia

Famous People

"Bowdon is home to many famous people, such as 'Nick Jones'"?? Is this appropriate? 1. It's unsourced. 2. Is Nick Jones really famous, and did he actually play for the Seahawks? Yes, he was on the roster, but this just doesn't feel entirely honest. Katiedert (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

His home location is on his wiki page. I created a famous people section, if anyone has a wiki page they can be added to a famous people section. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

History

. . .

Bowdon Municipal Court changed its some of its practices in 2015 after Judge Richard A. Diment was shown in recordings demanding payment in exchange for avoiding jail.

^ How is this a significant piece of Bowdon's history? Changes in court procedures occur frequently in many cities, and, until now, without noting them on the cities' Wikipedia pages. This would be like adding that the Bowdon High cafeteria stopped serving Ms. Edna's chicken fried steak, except that might actually be more significant. The linked story wrongly (and almost entirely without foundation) mangles reality to embarrass a man who is practically a volunteer judge in Bowdon, and who is uniformly respected for his kindness and empathy. The article was followed up with another, more even-handed (though still shoddy) piece last week that shed a bit more light on the situation (and made even more clear how insignificant this tidbit is to Bowdon's history. Furthermore, the statement that the judge "demand[ed] payment in order for avoiding jail" is libelous and false, even based on the language of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.220.211 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet, it is sourced. The change in court procedure is due to an unusual event. Now, if Ms. Edna's chicken made a bunch of people sick, and that showed up in the news, and made Ms. Edna's chicken banned, recalled, or otherwise prohibited, it would also be notable. Same here; Wikipedia doesn't remove things just because they present someone or something in a negative light. Wikipedia reports sourced content, which is what we have here. Scr★pIron^IV 13:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand an argument that something's not being sourced would prevent it from inclusion, but I don't think that something's being sourced means that it necessarily deserves to be included. I also don't think an inaccurate sentence deserves to be on the page in any event. Wikipedia aims to be inaccurate, not an aggregation of false citable news stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.220.211 (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The information presented in this section is of historical and social significance to the town. It has also received follow-up coverage in the New York Times. For a town, it is a notable event that has only been expanded at the insistence of those who would claim otherwise. Multiple attempts to misinform, by willfully misrepresenting the content of the article in the follow up article, does not establish a consensus to remove it. And those who have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest should definitely be staying away from the Wikipedia page. Scr★pIron^IV 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"The information presented in this section is of historical and social significance to the town."

Wow, this is simply a conclusion with no supporting evidence. To the contrary, petty and false allegations against a judge holding traffic court once a month are not significant to any town, especially when the allegations are supported only by hearsay and the falsity of the allegations has been illuminated so clearly.

"It has also received follow-up coverage in the New York Times."

The primary purpose of the follow-up coverage was to demonstrate how off-base the original story was, how insignificant this issue is to Bowdon, and that the target of the libelous sentence you are defending is a moral pillar of his community!

"For a town, it is a notable event that has only been expanded at the insistence of those who would claim otherwise."

This is difficult to understand; are you are suggesting that someone's attempt to mitigate the potential damage caused by the insignificant sentence you are defending is somehow evidence of its significance?

"Multiple attempts to misinform, by willfully misrepresenting the content of the article in the follow up article, does not establish a consensus to remove it."

Please elaborate on these attempts to misinform by willfully misrepresenting the content of the article in the follow up article. I honestly don't understand the last half of that sentence, but the only portion of the Wikipedia page that contains material misrepresentations is the portion you are defending. And what does make a consensus? There are two people (me and the person that added the other material) that disagree with the inclusion of the material, and only one (you) that for some reason believes it warrants inclusion. I have provided ample justification for its removal and will provide more.

"And those who have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest should definitely be staying away from the Wikipedia page."

I agree that you, with your relentless desire to add insult to this judge's injury stemming from the libelous article, should avoid any further involvement with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.220.211 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a single source has been provided that refutes the sources presented for the two sentences in the article. Initially, it was just one sentence, but was expanded by the IP. Is the New York Times not a good enough source for a sentence in Wikipedia? I desire to "add insult to injury" by restoring blanked content? I added neither of the sentences to the article, although I did restore one, and correct misrepresentation in the second. So, if you have a source for your statements that it is hearsay, false, and libelous. Provide a source to refute The New York Times, The Daily Mail, CBS News, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The ABA Journal, and others? There is so much information on this that perhaps it deserves its own article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

First, this is the video to which the first sentence refers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNgFq6i73pw. Please refer to 1:49 seconds in the video, at which time the words “EDITED BY Yousur Alhlou” appear. Thus, it was not false for the other user to add that it was an "edited" recording. And your removal of that word was a mistake and a violation of Wikipedia rules.

Further, the phrase you added, “Judge Diment claimed that the video was edited…” is false and unsupported by any citation. Please refer to the second New York Times article and tell me where in that article Mr. Diment claims the video was edited. He doesn’t. Your addition of that false statement further demonstrates your bias here; it appears your desire to control the content on this page outweighs your desire to ensure that what is said on this page is accurate.

I therefore must ask that you refrain from introducing incorrect information into articles, as you did to this one. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information was correct, please cite the reference or source or discuss the changes on the article’s talk page before making them again.

Additionally, despite your conclusory claim, the second sentence that was added by another user did not contain misrepresentations. You have yet to explain the falsity of the sentence, “Later, in an article published in the New York Times, Mr. Diment was described as a proponent of civil rights.” That sentence is not false. If you are going to continue to assert that it is, please offer supporting evidence for your assertion.

Last, the articles in The Daily Mail, CBS News, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The ABA Journal are simply summaries the New York Times article. Thus, your pointing to these articles (where the authors merely regurgitated what was stated in the New York Times article) as evidence that the New York Times article is factual is nonsensical. I cannot immediately provide a source to clarify this story, but I will. It is unfortunate that the New York Times published their shoddy article without confirming any of the material they present as fact. They primarily rely on an edited video, which can hardly be considered investigative journalism.

Judge Diment has been quoted as saying he has never jailed anyone for failing to pay a fine. His words printed in the NYT article are just as much of a source as any of the others in the article and should be treated as such. Unless you want to add the words “Ms. Shaila Dewan claimed” at the beginning of the first sentence, please remove the phrase “Judge Diment claimed” in the second sentence.

I am asking that you step back and look at this rationally. I know you feel that I am trying to fill this page with false information. That is simply not the case. If anything, I am trying to ensure accuracy. In return, I would appreciate it if you would first present supportive, logical explanations on this talk page regarding your disagreement with something that has been posted, before modifying or deleting parts of sentences that are accurate, albeit not exactly how you would have worded them yourself. Most importantly, I insist that you do not add again the blatantly false accusation that Judge Diment claimed in the New York Times article that the video was edited. Thank you.

Also, this information is still insignificant (and for a number of reasons, inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia), and when I have some time, I will further discuss why that is the case and will continue to push to have it removed from this page altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.220.211 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

YouTube is not a WP:RS for that information, at best, it is unsourced WP:PRIMARY evidence. The only mention in the second article that the video was edited was by Diment himself: “I am not the ogre that that edited video is making me out to be.”

Anyone can say anything they wish about themselves; the judge's claim that he had never jailed anyone was not verified by any secondary source. Again, from the article: "In an interview, the judge said he had never actually jailed anyone for failing to come up with money." He made the claim, no indication whether that claim is true or false.

The fact that he was described as a proponent of civil rights is true; however, it is important to note - particularly in this case - who made the statement. Was it a famous civil rights leader? An civil rights organization? Nope, it was just his daughter rushing to defend her father like a good little girl. Leaving that tidbit out is a special bias all its own.

Wikipedia lives on sources, and what the sources actually say. This event will be added shortly to the Debtors' Prison article, as a modern example. It looks like the event itself needs to have a unique article created for it, given it meets all of the WP:GNG criteria, including international coverage.

You have yet to provide any source whatsoever alleging that the statements in the two sentences included in this article are false. All I see are arguments unsupported by facts. Scr★pIron^IV 22:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bowdon, Georgia. 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/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• 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) 18:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)