Talk:List of people from Eureka, California

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

Lloyd Bridges[edit]

According to his bio page, Lloyd Bridges graduated from Petaluma High School in Petaluma, CA but this list says he graduated from Eureka high school. The citation listed on his page links to a 1930 yearbook from Petaluma on classmates.com. Should we drop that mention here? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Grant[edit]

I am removing Ulysses S. Grant from this list because he is not from Eureka, CA.

Facts: 1) He was born and raised in Ohio. 2) Ohio is not California. 3) He was sent to Fort Humboldt by the army as part of his job. 4) At the time of his presence in Humboldt County, Eureka was not an incorporated city. 5) He spent 5 months of his 63 years at Fort Humboldt. Rather than staying at Fort Humboldt he literally quit the army.

Analysis: If you get sent to place X for work, you don't become "from" X. If you spend 0.6% of your life in place X, you are not "from" place X. If you were to resurrect Ulysses Grant and ask him if he is a Eurekan, he would say no, he is an Ohioan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.71.98 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the purpose of this page. You can find the relevant guidelines here: Notable people section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. This list is for people who were "born or have lived in Eureka, California." The guideline qualifies "lived" as a "significant amount of time". Significant is has been interpreted as any time greater than a long vacation. Lists like this often include people who have lived in towns for shorter than 5 months. Being stationed at a place is considered to have lived there. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your points 1 through 5 do not negate a positive assertion that he lived in Eureka. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use common sense. This isn't "List of People who entered the city limits of Eureka - or not, maybe they were just around the area of northern California at some point prior to the city even existing". It is a list of people "from" Eureka - meaning they were born and raised there or considered it a home. If other lists of "people from a place" list people that briefly passed through, then they should be corrected because they are also wrong. If you want to follow your guidelines which *you* edit (conflict) I don't think you can realistically argue < 1% of a lifetime is significant. After all, U.S. Grant spent more than 5 months in many states, but it would lose meaning to say he is 'from' Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, Washington D.C., etc. If you want to follow your guidelines, you would have to say "Ulysses S. Grant is from Mexico", which no historian ever would agree with. Even in those guidelines it suggests *not* listing people who went to college in a city because they aren't "from" there, they were just there for a time because they had to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.153.36 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like this is wrong then you should create an account and join the Wikipedia discussion. I've linked to the relevant policy above. Debating with me here will not change that consensus and will only result in your edits being reverted again. As it stands now, consensus of editors is to include such persons who have only lived in a place for a short time. The description clearly states his loose relationship to the town, so there is no confusion. If you persist on this un-constructive edit warring, I will request that this page be semi-protected so only logged in editors may edit the list. I'd prefer not to do that because other anonymous editors would be getting restricted for your unconstructive edits. Please read Wikipedia guidliness and join the discussion. Edit warring gets no one anywhere around here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the placement of Grant on this list is currently disputed on the guidelines page you linked. Therefore there is NOT consensus on his placement here and I have removed him until there is. If you feel this is in error, I suggest making a new page "Contested people from Eureka, CA" on which Grant would be included.
That's not how this works. Insisting on asserting your opinion will not get you what you want here. I strongly encourage you to spend time reading the our policy and edit from your logged in account. Editing from multiple IP addresses creates the appearance of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry; which will also not get you what you want here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh grow up, clearly nobody is hiding who they are, and I know what Wikipedia is about. Hiding behind some obscure guidelines that you yourself made up doesn't cover up for common sense. I get that you have some idea of 'ownership' over this very public and open space, but your opinion does not count for any more than mine. You need to be objective and realize that this inclusion was a mistake, and Ulysses Grant's presence in northern California is nothing more than geographic trivia and absolutely not relevant in understanding of Eureka, CA. There's a very good reason why there's no mention of "Eureka" on Ulysses_S._Grant.Laundrybox (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia. I would ask that you Wikipedia:Assume good faith and not use insults. They will not get you what you want. WP:Notability is not a two way street. One subject's interaction with another subject may only be notable for one of them. Citing a lack of mention on Grant's biography is not a measure of notability for his association with Eureka, CA. Being able to cite consensus on a topic is not WP:OWN, it is simply good practice. As it stands now, three other logged in editors have reverted your deletion of Grant. That is an editing consensus against your opinion. Continuing to assert your opinion will not help you create a new consensus. I applause your efforts to do so on the City guidelines talk page, however, I ask that you refrain from using personal attacks when trying to make your case. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of mention was already determined to be a measure of his association. As I mentioned originally, this issue was already settled, but you refused to accept it and instead forked off this list page and now you're the one citing "consensus" based on multiple IP edits.Laundrybox (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laundrybox, I encourage you to reread your own link; as well as WP:Consensus. Drmis was the only admin to responded to Ellin Beltz request and they clearly stated: "You want to argue for inclusion, then argue. But not here."; "you might have a good case but it's still one to be taken up on the talk page."; "Good luck making your case". Consensus was not reached and Ellin Beltz inclusion effort was even encourage, but the request was that the admin board was not the place to seek consensus on the issue. As the reverts stand now, User:John from Idegon, User:Ellin Beltz and myself have all reverted the deletion. Citing three logged in editors with over 50,000 edits between us is not me "citing "consensus" based on multiple IP edits". I don't cite our combined edit count as an appeal to authority. I only do it to encourage you to take a second look at your position, as multiple experienced editors have now disagreed with your position. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that User:Ellin Beltz gave into reason and ceded the point, something you should consider. Yes I see that entrenched Wikipedia editors abhor any change from the outside, but I'm starting small, my argument is far more sound than yours, and I won't give it up just because you have more edits than me.Laundrybox (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giving up on edit Warring and asking for help is not ceding the point. You have twice now mischaracterized the conclusions of other editors in and effort to make your case. Ellin Beltz position on this is clear and consistent. Suggesting otherwise has not furthered your position. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You act like I started an edit war when you're the one who forked this list and re-added U.S. Grant. You seem truly upset about this, and I'm sorry that being told you're wrong makes you feel bad, but you'll feel better when you realize that no English speaker would say that U.S. Grant is from Eureka, CA when presented with the facts.Laundrybox (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Laundrybox After all this, I'm left wondering why anyone would dispute that Grant was stationed in Eureka or that the Guidelines for pages like this include people who were in a town briefly but which had lasting impression on their life or the town. Since he was stationed in Eureka for about five months and during that time saw something/lived through something or had a dispute with authority significant to give up his military career - which was all he had - that his experience in Eureka was formative. Certainly none of us choose where to be born, yet that is considered significant as is our equally non-chosen death place. Where someone had such a life-changing experience (and one which is documented heavily in dozens of biographies), it certainly rates inclusion on this page. I did not ever "cede this point", in fact I worked to get this separate page made to stop the edit warring on Eureka, California page and to keep that page from being protected, denying productive edits by anonymous editors as pointed out by @Dkriegls above, protection to stop one childish war denies others their rights to edit.
Culturally Grant is recognized by the City which celebrates Grant as one of their homeboys (yes, only 5 months and they think he's "from Eureka"). They have Grant Schools, Grant Streets, Grant stuff at Fort Humboldt and in the museum, and used to have annual "Ulysses S. Grant Days". Thus I suggest that the occupants of the City consider Grant to be "from Eureka." Additionally there is a lot of Grant scholarship unrecognized or ignored by the Wikipedia editors zealously guarding Grant's page; one point of which is that even reading the citation presented, it is obvious the timescale around his service in Eureka in the Wiki article is totally wrong - he's in the wrong places at the wrong times and it completely obscures the reality of his life at this period. Maybe the editors should go back and read their own sources? I made a couple of edits to fix minor points, received nothing but abuse from the possessive Grant editors, and from an anonymous editor and on this topic since, and despite years of study, access to large libraries and extensive local history files, I decided to back away from the U.S. Grant page despite the obvious mistakes. Not because I don't care about the wrongness, but I don't have time to work with editors who can't cooperate in the interest of growth of knowledge. Wiki is to be a cooperative venture, no one "owns" any pages or any topics. I do not however waste my time in unproductive edit warring when there are so many more interesting pages to work on, the 99,000 types of edible algae and other forms of pond scum are always in need of work.
I have not ever nor do I now concede this point. According to the guidelines Mr. Grant is eligible for inclusion on this list and continuing claims that I have backed off are spurious. There are times of course when personal life gets in the way of volunteering; such it has been of late. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for your reference, please see the following:

That's three reliable secondary sources.

Additionally, looking at other areas for guidance... List of people from New York "The following is a list of prominent people who were born in the U.S. State of New York, lived in New York, or for whom New York is a significant part of their identity." List of people from Ohio spotchecked a couple of names and found several who were not born there including Jeffrey Dahmer who lived in Bath, Ohio despite being born in Wisconsin.
There is no substance to the argument that one has to be born somewhere to be "from there," just run through a few states and cities and you'll rapidly see that has no basis on the lists. Also, U.S. President William Henry Harrison died upon serving just one month. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, please read the first post in this topic. No one has ever disputed Grant's service at Fort Humboldt and adding more citations about that fact doesn't change the issue at hand.
This is the big problem: "Culturally Grant is recognized by the City which celebrates Grant as one of their homeboys (yes, only 5 months and they think he's "from Eureka")." There's huge local bias here, and so locals are incapable of being objective. Whereas I actually am objective - I don't live anywhere near Humboldt County nor do I spend my life maintaining lists of people on Wikipedia. I don't really care about U.S. Grant, but I do think it is important to present information as clearly and accurately as possible. I can clearly see that Grant passed through Eureka, one of dozens of towns he passed through, during his incredible life, and that the people of Eureka feel that this is very important local history. However! That doesn't make it okay for 20 or 30 towns to claim him as one of their own. Unless you can show exactly the impact of the City of Eureka on U.S. Grant the man, beyond speculation ("saw something/lived through something"), then it isn't meaningful to the public at large to list him here.Laundrybox (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellin, your evidence is persuasive. Reliable Sources believe Grant to be significantly associated with Eureka. Reliable Sources are our lifeblood here and they take priority over our own (Original Research?) ideas about who is or isn't "from" a place. The current listing explains clearly what the relationship between Grant and Eureka is and isn't, and it is triple-referenced. We aren't talking about 20 or 30 OTHER places that Grant passed through, we are talking about THIS one place where the association is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great points everyone. I'll let it be. For consistency I went ahead and added Grant to Humboldt_County,_California#Notable_natives_and_residents and List_of_people_from_California. Thanks for being so helpful!!!Laundrybox (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also added Grant to a half dozen other cities, as if you were acting out your complaint above, that he might get listed in "dozens of towns he passed through". Nobody here argued in favor of that approach; this discussion was specifically about the Reliable Source evidence that his connection with Eureka was significant. Was this an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously don't know what you're talking about. I'm now in agreement with the Wikipedia editors and guidelines, which is why I added citations for every edit I made, and a perfectly valid argument can be made in each case. I mean, the nice part was that U.S. Grant was already on List_of_people_from_Missouri, Sackets_Harbor,_New_York#Notable_people, and several other lists, so really I'm just helping to round everything out!Laundrybox (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. WikiLove!!!!Laundrybox (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laundrybox, I'll assume good faith and take you at your word that you are "just helping to round everything out". I am however curious as to why you chose to add Grant's name to several pages without mentioning the context of his associations that you worked so hard to emphasize here? Perhaps this was an oversight and I can encourage you to add a few words about that context to each of the pages you added his name to. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference[edit]

The quality of this list is eventually hoped to be at the quality level of List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois which can be used as a style-reference. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people from Eureka, California. 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: 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) 22:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_from_Eureka,_California&oldid=1208280947"