Talk:Withrow, Minnesota

Withrow, Minnesota (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 9 February 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Peer review exists for reviewers to make suggestions, not alterations Magnolia677; it is up to the editor who put the article up for review to either make changes or otherwise respond to the suggestions if they feel no changes should be made. There are users on Wikipedia who only do peer review (or GA review or FA review). If you are unfamiliar with the process, then I suggest you check other articles that have been peer reviewed before you go about doing this. I invited you here as a friendly gesture to participate in this process, not to gut another article. Don't start another edit war.

Also, I have always had a separate section of Harvard referenced sources (books) apart from the reflist. Why did you remove this? And, I am curious to know what your personal definition of a ghost town is since there is no consensual definition as I pointed out to you on your personal talk page. DrGregMN (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrGregMN: You wrote:

"it is up to the editor who put the article up for review to either make changes or otherwise respond to the suggestions if they feel no changes should be made."

Then why does the template on this very page say: "Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article." You are mistaken. Anyone can edit any article.

I have always had a separate section of Harvard referenced sources (books) apart from the reflist. Why did you remove this?

See MOS:FNNR.

"I am curious to know what your personal definition of a ghost town is"

Withrow isn't a ghost town. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I was kind enough to ask you to participate in the process. Please make your suggestions on the Peer Review page to be considered in the future (which given your history is unlikely). Taking a comprehensive encyclopedic article and reducing it to newspaper fodder does not help with the retention of any Wikipedia editor. And what a great answer, "Withrow is not a ghost town." Instead of trying to reach consensus on the definition of what a ghost town is (you are a member of WikiProject Ghost towns after all), you have no back-up support for your answer. Or is it just ignorance? Since Withrow in a certain sense still exists, then all relevant information to date should be included in this article.

I am learning quite a bit about you just from having to deal with you: extending the olive branch by inviting you to participate in peer review (and to leave the copyediting to Jonesey95), you instead gut yet another article, one that was just beginning to make it's way through the review process. Its clear you don't listen: you're a controlling individual who wants to do everything your way and to have everything your way. DrGregMN (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some petty insults from DrGregMN's comment above per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL (though I'm aware of WP:RPA). They have retired and are unlikely to return to strike them. The talk page is not for hosting long insults wrapped in armchair psychology. No opinion on the article dispute. Ajpolino (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

This excerpt below was part of the history section of the article before clean up. I'm of the mind that it's important to include indigenous history to US places, including ghost towns or small settlements for historical context. I was unable to verify the citations, and I'm hoping someone watching this article might have access to library sources to check, and that some of the content might be useable if there is consensus for that.

The ancient inhabitants of Washington County, generally known as the Mound Builders, left numerous traces of their existence in the county and in the vicinity of Withrow. Whether the Mound Builders were of the same race as other indigenous peoples is a subject of debate, but it is evident that their mode of life was different from the great majority of Native Americans existing in the United States at the time of white settlement.^[1] The Dakota and Ojibwe people inhabited the area when the first white people arrived during the late 1600s and early 1700s. The Mdewakanton Sioux, one of the tribes of the Sioux nation, inhabited the area of Washington County around Withrow; this tribe was divided into several smaller bands, each with its own chiefs, including the locally familiar names Little Crow, Wabasha, and Shakopee.^[2]

Netherzone (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove the second paragraph moved here because it was either copyright violation, or so closely paraphrased to the two archived sources, that it should not be added back. It's still in history, tho. Netherzone (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about copyvivo is that it can easily be reworded so its not. This would be a normal part of the peer review process. Thanks, Netherzone DrGregMN (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]