Talk:Bureau County, Illinois

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

Untitled[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?


Please stop removing the cited and documented rename negro creek information. It is cited, documents and there are scores of examples accross Wikipedia in which local issues are noted on the page of the locality

I am seeking a consensus on whether the three year old "negro creek" controversy which has received national attention should be included to expand this page. I hope to hear from others and will wait a reasonable about of time before adding the content, at which time if there is no response,I will assume silence is acceptance and add the content. Cosand (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Since there have been no objections I will add the content and citations Cosand (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, one should never confuse silence with consent. Secondly, I don't think anyone would have an issue with you posting properly cited, unbiased information, but the fact of the matter is, you haven't. Citing your advocacy Facebook page and your website is not a proper citation for a "controversy". As I said in a message to King of Nothing, I agree with you that the name should be changed (though I live 900+ miles away and have no say in the local politics of the area) but researching the topic tells me that a consensus was reached in June of 2012 between a man named Philip Mol (who spearheaded the movement for change) and the opposition leaders to change the name and erect a marker to acknowledge the history of the former name. The way you presented the addition to the article was intentionally misleading and lopsided to promote your agenda. A simple google search of "Negro Creek" brings up an article in the first 6 choices entitled "Debate Over Negro Creek's Name Turns Neighborly". This hardly seems "controversial". In fact, the article points out the compromise and cooperation between the two opposing sides. Further research into this shows that in the last few months, when the new admin of the name change Facebook page became involved in this (I'm assuming you are the admin, as your User name would imply), the vitriol and name calling has become decidedly one-sided (ie: from your side). This was reflected in the article contributions you posted. As I said, if you can contribute FACTS without bias and properly cited, then they will stay on the Bureau County page. Misrepresenting facts will get it deleted again. Also, deleting it from the "Creeks of British Columbia" category was, as stated, because it didn't belong there. Let me know if you need any help with citations or grammar and spelling and I will be more than happy to help.HermesDentist (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to King of Nothing and on his advice, and as advised sought a consensus, you are the only one objecting. I have also added additional citations. Also, your information ion the neighborly nature of the discussion is not current, and a simple click of the oppositions face book page will clearly show your view of the source of hostility is badly skewed, and Mr Mol is in 100% solidarity with the revitalization of the effort. he is fact, asked the current admins to take it over from him.(NOT that this has anything to do with the cited information I posted) Please do more research and get up to date and current and please do not engage in an edit war and let a concussion be established per wikipedia rules Cosand (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting edit, since the original objection was a lack of citation that it was a controversy, and now that I added it, it has been removed(?)...That's ok...I'll take it...thanks to all Cosand (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information cited was for a forum where someone posted a link to an article about the rename movement. That is not a factual citation for controversy. There's no proof that someone from the opposition posted in that forum and it was a biased and superfluous addition to your contribution. You know that. Adding the 1895 race riot article to the Negro Creek section is also not factual as reading the article that you cited informs one that the riot took place in Spring Valley not at the creek. As I suggested, a seperate entry about the Spring Valley labor dispute and riots would be better. Using factual information from the times article. Seriously, not trying to get into an edit war here, just trying to get you to post per the rules and per the warnings of previous admins. HermesDentist (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, if you are happy with the page as is now, so am I, although the connection between the spring valley riots and the name of the creek is indisputable, but I will skip that in order to end this. My main concern is that this information be available to people who view the county page and are interested in it's history as well as current issues. Last time I tried to create a page, it was nominated for quick deletion after (not kidding) less then two full sentences. Were I not a published author, I might have been surprised, so I will leave the creation of a page on the Spring Valley labor dispute to others. If I see it I will be there to TRY to keep it from being over sanitized. I already elaborated with King of Nothing about my issues with Wiki and candy coating and reducing everything to the least cerebral common denominator were two of the biggest, but that in neither here nor there. In any case, I am happy we reached agreement, thanks again Cosand (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bureau County, Illinois. 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, 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) 21:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Bureau Countians[edit]

Not listed among "notable people" from Bureau County is former US Senator Charles Wayland (Curly) Brooks. Brooks's official biography states that he was born in "West Bureau, Illinois", evidently somewhere near Wyanet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added him. Graham87 04:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bureau_County,_Illinois&oldid=1200454002"