Talk:Indiana/Archive 2

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the education section of the page:

"Indiana ranked 22nd in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 75.7 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

Indiana posted a C-plus in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 29th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Indiana received a mark of C-minus and finished 31st for School Finance. It ranked eighth with a grade of C on the K-12 Achievement Index."

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: ^[1] Csmithepe (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

•  Not done This belongs in Education in Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense here, John from Idegon, but I don't see a separate Education in Indiana page. I was hoping this text would be added to the Education section of the Indiana page as there is other information there about Indiana's K-12 public school system. Csmithepe (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

• ah, there isn't. Still oppose, based on WP:NOT and the fact that you're trying to wedge as many links to your employers website as possible into the encyclopedia which reeks of SEO. John from Idegon (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, I would disagree with this response. According to our policy, we must assume Csmithepe is acting in good faith. In that matter, I do not think accusing them of trying to engage in SEO-manipulation is the correct course of action. Please {{ping}} response –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

MJL, whereas you are entitled to your opinion, I don't care. Paid editors lose any assumption of good faith as soon as they show up here to edit. I do not need to assume...if they are here representing their employer's interest, they are NOT editing in good faith. If you have a problem with my behavior, feel free to report my actions at a noticeboard. That will be good for a laugh. Also, there is absolutely no need to ping any editor twice in the same edit. Now, do you have anything to offer on the substantive arguements here, or are you simply here wasting everybody's time by trying to force your view of proper etiquette on others? John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I wasn't aware that edit summaries ping users as well; no matter. Being mean to any user (paid or otherwise) is indefensible. We are here representing Wikipedia for whatever it is worth. We should not give anyone the impression that we are unwelcoming when they are making all attempts to simply follow our rules. There is no provision of Wikipedia:Assume good faith that makes it null for paid editors. Simply put: this user has done nothing wrong and does not deserve such treatment. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And just so I am perfectly understood, citing WP:NOT with no context is not a valid arguement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• • • MJL, please stick your royal "we". You do not now, nor will you ever speak for me. I am not here to be an ambassador for Wikipedia. I and most editors are here to provide the neutral and accurate encyclopedia our readers expect and deserve. The notion of Wikipedia as a social constraint is completely unworkable, and has been for most of this decade. I'm going to tell you this no more times: If you have a problem with my behavior, take me to a notice board. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, shut your mouth. Got it? John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now).

The good: The source, Education Week, appears to be legit and is a publication owned by a non-profit organization. The original report, "Quality Counts 2018", can be found on the ERIC, which is a database run by the US Department of Education. So the report itself is legit as well.

Doing a search for "Education Week" + "Quality Counts 2018" brings up numerous links which would be better sources, for example:

local news - CT, NM, IA, ID, FL, plus many more - however, nothing from Indiana so far

educational org's - NJ, NISL

state gov's - WY, MD, plus many more

national sources - USA Today (Wyoming); searching w/o year brings up this article from The Atlantic (2016)

The not-so-good: However, while this is not a criticism per se, looking at your/Csmithepe's edit history indicates that using the suggested link (i.e. the one to the Education Week website) for every US state's WP page would indeed result in many links to that website from Wikipedia (WP), thus John from Idegon's understandable concerns RE: SEO.

Other thoughts: I do think OP is acting in good faith because they have been very open about their COI, rather than trying to conceal it.

Suggested resolution: I would suggest finding and using sources similar to the ones I listed above, rather than linking to the Education Week website itself. The best sources would be large national publications like The New York Times or The Washington Post, which would likely cover many/all states, and could be used on virtually/all the states' WP pages. But state-specific reliable sources would be fine as well. Perhaps these sources could be used in combination with the Education Week link (however the EW link should not be used alone). The 2018 EW report is somewhat recent, so it may take awhile to find and use these sources, but doing so should allay concerns about COI/SEO.

Best of luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! :) Big universe (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Indianapolis-1872528.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect INdiana. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indana. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This section is a vast link farm, one of the worst I've seen. I'm wondering if it's just best to close eyes, delete the whole thing, and start over. External links for a state should be items of broad interest and have general applicability to the article. A few official government websites and scholarly websites might be a suitable new start.Sbalfour (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed the vast majority, leaving only what I considered the most vital. Let me know what you think, but I'm fairly happy with the remaining links. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Indiana Dunes State Park 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An editor just now deleted information on Columbus, Ind.'s population increase, information that comes from the 2010 census, a most authoritative source. Go to this site to see the 2000 to 2010 increase in population in Columbus: Columbus,_Indiana#Demographics Dogru144 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the Columbus info is that the cited source for that sentence does not mention Columbus at all. That source was published in 2008, so it obviously cannot support any claim involving 2010. It's certainly not improper to removed statistics that have no source specified. Also, the ref you are suggesting be used is apparently to the Columbus, Indiana, Wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. That's not to say that the sentence doesn't need to be updated since it's more than 10 years old. What needs to be done is find a current source for population growth from, for instance, 2010 to 2019, update all the cities mentioned, and cite that source explicitly. And of course, the 2020 census figures will be released soon, so 2010 to 2020 growth figures could be used then. Indyguy (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference to the term "ethnic cleansing" was removed with a comment that it lacked a citation. I have re-added the term "ethnic cleansing" along with a citation for clarity. Wyattgclarke (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The articles' story about the sources of the original American immigrants to northern, central and southern Indiana explains something that I have noticed. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois each have three layers related to Great Lakes, Highway 40 and Ohio River. Evansville and Jeffersonville built ocean going LSTs for WW2. 100.16.232.162 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rconnor001. Peer reviewers: Rconnor001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The politics section should note that Eugene Debs ran for president from 1900 - 1920. 76.176.238.151 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Indiana has some of the highest infant mortality rates in the country.

Indiana has some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation.

Indiana does not offer paid family leave.

Indiana’s firearm mortality rate is almost double the rate of California according to the CDC. SoCalGoetz (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Per the Governor of California, although this would probably qualify more as "health and welfare" than culture SoCalGoetz (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the Governor of California's comments on Indiana are relevant. Can you imagine if the California or Texas articles were full of the things people say about them? Canute (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Yes; one must be careful here. But when their politicians claim that Indiana is "among the most pro-life States in the Nation," when given NEARLY EVERY QUANTIFIABLE METRIC that is most clearly NOT the case SoCalGoetz (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This article does not mention the term "pro-life" nor Indiana abortion laws. Maybe this topic would fit better in Abortion law in the United States by state? Canute (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

However the avenue for addressing that may be different than doing so on here SoCalGoetz (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this link ok? I am trying to add it to reference Indiana's size based off other countries. Thanks, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think nationsonline.org is spam, but I'm not sure that it counts as a reliable source. Their "sources of information" page lists Wikipedia, meaning we might end up relying on wrong information that originated here on Wikipedia.

Having said that, in my opinion you don't need to directly source the "about the same size as Portugal" text. We already have an article about Portugal which has sourced information about its area, so I think we could just link to that; "similar in area to Portugal."

Some might argue that this would be a violation of WP:SYNTH but I would suggest that it is de minimis, in line with WP:CALC, and anyway SYNTH says "SYNTH is not a rigid rule."

Thparkth (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit is subjective and unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is also meaningless trivia. Few readers of Indiana will know or care how big Portugal is, and none will gain any useful insight from this addition. General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with both Magnolia677 and General Ization. --IndyNotes (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll stop adding it now that I've actually gotten a response to this, the only reason I re-added it earlier was because I hadn't gotten one. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Etymology? or Toponymy?

Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Osomite Sorry, I didn't see this post before I made a change. The regular use is Etymology. See MOS:ALTNAME. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. I carefully read ALTNAME.; however, I don't see how you indicating that "The regular use is Etymology. See MOS:ALTNAME." addresses my concerns about the use Etymology rather than Toponymy? "ALTNAME" rule/guidance is about the title of an article. ALTNAME is not provide guidance applicable to the naming of an article's section. Reading it correctly it does not mention "an article's section naming".

From Wikipedia's article on "Toponymy":

Etymologically, toponymy's meaning is "place name". . ."Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types. Toponym is the general term for a proper name of any geographical feature. A reference for this article is entitled "Place Name Etymology: Common Elements in Danish Place Names".

Seems that using just "etymology" as a section title is not correct when the section is about discussing and identifying "place names". Perhaps the correct title for such a section would be "Toponymy -Place Name Etymology".

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"toponymy is a taxonomic study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information. A place-name is a word or words used to indicate, denote, or identify a geographic locality such as a town, river, or mountain."

Toponymy uses Etymology. I don't see how Etymology is an equivalent "replacement" for Toponymy.

So my cognitive dissonance about this issue remains. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a section entitled "‎Etymology" on the Indiana page which discusses where the name for the state originated. The title of this section is incorrect.

The term for the study of place names (like the name for a state) is "Toponymy". By definition, toponymy involves the study of place names.

Whereas, etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It is the science involved in studying the history of a word or phrase shown by tracing its development and relationships. To claim that etymology involves the naming of a place is not correct.

Toponymy and etymology are related. Toponymy is the study of place names, their origins, meanings, usage, and types. Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words. Toponymy is a branch of onomastics, the study of proper names of all kinds. Etymology is one of the aspects of toponymy, as it deals with the linguistic evolution of place names.

Clearly "toponymy" is the appropriate word for the section.

I make this statement as @Reywas92: reverted my edit that changed the section title from "Toponymy" to "Etymology". Reywas92's edit summary cites as the reason: "Wait until you find out about List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States and that practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses "Etymology" for this section! It's not inaccurate at all, they're related."

Well, "I found out about the Wikipedia page List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States is not a convincing argument for changing "Toponymy" to "Etymology". I believe the use of the word "Etymology" in that instance is also incorrect. And the argument that "Practically every state/city/other place articles on Wikipedia uses Etymology" is highly doubtful and provides no support for making the edit.

Reywas92 also edited the Tonopah, Nevada page changing a long-standing section name of "Toponymy and Pronunciation" to "Etymology and Pronunciation" with the edit summary of "the unnecessary pedantry, etymology is still perfectly accurate". I believe this change to also be incorrect.

Reywas92 cites "Pedantry"? Really. Pedantry is excessive concern with minor details. So Reywas92 being pedantic is a reason to pedantically make an edit that is a mistake.

If Reywas92 is unable to provide a more cogent reason for making this "etymology" edit, I will be reverting it to the more correct "toponymy".

Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 22:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A careful reading of the section currently entitled "Etymology" reveals that the entire section except for the last paragraph strictly concerns how the state obtained the name "Indiana". This process is called "Toponymy".

The title "Etymology" is not correct and needs to be revised to "Toponymy" which reflects the content of the section except for the last paragraph.

The last paragraph, which uses the word "etymology" concerns the "Etymology" of "Hoosier" which is the official demonym for the people of the U.S. state of Indiana. This information should be in its own section entitled "Etymology of Hoosier".

The following provides additional information which supports the renaming of the section from "Etymology" to "Toponymy"

Toponymy and etymology are related but not identical fields of study.

Toponymy focuses on the names of places and their meanings, origins, and uses in different contexts. It examines other aspects of place names, such as their cultural, political, social, and geographical significance, their variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects, their usage in literature and media, their relation to other place names, etc.

Etymology is the study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time. It focuses on an analysis of words involving the origin and the history of a word's changes over time. It involves the use of semantics and the word's variations and adaptations in different languages and dialects have evolved over time.

Sometimes toponymy can use etymology to explain how a place name came to be or how it changed over time. For example, the name London may have originated from a pre-Celtic word meaning ‘place at the navigable or unfordable river’, but it was later Latinised as Londinium by the Romans, then Anglicised as Lunden by the Anglo-Saxons, then influenced by French as Londres by the Normans, and so on. Etymology can help trace these changes and influences and show how the word evolved over time.

Although toponymy and etymology have some relationship. Toponymy can be done in its entirety without the need for the use of etymology. In this section that is the case, its content is purely a study involving toponymy without any support from the study of etymology.

In conclusion, this discussion supports the contention that the section currently labeled "Etymology" is mislabeled and should be renamed to "Toponymy". Additionally, the last paragraph which is an etymology of the word "Hoosier", should be removed from the toponymy section and created as a new section "Etymology of Hoosier"

Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Why begin here, on Indiana? Do you plan to make this case elsewhere? California? Texas? Massachusetts? Jaireeodell (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Osomite: You're tilting at windmills here , and your argument is largely pedantic. Are you right? Probably. Does anyone care? Absolutely not. Most readers of Wikipedia will understand the heading "Etymology" to mean "where did this place name come from?" Most readers of Wikipedia seeing a heading called "Toponymy" will scratch their head and say "huh?" Heck, my browser doesn't even recognize the word and marks it as a spelling error. I seriously doubt you're going to find a lot of support for this proposal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't add any substance to the discussion concerning Toponymy, toponymics, or toponomastics is the study of toponyms (proper names of places, also known as place names and geographic names), including their origins, meanings, usage and types.

Would you please stay on subject rather than making a sarcastic commment. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the section at Saint Petersburg you had changed is reasonable because it discussed the history of the place's changing names. In this case it discusses the origin of the name, which is still in fact etymology. I especially oppose your making of a separate one-paragraph section for "Hoosier". If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time because most major cities and states do have such a section that may inlude both the name derivation and a description of its usage. Reywas92^Talk 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the broad use of "etymology" across geographic entries, isn't there a better place to discuss this? I think I understand the point that @Osomite is making. I also appreciate @Reyswas92's practicality--"etymology" is commonly used, even if it's less precise. It may be worth noting that the The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford UP) refers regularly to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymology. On the other hand, etymology is described as the leading method for toponymy by Tent and Rose-Redwood, et al. make a pretty good case that the study of place names should involve a variety of other methods as well. I still prefer the common use or perhaps even something less technical for these headers--like "Origin of name." -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You accuse: "If this is your crusade, don't try to wage it one page at at time"? "Crusade"? Seriously. Are you trying to frame my efforts about helping make Wikipedia correct and accurate with some allegorical characterization or do you, in your view, mean it literally? A crusade is a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change. Seriously?

A "crusade"? Merde, I am editing Wikipedia "one page at a time" (How else do you do it?). What do you call what you do, "A crusade"? Maybe so. . .

Visa via the definition of "crusade", it becomes quite apparent that Wikipedia has become it own societal religion. It manifests itself in the need for the editor society to control content that is disagreeable and demand that heretics are punished.

It amazes me that the first "tool" the editor society uses is to attack what they disagree with and/or what is not well understood. Where is the Wikipedia tenant of collegiality? Collegiality, "cooperation between colleagues who share responsibility." It's working together to find a solution rather than to attack mainly based upon opinion and few facts or logical discourse.

And about "don't try to wage it one page at at time".

Oh? Exactly what are you proposing? Don't do it at all? Stop?

I image that would satisfy you.

. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 20:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also support "Etymology" as the heading. By comparison, on James (given name) the section is Etymology and not Anthroponymy. Etymology is a word we can assume readers will know, and toponymy is not such a word. Also, as Jaireeodell points out, it is grammatical to refer to a toponym's etymology ... not a toponym's toponymology Walt Yoder (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Seriously Walt, that is not a logical argument. It is laughable.

  You think it is not appropriate to use words that people are unfamiliar with in Wikipedia articles. I think you miss the point of the purpose of Wikipedia and what you are supposed to be facilitating.

  From the Wikipedia article Encyclopedia:

  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us,

  To not use "toponym" because it is unfamiliar, that is defeating the purpose of the the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

  What do you think your efforts as an editor is supposed to achieve? Limiting the acceptable vocabulary words in Wikipedia? Gate Keeping to prevent words that you don't understand from being used?

  I would really like to know.

  PS I have tried hard not to use any words in my post that would be unfamiliar to you. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:ALTNAME, If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". I have to add that I saw this discussion today, after making a change in the relevant section in a previous day. Apologies. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)