User talk:Jbholes

Hello Jbholes , I hope you are having a good dya so far, I recently saw you deleted a recent edit of mine and wanted to discuss the edit with you. Below are points I have made that address the issues you had with my edit:

“The historical account here largely repeats information already on the page and is not really about etymology, nor is the subsection for Definition”

I noticed this issue and have edited the Etymology sub-section I originally wrote so that this is not an issue , if you still see the repeated information please point it out. Also the opening sentence / paragraph that explains the name of the city and its origins … is an etymology .. The rest of the information in the subsection builds on that and how the name origin, land origin, etc  of the area goes (slightly) beyond the city of Manassas official boundaries

“promotional and largely provides new information on surrounding areas rather than the city of Manassas”

Not sure what you thought I was trying to promote , I changed up the wording so there isn't as much PR-like eye roll-y mushy talk but again , I never got this impression from my original. Also the newer version explains the relevance of bringing up these communities as they are literally just outside the city's borders , share the same address , transportation infrastructure , etc.

“The part of this edit that does explain the etymology also seems to be unsupported and perhaps even contradicted by its own citation to a local historical marker”

All the information presented is backed by reliable sources which can be checked. The information isn't exactly copied due to plagiarism/ rules of citation but no information is here if made up or “unsupported” / “contradictory”. I have restored my edit . If you go back and still have an issue with my edit please respond back to the talk page so we can discuss the edit . Thank you for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I do think that the more recent version addresses some of the concerns that I had. I apologize if my original message was vague, as we're limited to 500 characters to explain an edit. I'll try to be a little more clear here, as I do think that some of the issues remain:

• While the first paragraph does provide some information about the origin of the name (i.e. Etymology), the only included citation is to an historical marker that says that it may have come from "Manasseh, a Jewish innkeeper at Manassas Gap (35 miles west)". It does not say that it may derive from Manasseh of Judah, or any other biblical figure. This assertion is not only unsupported by the citation, it is explicitly contradicted by it, as the marker indicates that the name originates from either the innkeeper or "from an Indian source"--it provides no third option.
• Further, the historical marker simply says the name may be "from an Indian source", and does not indicate anything as specific as it coming from a specific word (e.g. "Manas"). While this assertion isn't necessarily contradicted by the citation, it isn't supported by it either, and no other citation was included to support it. You did indicate that "All the information presented is backed by reliable sources which can be checked", but you need to cite those sources in the article (Wikipedia:Citing sources). As it is, the assertion you're making here appears to be unsubstantiated.
• It doesn't appear to be common to have a top-level Etymology section on a City page. If the other issues with the information provided can be resolved, it may be worth including this under History instead?
• In regards to the second paragraph, it does not have anything at all to do with Etymology. When I used the word "promotional", I was largely referring to the tone of the text (which it sounds like you understood). I agree that your new version is an improvement, although some of that tone remains (e.g. "While small in size, Manassas plays a central role in the region", "regional importance which has been well documented"). I think it would be well served by simply stating the facts formally (wikipedia:writing_better_articles#Tone), without elaborating or editorializing.
• The reference to Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV is a bit redundant with last sentence of the leading section to this article.
• I do agree that much of the information provided in that second paragraph is useful, but I think that it may belong in a different section, perhaps under Geography? I do not think that the information provided in that paragraph has anything at all to do with the origin of the city's name
• Having said that, although I don't think any of the information you're providing in that paragraph is likely to be challenged (unlike the first paragraph), the included citations don't seem to provide the information you're stating either.

Hopefully you find this feedback helpful. Jbholes (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jbholes, I noticed your deletion of the etymology section again. An etymology (in this case) serves as a deeper analysis into the name origin an area of land has carried. Just because it’s referenced/ briefly brought up in another section does not mean it’s been covered or can’t have been put into greater detail elsewhere You deleting the etymology and saying “Infrastructure section already explain that Manassas takes its name from the Manassas Gap Railroad” proves why an etymology section is needed. Where do you think “Manassas Gap Railroad” got its name from? That railroad name is just a product of the areas name origin, not the cause for it. The information you deleted and more specifically HMDB source I used explain that  so im not sure where the contradiction claim came from.

In regards to the map of Manassas / Western Prince William , it’s use is not prohibited under any rule or policy in the Wiki Map Creation page or Help Image Use page so deeming it as inappropriate is opinionated and thus irrelevant and not cause for justified deletion. However there are strong recommendations for more encyclopedia like images/maps but as long as the information in the image/map pertains to the topic in a clear and educational manner then there’s no issue.  I could understand your reason for deletion if it was in the info box or one of the first things you see within coming on to the page but it’s in a sub section .

Lastly I have two questions , how was any information I used Inaccurate/Contradictory and what pieces of information that I used “detracts from this page's focus on the city of Manassas”

I notice you have contributed to the page for a while and i respect your edits , but you seem like you are mistaking a edit you may not personally agree with/ like and despite it being educational/informative and serving purpose (my example with you and Manassas Gap Railroad) you label it as inappropriate to justify deletion. My edits have been returned and if there is still an issue please talk here before deleting again to avoid an “edit war” type of log under the edit history

Policies and Guidelines that support everything stated:

WP:IP - Image Use Policy ,Help: Map creation, WP: DISRUPT, WP:EW - Edit warning, Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead Section, WP: BRD - Bold , Revert , Discuss , WP:NOTDICT LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out again. I did reply to your original message, but I'm not sure if you saw. You may find my original reply helpful in understanding the context of the removal.

It appears that your most recent edit removes the unsubstantiated claim that "Manassas" came from a Biblical figure (presumably Manasseh of Judah), which was the most egregious aspect of the first two versions. Since you removed that, I suspect that you already know what I was talking about when I said that it was contradicted by its own citation. Having said that, the reference to "Manas" remains unsupported by the historical marker you cited, so if you have a source for that, you should consider adding it.

To directly address your comment that I removed content simply because I disagreed with it, I would like to try and be as clear as possible that I did not do that, and that your contributions were removed because they violated Wikipedia's verifiability policy: not only did those versions lack supporting citations, but they also contained information that was clearly contradicted by the citation you included (i.e. the name may have come from the name of a contemporary Innkeeper, but it did not come from Manasseh of Judah). As the editor who added this text, it is your responsibility to add supporting citations (WP:PROVEIT), and this remains true for the content you most recently added, which is still not fully supported by citations (i.e. the reference to a word "Manas")

As far as your question about the origin of the name Manassas Gap Railroad, if you read that article, you'll see that it takes its name from another location called Manassas Gap. Perhaps that page is where this information belongs? If you disagree, then why not try to incorporate this information into the top-level History section for Manassas, Virginia? As I stated previously, Etymology is not a common top-level section for a city page, and in fact, Manassas, Virginia is organized according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline.

As for the second paragraph that discusses how other Census Designated Places also have Manassas addresses, none of that has anything to do with Etymology. I think that you could consider weaving that into the text for the top-level Geography section, but it is not related to the origin of the word "Manassas". As it stands, this new Etymology section seems to stand alone as an alternate lead to the article.

The map that was removed is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it has the style and content of a promotional/tourist map, not an informational map. I would argue that it violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality (see Wikipedia:Using maps and analogous media) by referencing locations that are not notable (from a such as Skate N Fun Zone and 2 Silos Brewery). That map does not belong on Wikipedia, let alone under an Etymology section of Manassas, Virginia.

Finally, as far as your reference to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, for all of the reasons described above, I would argue that restoring these edits that violate both NPOV and verifiability amount to exactly that. You have now restored this content twice without first trying to resolve the issues or attempting to discuss it with other editors, and then warned me, here on my talk page, to please discuss with you before removing again, to avoid edit warring. Since the issue at stake is verifiability, that is completely backwards. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (which you referenced). Once again, no matter how we choose to move forward and resolve these issues, it is your responsibility to provide supporting citations for your own contributions, and to ensure that they follow Wikipedia's policies. Jbholes (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(Response to issue of Manassas Origin Source)Thanks for the response. The claim that Manassas comes from a biblical figure was removed and I appreciate you for calling that out. However the inn keeper reference is not unsupported. The historical marker I cited provides context for the name “Manassas,” which likely comes from either a Native American term or a local Jewish innkeeper, which is a credible source for the name's origin , if you feel further clarification or sources are needed that’s something you can do for your own peace of mind but the existing citation supports the theory of deriving from the inn keeper/ native language its literally a picture of the landmark sign in the city of Manassas on the Historical Marker Database Website Citation: “According to tradition the name Manassas was derived either from an Indian source or from Manasseh, a Jewish innkeeper at Manassas Gap (35 miles west”(HMDB.org , 2009)

(Response to Unsupported Manasseh of Judah Info) I apologize for this , I over analyzed that part of the etymology. Imagine this , take the peddler theory about the Jewish inn keeper named Manasseh . His name likely came from that of biblical origin (Manasseh of Judah) as that is the origin of the name Manasseh in itself. I thought adding it just to maximize the information in the etymology. Not saying it was right but that was my way of thinking at the time

(Response to Quote: "As the editor who added this text, it is your responsibility to add supporting citations (WP:PROVEIT), and this remains true for the content you most recently added, which is still not fully supported by citations (i.e. the reference to a word "Manas")" )

While I understand the need for accurate citations and the need for the editor publishing the information to ensure accuracy and clarity , I believe your wholesale deletion of the entire section was unnecessary, particularly for a minor sourcing issue. Upon reviewing the source again, I see that "Manas" was not directly stated but implied under the vague "Indian source" label, which in itself is not a significant error. The reference to the peddler/innkeeper origin remains valid and is well supported. It would have been more appropriate to simply adjust the section by removing the "Manas" interpretation (meaning "island") while leaving the well supported innkeeper theory.

Per WP:PROPORTIONALITY, minor issues should not justify the deletion of entire sections, especially when the overall content is informative

(Response to Manassas Gap Origin / Etymology Relevance) “The term "Manassas" predates both the railroad and the gap’s naming as the Manassas Gap itself took its name from the surrounding region already being referred to as "Manassas,"  (e.g., the peddler/innkeeper theory). I didn’t think this needed explaining seems pretty implied with standard naming practices for geographic features in specific defined areas

Also while it’s true that Etymology is not always a common top-level section in city articles, it is not prohibited. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, subtopics like etymology that are only briefly mentioned elsewhere can and should be expanded in their own clearly labeled sections if they offer educational value which this one does. If you want the history section/ Manassas Gap Railroad article updated you are more than welcome to do so with your own information and citations

(Response to CDP's Relevance): The mention of nearby CDPs like Bull Run and Sudley is directly relevant because it shows how the name “Manassas” extends beyond the city’s official boundaries into surrounding areas that share ZIP codes, infrastructure, and public identity. This helps explain the modern usage and scope of the name “Manassas,” which is a valid part of name context and fits within a broader etymological or naming discussion. Per WP:DUE and WP:GEOLINKS, providing geographic and naming context enhances understanding of how a place name is applied, not just where it originated linguistically. This isn’t off-topic or needs to be moved , it adds clarity to how the name functions in everyday usage from its inception to now

(Response to Map being Appropriate / Referenced Locations):You raised this concern on two separate talk pages but I will address them both the inclusion of local landmarks such as 2 Silos Brewery, Skate N Fun Zone, and similar locations on the map is not promotional in nature. These places are included solely as geographic reference points—similar to how parks, schools, or civic centers are used to provide spatial context. Their presence is factual, not editorialized, and does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Using maps and analogous media guideline, which does not prohibit the inclusion of recognizable but non historic landmarks when used neutrally. The map is not in the infobox or lead section, but in a lower subsection, clearly intended as supplemental. As an editor and map maker I’m open to revisions but im not obligated to do so and further removal is not acceptable under WP:PRESERVE

The maps are accurate and context based and serve not decorative or promotional purpose. The content will continue to be refined in good faith , follow policy , and avoid overreach, they are not meant to be encyclopedia nor follow encyclopedic map making rules, as long as the map is education/informative and follows WP:VERIFIABILITY which it does . ( WP:NEUTRALITY )

(Response to Disruptive Editing/ Your Last Paragraph): Restoring content that is relevant, sourced, and under active improvement is not disruptive editing. The section was being corrected in response to feedback, and removing the entire thing (especially before I can correct it) rather than addressing the specific issues is not justified under Wikipedia policy. Per WP:PRESERVE content should be improved, not deleted, when possible. Disagreement or personal preference is not grounds for deletion, especially when the material is on-topic and supported. Edits made in good faith to expand and clarify the article are consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CONSENSUS

Thank you for understanding ! LogicalLeaf129 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)