Talk:Ohio History Connection

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ohio History Connection. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050716051840/http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org:80/ to http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent lead changes
, there are several issues with the changes you made back in June, which is the version you just reverted to: I've restored the status quo for now taking it back to April 29 May 3, which is the last stable version before there were any content disputes. Let's agree on how to move forward here before causing any further disruption to the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The organization formed in 1822 is not related to the one formed in 1875, which happens to be the oldest iteration of the one incorporated in 1885.
 * 2) Previous names that are likely to be associated with an article's subject need to be bolded in the lead. Yes, there can sometimes be many, but here we're talking about a whopping two. The oldest one from 1875 isn't likely to be associated or searched on, so it can remain unbolded. You also didn't seem to have an issue with it when you last edited in early May.
 * 3) It is only self-described as a "local history office". That part of the description is not a critical or necessary part and can be dropped. If you insist on it being in there, then it really needs confirmation from a secondary source. Wikipedia should not be used as the wing of OHC's PR dept.
 * 4) The organization is both self-described and listed in secondary sources as a nonprofit organization. That is a primary descriptor when introducing this topic and should be in the opening line (second sentence at the latest).
 * 5) The state's history and prehistory do not need to be separately linked. Perhaps you agree and mistakenly reverted that change.
 * I will reply to all this, but I'm disappointed you're edit warring. I disagree with many of your recent changes same as you do, and your insistence on keeping it your way is not appropriate here or anywhere. ɱ  (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You made a bold edit in late June. I made a bold edit a couple days ago to fix what I perceived were issues with that June edit. Instead of examining the changes individually, honing in on the portions you disagree with, and beginning a discussion on talk, you wholesale reverted back to your preferred version demanding that I take it to talk. In response, I simply took the next step of going back further and restoring a version we both seemed comfortable with, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_History_Connection&oldid=954716402 (last edited by you I should add). An effort in this manner to restore the status quo while a dispute is under discussion is not edit warring. In fact, it's the amicable thing to do while we hash through all this.Judging from past discussions on your talk page, you have an appreciation for others that don't wholesale revert changes you worked hard on. I think you can at least appreciate that I hold a similar regard for others that do the same thing. What you did here recently at this article spits in the face of that unwritten etiquette. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what you consider the status quo, but whatever. Maybe I had just expected you would defer the disputes to me, given my editing experience and the fact that I'm the only editor in the city still maintaining and writing articles key to Columbus and its history. (I would like help!) This is my area of expertise, I've been working in archives and historical societies for years and years, writing quality history-related articles for years. Now as for the first issue at hand - I get that MOS:BOLDLEAD recommends boldfacing terms that redirect there, but is it an appropriate guideline to follow when the relevant orgs are: the Ohio History Connection, The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Ohio Historical Society, Historical Society of Ohio, Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, and the Archaeological Society? There are far too many names that should redirect here, even if they're not exactly the same entity. Thus technically, sure there should be five six boldface names, but the standard is that when places or organizations have gone by many names, the best thing to do is to instead move all of these names out of the lede and into a "Names" or "History" section. Please read MOS:LEADALT and WP:OTHERNAMES. ɱ  (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a second point, Ohio History Connection is the official state historical society. This is key to note in the first sentence. It's not just like any other historical organization in Ohio, it is officially designated, and even manages the state archive and state historic preservation office. I noted these and other activities the organization does, why did you remove them? In place you restored a quote; quotes are usually not important enough for the lede, especially when we can use our own words. Its founding mission is also pretty different from its current one; the org has grown and diversified. ɱ  (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you need a further explanation as to why I feel the May 3rd revision is the status quo for the lead, I'm more than willing to delve deeper into that. As for the bolding of alternate names, it's important to point out here that I'm not suggesting we bold every possible alternative. On the contrary, the edits made a while back (and just recently) only contained the "significant alternative names" per WP:OTHERNAMES, which would be The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society and Ohio Historical Society (Ohio History Connection is not an alternative name). Two alternative names does not meet the criteria of that guideline's concern.The quote was not placed there by me. It just happens to be in the status quo version. I think some of the changes you made in June were helpful and valid. When I made changes recently, I did not undo all of those changes. I improved upon them, leaving many of your contributions in place (of course, improved is subjective, I get that). Have you looked closely at my recent edits, seen in the 05:24, July 28, 2020 revision? I think if you looked at that closely, you would see some of the points you're raising in this discussion are not applicable to my actions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Maybe I had just expected you would defer the disputes to me, given my editing experience..."
 * Defer based on your editing experience? I'm not sure what you're implying here, but you aren't dealing with an inexperienced editor. Writing/improving article leads, by the way, does not require extensive knowledge on the subject. Also keep in mind that I completely overhauled the History and Ohio History Center sections in March, adding 11 sources and effectively rewriting more than 50% of the article's prose – all prior to tweaking the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially given how long and wordy these names are, and that there are a significant amount of them, it would be much better to do what is standard on Wikipedia! When there are a lot of names, we instead list and describe them all in their own section, or applicably in this case, in the history section. I can understand maybe including 'Ohio Historical Society' in the lede because that was its name until only 6 years ago, but the others are not even realistically terms readers will search for. I will accept that one name in the lede if you insist, but given the large number of wordy, similar-sounding alternative names, we need to give a better description and characterization rather than picking and choosing by ourselves which ones to include or not to. ɱ  (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also "Writing/improving article leads, by the way, does not require extensive knowledge on the subject." What? Literally the lede is supposed to best-summarize the most important aspects of a subject. Unless you have comprehensive knowledge of that subject, you will not know how best to concisely describe its most important aspects. Like for instance, its prior names and early mission statement are not nearly as important as that the organization is the historical society for the state and operates the museums, attractions, library, archives, preservation office, etc. ɱ  (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADALT:
 * "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". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead."


 * So please defer to me when it comes to style guides, I know what I am doing, I have been writing Wikipedia articles to GA/FA for years and years. This MOS guideline makes it clear that regardless of other guidelines, if there are three or more alternative names (and there are six in this case), we move them all out of the lede and into a different section. Thank you. ɱ  (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, meaning it summarizes what exists in the body. You do not need to be a subject matter expert to be able to comprehensively read the article and summarize its main points. But that's all a moot point, because as I've indicated, I contributed to more than 50% of the existing prose.As for alternative terms, we wouldn't base "significance" solely on whether someone will search for that term. There are other factors too, including its significance to the topic. Again, we're not talking about three or more alternative names in the lead. We are talking about exactly two alternative names in the lead (despite the fact that there are other alternative names in the body). Have you clicked that revision I linked to above and really looked at it? What issue do you have with the way the alternate names are mentioned? Let's move this forward and get back to something I think you and I both will agree is an improvement.
 * To make this easier, here's the current lead:
 * Here's the lead after your June edits:
 * Here's the lead after my July edits:
 * What specifically do you have an issue with following the changes in July? I would be willing to drop "Archaeological Society", as its not really crucial to the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring MOS:LEADALT. Did you read it, what I quoted? You should very well then be able to tell what is wrong here. ɱ  (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you ever even edited a history-related article before, nonetheless written one? All I am finding is roller coasters and popculture. Is OHC requesting these changes from you? How are you connected to them? It seems suspicious that you are so adamant about a topic you have never really focused on before a few edits in the last few months. I'm not even gonna argue about LEADFOLLOWSBODY because sure that's a good guideline but wow are there many more considerations than just summarizing body text. ɱ  (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your text has clear POV words that are classic COI indicators: highlighting 'nonprofit', the 'Established in 1885' phrase, 'provides services', 'over 50 sites', 'traces its origins', all with a promotional slant that I had cut and you seem to be adamant about. ɱ  (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would caution against hurling COI accusations my way (and especially given your history with a COI incident in 2018). I do not have any affiliation with the topic, but I do have a general interest in history as you can see on my user page. I was led to this article from another I was working on recently that had a link to it. It prompted me to contribute here. I have also edited other historical articles over the years, but most of my attention is focused on amusement parks, film, and other areas. Amusement park articles, by the way, often have very extensive historical sections that I spend a lot of time updating. If you'd like to explore that further, I'm willing to expand upon that on my talk page. Feel free to discuss there.
 * Back to this article...After dropping "Archaeological Society" from the lead, only two remain. MOS:LEADALT doesn't apply in that scenario. It also doesn't apply, because we don't have a dedicated section in the article that covers the alternate names. Let's shelve that for now. I don't think it's worth a third opinion or RfC just yet. Putting that aside, what else do you have an issue with? I assume you did a wholesale revert for other reasons. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already listed my reasons for reverting - the promotional language, the excessive bolding, and use of "a" vs. "the". I'm done talking to you for now. If you did your homework, you'd find that that 2018 incident was a string of unwarranted aggressive attacks by a now indefinitely-blocked user. Yes I have done a tiny portion of editing for pay foolishly in the past (though not what I was attacked for in 2018), but I've also helped the encyclopedia by fighting COI editors, cutting down promo wording all the time, especially since then. So I have every right to question the motives of someone who edits about totally different topics until just these past months on this one single article. ɱ  (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to pour fuel on the fire, but this idea that I'm here for some alternative reason other than to improve the article by Wikipedia's standards is bizarre and unfounded. It's the only reason I pointed to that prior incident. If you were unfairly attacked, then hopefully one thing you would have gleaned from that experience would be to avoid putting other editors through that. I disagree that anything I added to the article is promotional in nature, and I'm sorry you see it that way. The date a company or organization was established, for example, is an important historical fact. I would appreciate it if we looked at this objectively moving forward and discontinue these tangents that are counterproductive to the article's overall development.I'll put some thought into your concerns and see if I can come up with a decent proposal you might be able to compromise on. If you beat me to the punch, feel free to do the same. I'll be back... --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't feel well, I'll be back to this later on. ɱ  (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already listed my reasons for reverting - the promotional language, the excessive bolding, and use of "a" vs. "the". I'm done talking to you for now. If you did your homework, you'd find that that 2018 incident was a string of unwarranted aggressive attacks by a now indefinitely-blocked user. Yes I have done a tiny portion of editing for pay foolishly in the past (though not what I was attacked for in 2018), but I've also helped the encyclopedia by fighting COI editors, cutting down promo wording all the time, especially since then. So I have every right to question the motives of someone who edits about totally different topics until just these past months on this one single article. ɱ  (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to pour fuel on the fire, but this idea that I'm here for some alternative reason other than to improve the article by Wikipedia's standards is bizarre and unfounded. It's the only reason I pointed to that prior incident. If you were unfairly attacked, then hopefully one thing you would have gleaned from that experience would be to avoid putting other editors through that. I disagree that anything I added to the article is promotional in nature, and I'm sorry you see it that way. The date a company or organization was established, for example, is an important historical fact. I would appreciate it if we looked at this objectively moving forward and discontinue these tangents that are counterproductive to the article's overall development.I'll put some thought into your concerns and see if I can come up with a decent proposal you might be able to compromise on. If you beat me to the punch, feel free to do the same. I'll be back... --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't feel well, I'll be back to this later on. ɱ  (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Saw your recent change. Haven't had time to circle back to this, but I should find some time this weekend. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Work in the real world got busy, extremely busy. This is still on my radar. Appreciate the patience! --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm laying out my reasoning for the lede here:
 * 1) Let's please start by calling it . Use of "the" is important because it's not just any historical society in the state, it is the primary historical society for the state.
 * 2)  is out of place in the second sentence. This is a history fact, not an attribute fact. I've found while writing FAs that it's best to split up the lede - notable attributes first, then a history summary in the following paragraph. It keeps the facts easy to follow, split logically.
 * 3) Let's follow up by listing what it does - primarily a historical society, office for history research, the state archives, and its historic preservation office, and that it manages 50 sites and museums (only at the end of the list to expand on it here). Wikipedia style is to avoid saying "over 50" as that sounds more promotional than "about 50" or "approximately 50". Or I think we could tally the current number.
 * 4)  is a term that can be simplified as . More direct, less fluffy.
 * 5) Again, there are six alternative or historical names. These are best-presented in a separate section to clarify the differences and how the name changed over time. Wikipedia guidelines support this.
 * 6) I think it's important to note in the history paragraph about the 1822 organization that is often mentioned as laying part of the groundwork for the current organization, and thus clarifying where '1822' comes from, which is sometimes not-fully-correctly cited as the organization's founding year.
 * 7) Lastly, I think we can remove the quote as discussed earlier, and just use our own words.  ɱ  (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ____________________________
 * I thought we were reaching for some middle ground here. I've responded to each point below and made a few concessions, but you're going to have to follow suit and compromise in some areas if we expect to avoid dispute resolution.
 * 1) I don't think it's critical to change "a" to "the", but if you feel the need, I won't stand in the way. This is a minor issue not worth fussing over.
 * 2) I disagree. The year in which a company or organization was founded, particularly a historical organization, needs to appear in the first or second sentence. At the very least, the first paragraph. I understand you've worked on FAs in the past and that you believe you know better, but I would appreciate if you left that kind of talk out of this debate. I find it somewhat condescending and irrelevant. Here are several FAs I randomly looked at that all have the founding date mentioned in the first sentence or two:
 * Romney Literary Society
 * Free Association of German Trade Unions
 * Ohio Wesleyan University
 * League of Nations
 * I think it's clear that what you're talking about here is a matter of personal preference only and holds no weight when looking at precedence in other FAs. The established date should remain in a prominent position.
 * 3) If you scroll up and take a closer look at your lead version and mine, I think you'll agree that there is very little disparity between the two for the second sentence. The primary difference is that I've added the established date. A minor difference is that I've stated "over 50" which you think sounds promotional. I disagree that it does, but if it will move us closer to a compromise, I can settle on "approximately 50". I think we should stay away from the term "about" when using it to quantify. Doesn't sound right for an encyclopedia.
 * 4) "had its origins" grates a little harsh to the ears. How about "dates back to the formation of..."? Other suggestions?
 * 5) The first two names, Historical Society of Ohio and Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, are both of organizations that have no direct relationship to OHC. One was a failed attempt that never gained any traction, and the other moved to Cincinnati working closely with the local historical society there before disbanding. We should not tie these two names to the history of the current organization. The third name, Archaeological Society, was an early name that only existed prior to the official incorporation of the organization in 1885. It's debatable, but I don't think it needs to be counted as a valid alternate name. If we cross that off the list, then we're really only left with 3 names, 2 of which are "alternate names". MOS:LEADALT provides optional advice that when you have three or more alternate names in the lead, you are permitted to move them out of the lead and into a dedicated section of the article titled "Names" or "Etymology"; this is NOT a requirement, and we only have 2 alternate names unless you count "Archaeological Society". We can talk more about whether this is really necessary, but if we decide to do that, the dedicated section needs to be formed first before the names are removed from the lead.
 * 6) "the 1822 organization that is often mentioned as laying part of the groundwork for the current organization"Where does it state this in the article? It talks about the failed 1822 attempt but says nothing about laying the groundwork for the existing organization. I think you are inferring that it did on your own. I do not support stating anywhere in the lead that OHC dates back before 1875 without a reliable source making that determination. We can talk about what came before 1875, but we shouldn't imply that OHC had a direct connection to those early iterations.
 * 7) Yes, I agree on removing the quote. It was more of a placeholder in both of our versions of the lead until something better was drafted in its place.
 * So it looks like items 2, 4, 5, and 6 still need more discussion. Three down, four to go. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC) (Updated correction at 18:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay sounds good on this point.
 * These FAs you link are mostly well over a decade old in featured status, and most have very muddy leads, not as much structure between attributes and history as I am proposing here. Still, sure, it's mostly preference, I saw there's no formal rule about it. I am still adamant about not breaking the attribute-history mold to take one historical fact and stick it in the attribute section. I also can see that the early history of the organization is so muddy, with 1875 and 1822 to be possibly/incorrectly considered earlier dates of origin, that we should not simply list one date up top without explaining the society's origins and evolution in greater depth.
 * This third note was mostly showing the benefit of my change over the earlier version, and why we should include it in the next version. I am adamant about using "approximately" ever since highly-experienced editors ran through my article nominations replacing all of the "over"s and "more than"s with less boastful-sounding terminology.
 * 'Dates back to'-type sentences should be fine, I think it sounds more appropriate here.
 * I still believe that the amount of boldfaced terms in the lede is excessive clutter that most people aren't interested in; this is probably one of the reasons why that guideline was created. I think it's important to list all of the names and explain their differences with clarity. I understand that you find the first name of the organization unnotable, because of its death, revival, and official incorporation later on? With this and the date point, all I am asking for is extreme clarity, not showing a partial picture anywhere. We should list all of the names together, all of the dates together, to clearly show what has happened without omissions.
 * I don't think there's any history of OHC that doesn't mention the 1822 entity, so I don't see why you want to be the first? It was founded from an act of the Ohio General Assembly creating the first historical society for the state. That's a clear precedent for the current organization.
 * Okay, sounds good with this one. ɱ  (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Making progress...
 * 2) The next step is a rough draft. I still don't think it's optimal to bury the incorporated date further down in the lead, but depending on how that looks, I might be willing to budge. Let's revisit after proposed wording.
 * 5) Fair enough. I think you convinced me that we should just create a dedicated section like the guideline suggests and avoid clutter in the lead. I am ALL FOR avoiding clutter.
 * 6) This is where we are still far apart, I'm afraid. There is very little coverage of 1822 in the article as it stands today. It should be in the body, but I am not convinced this needs to be in the lead. I suggest we move forward with everything else for now leaving 1822 statements only in the body, and then we can revisit afterwards. We can always start an RfC for that single point of contention later if needed.
 * Glad to see this moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me here. I'll try compiling sources for you - I have read a few histories of the organization, and I believe they mostly all start with 1822. Will respond more in depth soon/will draft up and develop this more too. ɱ  (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)