Talk:Salem, Missouri

Phineas the dog
This is an article about the town of Salem and the question, in deciding whether a given piece of material should be included, is whether it enhances the reader's understanding of the town of Salem. This doesn't -- it's just something that happens to be going on there recently. It's obvious this article is being used as a WP:SOAPBOX for a campaign to embarrass officials into sparing this lovable pooch, which is likely a worthwhile cause but inconsistent with WP's mission -- this evaluation is enhanced by edit summaries characterizing the incident as an "international firestorm", which is of course absurd.

Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, and the remainder are of, at best, borderline reliability -- e.g. unsigned staff pieces amd pieces that openly take sides in the dispute. I'll remove the material once more but I'm not going to waste my time on this -- sooner or later someone will come along to explain this to the editor who keeps restoring this material. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I very much see your point. Especially the problem with the primary sources. I have rewritten the entire section from a much more neutral point of view and removed all primary sources from the article. I think it meets the threshold of inclusion because of the news coverage it has received in St. Louis, New York, and the long-term coverage of the story from a wide-variety of regional sources. I have added a couple of references to support this, all secondary, reliable, and third-party. As you can see I have also shortened it to de-emphasize its significance to the topic as a whole. Taram asked me to look at the page and I have no affiliation with the Salem area or anyone involved. Is this new version acceptable to you? Grey Wanderer (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do have connections in the Salem area, and agree that Grey Wanderer's new edit is more balanced and non inflammatory. As there is some evidence that the Missouri Attorney General and Missouri Supreme Court (the MO SC is the final arbiter of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance of both lawyers and judges in Missouri) will both be looking into the procedures of the local courts due to problems involved in this case, I would strongly recommend that at least this minimum information should remain in the article, with more to be added as further information develops. DocKrin (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking a look at this page, with its History addition, Grey Wanderer (talk). I, also, do not have connections with the Salem, MO area or anyone involved. It was brought to my attention a week or so ago by another user, also from out of the area; so I checked it. I am glad to have the discussion on the discussion page. I, too, believe that the paragraph includes the threshold for inclusion because of widespread coverage of the topic. Thank you for cleaning up the article with appropriate references. I also like the clarification on the library issue and the inclusion of the photo of the Lower Parker School House. I think that any new developments should be included, but that they need to meet the standard of secondary references with brevity and complete neutrality in wording.Taram (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The US Postal Service never puts anyone's face on a stamp until he or she is dead, because it's only with the passage of time that a person's significance can be put in perspective. Same with things like this. An encyclopedia article should contain things people will want to read about in five years, when they're trying to learn about the town of Salem. Will people in five years really say, "Oh, how interesting about this dog?"  Only time will tell, and that's why I personally believe that "current events" should generally be omitted from articles -- way to much time is wasted sorting through conflicting sources, arguing about significance, keeping the material up to date, and so on. EEng (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From an outsider's point of view this information is highly irrelevant. A dog attacks a child - that happens a hundred times a day all over the world and doesn't show up in other cities' history sections although those cases catch widespread attention, too. Does it have an impact on the histoy of Salem? If yes, it's not in the slightest way visible. Who cares what the dog is called?? Simply sounds like some animal lover wrote this out of simpathy for the dog and insists on keeping it in here. TRBP   talk  19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * TRBP, Thank you for your input in the discussion. It is a topic from a small virtually unheard of town that has garnered international attention. The current article was re-written by a native speaker of English who is a leader in WikiProject_Missouri. The article has been vandalized by both sides of the issue (on numerous occasions; the most recent vandalism came  out of Kansas this morning). The issue is what put Salem, MO "on the map" and is quite controversial. The current version is maintained in keeping with  WP:NPOV. A history of versions can be found in the "View History" link on the article page. Perhaps you could suggest some edits (not blanking, but edits).  17:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize that this dog bite case (and no matter how protracted it has been or who has covered it, that is what it is) may be a big thing in the town, and it has gotten a ridiculous amount of coverage from the media, but I do think that the old newsman's adage applies here: "Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is". Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written with a worldwide audience in mind. Due to the stupid amount of coverage this story has gotten, I do suppose that a mention of it is unavoidable, but the length of the prose on it is definitely WP:UNDUE. In general, the whole history section is absurdly recentistic. A special election is not history; a lawsuit against the local library that is only covered in the local paper is not history. I will be removing those. Please try to come to some sort of a consensus on the dog-bite that makes its mention's length appropriate to its overall importance in the bigger picture of things. According to the article Salem has been around for nearly 200 years.

There certainly has to be real history and not a bunch of stuff that was written about because there were sources for it. Just because the stuff is there doesn't mean it belongs in the article. My 2 cents on the dog bite story is that someone (it sure won't be me!) should write an article about it and a link to the article should be the extent of the coverage in this article. Sad as it is, there is enough sourcing to write an article on Phineas. But I can't see how this little piece of what will undoubtedly be someday judged as trivia rates much more than a line in this article. In general, current events should only be included in city articles if their impact is such that it will cause widespread changes in society. Someday, the dog will be put down. And that will be the end of the story. If it was my kid, that day would have been the day it happened, even if it was my dog. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Since the beginning of time as a place, for 150 years as a village, and 130 years as a town (and a class 4 city)" (note:This unsigned comment was inserted into the middle of my statement above.  I have moved it here for clarity, and I will ask that editors please not insert their comments [especially unsigned ones] in the middle of other editors comments.  It just makes a mess of things. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC))


 * The actual problem here is NOT the dog. It is that the case of the dog is revealing how much corruption and preferential treatment is occurring in the town. While this situation is local, the situation is potentially at least a state wide issue with questions of honesty and competence in the police and judicial systems and what happens to the truth when someone who is in power has issues that should have been resolved in his childhood. I have previously noted that the matter may end up being reviewed by the State Supreme Court and the Missouri Bar association because of the legal misconduct that has been alleged, which takes it out of the 'purely local' category.


 * One might also note that this situation has received attention from around the world, with messages of support and gifts for the dog from many countries. Sadly, this is no longer a 9 day wonder, but represents how a small rural community in the Missouri Ozarks is now seen around the world. There are 49 countries currently showing interest and support for the dog and his family and in the situation, to include Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, The Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Brazil, among others.


 * If one does any research into proper dog training, one would understand that a: dogs rarely deserve to be put down for a first, provoked bite, and b: there is now forensic evidence that the dog DID NOT BITE the child, all of which is being ignored by the powers that be in the city, further showing the corruption. Part of the Mayor's admitted problem is that a family dog *was* put down, possibly inappropriately, when he was a child. This has affected his reaction to the situation and prevents him from being an unbiased authority, but he has refuse to recuse himself from the case, again showing the problems with corruption and the judicial system in the area.


 * If it is the consensus that a separate article needs to be written about the episode, and a simple one sentence comment and link to that article on the Salem page is all that is needed, then I will endeavor to collect the information, including appropriate outside links and make the new page.


 * I suspect that certain persons will be even less enthused about what is thus revealed than they are about the current one paragraph write up. I am afraid that persons who have shown that they have a stake in obfuscating the matter will attack the new page and make it difficult to maintain honesty, integrity, and clarity. This has already happened with the various social media pages supporting Phineas.DocKrin (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doc Krin, that a simple paragraph is all that is needed right now because many people throughout the world have expressed enough interest in Phineas that third party news articles are written about his case. Just my 2 cents. Taram (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, we are not here to argue the merits of the case or the justice being handed out. We  need to talk about what the sources can justify us writing about, and the relitive weight this story has to the rest of the story about this settlement. (town, city, village; it doesn't matter.  You still write the same way about them all.)  My problem, and it is a significant one, is that the size of the content about this as it stands right now, is way too large in relation to the rest of the history stuff in the article.  See WP:UNDUE.  The solution?  Either pare down what we have about the dog bite case or add a heck of a lot more about the rest of the history.  I can help with the first; the second one I can't.  It is doubtful that there exists much online in the way of history of a smallish settlement in Missouri.  Perhaps someone local can access some info in a local library to help with that? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest a way to lessen the WP:UNDUE of the dog bite story? How about we remove the copy about the hockey player and Inside edition?  That info is not strictly pertaining to the story itself, but instead to the coverage of the story.  I have no problem with leaving all the references intact, so if someone wants to know more, they have plenty of places to look.  That will cut down the amount of the copy by about a third and make it less undue. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

History section
I am not trying to edit war here, but I do want to point out that the edit cycle on Wikipedia goes make a bold edit, someone reverts that edit, discuss on talk page til a consensus is reached. It does not go bold, revert, reinstate, discuss. Therefore, I will again be removing the reference to the recent special election and I will watch this space for discussion on why it should be in there. As I said above, a special election to replace an elected official who resigns is just not important in the bigger picture of things and no assertion of anything special about it is being made. It is simply a case of adding stuff because there are sources for it. You can probably find a source for the results of every high school football game too, but that doesn't mean it should be in the article. Would someone from say Great Britain care whether there was a special election in 2013? Doubtful. Well that is your intended audience here, not the local community. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps somebody else such as GreyWanderer or DocKrin would prefer to give comment here. Has the town ever had a local resident elected to a national office before Jason Smith or not? If not, this would be a historical first for little Salem. Sent query to Jason T. Smith Wikipedia staff to see if Smith is indeed the first resident ever elected to national office/Congress.Taram (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, that would be WP:OR. Second, even if he was the first person from the town elected to a national office that is only historical to the town.  He certainly rates a brief mention with a Wikilink in a "Notable people" section.  That is why the city article guidelines include a Notable people section. And he has an article which he well deserves as a congressman.  I do not understand what you refer to when you say "his Wikipedia staff".  Can you please elaborate? Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea, Gtwfan52! I do not want to take your idea, so would you like to edit the page and add the Notable figures section as they have in the Kirksville, Missouri section? I could do it someday, but I do not want to steal your edit. As you may have read, somebody suggested to me that it might be valuable to note that Smith was the first person ever elected from Salem for a national office, though whether that is important is debatable. I think it is important to Salem, but not to anybody else. So, I tried to do some checking on that. Smith had staff watching his Wikipedia page during the election (along with Twitter, Facebook, and the like), but they seem to have moved on or with him to Washington. That is what I meant, but it seems to be a washed out idea, now, since they are all gone. Thank you! Taram (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the page deems a firstto be significant for the page, perhaps the Library of Congress has records of where variuos Congressmen and wowmen came from.Taram (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gtwfan52 : Are you planning on adding a notable figures section to the Salem page? Thanks! Taram (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, sometime tonite after my boy crashes. :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Redeux
Please, please take a look at WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Does anyone see in there anywhere anything that suggests we should be devoting so much of this article to a current event? I see nothing that even states we should talk about current events at all. A dog may or may not have bit someone. Legal issues came from it. Other than the fact that pop news (ie Inside Edition) decided to make it its little cause of the month, it is a non story. Granted, anything that attracted any national attention may seem like a big deal in a small town, but step back a bit and think about it. If this was about someplace else, would you care? I am from someplace else and I sure don't. This article is supposed to be written with an audience of the entire English speaking world in mind. If you were to go look for information on a small town in Australia, would you expect to spend half your time reading a dog bite story? Doubtful. Please find some perspective here. I would like to see someone, anyone, find a place in policy or guidelines that justifies the inclusion of this pointless story. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And, since no one has found anyplace in policy or guidelines to justify this, I am again going to revert it. Adding all the references in the world isn't going to make this an important piece of the city's history.  The town was founded, absolutely nothing happened and then some dog bit (or didn't) a kid. Not history. Sorry.  This is not a newspaper.  If this, five years down the road, turns into being something important, then add it to the article.  Something like the Supreme court bans the death penalty for dogs.


 * The only bearing on the town's history that I can see in this story is that the town got its 15 minutes of fame. It is unarguably NOT over 50% of the town's history. All the details are of no consequence to the town's history.  Accordingly, I am going to reduce it to "In 2012, a dog bite case that resulted in legal action and continued on into late 2013 (which of course will eventually be edited to reflect when the case actually concludes) brought world-wide attention to Salem, including statements from sports figures (ref), coverage on Inside Edition,(ref) and even a mention in a newspaper in Portugal. (ref)"


 * Policies cited for this action are: the above mentioned city article guidelines, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gtwfan52 It is not that WP policies were easily uncovered to explain inclusion for you. It just that editors more familiar with Salem remember your earlier POV statement on the talk page, "Someday, the dog will be put down. And that will be the end of the story. If it was my kid, that day would have been the day it happened, even if it was my dog." Taram (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which I struck....what is your point? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A short mention is what's warranted here. How about we all go down to the local library or city archives and find some history to add to this town's article! D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 07:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is some information from variuos local archives:
 * "Dent County was first explored and settled between 1818 and 1829. In 1851 the Missouri Assembly created Dent County from Crawford and Shannon counties. It was named for early settler Lewis Dent, who served as the first representative. A log courthouse, built about 1851 or 1852, was Dent County's first and was located on the Wingfield farm northeast of Salem. W. P. Williams  became the first mayor of Salem in 1860, just after the Missouri State Legislature passed laws regarding the administration of village government. Village governments were suspended during the Civil War. In 1881, Salem was incorporated as a town. Mrs. Thomas A. Bruce organized the first telephone system in Salem in 1900. In 1909, electric lights were turned on in Salem with the formation of the Salem Light & Power Co. Five banks failed during the Great Depression; however, the Civilian Conversation Corps (CCC) brought young men to the area, many of whom stayed. In the 13,503 acres (54.64 km2) of the Indian Trail Conservation Area, crews built most of the area's 55 miles (89 km) of access roads. After World War II and through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Dent County underwent changes. There were 60 one-room schools in 1950 and consolidation reduced this number to five districts/plus high schools in Salem and Bunker. Roads were built and improved. Salem Memorial District Hospital was built and became a major industry and health provider."
 * Just more info.Taram (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you propose we cite "various local archives"? Sources do not have to be online. To cite a paper source, use the more appropriate of the or  templates. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Taram, that is great information and could go in this article if you could manage to track down the actual WP:Reliable sources where that information came from. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dkriegls. I believe most of that was cited in an earlier version of the town history which somebody removed at one point. If I get a chance I will go back through the page entry history to see if I can find the citations. (If anybody has time before me, they are certainly welcome to work on that section of the local MO history, too.) Taram (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, I would sure love to leave this alone and say goodbye to Phinnias forever, but I cannot. The latest version here, which is much much better than the previous, still has a glaring problem.  The dog is a dog and as such, he was never "charged" with anything.  According to the final source, which seems to be the least sensationalized version, the dog was civilly impounded pending a hearing on his destruction.  That civil hearing was held, and his destruction was ordered.  His owners applied for civil relief (not stated in the source, but certainly for ordered forfeiture of property without due process), and that was granted.  The source does not state, and in fact there were no charges or dropped charges.  Dogs are property, whether you like it or not, and the anthropomorphism applied in the version of the article now in place is not appropriate. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Respecting other Editors
In edit summaries, credibility is added to the editor's actions when the editor writes from a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). As simply put at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV, editors need to remember to 1) "avoid stating opinions as facts" and 2) "prefer nonjudgmental language." In the case of the most recent edit to this page pn 23:52, 10 November 2013, the expression of the editor's point of view with the phrase "ridiculous personification" when referring to an edit made by the last editor ( D kriegls ) is hurtful and flies in the face of WP:CIVILITY which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The edit summary simply could have been written as follows: "removed personification of the animal." Even if something falls under WP:ITBOTHERSME, it would behoove all the editors and visitors to this page to keep comments within WP:CIVILITY. Comments must not attempt to bully other editors away from adding or substracting their own edits which would then be considered by the Wikipedia community.Taram (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal Business section has some excellent articles when citing the legal outcome of the case. They are found at:
 * Gershman, Jacob. "Phineas the Dog Escapes Death Row, but Not Home Free." Wall Street Journal 28 OCT 2013.
 * —. "The Grrreat Escape: Accused Dog Goes Missing." Wall Street Journal 22 OCT 2013.

Taram (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has a good article, too. It is:
 * Eligon, John. "Dog’s Tale: From Death Row to Doorstep." New York Times 27 October 2013.

Taram (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Gary Brown
It is apparently important to note in the case of Phineas, the man who had been mayor of Salem for 14 years dropped out of the 2014 mayoral race after Phineas was released by the courts and was replaced in office by the man who had sheltered Phineas and disagreed with Brown's declaration that the yellow lab was dangerous and had to be put down (That being J.J. Tune.) While nobody ran against Brown in the past, he had 3 challengers in the 2014 mayoral before he dropped out of the race.Taram (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Salem versus Shalom
"Salem" is an Arabic word which can be transliterated into Hebrew as "shalom." See Salem (name). The source currently listed on the page claiming it to be Hebrew alone was written in 1916 and does not name its source (it only claims "one historian" suggests that Salem is a Hebrew word), so it cannot be investigated or challenged. This either needs to be clarified on the page or removed, but fighting to keep the statement just because another editor may dislike this editor is inappropriate.Taram (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Truth is a secondary concern on Wikipedia. There is a valid reference for it; you have none for the edit you want.  And BTW, please read WP:AGF. John from Idegon (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Truth is a secondary concern on Wikipedia?" May we quote you on that?Taram (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the WP:AGFlink. The first archive on the talk page has interesting and useful information on "the issue of editor 'stalking' on wikipedia."Taram (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * City of Salem.png