This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If Greenland is part of North America then Cape Spear is not the easterly point on the continent, as some have suggested in recent debate. CBC News
Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? -- Madchester June 29, 2005 15:48 (UTC)
When records are set for North America to Europe transatlantic sailings, rowing, flights, etc. they never originate from Greenland. I believe that it is premature to write in this article any reference to Greenland as the most easterly point in North America.
Maybe we should also have a look at the most westerly point of Europe as it would fall to Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. HJKeats 6 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
When the countries of North America are listed is Denmark ever listed as one? If Greenland contains the most easterly point in North America, then the most westerly point in Europe is what? Aruba? French Guiana? The British Virgin Islands?
I changed the line about greenland and the most easterly point, as the line that was placed in there was blatant POV-the line I put in identifies that there is a debate, and I hope, is not POV :).
One thing to keep in mind here; the question is is Greenland North America? That has nothing to do with the question whether Denmark is in NA or St. Pierre or Aruba being in Europe. St. Pierre and M. are a part of the country France but certainly not the Continent of Europe. If you argue that Greenland is part of NA, which I would say it is, it doesn't mean in any way that its repercussion is then to name St. Pierre or Aruba part of Europe. Distinguish country from continent here is the key. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages.-- Kalsermar 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Greenland is a North American island. It may be noteworthy that Cape Spear is the most easterly point in Canada, but it is not noteworthy that it's the most easterly point in "North America except for the parts of North America that are east of Cape Spear." The claim is pure tourism-brochure hogwash, not encyclopedic.
An image used in this article,
File:Cape Spear warning sign.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
i think the last line about a guy being first to see the sunrise (Linklater) is irrelevent. STEV56 ( talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a repeat vandalism of the article Cape Spear. It seems to have started when a bored Duane Linkleter, fictional or not, who on March 10, 2011 saw the sun rise over Cape Spare and he seems he would like for the entire readership of Wikipedia to know this. I have documented the edits contributed to his narcissistic lame attempt of fame in the hope that we can finally uncover the identity of Duane and get him off the rocky crags of Cape Spare.
Below is a chronologically history of the edits with IP addresses and registered Wikipedia User who have contributed to this vandalism of the Cape Spare article. Some of the IP’s look like copy-cat vandalism but it would seem that the perpetrator has changed his IP over time. IP 142.162.16.162 is responsible for 10 edits, IP 66.206.234.192 is responsible for 9 edits, IP 66.206.234.210 is responsible for 12 edits, IP 198.161.31.253 is responsible for 8 edits, user Duanelinklater is responsible for 13 edits, IP 24.138.176.45 is responsible for 14 edits, and IP 67.204.241.122 is responsible for 5 edits.
I can say one thing, the vandalism who ever this person is, they are persistent.
Is there anything that can be done to this article to halt this particular Modus operandi of persistent vandalism? HJKeats ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
diffs
|
---|
Article version edit under IP 142.162.16.162 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.192 Article version edit as IP 24.235.220.192 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.192 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.170 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.218 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.87 Article version edit as IP 192.246.232.57 Article version edit as IP 192.246.233.181 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.94 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.210 Article version edit as IP 207.81.145.140 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.210 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as user Duanelinklater Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 172.218.81.41 Article version edit as IP 75.158.52.55 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as IP 173.165.77.51 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 99.232.135.228 Article version edit as IP 174.117.101.96 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 96.49.54.200 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 216.191.249.2 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 68.145.116.164 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 209.205.108.34 Article version edit as IP 69.128.85.84 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 |
A piece of art about a Wikipedia page about a place (or about the place itself) may be significant enough to include in Wikipedia in some fashion, but almost never in the article about the place. The "so-called" comment mentioned above was indeed inappropriate (and I'm sure there have been others). A big question is what relevance is it to the subject of Cape Spear (the place, with its long history and overall significance, as opposed to the subject of "the Wikipedia article about Cape Spear") that someone conducted an art project with its Wikipedia entry? It could certainly make sense to include in the article about the artist, or, given enough coverage, even a stand-alone article (which we could link to in the see also section here). "In popular culture" sections can be interesting, but they need to be encyclopedically relevant and of proportionate significance to the amount of space it takes up (that Napoleon was mentioned in an episode of The Big Bang Theory tv show is not significant enough to include in the article about Napoleon, regardless of how well covered that particular episode was). Decades from now, will this art project about the Wikipedia article about Cape Spear still be a significant part of the subject of Cape Spear?
All of these specifics, aside, Wikipedians are indeed touchy when people (a) benefit from lowering the quality of Wikipedia, (b) benefit from creating work for other volunteers, (c) indirectly encourage other people to do both of the above. One of the hardest things about "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the amount of time it takes people who want to improve the encyclopedia to fix the work of people who want to mess with it (for a quick giggle, to make a point in a classroom, to make art, or anything else that doesn't prioritize the quality of the project). Vandalism/damage happens every minute of every day, and when the press covers it or when an art project about it gets some attention, that makes Wikipedians' jobs harder and makes Wikipedia worse overall (which is not to comment on the quality of the art within the context of art, of course). So while "does it make the job of Wikipedians harder" shouldn't really be part of the decision regarding what content to add, there is, practically speaking, a higher bar for inclusion of Wikipedia-related bits of content like this because it effectively says "if you go and mess with an article, and then manage to get some press attention, your initial act can be included in the article you messed with". TL;DR For Wikipedia's purposes, vandalism for art is not different from vandalism to add the word "poopy" to a random article, and Wikipedians don't love to see that activity celebrated/encouraged, because that would mean breaking the project.
I assume the comment about "Wikipedia's Modus Operandi when it comes to issues of Indigenous culture, artists, and issues" has some backstory that extends beyond this one example, and I won't disagree that Wikipedia has some very serious systemic bias that may well negatively impact the inclusion and coverage of Indigenous subjects, but it is most certain that anybody who gets attention for problematic Wikipedia behavior will encounter resistance when it comes time to add coverage of that behavior. FWIW. Sorry for the long explanation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cape Spear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If Greenland is part of North America then Cape Spear is not the easterly point on the continent, as some have suggested in recent debate. CBC News
Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? -- Madchester June 29, 2005 15:48 (UTC)
When records are set for North America to Europe transatlantic sailings, rowing, flights, etc. they never originate from Greenland. I believe that it is premature to write in this article any reference to Greenland as the most easterly point in North America.
Maybe we should also have a look at the most westerly point of Europe as it would fall to Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. HJKeats 6 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
When the countries of North America are listed is Denmark ever listed as one? If Greenland contains the most easterly point in North America, then the most westerly point in Europe is what? Aruba? French Guiana? The British Virgin Islands?
I changed the line about greenland and the most easterly point, as the line that was placed in there was blatant POV-the line I put in identifies that there is a debate, and I hope, is not POV :).
One thing to keep in mind here; the question is is Greenland North America? That has nothing to do with the question whether Denmark is in NA or St. Pierre or Aruba being in Europe. St. Pierre and M. are a part of the country France but certainly not the Continent of Europe. If you argue that Greenland is part of NA, which I would say it is, it doesn't mean in any way that its repercussion is then to name St. Pierre or Aruba part of Europe. Distinguish country from continent here is the key. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages.-- Kalsermar 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Greenland is a North American island. It may be noteworthy that Cape Spear is the most easterly point in Canada, but it is not noteworthy that it's the most easterly point in "North America except for the parts of North America that are east of Cape Spear." The claim is pure tourism-brochure hogwash, not encyclopedic.
An image used in this article,
File:Cape Spear warning sign.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
i think the last line about a guy being first to see the sunrise (Linklater) is irrelevent. STEV56 ( talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a repeat vandalism of the article Cape Spear. It seems to have started when a bored Duane Linkleter, fictional or not, who on March 10, 2011 saw the sun rise over Cape Spare and he seems he would like for the entire readership of Wikipedia to know this. I have documented the edits contributed to his narcissistic lame attempt of fame in the hope that we can finally uncover the identity of Duane and get him off the rocky crags of Cape Spare.
Below is a chronologically history of the edits with IP addresses and registered Wikipedia User who have contributed to this vandalism of the Cape Spare article. Some of the IP’s look like copy-cat vandalism but it would seem that the perpetrator has changed his IP over time. IP 142.162.16.162 is responsible for 10 edits, IP 66.206.234.192 is responsible for 9 edits, IP 66.206.234.210 is responsible for 12 edits, IP 198.161.31.253 is responsible for 8 edits, user Duanelinklater is responsible for 13 edits, IP 24.138.176.45 is responsible for 14 edits, and IP 67.204.241.122 is responsible for 5 edits.
I can say one thing, the vandalism who ever this person is, they are persistent.
Is there anything that can be done to this article to halt this particular Modus operandi of persistent vandalism? HJKeats ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
diffs
|
---|
Article version edit under IP 142.162.16.162 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.192 Article version edit as IP 24.235.220.192 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.192 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.170 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.218 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.87 Article version edit as IP 192.246.232.57 Article version edit as IP 192.246.233.181 Article version edit as IP 192.246.231.94 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.210 Article version edit as IP 207.81.145.140 Article version edit as IP 66.206.234.210 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as user Duanelinklater Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 172.218.81.41 Article version edit as IP 75.158.52.55 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as IP 173.165.77.51 Article version edit as IP 198.161.31.253 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 99.232.135.228 Article version edit as IP 174.117.101.96 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 96.49.54.200 Article version edit as IP 24.138.176.45 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 216.191.249.2 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 68.145.116.164 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 Article version edit as IP 209.205.108.34 Article version edit as IP 69.128.85.84 Article version edit as IP 67.204.241.122 |
A piece of art about a Wikipedia page about a place (or about the place itself) may be significant enough to include in Wikipedia in some fashion, but almost never in the article about the place. The "so-called" comment mentioned above was indeed inappropriate (and I'm sure there have been others). A big question is what relevance is it to the subject of Cape Spear (the place, with its long history and overall significance, as opposed to the subject of "the Wikipedia article about Cape Spear") that someone conducted an art project with its Wikipedia entry? It could certainly make sense to include in the article about the artist, or, given enough coverage, even a stand-alone article (which we could link to in the see also section here). "In popular culture" sections can be interesting, but they need to be encyclopedically relevant and of proportionate significance to the amount of space it takes up (that Napoleon was mentioned in an episode of The Big Bang Theory tv show is not significant enough to include in the article about Napoleon, regardless of how well covered that particular episode was). Decades from now, will this art project about the Wikipedia article about Cape Spear still be a significant part of the subject of Cape Spear?
All of these specifics, aside, Wikipedians are indeed touchy when people (a) benefit from lowering the quality of Wikipedia, (b) benefit from creating work for other volunteers, (c) indirectly encourage other people to do both of the above. One of the hardest things about "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the amount of time it takes people who want to improve the encyclopedia to fix the work of people who want to mess with it (for a quick giggle, to make a point in a classroom, to make art, or anything else that doesn't prioritize the quality of the project). Vandalism/damage happens every minute of every day, and when the press covers it or when an art project about it gets some attention, that makes Wikipedians' jobs harder and makes Wikipedia worse overall (which is not to comment on the quality of the art within the context of art, of course). So while "does it make the job of Wikipedians harder" shouldn't really be part of the decision regarding what content to add, there is, practically speaking, a higher bar for inclusion of Wikipedia-related bits of content like this because it effectively says "if you go and mess with an article, and then manage to get some press attention, your initial act can be included in the article you messed with". TL;DR For Wikipedia's purposes, vandalism for art is not different from vandalism to add the word "poopy" to a random article, and Wikipedians don't love to see that activity celebrated/encouraged, because that would mean breaking the project.
I assume the comment about "Wikipedia's Modus Operandi when it comes to issues of Indigenous culture, artists, and issues" has some backstory that extends beyond this one example, and I won't disagree that Wikipedia has some very serious systemic bias that may well negatively impact the inclusion and coverage of Indigenous subjects, but it is most certain that anybody who gets attention for problematic Wikipedia behavior will encounter resistance when it comes time to add coverage of that behavior. FWIW. Sorry for the long explanation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cape Spear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)