Talk:Waskom, Texas

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Notable residents

Discuss Clarence King entry....possible deletion candidate per wikipedia standards. chris4682 dec 6 2008

WASKOM ALSO HAS GHOST for more info go to WWW.ghost of waskom texas.com or any of your near city or town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.82.186 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The abortion ban

This discussion is regarding the abortion ban passed in 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/13/waksom-texas-outlaws-abortion-five-men/?utm_term=.7b8c20fef7a2 Please see below for my opinion.

@John from Idegon:

Please note WP:NOT#News only bans routine news: Banning abortion in a country where the supreme court allowed it, in that it contradicts the supreme court, should have enduring notability for this subject. It's like when Santa Fe ISD fought for school prayer up to the supreme court.

Also news like this is important and Wikipedia notable especially for a town of 2,189. Wikipedia editors should be relaxed (within reason) about inclusion of events or ordinary editors will ignore these small town articles entirely. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looking at the revision history of the article, the "not news" objection has been misapplied. When the governing body of a town of 2,000 people does something that makes international news ([1]), it clearly warrants inclusion on the town's wikipedia article. It doesn't warrant disproportionate treatment, like an enormous section discussing the event, but a sentence or two can hardly be objectionable. It's fair to say that this is the only thing that the town has ever been known for. And we would ignore it? Rubbish. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a town of 2000 people. The governing body made a non binding resolution. The talking heads reported on it. Bottom line....there are no secondary sources AT ALL. It isn't possible. If people are talking about it in reliable sources still a year from now, then we should add it. Pretty sure they won't be. If this isn't a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, nothing is . A major story would be the Las Vegas shootings; the Concorde crash, the MSD shooting. This is nothing more than a bunch of nothing small time politicians fishing for 15 minutes of fame. They got it. End of story. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is a secondary source https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/13/waksom-texas-outlaws-abortion-five-men/?utm_term=.7b8c20fef7a2

Even if a news event is not warranted for a dedicated article it can still be warranted for space within a larger article.

NOTNEWS is not designed to restrict coverage of all non-routine events. X not being talked about in a year may prevent a dedicated article, but that's not necessarily a reason to prevent article space to be used for non-routine events even if discussion tapers off.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmhaydensmith: Please see the discussion here WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon:@Mkativerata: Since there had been a relative lack of attention to this page, I opened Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Waskom,_Texas to help clarify things. Also I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should Waskom, Texas mention the abortion ban made by city council in 2019?

There is a unanimous consensus in this RfC that the Waskom, Texas article should mention the abortion ban made by city council in 2019.
Cunard (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was a vote from the Waskom, Texas city council to ban abortion, even though abortion is allowed nationwide as per a Supreme Court ruling; this was covered in national newspapers. As of writing it is too early to tell how often/whether coverage of the same event will continue at national, statewide, and local levels.

The question is whether this vote is a significant enough detail to include in the history of the town. One editor argues that as per WP:NOTNEWS it is not significant enough, while myself and another editor disagree. Please see the above discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include. When a town of that size receives this level of media coverage, the subject should be covered because there isn't much else that's noteworthy about the place. R2 (bleep) 02:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include for the reasons I gave in the discussion above this one. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include for reasons I gave above WhisperToMe (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include; there's room to debate exactly how much info to include, but the one sentence being debated here seems WP:DUE, especially compared to the tidbit directly above it: In 2014 and 2015, Waskom High School won the 3A D2 state title in football. A sentence or so for something about the town that made the national news is fine. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include per the above well reasoned comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include per Ahrtoodeetoo, as long as it is appropriately balanced. Notability is not temporary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include BUT only two sentences AND mention this: The municipal prohibition, which plainly contradicts the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court, joins statewide bans on abortion sweeping the country in the wake of the solidification of a conservative majority on the nation’s top court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/13/waksom-texas-outlaws-abortion-five-men/?utm_term=.9e50e1f49ee7
Include (Summoned by bot) – I'm normally very sympathetic to excluding trivia per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:INDISCRIMINATE and have argued those myself more than once. However, they do not apply here. The vote is lent importance by the high notability and importance of the abortion debate in the United States. Had Waskom voted to ban in-vitro fertilization, it would be worth inclusion for the same reason. Had they voted to ban spitting on the pavement, or perpendicular parking, it would not be worth including; but this issue is not in that category. As a post-script: I have to say, I'm a bit amazed at all the star power responding to an Rfc in this dusty corner of the encyclopedia. Well done. Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include per all the good reasons listed above. Content seems WP:DUE given coverage vs the size or otherwise notability of the town. Galestar (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include because there is no sufficient reason to do the contrary. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BBC article

An earlier version http://web.archive.org/web/20190614012805/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48628224 and http://archive.is/GePoM said the members were all male and white, but the current version https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48628224 only says they were all male. I wonder if the news agency made an error, or removed the racial detail for other reasons. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]