Talk:Folkmoot USA

Written like an advertisement?

Moved from User talk:Gemchadur, where I gave my opinions about this person's edits:

I wanted to talk about your changes.

Last week I made my annual visit to the historic school though I didn't go inside because it's too hard for me to climb so many steps and I didn't know what to ask or who to ask. I'm having a lot of trouble finding sources to improve the article. Still, most of what was there needs to remain there. Now that I see you are inexperienced, it might be a good idea to ask for opinions from others, but I want to state my point of view on three topics. You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia policies, or at least think you do, for someone with so few edits.

The first topic is Verifiability, not truth. I've been here twelve years and still need to learn some things. Still, the list of performance locations should stay the same in the absence of updated information. You changed to past tense when it is likely the information is still true. I will have to check some sources to make sure, but in a lot of cases no one bothers to provide updated information. It said 2014 in one sentence because that's what I could verify. It is perfectly justified, in my opinion, to list the first time a particular venue was used, if it is still used.

The second topic is removing information that looks promotional. Looking at the second paragraph you changed, it appears you were removing promotional language. I see it differently. Folkmoot has high standards and in the version preferred by Gemchadur, that idea is not represented. Folkmoot's intention of making sure as many countries as possible perform is something we can conclude from what is left, but it is not stated. All of this is sourced but User:Gemchadur removed the source. I didn't know when I wrote all that about having a source for each paragraph. I will admit the first paragraph User:Gemchadur removed entirely doesn't serve much a purpose for Wikipedia. Perhaps it looked better in the original version and I reworded because we have to do that.

The next two paragraphs look okay except for the loss of "which had a history of preserving its traditional culture". I get that "would be the ideal location for an American folk festival" looks promotional.

The last two paragraphs are about the school, but there is another problem with promotional language, so let's start with that. "The organization's mission of understanding other cultures continued the rest of the year." It is sourced, but maybe not worded right. They do more than just hold this festival. I think that needs to stay in some way. Once again, the organization has other purposes, but we are not entitled, according to User:Gemchadur's edits, to know this. "The change would allow Folkmoot to have events year-round" and "the uncertainty about its future location prevented Folkmoot from expanding its programs". No, these apparently must be promotional.

The third topic is the historic school. Whether it is entitled to its own article, I don't know. It's not on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make it definitely notable. But a lot of important information was lost. Some would be appropriate for a separate article about the school, should one be justified. Other information is still important and the article loses something without it. But let's look at this from the point of view of someone doing research.

Let's start with the first paragraph. Oh, they need a place to go. Hey, how about this old empty building? Neat! So we don't know where the building is or why it's empty. Oh, right, I guess there's not a school there any more, is there? And I guess they use the whole building, right? By the way, how old is it?

The second paragraph doesn't explain why the school system gave them the building. I guess it was out of the goodness of their hearts. And it is the whole building. right? Apparently so since in User:Gemchadur's version we are given no other information. And there's no mention as to why owning its building is important. But every organization prefers to own its own building rather than renting. Right?

Now I admit a lot of information is still missing. Some of what I said about the building doesn't make a lot of sense because we are not provided with details. I can say the Folkmoot headquarters is in the building built in 1939. Except I can't."Verifiability, not truth" and original research. I found one source that says the building was built in 1923. Except it wasn't. I reported this and I think the article's writer understands but I don't recall whether there was a correction. The building which says "1923" has a totally different architectural style. It was also the county's largest school when it was built but I forget where I learned that. This isn't relevant unless Folkmoot uses that building, and I haven't found a source that says it does. The Alternative Learning Center is in the 1955 section. That can be concluded from its architectural style (it's probably not the 1958 wing since the older building would be the one connected to an even older building), but it's original research. I only found a source that says it is in the old school, but not which part of the building. I did find a source that says the county school system is moving some stuff around and parts of the Hazelwood School may get different uses. An update may or may not give us some definite information. The architectural style of the newest building (original research) is different and a sign says what it is used for but I can't find a source saying that. Now if we had a definite source saying which building(s) houses Folkmoot, all those other details could go in an article about the school, should one be acceptable. But I can't find sources for much of anything about the school.

And these are my thoughts.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)