Talk:Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

Dispute

I invite the IP user to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Most believe a majority of Mainers did not support the national park proposal, but no state-wide poll was conducted Many Mainers, three-quarters of Maine’s congressional delegation, Maine’s governor and the state legislature had opposed the concept, and the majority of the congressional delegation had opposed even designation as a national monument. With no wave of support for the national park and lacking the congressional support required for a park, the option left to the President to lift his pen.

I suggested the change to "many", respectfully, rather than be very controversial and use negative language.

What most believe is not relevant, we go with what reliable sources state. There have been polls conducted, including one mentioned here where 60 percent supported making the area a park. I don't have it in front of me but even broken down by congressional district most supported it(though less so in CD2). The local referendums expressing opposition aren't accurate indicators of support, as very few people voted in them. That's why it was worded the way it was, and why it should remain so. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This indicates strong support in the second district. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree "What most believe is not relevant" but that was only the start of the statement as conjecture. Those "reliable sources" are not complete for statewide opinion, so the word "minority" is unfair to the population. The way it is worded presently as a minority does not reflect that only local polls were taken and the way it is worded now makes it sound like it was supported statewide. "many" is a fairer and more applicable word and can be used for minority and majority since it does not speak in quantity specifically. 67.255.232.16 (talk)Pamola —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC) U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin was quoted, "While opposed to a unilateral decision, ignoring the votes in the local towns, the Maine Legislature and Congress, I will continue to work with everyone to move this project forward in the right way in order to build a stronger economy that creates more and better paying jobs in the Katahdin Region and in Maine."

Respectfully, 67.255.232.16 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Pamola

The word 'minority' is not unfair if it is indeed a minority; googling the word 'many' indicates one meaning is "a majority of people" which is how I (and I assume Calidum, though I don't speak for them) interpreted the sentence. As I indicated, the local votes Poliquin cites had low levels of participation. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

many is a large number of persons or things and or a large but -indefinite- number

many is a much fairer word. i'm not discounting support or opposition or the ignorant things LePage has said since the beginning of time, only the word "minority".67.255.232.16 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)pamola

I respectfully do not see how minority is unfair, it is a simple description of the facts. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We go by sources, not personal interpretations of dictionary definitions. "Many" is meaningless in this context, and it's not appropriate to water down material that's specifically supported by the source. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

it's not a personal interpretation - it is what it stated - i provided my citation and even looked it up in a paper dictionary.

Facts they are but not a complete description - they do include the actual opinion of the entire state and are incomplete - saying that it was a minority is therefore not entirely known nor do we actually know that there was a majority. it would have been nice if there had been a state wide poll. it probably would have been in favor for but there is no conclusive evidence that it was a majority in favor.

I think. "many" works for both sides. but perhaps it could be written that "a minority of the polled areas, which was not statewide, ..."

i super appreciate your point of view and your candor and care for the facts.67.255.232.16 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Pamola

I'm not sure why you think there were not statewide polls, there were, and I link to where one was mentioned above. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You're demanding an inappropriate standard of proof: the source makes a general evaluation and backs it up by mentioning polls. We don't need to get into the mechanics of how that was determined. I would prefer a positive affirmation rather than inverting sourced majority support to minority opposition. "Although polls have found majority support in Maine, substantial opposition remains" or something along those lines. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion - I certainly don't think I was demanding. I was merely pointing out that "many" was a more appropriate word. I do agrre that your statement suggested is a better reflection than what is currently written. Thank you.67.255.232.16 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Pamola

References