Talk:Big Spring, Texas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:04, 22 February 2006 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 editsm Reverted edits by Happyjoe (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:24, 22 February 2006 edit undoJoanneB (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users19,122 edits →Page "Protection: commentNext edit →
Line 155:		Line 155:
	According to Misplaced Pages policy as copied above... semi-protecting this page is not acceptable. {{unsigned\|Ohnoitsjayme}}		According to Misplaced Pages policy as copied above... semi-protecting this page is not acceptable. {{unsigned\|Ohnoitsjayme}}
	: My first impersonator! I'm flattered. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)		: My first impersonator! I'm flattered. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

			== Another attempt to resolve this issue ==

			First of all, please do not try to impersonate other users. It's not allowed (according to Misplaced Pages policy), but furthermore, it just doesn't provide a good basis for good communication. I did semiprotect tonight, since the other solution to one person constantly 'attacking' an article is blocking that person - but since you are using a dynamic IP, that's not quite feasible.
			As we try to 'assume good faith', I'll unblock the page now, and try to discuss with you about these edits. But since many others have tried that above, I'm warning you that that won't work forever.
			Ok, first of all, we try to provide ] and ] information. From what I've seen, , which is added by multipe IPs doesn't meet those criteria. Please don't keep re-adding it! If you want that kind of information in the article, write it in a neutral way and make sure you've got some trustable sources (that can be accessed by other Wikipedians, so either a book or a website) to back you up. Second, please stay ] while communicating with other editors and ]. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or on this page --]<font color="green">]</font>] 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:24, 22 February 2006

Cultural context info

The cultural context information is valid, if unpleasant, as anyone who has visited Big Spring can attest and was not added with the intent of "vandalism" but rather of including a factual description of Big Spring that may differ from that of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Please refer to WP:NPOV. I'm sure that not everyone in this town shares your point of view. Jasmol 05:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that not everyone agrees with certain information does not invalidate that information. In addition, the cultural context added provides far more useful information about Big Spring, than census data, geographical coordinates and the fact that a 35 year old movie was filmed there.

Yes, Big Spring sucks, we get that. I've been to Big Spring too many freaking times on stupid high school functions to not get that. But, this article is bad. Incredibly. Needs major cleanup work.

Any desire for a brief history of Big Spring? If nothing else, we could rework the blurb on the Cowboy's Steakhouse menu into something useable :) Applejuicefool 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Culture information, it clearly does not stand up to WP:NPOV and should be removed. The description of Big Spring is NOT factual, as asserted in the first paragraph on this page; instead, it is a mass of opinion. "Many people believe..." What people? "The school system is appalling" opinion. "Football takes precedence..." opinion (and I'm a science teacher at BSHS). "The economic base consists largely..." sources? "One of the major career opportunities..." compared to what? Sources? "A high percentage of the population lives in poverty..." what percentage? source? etc. etc. etc. This section of the article is nothing but a slam on Big Spring and should be entirely rewritten. In fact, I plan to do so. Thanks, Applejuicefool 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Culture & Economics discussion is quite valid. I am a third generation Big Spring resident, born and raised. I love Big Spring. Pointing out some of the challenges that face the city of Big Spring presents a necessary balanced view. If you want advertising copy, the Chamber of Commerce will be all too happy to provide fancy brochures that gloss over all of the difficulties that local residents face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.232.3 (talk • contribs) .

Ok, I don't want this to turn into a revert war, so I'm going to temporarily leave the content on there to let you explain why your content is balanced. While you're at it, also explain how your content is anything more than your personal opinion and how it fits in with Misplaced Pages policy. According to policy,

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Have you ever read content in a modern, reputable encyclopedia like your Culture and Economics section?
Avoid bias.
Misplaced Pages should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. If you're basing your information on your own personal experience living in Big Spring or on your own personal discussions with Big Spring residents, you are in violation of this tenet. In other words, according to policy, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."
Advocacy and controversial material. Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. By your own words, "Pointing out some of the challenges that face the city of Big Spring presents a necessary balanced view." Necessary for what? It sounds like you have a political agenda in your article. Even if you love Big Spring as you say, writing a Misplaced Pages article to shed light on its flaws is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages.

Incidentally, the first two bullets come from the Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines page, the third from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and the last from Misplaced Pages:Your first article.

I'm not saying I want the Big Spring article to sound like Chamber of Commerce copy. Whether this endears me to you or not, I am a former Herald reporter and now a high school teacher. I don't have your three generations, but I do know something about both journalistic and academic style and integrity. I want the article to be factual and based on outside research, not a mass of anyone's opinions - yours or the Chamber's or even mine. Applejuicefool 03:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Political POV

65.122.236.133; the cultural section that you insist on adding is clearly in violation of neutral-point-of-view policy. As mentioned before, this isn't an attempt to sanitize the article and have it read like a PR piece; on the contrary, I often remove positive statements from various articles for the same reason that I've removed the "cultural" section; it is 90% point of view and/or unverifiable statements. There are a few elements of it that if sourced could be appropriate; if you could dig up some poverty statistics, or employment statistics (verifying that the prison is indeed the biggest or one of the biggest employers), that would be fine. The Detroit, MI article provides good examples of how to discuss the negative aspects of a city while maintaining a neutral point-of-view. There is no place in this article for positive/negative commentary about Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Communist policies. OhNoitsJamie 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this page. Please discuss this further, and after you have come to a conclusion contact me or an other admin and it will unprotected. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 01:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture and Economics (advert)

The Culture and Economics section reads like an advert. I was going to add the advert template, but I'm sure it will get reverted. I'll mention it here instead. Warning, hyperbole and adverts below...

The people are the friendliest you'll meet! And if you like barbecue and Tex-Mex food Big Spring has some outstanding restaurants. Brenda’s Barbecue is highly recommended, although residents of Big Spring are quite opinionated when it comes to a discussion of barbecue or Tex-Mex food. There is one truly amazing display of Christmas lights at the Partee residence. The "Live Drive Through Nativity" is one of a kind. Housing costs are unbelievably inexpensive and many people have adapted to the arid climate by xeriscaping their lawns.

- ApolloCreed 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This individual has been pushing POV in this article for weeks . The recent revisions are simply the "positives" from that large POV section. Positive or negative, it's still POV. I've seen no good-faith discussion of the issue from this user (beyond simply stating that "it's valid") and they've already been blocked for violating 3RR once (and a fresh report has just been filed). OhNoitsJamie 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

- Ohnoitsjamie has a history of deletionist bullying in order to enforce his/her own POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs) .

I would be good to have some photographs of Big Spring included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs) .

History (copyvio)

The history section contains two paragraphs that are blatant copy violations of url http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/PP/jbp1.html. - ApolloCreed 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The history section is not a copy violation. Please do not continue to deface this page with your repeated deletion of content. Please discuss why you insist on believing that this section is a copyright violation prior to defacing it yet again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.19.117 (talk • contribs) .

Please compare:

"In 1957 anti-prostitution groups gained an influential advocate in Texas attorney general Will Wilson, whose office led the way in disrupting Texas prostitution, including the Galveston racketeers. Church, legal and news media pressure forced many brothels to close and set the prostitution business on a downward course that continued into the 1960s."

"In 1957 they gained a powerful ally in Texas attorney general Will Wilson, whose office led the way in breaking the back of the Galveston racketeers. Legal and media pressure forced many brothels to close and set the volume of prostitution on a downward course that continued into the 1960s."

You've made minor changes to the source material and claimed that you wrote it. That's fairly basic Plagiarism. You could simply avoid this by using brief excerpts of the original text and attributing the source; there is no need lie about it or become defensive.Kuru 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the last edit to the main page before I read this, so disregard that edit summary. Kuru, you make a good point in that the original copyvio was only slightly paraphrased. I'm not an authority on the finer points of copyvio policy/law to know there the line is, so I'll defer that to someone else. OhNoitsJamie 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the history section dealt with some aspects of Big Spring history other than prostitution. While I know prostitution and vice did play a big part in Big Spring's history, it certainly isn't the be all and end all of Big Spring's past. Applejuicefool 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Cultural And Economics Section

There is an ongoing effort to sanitize and whitewash the Cultural and Economics discussion in this article. There have been repeated attempts to delete relevant and factual (if unpleasant) information about Big Spring in favor of a "Chamber of Commerce" POV that removes any and all references to the real challenges faced by the City of Big Spring, TX. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs) .

Please cite specific passages that you believe violate neutral-point-of-view. OhNoitsJamie 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can't cite any specifics, the "disputed" tag will be removed. OhNoitsJamie 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The return of the disputed tag

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Once again, you'll need to cite exactly which section(s) you think violate WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The continued deletionist bullying tactics by "ohnoitsjamie" to sanitize and whitewash information about a community I love dearly and that my family has called home for four generations is the reason for the disputed tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs) .

How is removing sections that are clearly WP:POV "deletionist bullying"? You still haven't cited any specific examples of problems with the current revision. If you cannot do so, the tag will be removed. OhNoitsJamie 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of adding a "disputed" tag to the talk page? OhNoitsJamie 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Errors of omission, by constantly whitewashing the Big Spring article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs) .

You apparently have yet to read the Misplaced Pages policy on neutral-point-of-view. The edits you've been trying to revert to clearly violate that policy. Can you cite one thing in the current article that cannot be verified? OhNoitsJamie 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your deletionist bullying tactics and relentless mendacity are amply demonstrated with your attempts to remove factual information from this article that does not fit into your "Chamber of Commerce" whitewash job on Big Spring. I love the Big Spring community dearly, warts and all. Your continually removing material from this article is in itself POV since you are making a POV decision as to what information is acceptable to you personally and what information is not acceptable to you. The disputed tag will remain until this issue is fully resolved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.145.215.206 (talk • contribs) .

I guess you still haven't read that policy yet. Also; please tell me just what "deletionist bullying" is? You apparently dug that up from my talk page. That comment was left by a persistent link spammer who was upset because I nominated two of his articles for deletion (one a hoax, the other an excuse to link to his own website). OhNoitsJamie 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think 65.122.236.133 put the disputed tag on the page, because some content has been repeatedly removed. Here is the edit summary that makes me think this: 21:52, February 21, 2006 65.122.236.133 (disputed due to errors of omission). Here is the content that has been removed. This article has a history of about 60 edits. Below is a list of 23 edits where pov content was reverted. There were also some edits reverted due to copyvios. A lot of time has been spent running in circles with this article, because it is disputed by just one user. This is an edit war of one against many. ~ Apollo Creed 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

~ Apollo Creed 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify your point please? I'm not sure what the listing up there is supposed to show. The edits removed were POV and unsourced, therefore a tag disputing the factuality of the article doesn't quite make sense since what is in the article at the moment is completley factual and not disputed. The dispute is about what is not there. psch e mp | talk 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is speculation, since I am not the one who put the disputed tag. I think the disputed tag was placed because of the rv pov edits. I think the user wants the dispute tag because the content (deemed pov by others) is not there anymore. The above list is just evidence of what "is not there", but is persistently added by the anon user. (Please respond if this is what you meant, Mr./Mrs. anonymous user). ~ Apollo Creed 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally deleting out factual and relevant information in order to conform to one person's particular biased POV is itself promoting a particular POV. In other words it is possible to implicitly lie by the omission of relevant and factual information and what is left out is often more important than what is included. The deletionist bullying tactics by "ohnoitsjamie" (and his/her cronies) to sanitize this article to conform to a "Chamber of Commerce" POV are creating an unbalanced, biased and misleading article.

Calling me the same name over and over again doesn't support your argument. If the edits you keep reverting to are indeed factual, they would also be sourceable. OhNoitsJamie 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

65, I don't want to portray what you call a "Chamber of Commerce" POV of Big Spring. I want Big Spring's article to represent a fair, unbiased description and history of the city. Words like "appalling", "unpleasant" and "amazing" (which you used in your "Culture and Economy" section) inherently involve bias. When you write a sentence like "Upon visiting Big Spring, the poverty and lack of medical care will be readily evident as soon as a local smiles, showing off a mouth full of the rotting stumps of what were once teeth," your bias on the topic of Big Spring dental hygiene is evident. I challenge you to provide one reputable reference (other than yourself) alleging that no resident of Big Spring has perfect teeth. You repeatedly use such hyperbole to make your points, which are generally negative, and we don't need this mess in an encyclopedia entry about Big Spring. Misplaced Pages is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum for venting your dissatisfaction about your home. It doesn't matter if your points are valid - they are still unacceptable as long as they exhibit a biased point of view and can't be independently verified. Applejuicefool 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag

user 69.145.215.206 One last time I'd like to ask you to list the reasons for the tag addition. Particularly becasue nothing in any previous discussions was posted by you, nor were you the originator of the tag. I am makin a good faith attempt to understand your reasons, thus I request clarification. Thank you.

Pleasy clarify you reasons for placing this tag. Here is the list of reasons why the tag should be used: The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

So far, I have not seen that any of these are occuring in this article, but welcome your comments, if not, the tag will be removed.psch e mp | talk 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the tag has been amply discussed above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs)

Please show me exaclty where by copying the relevent text down here to our conversation. I'm a bit slow sometimes. psch e mp | talk 07:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to put forth a cogent reason for it. Can you identify one sentence in the current article that can't be verified? Consider the first two sentences of the edit you keep reverting to: "Many people believe that Big Spring is representative of the social rot that Republicanism has wrought upon Texas. The school system is appalling, from kindergarten through Howard College..." and so on. Obviously, you haven't read (or don't understand) the neutral point of view policy. Enforcing that policy is not "whitewash," nor is it grounds for a "disputed" tag. OhNoitsJamie 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Page "Protection

Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made even while there would otherwise be a serious vandalism problem on a page. This means that there are some situations that, whilst semi-protection would be technically possible, it is not to be applied. These are mentioned above, and summarized here. Semi-protection:

Is not to be used to dispel edit warring or revert wars. See the protection policy for how to deal with this.
Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. This includes the day's Featured Article which should almost never be protected.
Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs)

According to Misplaced Pages policy as copied above... semi-protecting this page is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjayme (talk • contribs)

My first impersonator! I'm flattered. OhNoitsJamie 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to resolve this issue

First of all, please do not try to impersonate other users. It's not allowed (according to Misplaced Pages policy), but furthermore, it just doesn't provide a good basis for good communication. I did semiprotect tonight, since the other solution to one person constantly 'attacking' an article is blocking that person - but since you are using a dynamic IP, that's not quite feasible. As we try to 'assume good faith', I'll unblock the page now, and try to discuss with you about these edits. But since many others have tried that above, I'm warning you that that won't work forever. Ok, first of all, we try to provide neutral and factual, verifiable information. From what I've seen, this addition, which is added by multipe IPs doesn't meet those criteria. Please don't keep re-adding it! If you want that kind of information in the article, write it in a neutral way and make sure you've got some trustable sources (that can be accessed by other Wikipedians, so either a book or a website) to back you up. Second, please stay civil while communicating with other editors and asume good faith. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or on this page --JoanneB 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)