Misplaced Pages

Talk:Big Spring, Texas: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:57, 22 February 2006 edit65.122.236.133 (talk) →Dispute tag← Previous edit Revision as of 07:10, 22 February 2006 edit undoOhnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators260,938 edits disputed tagNext edit →
Line 184: Line 184:
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.<small>]]] | ]</small> 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 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.<small>]]] | ]</small> 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The reason for the tag has been amply discussed above. The reason for the tag has been amply discussed above.{{unsigned|65.122.236.133}}
: 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 ] policy. Enforcing that policy is not "whitewash," nor is it grounds for a "disputed" tag. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">]</font>]</b> 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:10, 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)

This weekend I will write some new content for Big Spring. For now, I am going to delete the entire Culture and Economy section on grounds of NPOV violation. You can't completely slam my town in every substantive way using undocumented opinions (as expressed in the previous paragraph) and then say (and I paraphrase) "on the upside it has good barbecue." Applejuicefool 14:38, 27 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)

Ideas for rewrite

Ok, just moving ahead to give you a glimpse of my ideas for this page. I would like to:

  • Rework the intro to give more general information about Big Spring.
  • Keep the Geography and Demographics sections as is.
  • Remove the Culture and Economics section.
  • Add a section on Big Spring history.
  • Add a list of Big Spring landmarks.
  • Add a list of Big Spring's major businesses and industries.
  • Add a list of Big Spring organizations.
  • Add a list of Big Spring annual events (Pops, Christmas parade, Rodeo, etc.)
  • Add a fair, unbiased treatment of Big Spring's major problems (Population decline, poverty, decline of downtown area, empty buildings, trash, etc.)

Ideas? Applejuicefool 04:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Applejuicefool. I like to see town/city articles that have more information about the town than just the standard census stuff; however, the article should neither read like a promotional Chamber of Commerce piece nor a political commentary. The additions that Applejuicefool is proposing are all verifiable additions (or at least they should be). OhNoitsJamie 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the Corpus_Christi,_Texas is a pretty good Texas city article; maybe we could incorporate the city infobox that one uses? OhNoitsJamie 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help to Jamie and Kuru! Applejuicefool 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New Content

Ok, I'm going to add a new "Points of Interest" section on the Big Spring page, with subsections for Landmarks, Organizations, Businesses, and Events. Eventually I plan to fill them in with a page for each. Jamie, I looked at the Corpus page. I think the info box would be nifty...didn't have time this weekend to quite figure out how it was implemented. Applejuicefool 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Revising the intro. Applejuicefool 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamie, thanks for your edits. They look great! Question - what's the policy about linking to a non-official site? For instance, there's not an official Howard County (Courthouse) site, but I did find a non-official site that has pictures of the courthouse. 12.189.48.130 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is no official site, the best non-official site makes the most sense. The two guidelines I try to go by are (1) don't get carried away with an External Links section (WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files|Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links]]) and (2) watch for spam links (i.e., low-content and/or non-notable links that have lots of ads or Google syndication; Misplaced Pages is a hot target for spammers because of the massive traffic it drives). OhNoitsJamie 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Eventually I plan to replace some of these external links with Misplaced Pages pages. Oh, and I am 12.189.whatever above. Applejuicefool 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, 65. Good edits, overall. What do you think about, instead of a category in the POI section specifically for prisons, that we pull some out of the Landmarks category, add some others, and put in a "Major Employers" category? To my thinking, having a "Prisons" category is kinda the same as having a "Furniture Stores" category. Big Spring has several of those, too, but we don't need to get that specific with the categories, right? What about:

Major Employers

  • VA Medical Center
  • Big Spring Independent School District
  • City of Big Spring
  • Wal-Mart
  • Scenic Mountain Medical Center
  • Big Spring Federal Correctional Institution
  • Big Spring Federal Prison Camp
  • Big Spring Correctional Center (Cornell Companies)

etc., corrected for official names? Perhaps I could even do some research and put them in the right order? Also, how about the idea of removing the "abandoned" tag when we get a Settles Hotel page put together? Of course, the separate page would have the info that it's abandoned, talk about some of the history, past restoration efforts, etc., and have "before and after" pics. What do you think? Applejuicefool 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Bubba Franks in the intro. Alas, he is the only nationally-famous person I can discover with a strong Big Spring connection. 65, you're a lifelong resident, do you know of any others? If we get a few more, we could have a famous people section. Applejuicefool 15:01, 3 February 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."

to

"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)


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. ~ ApolloCreed 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

~ ApolloCreed 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. pschemp | 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). ~ ApolloCreed 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.

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.pschemp | 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)

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)