User talk:Louisvillian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Signing your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!John Reaves 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Volume of text on talk pages
I realize we don't seem to agree on much, but I would like to request that you consider others when leaving talk page responses. It's very difficult to read through the current high volume of text (much of which you are placing in some talk pages). Some people use dialup access and it takes a while to load all that up. Further, it's really hard to read pages or find specific things (some of which you refer to in exasperation that I should have looked at). Well, many of us are too busy to rummage through an extremely voluminous talk page to find anything. I hope that you will find a way to begin providing succinct answers to questions, not for the sake of me, but for everyone involved. It's not just a conversation between you and me, but a public conversation that everyone has to deal with. Thanks for your time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Velocity Blog
I noticed that you made a comment on the Southern talk page regarding the Velocity blog that I posted on recently. I don't know and have never met the person who created that blog (and that was my first post on that site), so I have no clue as to why she wouldn't allow certain posts. I'd love to continue the debate, and Stevietheman actually has a Louisville history and issues board here - [1] . Feel free to start a discussion there, and I will join in. --70.168.88.158 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changing Focus/Journal of Economic History cites
Regarding your edits on the Kentucky page and the American South page: I realize that you feel very strongly about the regional identity of Kentucky. However, the state is mixed, is a border state, and no information at all has been listed in the article along those lines for the most part. In the past, when people have tried to insert such information about Kentucky, it has been removed without reason. The Kentucky page on Wikipedia, in the introduction, states that Kentucky is sometimes considered a part of the Midwest, and this is fact is cited. Under the "Cultural Variations" section of the American South article, I have avoided using absolutes - I said that "many Kentuckians" see themselves as Midwesterners and, regardless of whether or not you like/agree with this, my Changing Focus survey, from an accredited, peer-reviewed source, found that only 47.86% of Kentuckians chose the term "South", while 32.48% chose the term "Midwest" for their state. It is undeniably clear that many Kentuckians in the northern part of the state are not willing to label themselves as Southerners. If you are not one of them I respect that, but you cannot revert edits that have qualified sources simply because you disagree with a statement. Concerning Louisville, my cite from the Journal of Economic History states that "The Midwest is defined as the manufacturing portion of the East and West North Central census regions plus West Virginia and Kentucky cities along the Ohio River." In ranking Midwestern cities in terms of employment in 1880, it ranked Louisville as the "seventh largest Midwestern city", behind Detroit but ahead of Indianapolis.
Again, I respect your feelings. But the truth is that "some" Kentuckians, many in the northern regions of the state, do not consider themselves Southerners, and that the state of Kentucky is included in the Midwest in some defintions. I have provided verifiable sources for this from respected, peer-reviewed works. In the future, please read and review works before removing citations. Thanks.
[Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels - [2] Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century - [3] --70.168.88.158 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, Louisvillian, we are all quite aware by this point that you don't acknowledge the Midwestern influence in Kentucky. That's fine with me, because you have a right to your opinion. Again, this is just your opinion and nothing else, and you cannot remove citations and ignore qualified research evidence just because it is not in accord with your opinion, as you have done repeatedly. This is obstructionism and it is a violation of policy. You have been overturned on the Kentucky page and on the Louisville page, and if you continue to remove my citations from peer-reviewed research journals I will call for arbitration in this matter. Furthermore, while I have provided links to my citations, you have failed to provide any types of links or cites for the Southern Focus Survey. Now, apparently you don't have access to JSTOR, or you haven't read the sources at all because you are CLEARLY wrong, as the Journal of Economic History study, as clearly as day, includes both Louisville and Kentucky as Midwestern. So to end this repetitive nonsense, I've posted a copy of the study on my personal web site, here - www.geocities.com/johnsont458/midwestindustry.pdf . --70.168.88.158 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
On point, in reference to the edit summary "Gator 80% of Kentuckians consider their state Southern GET OVER IT", I have to make clear: Majoritarianism cannot exceed fact. One cannot punish a minority view by exterminating it. If 80% of Kentuckians consider their state Southern (a dubious factoid anyway), the view of the remaining 20% (a very significant portion) cannot be ignored. But it's not about statewide opinion polls anyway, but instead about the history and culture of the Northern parts of the state. And no polls have been provided about how people in the Northern areas feel about whether they consider Kentucky to be Southern. Until we see that kind of poll, we must rely on other sources. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, what is being ignored here is that "culture" is a qualitative measure, not a quantitative one. There is no numerical continuum for "culture"; you cannot score a 20 on the "culture test" and be declared a Northerner, or score a "75" and be declared a Southerner. Culture is blurry, ambiguous; it is about habits, history, cuisine, traditions, norms, values, and much more. And indeed, the 80% number is highly dubious, especially considering that the Changing Usage study found only 47.86% of Kentuckians using the term South to describe the region (the proportion was 82.11% in neighboring Tennessee), with a third identifying as Midwesterners - something that is being tacitly ignored in this discussion. --Gator87 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Hi, first off no, I'm not an administrator, sorry for any confusion. Secondly, I wouldn't consider my self informed enough on the issue to voice an opinion. All I really know is that this is a very contentious issue that will probably always have conflict associated with it. If it becomes a bigger issue, you might consider dispute resolution. John Reaves (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Southern Page Edit War Southern U.S.
Hi this is Louisvillian and there is currently an Edit War on the Southern U.S. page between myself and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.168.88.158 or Gator (his login name and I noticed you've already warned him of is highly opinionated edits)and if I'm not mistaken you are an admin and I was hoping to put an end to this. This war is involving the Cultural variations section about Kentucky. It's basically about is Kentucky more Southern or Midwestern and what not, and me knowing opinions mean nothing on this site provided a few sources to back what I put into the Article here is my Edit
Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while a good majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2]. Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.
Here is his edits
Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that many Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels. [2] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern when compared to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as a Midwestern city in some analyses of the region [3], is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.
The other user is having alot of problems at the part where it states that the vast majority of Kentuckians identify with the South (which was cited with The Southern Focus Study). He just wants it to say that Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, without mention of the source that I've provided. This stems from a debate as to which of our sources is more reliable, My Southern Focus Study which has been conducted for the past decade and is still running, or his pre 1990's study that was conducted for only one year. So I tried to incorperate both of our sources (which you can see in my edit above), But he is using his opinion to counter this source. There is also a problem at the part where it claims that Northern Ky is more Midwestern than Southern (as it was not cited) so I cited it with a map created by this nation most reknwon georgrapher DW Meining's. The problem he has with this is that it proves that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern (which is against his opinion). He continues to edit the Southern Indiana claim without touching the Northern Kentucky claim, which are cited by the same moer than credible source. I've lately tried to compromise with him on the edits, however he continues to take out my more than qualified ( much more so than the little sources he has provdided to support his opinion which is in the minority might I add) and preferred (by the concensus on this current and old Southern talk page) sources, without cause/ his opinion.
Now he is also making a claim that Louisville is considerd a Midwestern city, and attempted to cite it with a JSTOR, that's fine, But what he claimed was not in the Exert from the JSTOR to prove Louisville was a Midwestern city is not in there at all. It doesn't even mention the state of Kentucky on the JSTOR. If you aren't too busy can please take time to resolve this matter, if you can please send me a message on my page Louisvillian 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's really not important what I think about the dispute. You and the person with whom you are edit-warring need to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to some sort of conclusion / comprimise with which you two (and ideally everyone else) will agree. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- As far as I am concerned, there was never any discussion regarding the status of Kentucky - it is a Border State, and this has been common knowledge for the last 150 years. And I am not "ignorning" your sources. As Stevietheman pointed out, since Wikipedia must strive for a NPOV, it is necessary to find common ground among the research analyzed and avoid taking extreme, polarizing viewpoints that will cause undue dispute. All of the studies that have been presented come to a consensus regarding the use of the word "many" to describe both the Midwest and South element in Kentucky, but you insist on upholding one study - the Southern Focus one - and its use of majority, and thus blatantly pushing aside every single citation that I have provided. There can never be a discussion about the fact that "many Kentuckians consider themselves to be Southerners", and there can never be a discussion about the fact that "many Kentuckians consider themselves to be Midwesterners." So what is the point of this dogged insistence on the phrase "good majority?", if not to discredit the Midwestern influence in Kentuck? This is silly and pointless, because the only thing that you changed in my edit was the word "many" to "majority" - was this done to improve the section? I do not have reason to believe so. Since my study found only a minority of Kentuckians using the term "South" to describe the state, you have atttempted to discredit and ignore it, but you have no logical, substantiable ground for ignorning a peer-reviewed study. So no, I have not "ignored" your sources, because the word "many" represents the findings of your studies; instead, you have ignored MY sources, tried to marginalize them, engaged in a vitriolic and profanity-laced discourse on the page, and straight-out rejected my compromise with the word "many" - a word, and finding, that all of our studies agree on. For me to accept phrases about a "good majority" of Kentuckians would require me to drop all of my sources and pay attention to only your information, and furthermore, to ignore and forget every history lesson that I've ever learned about this state - something I am not willing to do.
--Gator87 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kentucky - A True Southern State
I'd be more than happy to help you with your concensus. I truly and strongly believe that Kentucky is a Southern state, as does the majority of the population. And I empathize with your frustration, as I've often experienced Texas being called a non-Southern state as well. --Stallions2010 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Hi Louisvillian, I would be happy to join you the debate on the Southern United States article, as far as I'm concerned if the census bureau considers Kentucky's a southern state than it is a southern state, I never have quite understood others proclaiming that It is not. - thank you Astuishin 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
