Talk:Big Spring, Texas/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cultural context info

message: 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Political POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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). OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture and Economics (advert) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  History (copyvio) 

message: 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can't cite any specifics, the "disputed" tag will be removed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Cultural And Economics Section

message: Once again, you'll need to cite exactly which section(s) you think violate WP:NPOV.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You apparently have yet to read the Wikipedia 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? OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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). OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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.  Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: The return of the disputed tag

message: 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)
replies: text: Please show me exaclty where by copying the relevent text down here to our conversation.  I'm a bit slow sometimes. pschemp | talk 07:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tag

message: 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 Wikipedia 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page "Protection

message: First of all, please do not try to impersonate other users. It's not allowed (according to Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Ok, "Jaime." Once again, even on this discussion page, you're making unrealistic and false generalizations.  I am a member of the Big Spring community.  True, I've only lived here five years, but I was a newspaper reporter and am currently a high school teacher, and believe I know the situation here as well as anybody.  You say "Big Spring is certainly not a community of writers," a statement to which I take exception.  I am a writer.  I know several other Big Spring writers, both at the Herald and from stories I worked on while I was at the Herald. The information that was in the "Culture and Economics" section is NOT commonly accepted within the Big Spring community. I am personally offended by the information that was in that section, and I feel reasonably certain that many Big Spring residents would feel the same.  My teeth are not "rotting stumps" as you claim is common to Big Spring residents.  As a teacher, I take exception to the statement "The school system is appalling."  There are problems, as there are in any school district, but we're working on them and making significant progress. Personally I have no information about whether fundamental, evangelical Christian beliefs encompass a majority of Big Spring's population, do you? I know there is certainly a large Catholic population. Who makes the recommendation not to drink Big Spring's water? The water is certainly drinkable...true, I prefer the taste of bottled water, but enjoy tap water with ice when bottled is not available.  I certainly use tap water for making tea and lemonade, without ill effect.  To my knowledge, the quality problems of Big Spring water have more to do with outdated pipes in the city's aging structures rather than a problem with the CRMWD or Big Spring's municipal water system.  The bookstore issue...I agree with you.  Big Spring could use a Borders, B&N or Hastings.  But we do have a non-Christian bookstore:  Wal-Mart.  They certainly have a better selection of books than the crummy On-Cue place that went out of business in the mall. Applejuicefool 22:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether you mean it as an 'impersonation' or not, it's not allowed to have usernames that are confusingly similar to other usernames. Therefore, that account has been blocked too, please create an account with a completely different username. Also, it would be really helpful if you could sign your comments, with ~~~~. 
Something about the content that you were adding: it's not enough that something is widely known and accepted within any community. There is a rule called No original research, which states that indeed that 'classist view' that you are describing, is the exact way Wikipedia editors/contributors should work. 
So, for now: please choose a new username, sign your contributions on talk pages like this and only add information to the article that fits the criteria described in this and my previous comments. Thanks for your cooperation! --JoanneB 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt to resolve this issue 

message: RFC regarding the dispute has been filed here. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make that staement here, and we'll see if that could happen.  Joe I 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope that the RFC can move forward now that Applejuicefool has accepted a consensus compromise on this thorny issue.  Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC has been filed

message: Dear Mr. or Ms. ApolloCreed, I strongly disagree with the applicability of the analogy you use. I believe that this is a case of the sort of censorship that is becoming all too common in the United States of America. A censorship of omission where relevant facts are simply left out and those who attempt to bring up these omitted facts are ostracized and attacked.  It is indeed a sad day when Wikipedia succumbs to this sort of tyranny and becomes a self censoring community, a community that has internalized the values of the status quo to such a degree that any attempt to offer truth is branded "POV", and the truth tellers are attacked and hounded.
As I stated above, I have been personally attacked, had multiple accounts and IPs blocked on false pretenses, and then when I was forced to use different IPs and accounts in order to defend myself I was falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet", had RFCs started in my name and then had my response to the RFC heavily edited and parts removed, had all of my edits repeatedly removed from the Big Spring article, etc. All of this because I tried to insert the truth in a single article about a small town in West Texas. If this is the reaction here, it seriously causes me to question the veracity of the rest of Wikipedia.
We were able to reach agreement and consensus with Applejuicefool's excellent idea of inserting the "box", but alas even this was not acceptable to the enemies of consensus and compromise, those who believe it is either "their way or no way". But I am through with this argument, at least for the time being. My health is poor and I have been exerting entirely too much energy into tilting at windmills. Further I am entering the hospital on Monday and have far more serious issues to be thinking about. I had simply hoped that I could at least make some small contribution to a city that has treated me well, a city that I owe much to, and a city that I hold dear.
To Applejuicefool, I would like to commend you on your reaching out in this situation and your willingness to compromise and reach consensus. Your agreement to reach consensus by adding the table was commendable. I am sorry that others forced the removal of the table. To others, you are either incredibly naive or blatantly mendacious, but I am too old to hold malice towards the petty actions of others and I wish you well. 
Somewhat less Happyjoe 65.122.236.133 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you're having a hard time fitting in here. Try not to take this all so personally. We're just debating whether your content fits wikipedia's three content-related guidelines: verifiability, no original research, and unbiased.  The easiest of these to prove is verifiability as it is often a black-and-white issue.  No sources were cited in the content you kept adding. Plain and simple, that is enough reason to remove content. If you have a statement that is true, but have no means to verify it (by citing sources), how are we to know it is true? If we did not have the guideline of verifiability, wikipedia would quickly fill with opinions and incorrect facts. I appreciate and respect that you feel passionately about your community and want people to know the truth about it, warts and all, but there are also people who feel passionately that wikipedia should be verifiable, have no original research, and be unbiased. I really think you should get a blog to write about your town and maybe even write about your experiences here at wikipedia. Blogger and Livejournal are both really popular sites for blogs. They don't cost any money and are easy to use. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My absolute final attempt at compromise and consensus building with the uncompromising and tyrannical whitewashers

message: To whom it may concern:
I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am not sure who to contact within Wikipedia tech support to fix this problem. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles that I am a contributor to. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 03:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Account Unjustly Blocked