Jump to content

Talk:Harrison, Arkansas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Harrison versus Zinc

There seems to have been some disagreements over the location of the "Klan". Zinc's claims seem to have some backing, such as:

-- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Klan" is based in Zinc, which is a tiny little backwater 20 miles from Harrison. 216.116.87.110 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Harrison race riots

I've removed a long and interesting passage about Harrison's race riots of 1905 and 1909, not because "The article was misleading, slanderous, hateful, limited to half truths at best, about a nice little town. Harrison is always highly listed as one of the best small towns in the USA", but instead because the material had been illicitly copied from this page ("©2010 The Central Arkansas Library System - All rights reserved") of The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. IFF legitimately written for Wikipedia (and not plagiarized), material about these riots would certainly belong in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I inserted two sentences about race riots and cited the PBS program. These sentences were removed but they were not plagiarized. I reinserted them. Jbgilm (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Town's racist reputation not covered

Where is the 'real' history of this town. 1901, 1905, and 1909? Blacks were 'expelled' from their homes in this town. Who wrote this very unrealistic article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavis22 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask that, too. The TV show Independent Lens did an episode which covered Harrison's racist community (which very much exists today, as was made VERY clear in the TV special). This Harrison article is large enough that it makes the fact the town's racist reputation is left out of it look very, very obvious and glaring. It was deliberately left out -- it had to have been. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether either of you have checked back recently, but I've added a bullet-point about Harrison being home to the headquarters of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Let me say, as a Klansman, that it wasn't any of us who deleted (or omitted) references to the expulsion of blacks. We're proud of our organization, and couldn't be paid to cover it up. The details about the Klan were probably omitted/removed by someone who ISN'T in the Klan, HATES the Klan, has no concept of "completeness/full disclosure" or a "detached, neutral, professional tone" as it relates to Wikipedia, and was expressing their point of view (against Wikipedia's guidelines and principles). I will be defending against any removal of properly-cited, accurate information from this article. Completeness is of the essence, as is neutrality. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC

I restored a sentence about the racist history of Harrison. It has been edited out previously, and I go back occasionally to restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgilm (talk • contribs) 20:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Walmart Supercenter

I have removed an assertion that the Harrison Walmart (Store #2) was the first Supercenter. I have personal knowledge that Berryville's Walmart was a Supercenter for at least a year before Harrison's. Of course, personal knowledge is not a citation, so I checked the citation given in the article. It linked to Walmart's store finder, which does not support the assertion that Harrison's Walmart was the first Supercenter. I removed the assertion on these grounds. Lwsimon (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to Banished

I have removed the sentence "The program was heavily criticized by Harrison residents for being untruthful", referencing the film Banished. While this is indeed true, it is not supported by the references in the entry. A quick Google search didn't turn up a verifiable source - If anyone can provide one, I'd love to see this re-included. Lwsimon (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harrison, Arkansas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Being dubbed the most racist city in America

For those who say it's not true that Harrison, Arkansas

has been dubbed "the most racist city in America" for its high presence of white supremacist organizations.

If we're splitting hairs, then it has been dubbed «la ville la plus raciste des Etats-Unis». But that means the same thing.

If you concede that yes, it has been dubbed this, but believe that the allegation is mistaken, that's good -- but you'll have to come up with a reliable source for the claim that it's not the most racist, or that city XYZ is more racist, or the most racist. Similarly, whether or not city XYZ really is the most racist, if you can find a reasoned allegation that it is, this would be worth noting.

If you'd like to discuss this, please do so here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no, all that needs be presented are sources that do not state this is the most racist town in the country or world or whatever extreme claim you are making. No one needs propose any other candidate for that title, nor does one need a source that specifically says it isn't. Unless you have a preponderance of sources that back up the extreme claim you are making, there isn't even a need to discuss it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You surprise me. The article (when I last touched it) didn't say the was the most racist; it merely said it had been called this. How is this problematic? How does one need a preponderance of sources to say not that a city was the most racist but instead that it had been called the most racist?
Incidentally, I wasn't happy with the article as I last saw it. Placed in the lead, this factoid seemed unduly conspicuous. I was thinking of moving it downwards within the article, but couldn't immediately think of where it should go. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Where it should go is where it is - out. There are multiple sources that describe Dr. Martin Luther King as a n****r, but we are not mentioning that in his bio, are we? No, and of course we shouldn't. This is on the other end of the spectrum, but sorry: Simply because one single source states something that extreme about a community, does not mean we need to mention it, even if we did it as a direct quote. (Which would be infinitely superior to what was here, but still not terribly informative.) Really, I don't think I could get behind this even if the single source were the NYT. John from Idegon (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
To put it more succinctly: that statement is far more perjorative than informative, and to include it based on a single source (especially a foriegn language source) is abdicating our editorial responsibilities. John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:John from Idegon. "Most racist" is subjective and unencyclopedic. WP:LABEL recognizes the contentiousness of the word. Let's provide factual information and let readers be shocked or not shocked accordingly. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your considered responses. While I'm not convinced by your argument, the more I think about this allegation, the less I like it in the introduction to the article. So I'm not unhappy to see it go from there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harrison, Arkansas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is in the news

Covered at Wikipedia entries won't let Harrison shed unsavory past.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Here are some sources that cover the history of the town and mention racial issues, as well as the KKK.
  1. PBS article about the town history, mentions the Knights of the KKK headquarters and it being a sundown town.
  2. ABC-CLIO, briefly mentions Robb Thomas and the Knights.
  3. Charles C. Thomas Publications. Mentions Robb Thomas and the Knights in more detail. (Not entirely familiar with publisher, but it seems that they specialize in specialty titles and textbooks, so it's likely usable)
  4. Another ABC-CLIO, this mentions a national convention held in the town by the Knights each October. This one mentions attacks on black residents and the signing of a declaration by some people in the town to vow not to ignore the town's past or to ignore racism in the present.
  5. The New Press, mentions the town at length in relation to racial history. (I'm aware that this publisher has a leftist bent, but it can be used as a resource for other sources or in very specific circumstances)
  6. McFarland, mentions Thomas moving the Knights to Harrison.
  7. Anti-Defamation League, could be seen as a primary source given the organization's focus but this was published in 1991 and mentions the town in relation to the KKK, so this shows that the town has a past history.
  8. 1994 report by the American Society of Geolinguistics, mentions the KKK.
  9. University Press of Kentucky, extensively mentions the town's racial history.
I'm not really interested in editing the page, but I wanted to have these here so others can use them if they want - and to hold off people who say that the claims are false. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on any of this, but what seems to have annoyed some people is the implication that the town is defined by the fact that the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are based there. It is mentioned prominently in the WP:LEAD and maybe it should be left until later on.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't need approval by the local powers that be, they don't own it. It doesn't matter if it annoys them, it doesn't exist to promote their interests, no more than Donald Trump or Barack Obama have any say over the articles that bear their names. Wikipedia is not censored to make the subjects look good, but rather relies on verification by reliable sources. Advocacy by those who have a vested interest in the article is not allowed, but is considered a conflict of interest that would degrade the value of the encyclopedia. It is wonderful if the people who have an interest step up and point out sources that support a different view of Harrison. Because the article isn't about what I think about Harrison or what the mayor of Harrison wants people to see, or what the local realtors want to convey, it's about what verifiable third party sources have to say, in accordance with various Wikipedia policies and procedures.Jacona (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
This is all true but WP:NPOV also becomes involved. There is some problematic wording in the WP:LEAD, because it comes close to implying that the town's main source of notability is as a white supremacist hotbed. The KKK link isn't going to be removed altogether, but maybe it could be left until later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It's what the sources say. We could leave it out altogether, if we were their shill.Jacona (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Here's another source[1]
This is misrepresenting what I have said. I haven't said that the KKK link should be removed, but there is a question of how much prominence to give it. The mention in the WP:LEAD is problematic in my view, and it could be left until later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent you, but this is what multiple sources say, and say in depth. That's why it belongs in the lead. Whether or not it annoys the mayor is irrelevant.Jacona (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://newspaperarchive.com/tribune-democrat-jul-01-2016-p-4/

Walmart 2nd store success and how model was replicated throughout the US - need consensus

[[4]] How the Harrison Walmart Store #2 model was successfully replicated throughout the US.

Harrison Walmart #2 opened in 1965 with several mishaps, recorded in multiple publications. Locals were hired at minimum wage with opportunity to receive stock. From that group there became several millionaires. The importance of a placing second store in Harrison proved to be a godsend - Harrison was 70 miles from larger shopping markets (pre-Branson growth). Sam Walton personally hired incredible people and the model was replicated in several similar situations throughout the US. Sam Walton said ‘If it hadn’t been for the success of the Harrison store, there wouldn’t be a Walmart chain like there is today.’” Consensus needed to add to Harrison Arkansas page Herb5247 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Herb5247 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not even going to consider the local paper to be a sufficient source to verify a bend over backwards promo edit like that. Having a walmart store is certainly not in and of itself encyclopedic. If it was that noteworthy, one of the dozens of books that have been written about Walmart or the Walton's would surely have some information that was far more neutral than the local paper. John from Idegon (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK the reason I'm looking into this was the numerous undocumented or racist comments allowed by Wikipedia not relative to Harrison today - last Sunday the state news paper Arkansas Democrat Gazette published in their editorial that five sentences into Wikipedia's article about the city that readers find this - Race riots By whites in 1905 and 1909 drove away black residents, establishing Harrison as a sundown town. Today(2019) it is known as a center of white supremacist activity including the national headquarters of Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The local paper I referenced is much more reliable than the ones that Wikipedia has used - noticed Wikipedia are making some changes but the 100 yr+ race riots don't belong on the front page

I'm not a local politician but my business can be severely financially damaged by the irresponsibility I have seen from Wikipedia - something politicians are interested in as we get into the 2020 elections.You made a classic quote about neutral press - the KKK and racial stuff is being hand fed.

My Letter to the Editor Re: No Satisfaction Harrison is more of a straight up “Man in Black” Johnny Cash town than one with moves like Jagger. The race riots of 1905 and 1909 are part of our history, but no longer front page news? Give me a break! I expect more! Check where Little Rock Central ’57, one of the biggest racial stories of the last century is located on Little Rock’s Wikipedia - -just a footnote.. Fact KKK is not located in Harrison. Check your files for last rally in Harrison, I’m old and can’t remember one. Check files for any local KKK arrests or disturbances. Haven’t seen any. Might check out Dayton Ohio. Legitimate news media is worse than fake news when they fail to debunk questionable methods used to prioritize a bad cause. (media attention, from Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube are only thing keeping KKK afloat - all their attempts to own businesses in Harrison have failed - the US Post Office should not allow KKK to use it, locals have made a political movement to youth in all the offices - mayor, and council.) I do remember growing up near Harrison in a family service station business. My job, starting around 5 yrs., was to provide full service to all (including blacks) customers, and we didn’t have racially restricted restrooms. In a service station you found out quickly that customers smelled like oil, had red blood, and their cash was green; and you were as good as your last customer. Seeking a better life I got a MS in Math from U of A and headed to Washington, DC. The news about Arkansas was the ’57 Central High race issues, along with Arkansas being a poor rural agriculture state. I was prepared to defend the state on race issues, I knew there had been integration in West Arkansas via Dale Bumpers prior to ‘57. Also there was a small business in Arkansas, Walmart making some noise. No matter, It was 1968, one of the worst in US history. There were race riots in many major northern cities, including DC but they no longer make their Wikipedia front page. When I returned to Harrison in 1973, I started a technology company, first as a local service bureau, and then transitioned to 100% of business outside city, state, and international. Every person I brought to Harrison, from various nationalities, were extremely pleased with their visit. If Google, YouTube, and Wikipedia had been at the current level of misinformation, it would have been much more problematic to pull off with all the advance research that people do today. In my business travels I always used the Harrison Walmart story – the second Walmart is something I can identify with, it’s easy to make something successful if only down the street, but doing it miles away is the real test. Sam Walton said ‘If it hadn’t been for the success of the Harrison store, there wouldn’t be a Walmart chain like there is today.’” I always promote the quality of life – lakes, Buffalo National River, Eureka Springs, Branson, Big Cedar / Top of the Rock complex. The real stories are the successes – starting with Walmart, Garrison / FedEx, Sav-a Stop, Millers, Neighbors, Johnson’s, Lair Oil/White Oak, Claridge, DSI, Mosco Cash Enterprises, Pace (founded here), Harness Roofing, etc. Probably the best approach is printing the change about Walmart I requested. All Sam Walton Books and Walmart history books recognize importance of Harrison as their second store. It didn't take long to recognize editors for Wikipedia that are paid to support and find information that have no credibility - happy to take this to another level at Wikipedia or through Twitter and other direct DC political contacts Herb5247 (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Herb5247, this isn't a forum to discuss the topic of the article, but rather to discuss particular edits via arguments made for their existence based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not going to read any further into your rant than your statement that somehow Wikipedia is causing you business to suffer. When you can discuss the content in a professional manner without personalizing it, feel free to try again. There is a discussion above about how we are treating race issues above. If you are capable of forming a succinct argument based in sources and policy, perhaps you may want to participate. The fiscal condition of your business is not a relative argument. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Information sent directly to Wikipedia and other news outlets John from Idegon should never be allowed to edit Harrison Arkansas any longer - there are several documented examples of accepting false information - as the 911 Director, I had access to all recorded calls - there was never the activity in Harrison by KKK he was willing to accept including headquarters - never happened , never will - no rallies - local KKK great at manipulating Internet media, why don't people coming to Harrison interview successful businessmen, instead they dig up people no one knows to generate video clips - he can no longer effectively deflect all the KKK and right extremist slanted information he has taken at face value while rejecting one of the most basic and proven fact - quote by Sam Walton from article[of Walmart Store #2 in Harrison Arkansas] -- Bill Lovell said, “I’ve heard Mr. Sam say it many times, ‘If it hadn’t been for the success of the Harrison store, there wouldn’t be a Walmart chain like there is today.’” Lovell is now a retired Walmart executive operating Main Street Merchandise in the same shopping center where Walmart Store No. 2 started (still active can be reached at his store in Harrison - Phone: [REDACTED]

.“That profit sharing program is what allowed me to retire early from Walmart and has made a lot of people millionaires,” Lovell said. “He believed in getting everyone involved and making it a team effort to help the company grow.”

One of the first Harrison employees was Grace McCutcheon. Her daughter, Anne Holt remembers, “Mom said she started with Walmart before there were shelves and merchandise.”

McCutcheon helped set up the Harrison location in the Younes Shopping Center

My wife's Aunt is Grace Mccutcheon (now deceased)

Appears John from Idegon is willing to take incorrect information at face value while calling the truth slanted - give me a break and someone who can handle the truth!Herb5247 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Herb5247: I'm afraid we can't accept personal knowledge as a source. As John from Idegon has suggested to you, books on the history of Walmart would be sources we could use in the article. Please find one or more such sources, and give us the author, title, and page number for statements about opening the second store in Harrison being important to the company's history, and it can then be included with no problems. This is the relevant policy page, but it's really simply a matter of this being an encyclopedia: we try to make statements based only on what others have written (or otherwise published, for example in documentaries; is there one on the history of Walmart that also makes this point?). The situation with local papers varies; I'm inclined to accept such a citation if there is also at least one other in a non-local source, making the same point. So ... find at least one better source, that's what we need. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK here it is in addition to local paper here is the encyclopedia confirmation from analysts (of what Sam Walton told key people at Harrison) https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/walton-samuel-moore-sam By 1962 Walton and his brother, James, owned and operated sixteen variety stores in Arkansas, making theirs the largest independent variety store chain in the nation. From 1960 to 1962 Walton, presenting himself as the "little country boy from Arkansas," traveled the nation, examining the successful practices of the nation's leading retail enterprises. From this effort Walton realized that he could succeed by using a practice of modest overhead expenses with low retail prices and efficient distribution. In 1964 Walton opened his second unit in Harrison, Arkansas. He located the store in a building that had been used as a cattle-auction yard. The grand opening took a downward turn when the day's heat (115 degrees) caused the promotional watermelons to pop, thus frightening the donkeys that were part of the ride promotion and causing them to flee. The grand opening was not a complete disaster; numerous shoppers came to the store because the prices were 20 percent below those of competitors. The success of the Harrison store provided the funding needed to build several other stores and served as the training ground for future managers. Some analysts believe that without the success of the Harrison store, there would not be a Wal-Mart company today.

Although many poorly managed retail firms failed in the early 1960s, by 1965 the discount industry continued to expand and capture the attention of the majority of America's shoppers. In the mid-1960s discount merchandising included many small retail businesses, but their importance was declining as the industry became dominated by larger chains. By 1964 Walton was worried that other discount chains would adopt his concept of discounting in small towns and began to establish Wal-Marts as rapidly as financing would permit. He opened one store in 1965, two stores a year in 1966 and 1967, and five a year in 1968 and 1969, for a total of nineteen Wal-Marts by the end of the decade. Eleven of the stores were in Arkansas, and the others were located in Missouri and Oklahoma. In 1969 Walton's firm incorporated.Herb5247 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

At best, it is worth one or two lines as an interesting little bit of trivia. Nothing beyond that. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Not trivia if analysts and Sam Walton both make claim that without success of Harrison there would be no Walmart as we know it today. Also who allows Peter Rugh, known racist, to put totally biased false information in the Wikipedia search, and be the source of his own information? We met this request and appears there is a problem again

@Herb5247: I'm afraid we can't accept personal knowledge as a source. As John from Idegon has suggested to you, books on the history of Walmart would be sources we could use in the article. Please find one or more such sources, and give us the author, title, and page number for statements about opening the second store in Harrison being important to the company's history, and it can then be included with no problems. This is the relevant policy page, but it's really simply a matter of this being an encyclopedia: we try to make statements based only on what others have written (or otherwise published, for example in documentaries; is there one on the history of Walmart that also makes this point?). The situation with local papers varies; I'm inclined to accept such a citation if there is also at least one other in a non-local source, making the same point. So ... find at least one better source, that's what we need. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Appears we have met the conditions met by YngvadottirHerb5247 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree with Zaathras. Walmart store #2 merits one sentence in a larger section on local economics. What matters is what is important about this community to the world, not what is important to this community. John from Idegon (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Well said. I remember hearing Sam in person talk about this 30 something years ago. He also placed huge importance on the 2nd distribution center, and the first dc that was outside of AR and TX. Doubtless there are some extant sources that cover this, they need to be found, and for the most part covered in the Wal-Mart article, not discussed at length in locality articles.Jacona (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Following on from the above: "troubled" racial history or "is noted for" its racial history?

A couple of us put "troubled" racial history in the lead, but it's now been twice replaced with "is noted for its racial history". Specifics already in the article, and sources cited above, appear to me to make "troubled" a supportable summary. As I said in my edit summary reinstating it, "is noted/notable for" strikes me as POV, unless there are sources actually stating that this is the one thing the city is known for. Otherwise we're implying that's the case. There may be sources saying it's also known for something else; if they actually list both, I'd be a lot happier with both being in the lede and with that judgement being there. And I do think there's enough to justify mentioning the race relations issue in the lead. But we shouldn't make the judgement call ourselves that the city is notable for that without strong sourcing actually saying that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Better yet, let's just lose all the judgement adjectives and simply say "has". John from Idegon (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The sources seem to require some adjective indicating problems, esp. since every place "has a racial history". Suggestions? I'll also ping Carrite, who made the try at summing it up in the lead that I tinkered with. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, not everyplace has a racial history that has been made note of. Perhaps we should look at the noun and not the adjective. "Race relations issues", perhaps? You know, I'm not really interested in soft pedaling this just because it offends the current government. We are not here to be their mouthpiece. Too damn bad that the current administration wants to change the "image". This community has had a long relationship with the white supremacist movement. There have been numerous incidents over the years of violent discrimination. It's the HQ of the most well known white supremacist group around. It is what it is, not what they want it to be. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "long and troubled racial history" is both accurate and NPOV. I'm not gonna fight over this though, I was just trying to address a factual inaccuracy pointed out in the news media by a city official (i.e. that headquarters of a KKK faction is NOT physically in Harrison) and to fix somewhat tendentious phrasing in the lead that is not backed up with explanation in the body. Keep it or change it or lose it, I've made my effort to make a positive fix. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
See: Bill Bowden, "Wikipedia Entries Won't Let Harrison Shed Its Past," Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Aug. 12, 2019; via Wikipediocracy. Carrite (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing useful in that article. Nothing. Sorry they don't like their past. Solution is to get over it or move, not try to erase it. I've lived in about 3 dozen different communities over the course of my life and not a single one of them (except Detroit) has ever had a race riot. That article is simply more PR spin and our responsibility as Wikipedia editors is to ignore it, not give in to it. I'm sorry, but the city, and the chamber of commerce's desires are not our problem. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I hardly think "has a troubled racial history" is what the city boosters would want us to write, but "has a racial history" is, to me, well, duh. We shouldn't be hinting to the reader that "psst, that means it's had racial problems". And that isn't what the words actually mean. But nor should we be belaboring the point by suggesting in the encyclopedia's voice that there's nothing else that has caused the place to be noted. (Clearly, a Walmart and a women-owned business have attracted some attention, though their importance needs supporting with sources.) So I'm for stating in the lead that it has a troubled racial history. And I note we have a somewhat baggy section on the issue, which is good if it's going to be in the lead. Sorry, Chamber of Commerce. In short, I'm backing Carrite up here, except I think "long" is unnecessary verbiage, plus it isn't really its length that's the problem so much as the riots, the HQ being moved next door, and what both of those indicate about the intensity of the problem, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging User:Magnolia677, who most recently reverted to "is noted for its racial history" and asked for discussion. I've provided above my reasoning for "has a troubled racial history" as a summary of the events mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have frequently removed unsourced content from this article, and here in 2014 added a quote from the mayor denouncing Harrison's racist past. My recent edits, however, have been purely WikiFairy cleanup of un-encyclopedic text. A consensus of editors created Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and similar policies to keep Wikipedia free of editorializing and bias, which undermines Wikipedia's credibility. This consensus to remove the word "affluent" from the lead section of US city articles demonstrates the application of that policy. Regardless of how loaded a topic may be, Wikipedia must remain encyclopedic in tone. In a balanced and well-written article, readers will reach their own conclusions. To this end, "further rocked by a racially charged murder in 2010" was replaced by "in 2010 Harrison was the location of a racially-motivated murder". ("Rocked" is un-encyclopedic and vacuous) As well, what does "long and troubled" mean? How long is long? What exactly does "troubled" mean? (How rich does a city need to be to be an "affluent" city?) To this end, I replaced "long and troubled" and "in more recent times" with actual dates and events. My edits removed none of the sourced content or implied meaning; my edits simply removed non-specific and un-encyclopedic text which did little to improve the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Thanks for coming here; I opened this follow-on section because of your edit summary on your second revert asking for discussion. Thank you for tightening the baggy section on the city's racial history. I'm talking here about the introduction (lead/lede). I think we're agreed (except for the people representing the city) that there should be some mention of race relations there. And I agree, no "lengthy" or "long" there: very much relative anyway. But by removing "troubled" and replacing it with "noted for" or "notable for", it is my view that you have replaced a summing up that is supported by the following mention of race riots and white supremacist activity with a POV statement that its racial history constitutes at least in part what the city is known for. It's also known for being the county seat, and as I said before and as is being discussed below, it may or may not also be known for Walmart's second store having been established there. In any case, "racial history" is extremely broad and as such almost meaningless without some adjective. The History section speaks of the Native American inhabitants of the region including strife between two tribes. Isn't that also "racial history"? Or if the term is to be taken as only referring to black-white relations, without an adjective it could on first reading mean the place has in some way pioneered coexistence between African-Americans and whites in the South. I believe it needs some adjective to make race riots and white supremacist activities valid examples in the rest of the sentence, to avoid us implying in Wikipedia's voice that that's all the place is known for, and not least to avoid the logical reading, which is "it has a racial history", which without some adjective is devoid of content. It would be better to leave out the start of the sentence altogether and just say "Harrison has had two race riots in the early 20th century and an influx of white supremacist activity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries." But I cannot believe the MOS "words to avoid" was intended to exclude words that are supported by multiple sources, as summarized in a section in the body of the article. Perhaps you can suggest specific wording you would prefer in the intro? Here's a suggestion from me: "Harrison has a history of racial unrest, including two race riots in the early 20th century and an influx of white supremacist activity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries." ("Notable" is of course a word we use outside of main space. But in main space, it makes a judgement about what something is known for and by implication that it's not known for anything much else.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There are so many sources, many of which are listed on this talk page that discuss Harrison, denote it as the most racist town in America, etc. I think the mention of it is vastly understated at this point. As far as their feel good campaign recognizing Dr. King....they followed it right up by proclaiming confederate heritage day, as did Boone Coiunty.Jacona (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jacona: That's getting into discussing the topic rather than how to improve the article. There's a section on the racial history, and it's been tightened up a bit. What concerns me is not having either an empty statement in the lede: "It has a racial history", well, duh—or having a POV one: "It is noted for its racial history". Can you suggest an alternative to "It has a troubled racial history" that fits the examples that follow in the sentence, and the section in the text? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Absurd statement

The article currently says that "City officials have attempted to counteract organized racist activity... by editing the city's Wikipedia article", which is both false and absurd. As the cited source discusses, they edited the city's Wikipedia article to downplay the city's racist reputation and improve its PR, not to "counteract organized racist activity". I tried to remove this, but was reverted! It doesn't look good if we're complaining about the city editing their article when we can't even keep it accurate ourselves. Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you just removed the cite and left the statement you call absurd. I'm not sure if that's what you meant to do.Jacona (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I moved the text to 2003, adding a sentence about the community race relations task force. It now reads:
"Harrison's Community Task Force on Race Relations[1] was established in 2003 to "promote diversity and respond to racial-bias accusations against the city".[2] City officials have made efforts to counteract organized racist activity with educational forums and billboards promoting tolerance.[3] They also attempted to downplay the city's racist reputation and improve its image by editing the city's Wikipedia article.[2]" Wakari07 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tale Of Two Billboards: An Ozark Town's Struggle To Unseat Hate". NPR. Retrieved 7 September 2019.
  2. ^ a b Bowden, Bill (2019-08-11). "Wikipedia entries won't let Harrison shed unsavory past". Arkansas Online. Retrieved 2019-08-31. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Vice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Infobox image

User:Brandonrush has twice placed a collage of four images into the infobox. One of the images is of a local bank in Harrison, and appears to have been photographed through the window of a moving car. Aside from the photo's low-quality, it is also decorative, per MOS:IMAGES, and adds little to the article. Local banks in small cities are not notable, and need not be featured in the infobox of articles. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's a crap photo that in no way is illustrative of the community. That's what we need. Lacking a readily agreeable key feature for the town, the best choices here would be a picture of the downtown generally, a welcome sign or city hall. John from Idegon (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a photo of the L.E."Gene" Durand Center, a convention center and community space in downtown Harrison, not a bank. Check out 303 N. Main, Harrison, AR. That picture isn't the best, but I thought it would work until I get over there next week to take better ones. But I'm done. Do what you want with your page, I will defer to your "expertise". Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 21:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Brandonrush: Just buy a cheep tripod and a good camera and don't rush the picture friend. Take your time and frame the shot just right. Now that we've left that awkwardness behind us, any chance of popping down to Ben Hur, Arkansas while you're near Harrison and snapping a picture? It's only an hour south. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment....I like the shot that shows the river: that's what I think of when I picture the town.Jacona (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Excessive advertisement of local companies

From my point of view, locale articles on Wikipedia often feature excessive business advertising, which seems inconsistent with WP:PROMO. In Harrison's case, about as much weight is given to local television providers and small businesses as to terrorist groups and notable crime figures. That's convenient for local businesses, since Harrison gets a lot of national attention, but Wikipedia is not a promotional vector for businesses. Hunan201p (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. There is too much listing of companies, TV and radio stations in a way that has various WP:NOT problems.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, there are too many images in the article. Unless they are discussed specifically in the text, they are not all that useful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What exactly are you objecting to, as far as mentions of companies? WP:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Media encourages listing the media. WP:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Economy supports listing major employers. The role of the city in the explosive growth of WalMart and the related story of how a huge freight line came to be headquartered in a tiny town certainly deserve more discussion. It looks to me more like the history needs expansion than the economy/media sections need trimming.Jacona (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is the use of list format, because articles should be written in prose. Lists without any explanation are rarely enlightening.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I sort of agree and sort of don't. Here's a quote from the appropriate guideline WP:USCITY (from the section on notable people), where it states "Simple lists of names add little of value and may be subject to abuse. More developed articles, especially those which have gone through WP:GA and WP:FA, tend to have this section written out as prose.". Almost every city article contains a list of notables. I believe that the verbage is commenting on a simple list of names with no further explanation of what the persons are notable for. In the case of the list of major employers, there is a very short explanation of what the company does, making it more than a simple list. I agree with you, that further information, for instance how many are employed would make it better, but I don't see that it's promoting the companies/schools, etc. The guideline expressly mentions the value of discussing where people work.Jacona (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of viral video

User:Jacona re-inserted the following edit, and I would appreciate input from others about whether it should remain in the article:

In July 2020, Rob Bliss staged a protest in an attempt to start conversations with Harrison residents about the Black Lives Matter movement, filming his encounters. The protest drew an overwhelmingly negative reaction.[1][2][3][4]

Racism is a very, very, very serious topic, and as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to find the most reliable sources when editing about this topic.

Including information about a publicity stunt, by a non-notable filmmaker, whose intent seemed to be to make a viral video...does not improve this article.

The video shows people from Harrison reacting negatively to a Black Lives Matter sign, although there is little context to the video, and nothing scientific or measurable about the filmmaker's approach.

If the filmmaker had done this same experiment in ten neighboring cities, and found completely different results, his video might be worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia.

Also, what was edited out of the video? Did anyone from Harrison reacted positively to the sign? Or were the positive reactions edited out, as these would not have enhanced the viral possibilities, or attracted the attention of left-wing media always happy to make the South look ignorant.

The TikTok video "Peeling a Banana" went viral and garnered 37.8 million likes. CNN mentioned it, and so did The Washington Post. Should information about this viral Tiktok be added to the article Banana?

This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Billboard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Peiser, Jaclyn (July 30, 2020). "He held a BLM sign in what he called 'America's most racist town.' The result? A viral video of abuse". Washington Post. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  3. ^ Rowles, Dustin (July 28, 2020). "Harrison, Arkansas Really Is the Most Racist Town in America". Pajiba.
  4. ^ Culver, Jordan. "A man held a Black Lives Matter sign in Harrison, Arkansas. He posted the racist responses to YouTube". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2021-09-15.
I won’t bother to respond to the ridiculous analogy. This town is famous fir it’s racism, and the incident in question received coverage from numerous eminently reliable sources. It’s been in the article for over a year, and clearly belongs. As a side note, the net effect of my edits was not to reinsert it, but remove it from the lede and add additional citations. Jacona (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
My concern is that an unreliable source is being used to support an argument. The media outlets that reported on this are not the source; they have only reported on an event, and that event was a video by an amateur filmmaker, which showed people in Harrison reacting negatively to a BLM sign. Again, racism is a very serious topic, and accusations of racism require reliable sources. In this case, the video by filmmaker Rob Bliss does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. If this was a documentary by a reliable media outlet, there would have been some explanation of how the data was obtained. For example, "over a three day period, we interacted with 100 people, and 95 percent of their reactions were racist or negative". This did not occur with this YouTube video. All that is said about how the video was produced, is that it was filmed in Harrison over a three-day period, and the footage was edited down to two minutes. Bliss titled the video "Holding a Black Lives Matter Sign in America’s Most Racist Town", and USA Today--one of the sources cited--wrote that Bliss is "no stranger to viral video fame". This in no way suggests any nefarious intent by the filmmaker. Perhaps 99 percent of the reactions he received were negative or racist. But because we don't know that, and because his video was not held to the same journalistic standards as a professional documentary, it remains an amateur video which does not meet our standards as a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The Youtube video should not be considered a reliable source. However, the Washington Post, CNN, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, etc. are reliable sources. It is their discussion of the video that should be in the article. Jacona (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jacona: Why? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In this case, the video and its creator are not "sources"... the video and its creator are the SUBJECT of coverage by sources. It is not our job to pass judgement on whether the subject of coverage by reliable sources is itself "reliable"... if it were, we could not include coverage of things like Alex Jones or The International Flat Earth Society. Instead, it is our job to judge the reliability of sources COVERING unreliable things. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@SaltySaltyTears: The difference is...this article isn't about Rob Bliss, it's about a city in Arkansas. Moreover, Alex Jones and the flat earthers are completely discredited in the lead of their articles ("pseudoscience", "science deniers", "conspiracy theories", "far-right", "fake news", "white nationalists", and so forth). Not everything in the media should be in Wikipedia, particularly an accusation of racism made in an amateur YouTube video. Let me return to the TikTok video "Peeling a Banana", which went viral and garnered 37.8 million likes, and was mentioned by both CNN and The Washington Post. Should information about "Peeling a Banana" be added to the article Banana? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I have not researched that video and am not ready to say whether I would include it or not. However, the "Banana" article has a paragraph for the song "Yes! We Have No Bananas" (under the "Cultural roles... Arts" subsection), a song which is only tangentially related to bananas (as is your TikTok example) yet is is fit for inclusion due to reliable sourcing. So to address your question, if the TikTok you refer to passes WP:GNG then I would support it's inclusion in the Banana article, under the same sub-section as "Yes! We Have No Bananas"SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tinahesabziadeh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity of "race riots"

The community has a history of racism: there were two race riots in the early 20th century

I've seen this ambiguous wording used in many different Wikipedia articles. It implies that a people of an undetermined race suddenly held a riot for no rhyme or reason, as people of undetermined races are wont to do. This is not an acceptable use of the English language and has the appearance of intentional distortion. It's a matter of historical record that a certain people were oppressed and discriminated against by another people in this town and it's best if Wikipedia sticks to the facts. Fox News viewers see "race riots" in this article and think, "oh, the blacks are getting uppity again", when in all likelihood, what happened was that the whites attacked the blacks. Using the ambiguous term "race riots" whitewashes the reality of the history. There was systematic discrimination and oppression of non-whites, not some ambiguous "race riot". Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentence links to an article explaining that race riots are events of mass racial violence, and then goes on to mention the white supremacist organizational presence in the area. It clearly presents the idea, related items, and the effects of these events. What more do you want? Argeadai (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Specific definition of which race was rioting (whites) and why (they were racist) would be a good start. As it stands, there are two sentences that could be construed as unrelated; specifically saying that it was racist white people rioting to remove black people (as the linked article says) would reduce ambiguity TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
TheNeutroniumAlchemist, about race riots in Wikipedia in general: in most articles, the sources available were possibly written by the perps themselves, or people who were at the least, the same time race as the perps. We may think we know what happened, but the best source we can find just says race riot. When that’s all we’ve got, I’m not willing to say something the sources do not. When there is a source that goes further we should use it, and updating the terms in a fine with me. What we can’t do is tell the inflammatory truth without proper sourcing. As frustrating as it is, sometimes “race riot” is the best we’ve got, as the history was written by the folks that held all the power. — Jacona (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

KKK in Harrison

I have frequently removed text indicating that Thomas Robb and the KKK are located in Harrison, but it keeps re-appearing because several sources just say "Harrison", when in fact Robb lives in tiny nearby Zinc, Arkansas, and his "Christian Revival Center" is on Lead Hill Road, northeast of Zinc, see [5]. Would anyone mind if an editor's note is added to let editors know this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s a great idea. This issue has been going on for many years now. Jacona (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jacona: Thank you, I'll add something, and if another source definitively says he lives in Harrison, we can change it. Postal addresses are sometimes confused with municipal boundaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-gay"

The source only mentions homosexuality (and just the word), among other terms such as abortion,idolotry, and blasphemy. Calling the group "anti-gay" subscribes undue weight to that aspect and presumes "pro-gay" as being the norm. 47.137.179.4 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There sufficient sources for anti-gay here and at Kingdom Identity Ministries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The source is not sufficent to warrant the language, as I have expkained above. However, even if it was sufficient, KIM's position on homosexuality is irrelevent to the Harrison article - and redundant if sources at Kingdom Identity Ministries cover the material. 47.137.179.4 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to mention this organization at all on this article, we should be providing appropriate context for why they are notable - similar to how we mention the Westboro group at Topeka, Kansas. Perhaps "homophobic" would be a better term than "anti-gay", but removing it doesn't make much sense to me. Would potentially support adding antisemitic/racist along with whatever form of "anti-gay" we use, not sure if Christian Identity covers that well enough. Cannolis (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This group is not a central component of the Harrison article. It already says it's a hate group. There's no need to list in bullet form the plethora of people and ideas it hates. If a reader wishes to know more, they can read the article about this group. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
So, this article calls KIM an "anti-gay Christian Identity outreach ministry". As has been pointed out, the group is not that critical to Harrison, AR. That and the fact that there are likely no Christian Identity groups who are "pro-gay" make the descriptor superfluous. Christian Identity is linked and in fact, at Christian Identity it says Christian Identity ministers preach that "the penalties for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death". 47.137.179.4 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Does Harrison have a flag?

Yes it does. It was officially displayed at the new City Hall building on January 24th, 2022. NdeltaTE (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harrison,_Arkansas/Archive_1&oldid=1177853172"