Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New Louisville definition

Since the Census Bureau has clearly defined the new Louisville as only the old city and unincorporated areas, I think there some details needed that need to be added defining Metro Government. First, it is important to note that a KY Legislative bill (dubbed the Lyndon Bill} prohibits suburban cities from annexing more land. If this were not the case then the unincorp. areas could create their own government and only the old city would again be left. Second, this definition won't effect the new city's population growth, since nearly all growth is in the unicorpirated areas and nearly all suburban cities are having very slow growth or even populatiuon losses. Third, even if Suburban cities don't count toward the population, their residents can still vote for Metro mayor and council members, and will still receive Metrowide help in such areas as urban planning and emergency services.

Personally, I think the official municipality (the entire county) is what should make up this article, regardless of what the Census Bureau says. The smaller article with the "balance" is what should have the information for the census-defined city. CrazyC83 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your ideas of what the census bureau has defined are not correct. What you are referring to is the Louisville-Jefferson County balance, which is not the same thing as consolidated Louisville-Jefferson County. Both are defined separately by the Census Bureau (see here). This article is about the consolidated Louisville-Jefferson County (which is how the city is legally incorporated). The confusion lies in the Census Bureau's use of balance figures when ranking cities, rather than the consolidated figures. (Although even this use is inconsistant as they seem to use the full consolidated figures for the decennial rankings.) Kaldari 05:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Census Bureau has accepted the Louisville/ Jefferson balance, but not the City/County Consolidation, which is why the suburban populations are not counted in its estimates and won't be in future censuses. Because of the acceptence of the Lou/Jef Balance, my points should be brought up about the ban on suburban city annexation. If this were not the case then the Balance could be quickly eaten up by the suburbs.

Your assertion is not entirely correct. The Census Bureau does, in fact, include the entire consolidated Louisville-Jefferson County in their estimates. They also include a separate figure for the balance:

170,Louisville/Jefferson County,Kentucky,A,693604,693872,694757,695843,698059,698903,699827
162,Louisville/Jefferson County (balance),Kentucky,A,551183,551390,552058,552828,554381,555366,556429

That's from the 2005 estimates (the last number is the 2005 estimated population). This article is not about the balance, however. Issues involving the balance should be discussed on the balance article's talk page. Kaldari 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual Population

There are too many disputes about the population of the actual city proper. According to the Census bureau estimates, the balance population is 556,429 and not anywhere near 700,000. What is the actual city proper population, as that is to be what is listed? I do not believe that Louisville has a population anywhere near that of Columbus, Ohio. We need to decide the official population of the city proper and correct any and all inaccurate statements regarding the actual population. There are several pages in Wikipedia listing the population as 699,000 (or so), when the Census lists the population as 556,429. I understand that several people (especially those who live in the area) want the population figure to be high so the city can reach a higher status. If it was a city I lived in, I would like to do the same. However, that cannot be done here. An actual, correct population for the city proper and the metro needs to be listed. If we are able to, we need to come up with the balance population of the counties and the actual city. I am a little confused myself, and I did not want to attempt to change anything before it is discussed. Ajwebb 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been many people who have debated this over and over again and we have come to the consensus that is now demonstrated in the article. Please, for the sake of your own knowledge, read all the talk archives that cover this situation. Since there is a consensus that's currently overwhelmingly not in your favor, you might want to do that research before thinking about flaming things up. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that a comprmise had been reached but please, tone down your anger. --Moreau36 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's angry? I suppose "direct and to the point" equals angry? How about toning down your oversensitivity? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reguardless of the population, this article needs more facts about what the "New" Louisville looks like and how it is different from the previous government(s); specifically how all of Jefferson County is now represented in Metro Council, the merger of Police and Emergency Service communications, countywide help in urban planning issues, plans to add sidewalks throughout the county (they are currently only in widespread use in the old city), and greater cooperation among the whole area, examplifided by projects like the City of Parks, whose main goal is to add parks outside the old city. I don't think population should be the main issue, and if it is the addition of five counties to the Metro area is a much bigger deal, the bottom line is merger has and is greatly improving the quality of life here...that should be the focus.

Also, I was unaware that this recent controversy is due to my assertion that The Balance has been the accepted "city" by the Census Bureau, citing the 26th ranking as evidence. I wasn't trying to undue any compromises on this situation, but only saying that it doesn't make sense to have an entire section about that while leaving out the governmental changes. I didn't mean to force my opinion on anyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.142.158.221 (talk • contribs) 18:41, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more could be added to the "Government and politics" section covering major changes due to the merger. The article already mentions City of Parks using a contextual wikilink. I guess as long as the material merits encyclopedia-level coverage, it should be added. Perhaps we could even end up with a separate Government of Louisville, Kentucky article someday. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting articles

Since no one appreciates the Louisville related pages I created, I'm going to start deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.67.34 (talk • contribs)

We can't really know what pages you're talking about unless you tell us, sorry. --W.marsh 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Throw us a bone here. And what do you mean by "appreciates"? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about deleting articles, but Chris24's attack on the Louisville CSA page is attrocius. He does not own that page and there is NO good reason why the data shouldn't go back to 1960. He also removed my Kentucky county population projections. The fact that the admins are on his side is exactly the type of reason I have no interest in constructive edits anymore.

I vandalize user pages (Appologies, I'm just a mean ole country boy). Chris24 vandalizes pages with valuable information. You tell me which is worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.114.168 (talk • contribs)

Have you tried discussing this matter with Chris24? Just because somebody's approach doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they are "attacking" the article. I've already conversed with Chris24 myself about the CSA page, and I am content with his reasoning, or at least I don't see a reason to debate it. Re: projections, consider that many won't find those numbers to be encyclopedic, as they aren't hard numbers. At the very least, try to see how others look at things, and don't assume your position is always right. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, flat-out vandalism is just plain wrong. Please cease that kind of activity. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He claims that "since the CSA wasn't formed until 2003, that populations back to 1960 are inacurate. However, under that logic numbers from 1990 and 2000 would also be wrong. He then left the figures for the Metro area to 1960 (now extended them to 1950), even though many counties have been added to the Metro throught time. On the CSA page, he is also incorrect in stating that Scott County Indiana (with its 22,000 inhabitants) is its own Metro area. It is a MICRO politian area. BIG Difference. Further, based on his edits, he is a buckeye, so his holding the Louisville page back in my mind makes him an elitest carpetbagger. 4.224.114.168 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not attack the Louisville CSA page. I removed inaccurate information. CSA's did not exist prior to 2000. Although it did not exist in 1990, I compromised and left it with a clearly stated disclaimer. If you wish to see data going back to 1960, you can look at the Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area page which I also added 1950 data to. On that page, you can clearly see that the counties included within the Census area have changed over time, and simply adding populations for what currently forms a Census area does not mean those are accurate for previous years. Not only do populations change over time, but so do boundaries of defined populations. When Louisville and Jefferson County merged it did not make Louisville's population for previous years mirror those of Jefferson County. I have never vandalized anything and all of the 1960-1980 information is a single mouse click away at either the Louisville MSA page or the county pages for Hardin, LaRue, and Scott counties where it is presented accurately because they are accurate populations being referred to within accurate boundaries (and you may wish to note that I restored your data for Hardin County populations that was deleted 19 June 2006, minus the vandalism).

I did remove some population projections but was not the first to do so. After someone else did so for Jefferson County, I agreed with the reasoning that projections are not hard facts (especially since they constantly change). I do not feel as if the admins are on my side because I try to not show any point of view in anything I contribute (unless it is on a talk page). When I add or edit anything I make every attempt to make sure it is factual, accurate, verifiable, and presents a neutral point of view. As for the assertion "He does not own that page," that is true. No page is owned by anyone as Wikipedia is a community project, and when information is factual, accurate, verifiable, and presents a neutral point of view there would be no reason to edit it.--Chris24 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chris24

Also, If you would look at the Louisvile CSA page it clearly states "³Scott County, Indiana was designated a part of the Louisville, KY-IN MSA in 2000, but was removed in 2003 to become the Scottsburg, IN Micropolitan Statistical Area."

Not that it is any of your business, but I was born at St. Joseph's Hospital at the corner of Eastern Parkway and Preston... were you born in Louisville? --Chris24 03:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chris24

when you state "even though many counties have been added to the Metro throught time" do you realise that when a county is added, it does not change the fact that it was NOT included in previous years?--Chris24 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chris24

There is also a difference between a Metropolitan Statisitcal Area and a Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area (Which is that the the Louisville MSA is combined with the E'town Metro and the Scottsburg Micro to form the combined MSA.--Chris24 03:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris24 provided a great response, but I'll respond to the 'carpetbagger' nonsense--this term only applies to politics. The mere idea of a carpetbagger in the production of a knowledgebase is laughable. There is nothing at all the matter in somebody from another place using their knowledge to add content to the Wikipedia about a place they happen to not currently live in. Besides, many Americans have lived in multiple places during their lives. Since your world view here appears to unreasonably put up a wall against outsiders (from your POV) and thus is needlessly disruptive to our processes here, I would suggest an attitude adjustment. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OfficialMetroLouisvilleFlag.jpg

Looks like the image copyright nazis aren't satisfied with the copyright status on the city flag image that's posted to this page. Following is what was posted to my user page regarding the image. Granted, IANAL, so I'm not sure what image copyright tag is appropriate. But one would think that, if the image is a direct representation of the actual image of the city flag, that should be owned by the city of Louisville, one would expect it to be in the public domain. Dr. Cash 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:OfficialMetroLouisvilleFlag.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin 06:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at correcting, saying that it's copyrighted by Louisville Metro, but should be fair use on Louisville, Kentucky and Flag of Louisville, Kentucky. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

minor change to section heirarchy

Looking at the progression of other city articles, I think it's becoming somewhat of a de facto standard for the Demographics section to be in its own section, and not groups with People and Culture. So I separated this out, and created a new section called 'Culture', with the other information from People and Culture going there. I also promoted the 'economy' section to be ahead of the 'culture' section, based on what appears in other articles as well. Dr. Cash 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks acceptable to me. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's in line with what's suggested at WP:CITY I think, so it seems okay with me. --W.marsh 23:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Louisville (balance) slips to 27 in ranking

According to this Washington Post article and List of United States cities by population, Louisville (balance) now ranks 27 with regards to 2005 U.S. Census figures. I will be updating the article to reflect this. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion of Sealbach and Brown

In the segment describing the creation of the Hot Brown, it also is mentioned that the Brown Hotel had a back room popular with Al Capone. This back room was at the Seelbach's Oak Room, not at the Brown. One can verify this via the hotel's website(www.seelbachhilton.com/history_celebrities.html) or via a simple Google search as a number of newspaper stories have been devoted to it over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.86.203 (talk • contribs)

I just made an attempt at correcting the article. Thank you for letting us know about the error. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

World's smallest city in Lou. Metro?

My almanac stated the the smallest city in the US / World is (among others) New Amsterdam, Indiana, located in southern Harrison County. It has a population of 1 has of 2000. This might be an interesting tidbit for the page.

Also, it may be worth noting that when the Fort Knox troop population loss is not considered, Hardin COunty was one of the fastest growing KY counties, & the Lou CSA added 125K people, not 114K in the 90s in non military residents. 4.225.116.88 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Amsterdam could be covered in Harrison County, Indiana and Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Hardin County info could be covered in Hardin County, Kentucky. And additional information about CSA population changes could be covered in Louisville-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, KY-IN Combined Statistical Area. Hope that helps. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how accurate that population total is though... [1] --W.marsh 01:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Media

I UL-d the tv and radio stations 'cause they were a mess. However, some of the details may have been muddied (more than they were). Wake 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to clean up this material. However, I fear the article could be risking its featured status if this information isn't in prose form. If my fear is overly heightened, somebody else please add your two cents. I personally don't mind having a couple lists, but I have to be concerned about maintaining the status of the article. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this should be relegated to a List of Radio Stations in Lou. KY page. I agree that the list looks bad, but reformatting the data doesn't change its nature. I think it's too much detail for a page like this. If I'm going to be this involved I should join the group 8). Wake 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to join us at the Louisville Wikiproject. I wonder if maybe both TV and Radio stations need to be on a separate Media of Louisville, Kentucky page, and maybe just mention 840 WHAS and WAVE 3 on the main page, as WHAS is a "legacy station" and Wave 3 was Kentucky's first TV channel.--Bedford 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bedford, looks like you've done it! That cleans up the main page nicely. I did join the group. Wake 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I ordered the radio stations by dial number (we had one down twice as two different types), and added 2-3 I knew about (98.3, 88.1, 1080, 100.5) Also, I fixed the number for the Colonels; 2001?--Bedford 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your ideas for creating a separate article and only discussing the most prominent media examples in this article. Either approach ("List of" or "Media of") works for me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAS-TV would also seem notable enough to place on the front page due to the WHAS Crusade for Children and its ownership by the Binghams, amongst other things. If nobody objects, I'll revise to include them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"the most widely watched event in American horse racing"

Can anyone find a source for this statement? First of all, it's nebulous in that it could either mean historically, recently, or this year, and also, watched by who? (television viewers? track visitors?). Since this is a featured article, I think we need to come up with a source very soon, or this clause should be removed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this blurb from the article. A claim like this really does need to have much better precision and be sourced adequately. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually rewrote it, as it is indeed widely watched, but saying it is the most widely watched isn't acceptable without precision and a source. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabethtown

Elizabethtown is an important city in it's own right. Way do you try to include Elizabethtown's attributes in an article about Louisville? Stating that Fort Knox and the Patton Museum is "nearby" when in fact it is over an hours drive away. I modified the statement to reflect that, and you revert it. Power-tripping and homerism at it's worse. This statement needsto be removed all together(which I will do if you don't allow the modification, I'm trying to be nice) or allow it to be noted that it is some distance away in another major city.

Fort Knox is largely in the Louisville metropolitan area. In fact, Elizabethtown is in the Louisville CSA. It might behoove you to look up facts before making accusations. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, the Bullion Depository and Patton Museum are absolutely not in E-town. I live in the Louisville area, and I know this stuff. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been by it numerous times and can vouch for this. Looking at a map, Elizabethtown does not come close to the Bullion Depository or the Patton Museum. Let's get the facts straight. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richmond KY among many other cities are located in Lexington's metro, I will add those cities attributes to the Lexington article later tonight.

Also, what is the rule of thumb? The gold depository is 36 miles from Louisville's city limits... is that the standard? I would also like to add some stuff about Cincinnati to the Lexington article but it's 60 miles out. Is 40 miles the limit?

It may behoove you to learn about the concept of a metropolitan area. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Statements of Fact in Louisville Article

I've counted 67 and whenever I cite this with a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  for later use and/or hoping others will help me with the citing, it is removed by "stevies is the woman!". Is Louiville article exempt from Wikipedia policy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

Will cite the mentioned later tonight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

Also, the Louisville article exeeds policy length. Needs to be edited down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

Your personal attacks, plus your insertion of infactual material, plus content removal, plus indicating that you will keep doing damage to various articles, means that, at some point, admins will be dealing with this matter. Thank you. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Who have I attacked stevies? And you're the one including what should be in the Hardin County/Elizabethtown articles in the Louisville article. I have tried to be very factual, unlike you. I've already connected an admin. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

There seems to be some misunderstanding. You may contact me at my girlfriends email mlcaha00@pop.uky.edu anytime. I do not have an account and am a computer novice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:SIG Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolley System

They are operated by TARC. They are not free, except for the first Friday of every month for Gallery Hop IIRC. [2] [3] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also [4] [5] [6] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Is there any thought of expanding the Sister Cities section? I created the category earlier today.--Bedford 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Article condensing idea

As this article still needs condensing, I'm thinking of removing the "Future development projects" content from this article entirely, as it's already covered in Geography of Louisville, Kentucky and it just doesn't seem like top article material. Any objections? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

None here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Was bold and just did it. Today, this article has condensed to 54K from 59K! Cool. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone just posted size numbers for similar city articles (that are also FAs) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City/archive5, I'll past it here:

Wikipedia Article	Total size	"readable prose"	# Words
Seattle, Washington	83K	49K	7800
Detroit, Michigan	69K	40K	6300
San Francisco, California	81K	39K	6250
Boston, Massachusetts	59K	37K	5900

Just so we know where we stand in comparison. --W.marsh 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I figure this article will grow again. But at least we are trying to encourage the expansion of subarticles as much as we are. We've been pretty good at not letting this article get out of control. Feels good. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean it as a criticism. Those are larger cities anyway. As I recall, when we last trimmed the main article, it went from a bit over 60k to under 55k... seems to be about it's ideal size. --W.marsh 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I took it as useful comparative data. Yeah, this article is about right, although perhaps a wee bit more condensing could be done. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic statistics

The statistics are off, I think, in the religion section on Catholics. According to the Archdiocese, there are 122 parishes in the whole archdiocese, which stretchs all the way to Tennesee. The source quoted seems less authoratative than the archdiocese itself, plus because much of the archdiocese is outside of Louisville, even outside of Louisville Metro, none of the statistics are very useful. I found my statistics are http://www.archlou.org/archlou/statistics Rjstultz 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sides of town

I dunno, I kind of dislike the paragraph. For one thing it's flat-out wrong, the West End is really only north of Algonquin Parkway, areas around Churchill Downs and especially Shively are north of I-264 but mostly white. The South End is also hardly just housing for Ford employees and so on, as the passage implies. The East End has black enclaves. This passage just seems to be based on a vague understanding gleamed more from talking to random Louisvillians than actually understanding the demographics and layout of the city. Although it does say they're just "stereotypes". --W.marsh 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for giving the paragraph more precision. I just thought it was misguided to totally remove it, as it contained kernels of pertinent fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If the 'Stereotypically' paragraph stays there should not be a problem in citing those "kernels of pertinent fact." I am sure that those living in Lake Louisvilla will be surprised to learn that they are labeled affluent, those living in Berrytown will be surprised to learn that they are labeled as white, those living by Shawnee Park will be surprised that they are labeled low-income, those living in Portland will be surprised to learn that they are labeled majority African-American, and those living in Windsor Forest and by Iroquois Park will be surprised that they are labeled blue collar. Chris24 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It is a stone cold fact that our city has been and continues to be stereotypically carved up in social and political discourse, whether it's based on exact demographics or not. In discussing Louisville, we would be sorely remiss to leave this subject out. We cannot ignore any aspect of what this city is about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What the passage contains right now are some of the worst of the stereotypical assumptions (everyone in the West End is both black and poor, everyone in the South End works at a factory, and everyone in the East End are upper middle class and above). They are at best gross generalizations, as Chris points out. While it's important to mention that people generally see the city this way, that's different than having the article say the stereotypes are actually true. Anyway, do we really want a FA to have this kind of incorrect information? The citation needed tags should stay until we pin down some references (which is hard with this type of thing) I wouldn't be opposed to removing the passage entirely until fixed, since this is a FA and all. --W.marsh 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what point am I missing? If it is a "stone cold fact" for these statements you should have no problem providing citations and sources for these statements unless you believe in using the word "stereotypically" to state opinion that cannot be sourced. Stereotypically, people from Louisville do not wear shoes.[7] That is not a fact, but should that be included since it is also a stereotype... "whether it's based on exact demographics or not." Chris24 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the person to 'blame' because I wrote the disupted paragraph, not to hyper stereotype people but to point out that Louisville is one of the most economically and educationally segregated American cities.

For evidence, compare these maps of % w/a college degree for Louisville, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, & Cleveland Lou: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.148890036950099%7Cdh=0.6818827619692738%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=060%7Cmn=23902%7Cmx=79878%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Dollars%7Cpr=0%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00266%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en Cin:http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.148890036950099%7Cdh=0.6720004031001539%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=060%7Cmn=6.4%7Cmx=50.7%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US39061&-format=&-_lang=en Indy:http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=3.6088338929917247%7Cdh=2.0189589501028733%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-87.89376100000001%7Ccy=41.8118795%7Czl=7%7Cpz=7%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US17031%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=060%7Cmn=6.1%7Cmx=75.9%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US18097&-format=&-_lang=en Cle:http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.181691959306155%7Cdh=0.6816356779310493%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-86.132837%7Ccy=39.779492000000005%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US18097%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=060%7Cmn=10%7Cmx=46.2%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US39035&-format=&-_lang=en

Louisville is by far the most segregated. This is also evident when you look at the surrounding counties, with Bullitt county having only 12% w/a college degree while Oldham County is 38% 4.225.114.194 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This map would even better, because it shows college attainment at the census block level. As you can see, the only Jefferson COunty neighborhood west of I-65 to have 36% or more of its residents w/ a college degree is Old Louisville, & that's only because it's adjacent to a major university.

You can adjust the other maps to census block to get the same results for the other cities. 4.225.114.194 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can use those maps in articles as public domain works. But they're primary sources so we can't really draw any conclusions from them... that's why it's better to cite newspaper and journal articles. Anyway, I think I read that according to the census Milwaukee is the most segregated US city, Louisville might not be far behind but we should find a source for that. --W.marsh 01:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This might help --Newt_ΨΦ 02:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Attainment of a college degree does not make one affluent. Public school teachers are required to have college degrees, but their pay does not make them affluent. I agree with W.marsh that articles are the best sources. If you look at the map located at http://www.uky.edu/Projects/TDA/BlackKentucky/age/pop.tot.tract.htm you can see that there are three primary concentrations of African Americans in Jeferson County... The West End, The South End around Newburg, and the East End around Worthington, Berrytown, and Griffytown.

I am trying to find sources for what I can, but some statements such as "affluent whites" and "blue collar, middle-class whites" are almost impossible to source, which is why I introduced median home values (since that could be sourced.) With the source W.marsh introduced about the West End and what I was able to source on home values (which shows that the West End has the lowest home values and the East End has the highest) and immigrants, I would suggest that the unsourced info be removed (both on this page and the identical paragraphs at Geography of Louisville, Kentucky. Chris24 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the unsourced, disputed material should be removed. However, is there some way to simply state what the three tradional sides of town are and the history of why that is the case? Maybe instead of the "affluent whites, blue collar whites" stuff, there could be a more detailed account of how the current cultural sides of town have evolved and the approximate boundaries of those areas.

Here's generally what I would put: The west end started as the affluent end (esp Russell), & Portland & Louisville quikly grew together while development stopped at Phoenix Hill in the East. Old Louisville was the next affluent area to arise. The west end & old louisville both declined as heavy industry moved along the railroad tracks in those areas, major floods pushed most of the remaining upper income people to the flood proof east end.

Also, the south side of town grew the fastest from the 1930s to the 1960s when most job growth was industrial (everything out to Kosmosdale was developed by 1960), since the 1980s the East End has been the fastest growing because most new jobs now are medical/ white collar (most areas built since 1970). In recent years the Eastern Parkway/ Frankfort Ave corrider has become home to more young professionals and has been the site of much redevelopment and gentrification.

4.225.114.194 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your summary is generally accurate (though it omits the role of transportation, for one thing). I don't think anyone disputes that we are aiming for a section that accurately describes both the factual demographic/geographic history of Louisville/Jefferson County, and also the perception residents have of them, since the whole East/West/South thing is undeniably a part of Louisville culture. I say the way to get there is by adding claims based on published sources, which is what seems to be happening, it's just slow-going because it's hard to pin down good sources. In cities like Chicago and New York undoubtedly entire books have been written about this subject... we're stuck tracking down scattered newspaper and journal articles and trying to make sense of them. --W.marsh 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The West End did start out as the affluent area. Shawnee Park was the 'white' park, Chickasaw Park was the 'black' park, and Fontaine Ferry Park was segregated. In the 60's Louisville's West End experienced the 'white flight' that many other midwestern cities experienced. Portland and Crescent Hill used to be separate cities until annexation by Louisville in the late 1800s, and Old Louisville declined after WWII when people relied more on their own cars than on streetcars. Since the main page for Louisville is for basic info, this goes into a bit too much detail for it though. There is also the Geography of Louisville, Kentucky article, but that article is still meant to be general info for all of Louisville. There isn't much information at Louisville neighborhoods, and of the 200+ neighborhood specific pages many that are not in the old city of Louisville are stubs. That article could really be expanded as to which neighborhoods were the earliest in Louisville, which used to be separate from Louisville and were annexed, which tried to avoid being annexed, and which groups moved where after the 1937 flood and during the 'white flight' of the 1960's. The neighborhoods article has the potential to be a great article if neutrally written and sourced. Chris24 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the comments have included "I wouldn't be opposed to removing the passage entirely until fixed, since this is a FA and all." and "I'm probably the person to 'blame' because I wrote the disupted paragraph" along with "I agree that the unsourced, disputed material should be removed." I removed the unsourced and uncited portion of the paragraph.--Chris24 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job redoing that section, however there is no mention of average age or ancestory. There are several pockets of younger median age, basically all areas that are predominantly African American, the Old Louisville & Greater Schnitzelburg areas adjacent to U of L, & some areas around Fern Creek & Lyndon.

Scottish and Germans are concentrated on the East End. People on the South Side are too stupid and self centered to find out about their geneology so they simply list "American", even though I've never seen any native americans down there.

Map of median age:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-tree_id=4001&-_MapEvent=zoom&-context=tm&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=150&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=5&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00022&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.148890036950099%7Cdh=0.6818827619692738%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF1_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=150%7Cmn=0%7Cmx=69.6%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Years%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00022%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-_pageX=&-geo_id=05000US21111&-CONTEXT=tm&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-format=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify

Map of Scottish ancestory: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-tree_id=403&-_MapEvent=zoom&-context=tm&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=140&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=6&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00131&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=0.382963345650033%7Cdh=0.22400013436671792%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=5%7Cpz=5%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=140%7Cmn=0%7Cmx=7.1%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00131%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-_pageX=&-geo_id=05000US21111&-CONTEXT=tm&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-format=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify

Map of German ancestory: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00120&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.148890036950099%7Cdh=0.6818827619692738%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=140%7Cmn=0%7Cmx=7.1%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00131%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-errMsg=&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

Map of "American ancestory":

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=403%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=1.148890036950099%7Cdh=0.6720004031001539%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-85.676856%7Ccy=38.188964999999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=05000US21111%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF3_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=140%7Cmn=0%7Cmx=5.9%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Percent%7Cpr=1%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00124%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-errMsg=&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

67.150.55.200 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)!

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 62 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, W.marsh 02:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If Yarmuth wins...

Will Louisville be one of the only US cities w/ a Jewish mayor & Jewish Representative?

136.165.88.39 16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)!