User talk:Louisvillian

Signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!John Reaves 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of text on talk pages

I realize we don't seem to agree on much, but I would like to request that you consider others when leaving talk page responses. It's very difficult to read through the current high volume of text (much of which you are placing in some talk pages). Some people use dialup access and it takes a while to load all that up. Further, it's really hard to read pages or find specific things (some of which you refer to in exasperation that I should have looked at). Well, many of us are too busy to rummage through an extremely voluminous talk page to find anything. I hope that you will find a way to begin providing succinct answers to questions, not for the sake of me, but for everyone involved. It's not just a conversation between you and me, but a public conversation that everyone has to deal with. Thanks for your time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Blog

I noticed that you made a comment on the Southern talk page regarding the Velocity blog that I posted on recently. I don't know and have never met the person who created that blog (and that was my first post on that site), so I have no clue as to why she wouldn't allow certain posts. I'd love to continue the debate, and Stevietheman actually has a Louisville history and issues board here - [1] . Feel free to start a discussion there, and I will join in. --70.168.88.158 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Focus/Journal of Economic History cites

Regarding your edits on the Kentucky page and the American South page: I realize that you feel very strongly about the regional identity of Kentucky. However, the state is mixed, is a border state, and no information at all has been listed in the article along those lines for the most part. In the past, when people have tried to insert such information about Kentucky, it has been removed without reason. The Kentucky page on Wikipedia, in the introduction, states that Kentucky is sometimes considered a part of the Midwest, and this is fact is cited. Under the "Cultural Variations" section of the American South article, I have avoided using absolutes - I said that "many Kentuckians" see themselves as Midwesterners and, regardless of whether or not you like/agree with this, my Changing Focus survey, from an accredited, peer-reviewed source, found that only 47.86% of Kentuckians chose the term "South", while 32.48% chose the term "Midwest" for their state. It is undeniably clear that many Kentuckians in the northern part of the state are not willing to label themselves as Southerners. If you are not one of them I respect that, but you cannot revert edits that have qualified sources simply because you disagree with a statement. Concerning Louisville, my cite from the Journal of Economic History states that "The Midwest is defined as the manufacturing portion of the East and West North Central census regions plus West Virginia and Kentucky cities along the Ohio River." In ranking Midwestern cities in terms of employment in 1880, it ranked Louisville as the "seventh largest Midwestern city", behind Detroit but ahead of Indianapolis.

Again, I respect your feelings. But the truth is that "some" Kentuckians, many in the northern regions of the state, do not consider themselves Southerners, and that the state of Kentucky is included in the Midwest in some defintions. I have provided verifiable sources for this from respected, peer-reviewed works. In the future, please read and review works before removing citations. Thanks.

[Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels - [2] Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century - [3] --70.168.88.158 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Louisvillian, we are all quite aware by this point that you don't acknowledge the Midwestern influence in Kentucky. That's fine with me, because you have a right to your opinion. Again, this is just your opinion and nothing else, and you cannot remove citations and ignore qualified research evidence just because it is not in accord with your opinion, as you have done repeatedly. This is obstructionism and it is a violation of policy. You have been overturned on the Kentucky page and on the Louisville page, and if you continue to remove my citations from peer-reviewed research journals I will call for arbitration in this matter. Furthermore, while I have provided links to my citations, you have failed to provide any types of links or cites for the Southern Focus Survey. Now, apparently you don't have access to JSTOR, or you haven't read the sources at all because you are CLEARLY wrong, as the Journal of Economic History study, as clearly as day, includes both Louisville and Kentucky as Midwestern. So to end this repetitive nonsense, I've posted a copy of the study on my personal web site, here - www.geocities.com/johnsont458/midwestindustry.pdf . --70.168.88.158 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On point, in reference to the edit summary "Gator 80% of Kentuckians consider their state Southern GET OVER IT", I have to make clear: Majoritarianism cannot exceed fact. One cannot punish a minority view by exterminating it. If 80% of Kentuckians consider their state Southern (a dubious factoid anyway), the view of the remaining 20% (a very significant portion) cannot be ignored. But it's not about statewide opinion polls anyway, but instead about the history and culture of the Northern parts of the state. And no polls have been provided about how people in the Northern areas feel about whether they consider Kentucky to be Southern. Until we see that kind of poll, we must rely on other sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what is being ignored here is that "culture" is a qualitative measure, not a quantitative one. There is no numerical continuum for "culture"; you cannot score a 20 on the "culture test" and be declared a Northerner, or score a "75" and be declared a Southerner. Culture is blurry, ambiguous; it is about habits, history, cuisine, traditions, norms, values, and much more. And indeed, the 80% number is highly dubious, especially considering that the Changing Usage study found only 47.86% of Kentuckians using the term South to describe the region (the proportion was 82.11% in neighboring Tennessee), with a third identifying as Midwesterners - something that is being tacitly ignored in this discussion. --Gator87 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, first off no, I'm not an administrator, sorry for any confusion. Secondly, I wouldn't consider my self informed enough on the issue to voice an opinion. All I really know is that this is a very contentious issue that will probably always have conflict associated with it. If it becomes a bigger issue, you might consider dispute resolution. John Reaves (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Page Edit War Southern U.S.

Hi this is Louisvillian and there is currently an Edit War on the Southern U.S. page between myself and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.168.88.158 or Gator (his login name and I noticed you've already warned him of is highly opinionated edits)and if I'm not mistaken you are an admin and I was hoping to put an end to this. This war is involving the Cultural variations section about Kentucky. It's basically about is Kentucky more Southern or Midwestern and what not, and me knowing opinions mean nothing on this site provided a few sources to back what I put into the Article here is my Edit

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while a good majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2]. Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

Here is his edits

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that many Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels. [2] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern when compared to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as a Midwestern city in some analyses of the region [3], is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

The other user is having alot of problems at the part where it states that the vast majority of Kentuckians identify with the South (which was cited with The Southern Focus Study). He just wants it to say that Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, without mention of the source that I've provided. This stems from a debate as to which of our sources is more reliable, My Southern Focus Study which has been conducted for the past decade and is still running, or his pre 1990's study that was conducted for only one year. So I tried to incorperate both of our sources (which you can see in my edit above), But he is using his opinion to counter this source. There is also a problem at the part where it claims that Northern Ky is more Midwestern than Southern (as it was not cited) so I cited it with a map created by this nation most reknwon georgrapher DW Meining's. The problem he has with this is that it proves that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern (which is against his opinion). He continues to edit the Southern Indiana claim without touching the Northern Kentucky claim, which are cited by the same moer than credible source. I've lately tried to compromise with him on the edits, however he continues to take out my more than qualified ( much more so than the little sources he has provdided to support his opinion which is in the minority might I add) and preferred (by the concensus on this current and old Southern talk page) sources, without cause/ his opinion.

Now he is also making a claim that Louisville is considerd a Midwestern city, and attempted to cite it with a JSTOR, that's fine, But what he claimed was not in the Exert from the JSTOR to prove Louisville was a Midwestern city is not in there at all. It doesn't even mention the state of Kentucky on the JSTOR. If you aren't too busy can please take time to resolve this matter, if you can please send me a message on my page Louisvillian 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not important what I think about the dispute. You and the person with whom you are edit-warring need to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to some sort of conclusion / comprimise with which you two (and ideally everyone else) will agree. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, there was never any discussion regarding the status of Kentucky - it is a Border State, and this has been common knowledge for the last 150 years. And I am not "ignorning" your sources. As Stevietheman pointed out, since Wikipedia must strive for a NPOV, it is necessary to find common ground among the research analyzed and avoid taking extreme, polarizing viewpoints that will cause undue dispute. All of the studies that have been presented come to a consensus regarding the use of the word "many" to describe both the Midwest and South element in Kentucky, but you insist on upholding one study - the Southern Focus one - and its use of majority, and thus blatantly pushing aside every single citation that I have provided. There can never be a discussion about the fact that "many Kentuckians consider themselves to be Southerners", and there can never be a discussion about the fact that "many Kentuckians consider themselves to be Midwesterners." So what is the point of this dogged insistence on the phrase "good majority?", if not to discredit the Midwestern influence in Kentuck? This is silly and pointless, because the only thing that you changed in my edit was the word "many" to "majority" - was this done to improve the section? I do not have reason to believe so. Since my study found only a minority of Kentuckians using the term "South" to describe the state, you have atttempted to discredit and ignore it, but you have no logical, substantiable ground for ignorning a peer-reviewed study. So no, I have not "ignored" your sources, because the word "many" represents the findings of your studies; instead, you have ignored MY sources, tried to marginalize them, engaged in a vitriolic and profanity-laced discourse on the page, and straight-out rejected my compromise with the word "many" - a word, and finding, that all of our studies agree on. For me to accept phrases about a "good majority" of Kentuckians would require me to drop all of my sources and pay attention to only your information, and furthermore, to ignore and forget every history lesson that I've ever learned about this state - something I am not willing to do.

--Gator87 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky - A True Southern State

I'd be more than happy to help you with your concensus. I truly and strongly believe that Kentucky is a Southern state, as does the majority of the population. And I empathize with your frustration, as I've often experienced Texas being called a non-Southern state as well. --Stallions2010 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider Kentucky southern. I also feel the frustrations of this. I am from Richmond, Virginia (the capitol of the Confederacy) and I get so annoyed when someone says "Virginia isn't the south." Well guess what, it *IS* the South! We drink sweet tea, say y'all, sir and ma'am and name our streets and schools after Confederate generals.

Reply

Hi Louisvillian, I would be happy to join you the debate on the Southern United States article, as far as I'm concerned if the census bureau considers Kentucky's a southern state than it is a southern state, I never have quite understood others proclaiming that It is not. - thank you Astuishin 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisvillian

^I'm not sure If I can stoop to their level bro, I'm not that patient, all they'll do is twist what I say also. They have a political agenda and this is like trying to prove evolution to Christian fanatics, it won't work no matter how much evidence you give them. Deep down they know the truth though and I'm sure they have doubts in their own logic. Again, I simply suggest that you use the sources provided. Stay clear of extinct racial categories like "Caucasoid and Negroid", they don't exist. Just stay calm and patient and provide the info, if you feel as if you can't articulate it, quote some of the comments from our humble wikipedia discussions or quote passages from some of the links. For example..

"The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the ‘super-Negroid’ body plan described by Robins (1983)" - Sonia R. Zakrzewski http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

or

"The southern affinities with the series are striking given the commonly held or stated classical "racial" views of the Egyptians predict a notable distinction from"Africans". Thus any scheme to label Nubians or all Egyptians as a "Caucasian" monotypic entity is a hypothesis which is easily falsified. Metric analysis clearly suggest in fact that at least southern Egyptian groups were part of indigenous holocene Saharo-Tropical African variation." - Keita

First dynasty tombs from Abydos found skulls to be most similar to Nubians from Kerma. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf

Then point out the fact that not even Northern Egyptian groups can be distinguished or proven to have not been indigenous, they were said to be very closely related to the southern groups and only really differed mostly due to a difference in prognathism (which means nothing since they were still related and it was never reported that they had no prognathism, just less than the southerners) and even then, conquest came from the South under Narmer from Abydos! So civilization in Egypt was started by Southern Egyptian/African types who resembled Nubians, Nubians who in turn are recognized as "Black". Other than that, if they can't accept the facts, that is their fault, not yours and definitely not mines (no disrespect to you).. I just don't put up with racist people, I rather spread the knowledge to my own people so that they may be armed with the facts when put into a corner. But truly bro, I'd be waisting my time, just keep reading and researching the various links I gave you and/or quote from our discussions (or other discussions), also you can slide over to this forum here and ask some questions, but don't let them know you're debating people on some racist website like stormfront, they don't bother with those types. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Response

You wrote: "Taharqa He's lying he is has deleted any and every source suggesting that AE's were black and replaced them with original research suggesting that they were more Middle Eastern in appearance. Needless to say the article with his edits are about a third of it's former size and has close to no sources )compared to the claims being made). He hasn't consulted with the anyone on the talk page before he's made these edits either,<personal attack removed WP:NPA> we would love it if you would come back or just kind of watch over the page"

As of now it seems as if someone restored much of the information anyways, but you're right, despite me and Urthogie's disputes, other people contributed(which was one of my points during disputes) and no one else was consulted, I was taking a break however, and took a step back due to all of the drama surrounding editing these types of articles. I will watch out for it though to help prevent vandalism.. - Taharqa

Your edits to Kentucky

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kentucky. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Louisville, Kentucky

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Louisville, Kentucky. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

D.W. Meining's Map

Hi.. yea that website has been down a bit lately. It should be more reliably up soon. I can't point you to another online source, but the printed version from which I made that copy is in the book: Meinig, D.W. (2004). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 4: Global America, 1915-2000. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10432-4. Sorry I can do more, but the web version should be up again "soon" -- make a copy for your own files! :) Pfly 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the pages on AE and race are unblocked and have been merged. See what you think and try to watch it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_ancient_Egypt Taharqa 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)

Louisvillian, we have a debate about the article Race and ancient Egypt (controversies). Zerida and Egyegy want to introduce new elements. Please, try to participate. Besides, let's hope that Zerida and Egyegy will agree to discuss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ancient_Egypt_%28controversies%29 . Meanwhile, somebody has created a new article using the content of the first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ancient_Egyptians . Your presence is needed.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Loui.. Please don't post links to that site on my user talk page. I am aware of the heated discussion that goes on there but it isn't for me to persuade an army of racists on their own website. There is no reason for me to waste my time there since they're not on my level..Taharqa 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]