Talk:Big Spring, Texas/Archive 1

Cultural context info
The cultural context information is valid, if unpleasant, as anyone who has visited Big Spring can attest and was not added with the intent of "vandalism" but rather of including a factual description of Big Spring that may differ from that of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Please refer to WP:NPOV. I'm sure that not everyone in this town shares your point of view. Jasmol 05:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that not everyone agrees with certain information does not invalidate that information. In addition, the cultural context added provides far more useful information about Big Spring, than census data, geographical coordinates and the fact that a 35 year old movie was filmed there.

Yes, Big Spring sucks, we get that. I've been to Big Spring too many freaking times on stupid high school functions to not get that. But, this article is bad. Incredibly. Needs major cleanup work.

Any desire for a brief history of Big Spring? If nothing else, we could rework the blurb on the Cowboy's Steakhouse menu into something useable :) Applejuicefool 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Culture information, it clearly does not stand up to WP:NPOV and should be removed. The description of Big Spring is NOT factual, as asserted in the first paragraph on this page; instead, it is a mass of opinion. "Many people believe..." What people? "The school system is appalling" opinion. "Football takes precedence..." opinion (and I'm a science teacher at BSHS). "The economic base consists largely..." sources? "One of the major career opportunities..." compared to what? Sources? "A high percentage of the population lives in poverty..." what percentage? source? etc. etc. etc. This section of the article is nothing but a slam on Big Spring and should be entirely rewritten. In fact, I plan to do so. Thanks, Applejuicefool 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Culture & Economics discussion is quite valid. I am a third generation Big Spring resident, born and raised. I love Big Spring. Pointing out some of the challenges that face the city of Big Spring presents a necessary balanced view. If you want advertising copy, the Chamber of Commerce will be all too happy to provide fancy brochures that gloss over all of the difficulties that local residents face. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.232.3 (talk • contribs).

Ok, I don't want this to turn into a revert war, so I'm going to temporarily leave the content on there to let you explain why your content is balanced. While you're at it, also explain how your content is anything more than your personal opinion and how it fits in with Wikipedia policy. According to policy,


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Have you ever read content in a modern, reputable encyclopedia like your Culture and Economics section?
 * Avoid bias.
 * Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. If you're basing your information on your own personal experience living in Big Spring or on your own personal discussions with Big Spring residents, you are in violation of this tenet. In other words, according to policy, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."
 * Advocacy and controversial material. Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. By your own words, "Pointing out some of the challenges that face the city of Big Spring presents a necessary balanced view." Necessary for what? It sounds like you have a political agenda in your article. Even if you love Big Spring as you say, writing a Wikipedia article to shed light on its flaws is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Incidentally, the first two bullets come from the Policies and guidelines page, the third from Verifiability and the last from Your first article.

I'm not saying I want the Big Spring article to sound like Chamber of Commerce copy. Whether this endears me to you or not, I am a former Herald reporter and now a high school teacher. I don't have your three generations, but I do know something about both journalistic and academic style and integrity. I want the article to be factual and based on outside research, not a mass of anyone's opinions - yours or the Chamber's or even mine. Applejuicefool 03:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Political POV
65.122.236.133; the cultural section that you insist on adding is clearly in violation of neutral-point-of-view policy. As mentioned before, this isn't an attempt to sanitize the article and have it read like a PR piece; on the contrary, I often remove positive statements from various articles for the same reason that I've removed the "cultural" section; it is 90% point of view and/or unverifiable statements. There are a few elements of it that if sourced could be appropriate; if you could dig up some poverty statistics, or employment statistics (verifying that the prison is indeed the biggest or one of the biggest employers), that would be fine. The Detroit, MI article provides good examples of how to discuss the negative aspects of a city while maintaining a neutral point-of-view. There is no place in this article for positive/negative commentary about Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Communist policies.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've protected this page. Please discuss this further, and after you have come to a conclusion contact me or an other admin and it will unprotected. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 01:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture and Economics (advert)
The Culture and Economics section reads like an advert. I was going to add the advert template, but I'm sure it will get reverted. I'll mention it here instead. Warning, hyperbole and adverts below...


 * The people are the friendliest you'll meet! And if you like barbecue and Tex-Mex food Big Spring has some outstanding restaurants. Brenda’s Barbecue is highly recommended, although residents of Big Spring are quite opinionated when it comes to a discussion of barbecue or Tex-Mex food. There is one truly amazing display of Christmas lights at the Partee residence. The "Live Drive Through Nativity" is one of a kind. Housing costs are unbelievably inexpensive and many people have adapted to the arid climate by xeriscaping their lawns.

- ApolloCreed 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This individual has been pushing POV in this article for weeks . The recent revisions are simply the "positives" from that large POV section. Positive or negative, it's still POV.  I've seen no good-faith discussion of the issue from this user (beyond simply stating that "it's valid") and they've already been blocked for violating 3RR once (and a fresh report has just been filed).  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

- Ohnoitsjamie has a history of deletionist bullying in order to enforce his/her own POV. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs).

I would be good to have some photographs of Big Spring included in the article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs).

History (copyvio)
The history section contains two paragraphs that are blatant copy violations of url http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/PP/jbp1.html. - ApolloCreed 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The history section is not a copy violation. Please do not continue to deface this page with your repeated deletion of content. Please discuss why you insist on believing that this section is a copyright violation prior to defacing it yet again. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.19.117 (talk • contribs).

Please compare:

"In 1957 anti-prostitution groups gained an influential advocate in Texas attorney general Will Wilson, whose office led the way in disrupting Texas prostitution, including the Galveston racketeers. Church, legal and news media pressure forced many brothels to close and set the prostitution business on a downward course that continued into the 1960s."

to

"In 1957 they gained a powerful ally in Texas attorney general Will Wilson, whose office led the way in breaking the back of the Galveston racketeers. Legal and media pressure forced many brothels to close and set the volume of prostitution on a downward course that continued into the 1960s."

You've made minor changes to the source material and claimed that you wrote it. That's fairly basic Plagiarism. You could simply avoid this by using brief excerpts of the original text and attributing the source; there is no need lie about it or become defensive. Kuru  talk  03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the last edit to the main page before I read this, so disregard that edit summary. Kuru, you make a good point in that the original copyvio was only slightly paraphrased.  I'm not an authority on the finer points of copyvio policy/law to know there the line is, so I'll defer that to someone else.   OhNo  itsJamie Talk 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if the history section dealt with some aspects of Big Spring history other than prostitution. While I know prostitution and vice did play a big part in Big Spring's history, it certainly isn't the be all and end all of Big Spring's past. Applejuicefool 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Cultural And Economics Section
There is an ongoing effort to sanitize and whitewash the Cultural and Economics discussion in this article. There have been repeated attempts to delete relevant and factual (if unpleasant) information about Big Spring in favor of a "Chamber of Commerce" POV that removes any and all references to the real challenges faced by the City of Big Spring, TX. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs).
 * Please cite specific passages that you believe violate neutral-point-of-view.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can't cite any specifics, the "disputed" tag will be removed.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The return of the disputed tag
Once again, you'll need to cite exactly which section(s) you think violate WP:NPOV.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The continued deletionist bullying tactics by "ohnoitsjamie" to sanitize and whitewash information about a community I love dearly and that my family has called home for four generations is the reason for the disputed tag. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs).
 * How is removing sections that are clearly WP:POV "deletionist bullying"? You still haven't cited any specific examples of problems with the current revision. If you cannot do so, the tag will be removed.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of adding a "disputed" tag to the talk page?  OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Errors of omission, by constantly whitewashing the Big Spring article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs).
 * You apparently have yet to read the Wikipedia policy on neutral-point-of-view. The edits you've been trying to revert to clearly violate that policy.  Can you cite one thing in the current article that cannot be verified?  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your deletionist bullying tactics and relentless mendacity are amply demonstrated with your attempts to remove factual information from this article that does not fit into your "Chamber of Commerce" whitewash job on Big Spring. I love the Big Spring community dearly, warts and all. Your continually removing material from this article is in itself POV since you are making a POV decision as to what information is acceptable to you personally and what information is not acceptable to you. The disputed tag will remain until this issue is fully resolved. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.145.215.206 (talk • contribs).


 * I guess you still haven't read that policy yet. Also; please tell me just what "deletionist bullying" is? You apparently dug that up from my | talk page. That comment was left by a persistent link spammer who was upset because I nominated two of his articles for deletion (one a hoax, the other an excuse to link to his own website).  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think 65.122.236.133 put the disputed tag on the page, because some content has been repeatedly removed. Here is the edit summary that makes me think this: 21:52, February 21, 2006 65.122.236.133 (disputed due to errors of omission). Here is the content that has been removed. This article has a history of about 60 edits. Below is a list of 23 edits where pov content was reverted. There were also some edits reverted due to copyvios. A lot of time has been spent running in circles with this article, because it is disputed by just one user. This is an edit war of one against many. ~ Apollo Creed 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 22:30, December 12, 2005 Ohnoitsjamie m (rv POV edits)
 * 00:27, December 13, 2005 Raelus m (rv pov)
 * 02:19, January 2, 2006 69.73.112.182 (→Culture & Economics)
 * 09:38, January 27, 2006 Applejuicefool (→Culture & Economics)
 * 23:52, January 27, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (→Culture & Economics - removed POV section (again))
 * 02:03, January 28, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (rvv POV edits again)
 * 13:03, January 28, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (rv POV edits)
 * 13:17, January 28, 2006 Kuru (revert: NPOV)
 * 14:55, January 28, 2006 William M. Connolley (Having blocked 65., rv back to Kuru/consensus version)
 * 00:28, January 31, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (rvv removed political POV as discussed in talk page)
 * 18:09, February 15, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (rvv POV comments (please read the talk page before reverting this again))
 * 20:15, February 15, 2006 Yamaguchi先生 (rv OR)
 * 20:17, February 15, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (Revert to revision 39814704 using popups)
 * 20:19, February 15, 2006 Spangineer m (Reverted edits by 209.181.19.117 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie)
 * 20:20, February 15, 2006 KnowledgeOfSelf m (Reverted edits by 209.181.19.117 (talk) to last version by Spangineer)
 * 20:22, February 15, 2006 Vary (Revert to revision 39815295 using popups)
 * 20:23, February 15, 2006 KnowledgeOfSelf m (Reverted edits by 209.181.19.117 (talk) to last version by Vary)
 * 22:24, February 15, 2006 Ohnoitsjamie (rv POV)
 * 22:26, February 15, 2006 Condem m (Revert to revision 39827970 using popups)
 * 22:33, February 15, 2006 Kuru (revert: vandalism)
 * 22:38, February 15, 2006 Kuru (revert: the page is not protected, and the section you are trying to insert is not concensus. Please see talk page.)
 * 23:13, February 15, 2006 Searchme (→Culture and Economics - none of that fits)
 * 23:46, February 15, 2006 Tawker m (Reverted edits by 65.122.236.133 (Talk) to last version by Searchme)

~ Apollo Creed 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify your point please? I'm not sure what the listing up there is supposed to show. The edits removed were POV and unsourced, therefore a tag disputing the factuality of the article doesn't quite make sense since what is in the article at the moment is completley factual and not disputed.  The dispute is about what is not there.  psch  e  mp  |  talk  03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is speculation, since I am not the one who put the disputed tag. I think the disputed tag was placed because of the rv pov edits.  I think the user wants the dispute tag because the content (deemed pov by others) is not there anymore.  The above list is just evidence of what "is not there", but is persistently added by the anon user.  (Please respond if this is what you meant, Mr./Mrs. anonymous user). ~  Apollo Creed 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally deleting out factual and relevant information in order to conform to one person's particular biased POV is itself promoting a particular POV. In other words it is possible to implicitly lie by the omission of relevant and factual information and what is left out is often more important than what is included. The deletionist bullying tactics by "ohnoitsjamie" (and his/her cronies) to sanitize this article to conform to a "Chamber of Commerce" POV are creating an unbalanced, biased and misleading article.


 * Calling me the same name over and over again doesn't support your argument. If the edits you keep reverting to are indeed factual, they would also be sourceable.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 65, I don't want to portray what you call a "Chamber of Commerce" POV of Big Spring. I want Big Spring's article to represent a fair, unbiased description and history of the city. Words like "appalling", "unpleasant" and "amazing" (which you used in your "Culture and Economy" section) inherently involve bias.  When you write a sentence like "Upon visiting Big Spring, the poverty and lack of medical care will be readily evident as soon as a local smiles, showing off a mouth full of the rotting stumps of what were once teeth," your bias on the topic of Big Spring dental hygiene is evident.  I challenge you to provide one reputable reference (other than yourself) alleging that no resident of Big Spring has perfect teeth. You repeatedly use such hyperbole to make your points, which are generally negative, and we don't need this mess in an encyclopedia entry about Big Spring.  Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum for venting your dissatisfaction about your home. It doesn't matter if your points are valid - they are still unacceptable as long as they exhibit a biased point of view and can't be independently verified. Applejuicefool 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag
user 69.145.215.206 One last time I'd like to ask you to list the reasons for the tag addition. Particularly becasue nothing in any previous discussions was posted by you, nor were you the originator of the tag. I am makin a good faith attempt to understand your reasons, thus I request clarification. Thank you.

Pleasy clarify you reasons for placing this tag. Here is the list of reasons why the tag should be used: The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
 * it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
 * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
 * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
 * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

So far, I have not seen that any of these are occuring in this article, but welcome your comments, if not, the tag will be removed. psch e  mp  |  talk  04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the tag has been amply discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs)
 * Please show me exaclty where by copying the relevent text down here to our conversation. I'm a bit slow sometimes.  psch  e  mp  |  talk  07:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have yet to put forth a cogent reason for it. Can you identify one sentence in the current article that can't be verified? Consider the first two sentences of the edit you keep reverting to:  "Many people believe that Big Spring is representative of the social rot that Republicanism has wrought upon Texas. The school system is appalling, from kindergarten through Howard College..." and so on.  Obviously, you haven't read (or don't understand) the neutral point of view policy.  Enforcing that policy is not "whitewash," nor is it grounds for a "disputed" tag.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Page "Protection
Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made even while there would otherwise be a serious vandalism problem on a page. This means that there are some situations that, whilst semi-protection would be technically possible, it is not to be applied. These are mentioned above, and summarized here. Semi-protection:


 * Is not to be used to dispel edit warring or revert wars. See the protection policy for how to deal with this.
 * Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. This includes the day's Featured Article which should almost never be protected.
 * Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.236.133 (talk • contribs)

According to Wikipedia policy as copied above... semi-protecting this page is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjayme (talk • contribs)
 * My first impersonator! I'm flattered.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to resolve this issue
First of all, please do not try to impersonate other users. It's not allowed (according to Wikipedia policy), but furthermore, it just doesn't provide a good basis for good communication. I did semiprotect tonight, since the other solution to one person constantly 'attacking' an article is blocking that person - but since you are using a dynamic IP, that's not quite feasible. As we try to 'assume good faith', I'll unblock the page now, and try to discuss with you about these edits. But since many others have tried that above, I'm warning you that that won't work forever. Ok, first of all, we try to provide neutral and factual, verifiable information. From what I've seen, this addition, which is added by multipe IPs doesn't meet those criteria. Please don't keep re-adding it! If you want that kind of information in the article, write it in a neutral way and make sure you've got some trustable sources (that can be accessed by other Wikipedians, so either a book or a website) to back you up. Second, please stay civil while communicating with other editors and asume good faith. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or on this page --Joann e B 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The information that I and others have added to the Big Spring article is widely known and accepted within the Big Spring community. It is unfortunately common to take a rather classist view that only things that have been printed in some publication are factual. Big Spring is certainly not a community of writers and many of the facts of local life therefore do not end up in print. Further it is quite debatable as to whether or not the appearance in print of some statement attests to the veracity of the said statement. Also please note that "ohnoitsjamie" and "ohnoitsjaime" are two different individuals and there is not an intention of "impersonation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ohnoitsjaime (talk • contribs)


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

I concur with Ohnoitsjaime... the information regarding the culture of Big Spring is quite valid and is not POV. I prefer to read an article that presents a city in its entirety, warts and all rather than a PR hack job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyjoe (talk • contribs)
 * Whether you mean it as an 'impersonation' or not, it's not allowed to have usernames that are confusingly similar to other usernames. Therefore, that account has been blocked too, please create an account with a completely different username. Also, it would be really helpful if you could sign your comments, with ~.

Something about the content that you were adding: it's not enough that something is widely known and accepted within any community. There is a rule called No original research, which states that indeed that 'classist view' that you are describing, is the exact way Wikipedia editors/contributors should work. So, for now: please choose a new username, sign your contributions on talk pages like this and only add information to the article that fits the criteria described in this and my previous comments. Thanks for your cooperation! --Joann e B 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC has been filed
RFC regarding the dispute has been filed here.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the need for the RFC, as this appears to be a fairly minor/non-issue. Perhaps the page could have a section added for controversial information with a heading identifying it as such. This would appease those who want to post a more diverse view and those who are claiming that it is POV. By doing so readers would be forewarned that their is in fact some level of disagreement over certain information. However, the blanket removal of information posted by a single user smacks of unjustified censorship on the part of Ohnoitsjamie, Applejuicefool and others. It seems to me that their is in fact room for compromise where the controversial elements of the article are set off in their own section. This would be preferable to the round and round that is currently taking place and that is unlikely to ever end unless someone gets tired of the game.129.72.69.170 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please make that staement here, and we'll see if that could happen.  Joe I  01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


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

Suggestion
Ok, here is what I suggest. What if we have a table near the bottom of the article:

Everything else in the article would be strictly factual, verifiable Wikipedia-style information.

Information in the table would be signed "The preceding commentary is the personal opinion of (username)".

Each user would allowed to comment in either or both sections, as long as they signed their comments with the above statement.

Comments? Applejuicefool 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the "opinion box" idea is excellent and is a great example of COMPROMISE. Happyjoe &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.145.215.206 (talk &bull; contribs).

Ok, I tried it out in the article. Applejuicefool 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like that you're trying to mediate the dispute. You have clearly noted which content is opinion and whose opinion it is, but it is still original research.  It would be nice if the local paper had reports or opinion polls on these issues. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My thinking when I created this table: It is factual that different people have differing opinions of Big Spring.  My fear about this idea (upon consideration) is that it could turn into a glorified message board, with individuals adding opinions as they run across the article, with no way to edit it for length.  Why is any one (or two) person's opinions more valid than any others? I really don't want to see this page turn into an opinion battlezone. I don't really believe that this table is the best solution, but then I don't want Happyjoe to continue to vandalize the page. Applejuicefool 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thought: Perhaps we can find published, secondary-source opinions (positive and negative) about Big Spring, and use them in a similar table. Applejuicefool 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I think the opinion table is an admirable good-faith effort at compromise, I still don't think it's appropriate for the article page. You won't (or at least shouldn't) find any other city pages with anything similar. There are ways to discuss positives and negatives about a city while following the verifiable policy; published survey results, such as "Most Liveable City," "Most Affordable Health Care", or any local or national news articles that identify similar trends are examples. The article for Detroit is a good example of an entry that acknowledges the challenges that a city faces while sticking to verifiable facts (especially the "crime" and "education" sections). If you want to discuss problems in Big Spring in this fashion, you could compare Big Spring's crime rate/poverty rate/education stats with similar sized cities in Texas or the country (see below). I have yet to find any newspaper or magazine articles that discuss these sorts of issues in detail; perhaps a local would have better luck finding such information.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Data sources

 * Crime statistics
 * General city data, including median housing prices, income, etc
 * Census data
 * Article on Howard County (mostly history)

The opinion box idea is outstanding and does reach a reasonable compromise and builds consensus. However, even after WP:AGF efforts to build consensus and reach a compromise on this thorny issue, there is still an ongoing effort to ignore the compromise agreed to and continue to whitewash this article by removing relevant and factual information. 69.145.215.206 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Happyjoe


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a blog. A list of personal opinions is not encyclopedic material. You should find a neutral and verifiable way to voice your concerns. I fear other approaches may be a great waste of time. Two people agreeing on something does not really constitute consensus in the Wikipedia sense. Weregerbil 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The compromise suggested by Applejuice has not been agreed to, so it is unfair to say, "there is still an ongoing effort to ignore the compromise agreed to." A few people have expressed concerns over the opinion table.


 * Happyjoe, the opinion table has not "been agreed to", it has been tested out, discussed, and found wanting by a majority of the people discussing, myself included! This is a process here, and most of us are interested in working toward a consensus decision.  But just because an idea is floated does not mean it's set in stone.  Applejuicefool 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Happyjoe, I think you have a misunderstanding about what wikipedia is all about. It's not a place for you to express your freedom of speech, it's a place to share knowledge. Rules have been put in place to help guide it's creation so that it is accurate. I highly recommend you read these three articles: verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view. These articles of the basis of debates over what should be included in wikipedia. Your content has been removed because it goes against all three of these ideas, NOT because of "deletionist bullying". &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am at the point of giving up on this issue as a lost cause. I have been personally attacked, had multiple accounts and IPs blocked on false pretenses, and then when I was forced to use different IPs and accounts in order to defend myself I was falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet", had RFCs started in my name and then had my response to the RFC heavily edited and parts removed, had all of my edits repeatedly removed from the Big Spring article, etc. And then, when we were finally able to reach consensus and compromise with the ideas put forth by Applejuicefool (creation of the table), even this consensus compromise is ignored.

You will notice that I have complied with the terms of the Applejuicefool compromise by restricting my edits to the box that he/she created. But even this is not enough, and there are those who insist on ignoring this resolution and who will not rest until my edits are 100% removed from the article. This is simply not fair, and not a WP:AGF compromise to this issue. I am really at the point of saying enough is enough. Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are more than two people involved in the discussion. When two people among ten agree, it is not a consensus.


 * Imagine if someone joined a pickup basketball game, but thought they were playing football and kept tackling people. Who's the bully in that situation?  Here's our rulebook: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My absolute final attempt at compromise and consensus building with the uncompromising and tyrannical whitewashers
Dear Mr. or Ms. ApolloCreed, I strongly disagree with the applicability of the analogy you use. I believe that this is a case of the sort of censorship that is becoming all too common in the United States of America. A censorship of omission where relevant facts are simply left out and those who attempt to bring up these omitted facts are ostracized and attacked. It is indeed a sad day when Wikipedia succumbs to this sort of tyranny and becomes a self censoring community, a community that has internalized the values of the status quo to such a degree that any attempt to offer truth is branded "POV", and the truth tellers are attacked and hounded.

As I stated above, I have been personally attacked, had multiple accounts and IPs blocked on false pretenses, and then when I was forced to use different IPs and accounts in order to defend myself I was falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet", had RFCs started in my name and then had my response to the RFC heavily edited and parts removed, had all of my edits repeatedly removed from the Big Spring article, etc. All of this because I tried to insert the truth in a single article about a small town in West Texas. If this is the reaction here, it seriously causes me to question the veracity of the rest of Wikipedia.

We were able to reach agreement and consensus with Applejuicefool's excellent idea of inserting the "box", but alas even this was not acceptable to the enemies of consensus and compromise, those who believe it is either "their way or no way". But I am through with this argument, at least for the time being. My health is poor and I have been exerting entirely too much energy into tilting at windmills. Further I am entering the hospital on Monday and have far more serious issues to be thinking about. I had simply hoped that I could at least make some small contribution to a city that has treated me well, a city that I owe much to, and a city that I hold dear.

To Applejuicefool, I would like to commend you on your reaching out in this situation and your willingness to compromise and reach consensus. Your agreement to reach consensus by adding the table was commendable. I am sorry that others forced the removal of the table. To others, you are either incredibly naive or blatantly mendacious, but I am too old to hold malice towards the petty actions of others and I wish you well.

Somewhat less Happyjoe 65.122.236.133 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're having a hard time fitting in here. Try not to take this all so personally. We're just debating whether your content fits wikipedia's three content-related guidelines: verifiability, no original research, and unbiased. The easiest of these to prove is verifiability as it is often a black-and-white issue.  No sources were cited in the content you kept adding. Plain and simple, that is enough reason to remove content. If you have a statement that is true, but have no means to verify it (by citing sources), how are we to know it is true? If we did not have the guideline of verifiability, wikipedia would quickly fill with opinions and incorrect facts. I appreciate and respect that you feel passionately about your community and want people to know the truth about it, warts and all, but there are also people who feel passionately that wikipedia should be verifiable, have no original research, and be unbiased. I really think you should get a blog to write about your town and maybe even write about your experiences here at wikipedia. Blogger and Livejournal are both really popular sites for blogs. They don't cost any money and are easy to use. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinions About Big Spring
I applaud Applejuicefool for his efforts to come to a reasonable solution to resolving the Big Spring edit issue. I only wish that others could show a willingness to cooperate, instead of insisting on continued deletionist bullying tactics. Happyjoe69.145.215.206 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Happyjoe, please read my comment of 15:35 and 15:40 on Feb. 23. I posted the opinion table originally as an attempt at compromise and to kind of float the idea...to try it out.  I now believe (and this is the real consensus opinion here) that it won't work, for the following reasons -
 * 1) As I mentioned in my comment above, it has the potential to turn into an endless message board...as people who have had experiences with Big Spring come along and see the article, they are going to feel compelled to add to the opinions listed. Sooner or later, the opinion table will be just way, way too long, because if you allow one or two unverifiable personal opinions, you have no grounds for keeping out ANY.
 * 2) As has been mentioned by other users, other city articles do not have comparable sections. While this is not an absolute barrier to having one in our article, it is something to look at. Why don't other city articles use a similar device?  Maybe it's already been tried and found to be unworkable.  At any rate, there is something to be said for some level of consistency across the whole Wikipedia.
 * I said before and I still think this is a good, workable idea: Perhaps instead of your opinions and my opinions and everybody and their dog's opinions, we could find one or two PUBLISHED opinions on each side - positive and negative.  We could list those, possibly even in a tabular format, as representative of positive and negative opinions regarding the city. That way, we could legitimately strike out unverifiable opinion and prevent the article about our city from becoming a neverending battleground. Applejuicefool 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Applejuicefool, I again want to applaud you as being the most reasonable, polite and levelheaded person in this discussion. I don't know if you are a Big Spring resident, but if you are, you are a credit to the community. It seems that you have made a genuine effort to reach a compromise, in contrast to others who simply insist on deletionist bullying in order to get their own way.

That said, I believe that your solution will in fact work and should be given a chance to work. If the worst happens and the "box solution" becomes obviously unmanageable then I will be open to seeking other solutions. But I do believe that this is a workable compromise to an issue that should have been resolved long ago. Again, I thank you for your efforts. Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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