Talk:Louisville, Kentucky/Archive 11

Name the Louisville Midwest culture....I would like to know how LOuisville is in that northern region!
Louisville is a Southern City Louisville has always been deemed as Southern City---Magazines such as "Southern Living" always features Louisville. The series "Louisville Belles" were of a Southern nature. The Derby is considered a Southern tradition. The monuments in Louisville have "Southern" inscribed--The first Skyscrapper in the South and of course the large Confederate Monument. The culture and traditions are not, in any way Mid-west. I do not understand that phrase in this article.

Also, the entry of Louisville being " the southernmost Northern city in the United States" is ridiculious--Never have I heard or read that Louisville was a Northern City. The University of Louisville is in the Southern Colleges Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Until Jerry Abramsom had them removed--There were signs at the bridges "Welcoming people to the Gateway City of the South" This Mayor, who is from Indiana did a lot to erase Southern culture from the city and pull it towards the north.

The Term "Kentuckiana" has ruined the identity of Louisville and much of Central KY. Indiana and Kentucky are in two different regions of the US. Both states have different political views along with various other differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed ad nauseum. Please review the talk archives. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Also note that new discussions are not allowed in archived talk. If there are _new_ points to bring up with respect to how the article should be worded, bring them up here. Also note that this is _not_ a discussion board. Don't expect to draw anyone into a lengthy debate. This talk page is about improving the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not care if this subject is in the archives or already been discussed You have some very misleading wording in this article that needs correcting. The creators of this site should take note of your rude behavior towards people making suggestions in a considerate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know what you're talking about with regards to "rude behavior". If you have a specific rewording to suggest, here's the place to do it.  I haven't seen a specific suggestion as of yet.  It should be noted that encyclopedia articles aren't about the opinions, whims and sensitivities of readers, but instead about facts.  If you want to make a change, offer the change, and it will likely stay if it's backed up with something.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you think it's a matter of me not being nice, please read WP:FORUM, where it states "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". As you can see, I am not making up rules.  I was just giving you fair warning that you can't expect to have lengthy discussions about your opinion versus others' opinion -- that's what discussion boards and blogs are for.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Louisville Size Pre-Merger
Random question, but how big (area-wise) was Louisville prior to the city-council merge? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Preston is right!
I agree with Mr. Preston. This writer has been rude to me, when I only made several coments about the facts stated in his article. One of them being Louisville Midwest culture. He cut me off with the same behavior. I would suggest that you copy his remarks and send them to the creators of this website. I also would suggest that the creators make this writer give proof of where his connection to Louisville being in the Midwest and I have never heard Louisville being the Southern most Northern City...That is a made up by the writer. He states that this is not an opinion siatuation, he has given his opinion in this article. I have checked the Louisville Encyl. printer a few years ago--It says nothing about what we are debating in this article. He has not even made a remark on why he will not remove the midwest reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly fine if you would like to involve administrators and others in what you believe to be a dispute. As per your point, if you have a specific change to discuss, that's what this page is for. WP:FORUM  As for removing the "midwest reference", please explain why referenced material should be removed.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 09:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, there is not one writer, and I didn't write the text you are referring to. This article was drafted by a great number of people -- Please review the article history.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 09:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference updates for population figures
I frankly don't understand the new U.S. Census Bureau website and how to locate data files that demonstrate the various population figures laid out in this article. Is there anyone who would like to figure this out? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

People editing Louisville to make it seem bigger than it is. The population for Louisville Metro is 597,000! THat's what the census says! Not 741,000. Which you all keeping editing. St Mathews, J-town, Shively, Middletown etc, aren't Louisville metro! There separate cities! Yet someone with Jerry Abramson airheaditis keeps editing falsely louisville's population. Everyone who comes to Louisville say's it's smaller than they thought. Jefferson County's population is 741,000. Louisville MEtros population is 597,000. I don't understand the Louisville groupies that keep falsely editing Louisville population. I'll contact wikipedia and have the real figure put in and have this article locked. Watch me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.144.244 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Louisville Metro government's population is indeed 741K; the Census figures it differently, as it doesn't include the entire governing area, which is the same as Jefferson County. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Louisville Metro has merged with Jefferson County, so their populations are the same at this point. Oraphim (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough, and I believe this has been understood for many years now, but only insofar as the governing structure is concerned. Louisville Metro as a governing structure covers the entire county, so we list the full county population primarily, but the official population for Louisville Metro as recognized by the Census Bureau excludes the numbers of some internal cities as they are seen as separate entities, and indeed they continue to operate their own governments.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The population should include that whole county. It is a common misconception that the merger created a larger City of Louisville, in fact it created a renamed, re-branded reformed County Government and a dissolved, city of Louisville and its city form of government. In actuality the city of Louisville ceased to exist as a result of the merger, because in Kentucky counties are created under the Kentucky Constitution, and cities created by the state legislature. As the merger of the two means that only one entity survives, the surviving governing structure would be the constitutionally created County, not the city. In addition if the city had been the surviving entity, and not the county; Louisville Metro would not have any jurisdiction over the 80 or so other cities in Jefferson County such as St Matthews. In fact one city, no matter what the class, can not legislate over another city. But a county can. This is why when the merger was completed the city ordinances ceased to exist and the new Metro government went by the county ordinances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.10.205 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for unsourced content
I'm sorry, but I've had to revert all the recent edits to Louisville, Kentucky. I don't see a point with all those tags, and the reversion of perfectly good content for an inapplicable rationale. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the tags is notify readers and editors of unsourced content. There are huge amounts of information which are unreferenced.  You asked what the problems where, so I have taken a closer look at the article.  All the tags are applicable and you shouldn't remove them without addresisng the problems. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please address the problems without tagging the article like ornaments on a Christmas tree. It just isn't necessary.  I will remove them as long as "legally" allowed to.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The tags exist to highlight problems with the article, of which there are many. If the tags bother you the best course of action is to address the problems. Huge amounts of unsourced claims and statistics are no foundation for an article. By removing tags that have been applied to unsourced content, you are violating Wikipedia policies so I suggest you leave them be. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please cease. This obvious antipathy toward the subject of the article will only move this case to mediation.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will make a deal with you. I won't tag the whole article on two conditions: 1) A general "Ref improve" tage is placed at the top of the article; 2) The unsourced content that was added this evening which I removed, and which you then re-added is removed and not added back in until a proper source is provided. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Article sourcing
This article has major referencing issues. While I appreciate that it is not particularly productive to tag the whole article, it is not particularly productive to keep adding unsourced material into the article. I think a single "Ref improve notice" at the topic of the article would suffice along with the removal of the unsourced content that was added in this evening, and a prohibition on adding in further unsourced content; it would at least satisfy me that the concerns about the poor sourcing are accepted on some level. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is currently a refimprove tag in the References section. I don't see a need to sully the article with having this tag at the top.  I agree that the article needs better referencing, but tagging it all up makes it painful to look at, and what's more, this content is largely longstanding and much of it likely settled.  As for the new content, I honestly don't see the problem that you're seeing.  It's a straightforward comment about local Catholic high schools, although perhaps it could be rephrased to not look like an opinion.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought the tags on specific unsourced data were preferable to a general tag since they highlight assertions of particular concern. If a general tag emerges as an acceptable compromise, that will have to do but I think it's a much weaker tool. If new additions to the article are accurate, they must have come from a reliable source and it is only sensible that the editor adding them demonstrates this is the case by providing it. Anything else is a waste of everybody's time. Exok (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know where this thinking comes from. Further, not every sentence in an article has to have a reference.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid edit warring, I won't do any more immediate reversions. However, I do register my disagreement with the current solution for reasons already provided.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 23:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is already sullied for having lots of unsourced claims and stats, the tag just makes it clear to readers that the content is not trustworthy. The "demographics" section is particularly poor, tons of stats but apart from the 2000 census figures where do they all come from? A good starting point would be to source at least everything with a figure. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The first line of WP:VERIFIABILITY is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Exok (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fly-by taggers are a pain in the ass though, I can see where he's coming from. I was more interested in highlighting what is a serious problem on this article. A constructive approach would be to go through each section thoroughly, source what we can and see where that gets us. We can consider more extensive tagging after a proper look for sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article is sullied by a lack of reference tags, which are added by many for decoration and not real necessity, although I agree that the article could stand improvement in that area. The content is largely trustworthy -- most of the content can be verified. If one wants to be so vigilant about it, instead of complaining, how about doing some fixing? If you have the time to complain, you have the time to fix.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that most of the information can't be verified, and fixing it isn't that simple. I don't know where the information comes from, if I did I would add the sources in myself. If you can easily verify it why don't you add the necessary sources, maybe starting with the sections I highlighted below. I had a look for sources but can only find the 2008 estimates and not the actual 2010 census figures. This article used to be a "featured article" and now it isn't even a "good article"—doesn't that tell you something? Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature, population and ranking section
Looking at just a single section we have a major problem. Not only are there gaps in the sourcing, many of the sources don't back up the claim anyway.

1.


 * Clearly the census figures aren't sourced through either of these since they predate the census. Obviously an editor has updated the information and not bothered with a source.

2.


 * None of the figures match up with those given in the source.

3.


 * Again, update figures have left the old source in, so this content is not sourced either.

4.


 * A completely unsourced stat. This figure has obviously come from somewhere.

The major problem with this section is that we have updated data with out od date sources. There are two solutions to this: we either add in slightly out of date data so at least it is then sourced (not ideal, but better than leaving it as it is), or we try and locate the up to date census data. Does anyone know where we can access this? Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This section smacks of original research. Generally widely used pronunications don't have to sourced since they are not likely to be challenged. However, the claims related to people need to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pronunciation sub-section
 * I think this is a borderline case, but can probably be addressed by replacing often with sometimes. The "often" implies a frequency which implies a statistic, which should be sourced. "Sometimes" would neutralise the claim aspect of this statement.
 * This is definitely original research because Wikipedia is conjecturing the reasons for the differences. If this can't be sourced then it needs to go.
 * This is definitely original research because Wikipedia is conjecturing the reasons for the differences. If this can't be sourced then it needs to go.
 * This is definitely original research because Wikipedia is conjecturing the reasons for the differences. If this can't be sourced then it needs to go.


 * I hope people can be found to fix these issues. I surely have no time. But thanks for identifying them.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

History section
The History section is patchy at best, but one of the better sections in the article. A little bit of rewording is required to eliminate the original research though. Some referencing issues, but this should be one of the easier sections to fix. 1.
 * Completely unsourced. Since this section discusses alliegances in the war it has to be sourced.


 * Besides the lack of sourcing, this statement has neutrality issues.

2.
 * Tagged in 2009 but still yet to be addressed.

3.


 * Neither source corroborates the one actual claim in the sentence, that 19 inches of rain fell during a single month.


 * More unsourced figures.

4.
 * More unsourced war facts, and claims about companies and the government.

5.
 * Unlikely to be challenged, the use of the "middle class" phrasing suggests original research. I'd just leave it as "Residents used newly...".


 * If you are going to attribute economic changes to cause and effect then they need to be sourced. If sources can't be found I suggest rephrasing as "Businesses chose to build new rather than renovate older buildings. Economic changes included a decline in local manufacturing as many local factories closed."

6.
 * "...popular with young professionals and college students" seems like oirginal research. Should be ditched.


 * Tagged in 2009 for being unreferenced and no action has been taken.

Louisville, Northern City.....Correction needed.
"Louisville is influenced by both Southern and Midwestern culture. It is sometimes referred to as either the northernmost Southern city or the southernmost Northern city in the United States." Officially, Cincinnati is the Southern most Northern City. It is above the dividing region between the Northern/Midwest States and the Southern States. Cincinnati is in a Northern State and geographically it is the largest city before crossin the Ohio River into the Southern Region. Actually Richmond, Virginia would by the Northern most Southern City. Some reports gave that title to Baltimore, because Maryland is below the Mason-Dixon line. I am a bit confused with Midwestern culture in Louisville? I can see the Indiana influence on the city, but honestly is holds more Southern culture than Northern/Midwest. Ohio and Indiana are Northern States. The midwest term is a little misleading and I do not know why they still use it. The Midwest actually starts in Missouri. I see Louisville in Southern related Magazines, such as SOUTHERN LIVING and it is not featured in the MIDWEST LIVING. UofL is connected to the Southern Education Association. Thanks (50.96.241.54 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)) 7/17/11 joller@infionline.net


 * This article has multiple problems as you can see from above. Somone probably just inserted their own personal view, so sinc eit is unsourced you should just pull out the sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Logan makes some great points. My problem with people writing articles such as this one, is it appears to be dominated by opinions and no references that prove truth. Many of the comments go unheard and writers do not make corrections once proven wrong. andypreston 72.172.55.104 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati is the northern most southern city
Louisville is located in a southern state, so it cannot be the southern most northern city. Louisville is not located in the Northern or midwest Region, but Cincinnati is. 50.96.242.137 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) donitakelly@consultant.com

Graphic Box
What happened to the "Info Graphic Box" that appears to the far right that contained the photo montage of Louisville, the city seal and flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodath79 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

famous Louisvillians.
Many people are not listed such as Lionel Hampton, Static Major one of themost successful producers in modern r&b history. also 3 of the members of Nappy Roots are from here and they claim Louisville as their home.the band New Birth. members of Midnight starr.and a punk band that was nationally successful Squirrel Bait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.226.138 (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the famous Louisvillians is Bennett Young. He started the Louisville Public Library, was influential in getting the brige across the river and the list goes on and on. But he was a Confederate Soldier, like Henry Watterson, William Preston were--So you can't mention those names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong entries in article
Cincinatti is the largest and most popular southern city in the North. It sits on the northern side of the Ohio River, which is the dividing line between the northern midwestern states and the southern states. Louisville sits on the southern side of the Ohio River, in a state of the south. Louisville would have to be on the other side of the river and located in a northern state to be the southern most northern city as mention in this article. Also, Louisville is not influenced by the midwest culture, it is too large and the towns in the north across the river are too small to have any bearing on Louisville's culture. Many Louisville residence are transplanted from other parts of Kentucky and that culture is the main interest in the city. The term Kentuckiana is not an official region, it is a fantasy word made up from the media.andypreston2010@hotmail.com 72.172.55.104 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati is the Southern most Northern city...NOT Louisville
Louisville is a southern city, it is not connected to the midwest. All of the above topics are correct. What the writer fails to understand is that the dividing line between the regions on the USA must start and end someplace and Louisville, which is known as the Gateway City of the South. The Ohio River divides two regions. Cincinnati is in the Northern Region, while Louisville is in the Southern Region. These are facts! The term Kentuckiana is a media term and it does not define a region. philipconrad72.172.51.209 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no one writer of this article. Further, what specific sourced changes would you like to see? Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 17:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As one writer points out, the US Census clearly has Louisville in the Southern Region. All cities are located in a specific state. Each state in in a specific region of the US, Kentucky is classified as South-Eastern State. Indiana is a North-Eastern State or the Midwest. The boundries of each region has to begin and end somewhere and Louisville just happens to be on the Southern side of the symbolic dividing line of the Ohio River. I have saw very little "Midwest" culture in Louisville, if nothing else Southern Indiana is influence by the South. When you say Midwest--You are speaking of Michigan, Minnesota and other Northern States. I see none of that culture in Louisville. Cincinnati is in Ohio and sets on the North of the symbolic line, making it the Southern most Northern City. THE CHANGE: Should read, Louisville simply the Northern most Southern City. As far as sources, that goes without say-Louisville is geographically in the South. The other writers on this have pointed any many reasons. In the 1970s a billboard did sit at the bridge welcomng visitors to the Gateway of the South. The new Yum Center has a place inside called "Gateway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonhenry46 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of midwestern influence in Louisville, but that's not the point. This article only slightly weights Louisville toward the midwest.  It would seem that you're interested in removing all vestiges of linkage to the midwest, even though there are references for their existence.  Further, your suggested text change doesn't seem clearly stated and you don't provide references.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 13:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with MH. Not factual evidence notes Louisville as the Northern most Southern City of the USA. joller@infionline.net72.172.48.244 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cervical cancer
Following an OTRS complaint I've removed this material as the work was actually done at Georgetown University in Washington D,C. between 1989-1993. Two of the 3 researchers responsible, B. Jenson and S. Ghim, moved to Louisville and UofL in 2002 (the 3rd, R. Schlegel, did not). The contributing work at Georgetown on the protein used for the 2 HPV vaccines was first published as cited here: and see also. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Louisville is a Southern City
Southern Living Magazine has featured Louisville as one of their top ten tastiest food cities of the south. Louisville is in second place as of today. The US Census places Louisville in the Southern Region of the country. How on earth is Louisville a Northern City? The Southern most Northern City would be Richmond or Cinci. larrycandor@columnist.com 72.172.52.214 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your proposed change to the content? Note that the current content says "It is sometimes referred to" and it is referenced.  Is there a problem with the fact that Louisville is sometimes referred to in this way?  Encyclopedias are not supposed to reflect our feelings on a subject -- they are to reflect referenced facts.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 13:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)